Is wealth a gift from God? (Christian only Response Please)

Húrin

Christian response only. Thanks.

A Christian friend and I are having an ongoing debate about money. He believes that money is a spiritual gift (though he seems to mean, a gift from God) and that while it is right to use it to help the poor generously, it justifies for instance, buying the latest phone, a car, etc.

The point that he makes is that with the gift and blessing of money, or the ability to make it, God has given us the opportunity and the responsibility to help our brothers and sisters in need. That might mean supporting someone in long term mission in Africa, it might mean subsidising Christian charities back home, it might mean just sharing freely with your friends and not holding a grudge over money, but it most definitely means that money matters, and it matters eternally. Money is something that he feels blessed to possess.

My friend's position seems almost designed to justify the status quo of wealth distribution in the world. He assumes that my position is motivated not by scriptures but by left-wing politics. However it is actually based on the episode in the life of Jesus of the rich young man (described in Mark 10) who would not bring himself to part with his wealth even for eternal life.

I think that coveting new gadgets and cars instead of using it to build up the church or to comfort the poor is an abuse of circumstances. What then is the difference between the Christian and the nihilist?

I would disagree that it is a spiritual gift for a few reasons. For a spiritual gift its distribution is quite skewed towards Europe, Japan and North America. We are not rich, because God has particularly chosen us to be, but because we were born here.

I'm not sure that it is even such a remarkable gift. In spiritual terms it is a mixed blessing, or double edged sword. Too much money tends to make people comfortable, and feel like they don't need God. Blessed are the poor;
how dismayed I sometimes feel when I hear about the strength of the Africans' faith compared to mine.

We can see it in our own continent of Europe. Our culture is dominated by love of machines/gadgets rather than of people and God - these are seen as secondary. "Greed is good; Narcissism is natural" is what we are implicitly
told to think. Any culture that prizes idols like this is a culture of death. We are not the first culture like this - the Egyptians were similar, and their lasting legacy are monuments to death.

I think that people of the Christian community should not be storing up their treasures on earth with weighty possessions, but rather be the lamp that brings a light that does not involve consumer goods. My friend thinks that the fact that he was born into wealth means that he should use it wisely (which I agree with), but that ultimately he interprets it as meaning that God wants him to be wealthy with a high material standard of living.

I'm not saying that I do not waste money ever. I am somewhat hypocritical. However I do not take the glowing view of money that my friend does. What do you think?

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

Why would be give gifts to people that he will be damning to hell? There are plenty of people who don't like him, can't stand the thought of him, and even if he did exist, would not want anything to do with him. Why would he bless them when plenty of believers haven't got two pennies to rub together?

MrP

MrP: You did read the bold in Hurín's post?

Anyhow, Hurín I think that wealth can be a gift from God in the case of Jacob and Laban and his escape in the book of Genesis, and in Solomon's case it is. It depends on the context of the situation. I don't think God gives wealth as a gift to those who lord it over others, but to those who do His will in accordance with the Scriptures.

It's a complicated issue though.

chozometroid

I don't believe it's a spiritual gift. If you have extra money and possessions lying around, then you probably are not where you should be with God. If your intentions are good, and you have a meaningful career that provides a good salary, then it is up to you how you spend your money. Maybe God helped make your success possible, but I don't think that necessarily means the high salary is a spiritual gift. It's just something more for you to be responsible for. Having the money doesn't mean you will do what God would have you to do with it. If you choose to buy an iPhone instead of helping the poor struggling family down the road, then that is on you. You won't take anything material with you when you die.

I do believe God blesses people with money, but only for the purpose of survival, or spreading the gospel. For instance, if you wanted to start a school in a 3rd world country, and distribute food, clothing, etc., then I see God blessing you with the money to see it through.

In the case of Solomon, where he was immensely rich, I think it was for the purpose of having an earthly king (at the time) that the people needed as a leader. Solomon was blessed with wisdom, and knew what do to with the riches better than anyone. He may have had excess, but it was his job to handle it. He was not a perfect man, and you'll read that he found that all the material things were pointless, and there was nothing really valuable in this life. He gave a lot of great advice based on his reign as a king who experienced a lot of things.

I know a lot of Christians who see nothing wrong with having money. They think it's okay to have all the nicest things. The problem I see is that when you buy mansions, luxury cars, theater tv's, etc, you have to maintain that standard of living. It's a continuous flow of money into material things. And it's just more stuff that will eventually collapse on you. It is vanity.

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think God gives wealth as a gift to those who lord it over others, but to those who do His will in accordance with the Scriptures.

Yes, perhaps. I was thinking that most of those blessed with wealth are disinclined to use it for Godly purposes (let's face it, Europe and America are weak in faith) while those without it would seem to be more inclined to use what they have for God's work (Africa).

sorella

Read Jesus on the subject; He is the Authority.

"if you will be perfect, sell all you have and give to the poor."

Dives and Lazarus.. He teaches so much about this.

easier for camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven... where your heart is there will your treasure be....

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, for then you do it for Me..

Page after page of His teachings

A choice for each to make always of course...

Blessings..

Húrin

sorella wrote: »

Read Jesus on the subject; He is the Authority.

"if you will be perfect, sell all you have and give to the poor."

Dives and Lazarus.. He teaches so much about this.

easier for camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven... where your heart is there will your treasure be....

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, for then you do it for Me..

Page after page of His teachings

A choice for each to make always of course...

Blessings..

Yes, this is my position. I am just unwilling to believe my friend to be capable of such self-delusion. I don't think he is some false believer. The abscence of the gospels themselves in my friend's references to support his view may be telling. He prefers to rely on the letters of Paul and some parts of the old testament even. (I don't think that any of them taught this opinion though.)

Mind you, perhaps I misrepresent my friend's opinion (always a hazard when presenting an opposing view). He isn't against using money to help the hungry and poor. He believes that money has been given to us wealthy Christians in order to support the materially poor parts of the body of Christ.

He believes that there is a duty to do this, but also that there is nothing wrong with increasing material standards of living for himself. I oppose this view because it seems to justify the current distribution of wealth, and not see it as a consequence of human rebellion against God.

He doesn't seem to understand that just because he has wealth and can use it for personal material accumulation, does not mean that is God's will.

sorella

Yes, many avoid the stark realities of the Master's teachings.

We find in our work that the poorest people are the most generous with the little they have.

Because they have known the reality of need and also the holiness of giving.

The world teaches materialism, and the Church often reinforces this.

And always it is each of us and the way we live that we need to look to; not to judge anyone else. A wise person bids "Keep your eye on your own page", or, as Jesus says, why cavil at the speck of dust in your neighour;s eye when you have a great plank in your own..."

Blessings this night

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, this is my position. I am just unwilling to believe my friend to be capable of such self-delusion. I don't think he is some false believer. The abscence of the gospels themselves in my friend's references to support his view may be telling. He prefers to rely on the letters of Paul and some parts of the old testament even. (I don't think that any of them taught this opinion though.)

Mind you, perhaps I misrepresent my friend's opinion (always a hazard when presenting an opposing view). He isn't against using money to help the hungry and poor. He believes that money has been given to us wealthy Christians in order to support the materially poor parts of the body of Christ.

He believes that there is a duty to do this, but also that there is nothing wrong with increasing material standards of living for himself. I oppose this view because it seems to justify the current distribution of wealth, and not see it as a consequence of human rebellion against God.

He doesn't seem to understand that just because he has wealth and can use it for personal material accumulation, does not mean that is God's will.

Soul Winner

We are all guilty of not doing loads of things that Jesus said should be done. For instance He commanded that wherever the Gospel is preached that it is also to be told what the woman with the alabaster box did. Matthew 26, Mark 14. What did she do? She poured precious ointment on Jesus. And Judas who was the keeper of the money bag asked, “Why this waste?” This ointment could have been sold for much and the money given to the poor.” But Jesus rebuked Judas and said: “Why trouble ye the woman? She had done a good work unto me. Ye have the poor with you always but me ye don't have always." It's curious that it was at this point that the scripture says that Satan entered Judas and from there it was all downhill for him. The spirit that Judas had which said "Why this waste?" is still prevalent in the world today. The world hates anyone who preaches the Gospel to make their living by it, when Paul teaches that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. We have the poor with us always. The world makes them poor and then gets on the church's conscience to feed and clothe them.

Now I'm all for charity and giving to the poor and all but that is not the ‘reason for being’ purpose of the Church. The Church's ‘reason for being’ function is to proclaim the Gospel to the world, end of! We will always have the poor with us and we should always be ever ready to help them out as much as we can, but that does not mean we take our collective eyes off the ball and turn into a charity giving entity so that the world will loves us. We are not of the world, they will always hate us, no matter what. Better to just keep proclaiming the gospel instead of adhering to the world’s every whim of conscious about the poor and needy, let them feed and clothe them, they’re the ones that have them poor in the first place.

Paul says in Galatians 6 that we are to share materially with the one's that teach us the Word of God. And as these teachers are now in the office of the Old Testament Levite priests where the tribes where to put their tithes, it is now here that we are to pay our tithes and offerings, that is the storehouse for spiritual food. Now I know there many charlatans out there who appear to be Gospel preachers but they’re not. Nothing should be giving to them, I’m talking about true teachers of God’s Word, those who rightly divide it as the scripture declares, not those who hunt and peck for verses which support their own selfish ambitions instead of furthering God’s purposes. To give to the true teachers who rightly divide the Word is to give to God. Paul says that you prove the genuineness of the God’s spirit in you by the way you give. God is a giver, He gave His only begotten Son. The Son gave His life. If His spirit is in you by faith than He will make a giver out of you. But the giving is supposed to be to God, not to the world. Paul warns in this context that if we do not do this then we are not sowing to the spirit. And Jesus said concerning the tithe that, "…this ye ought to have done…" Luke 11:42 And in the Old Testament God curses them who do not keep the storehouse full by tithing off their increase. "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.” Malachi 3:8-10 The New Testament store house is where we get our spiritual food, our Teachers of the Word. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God."

In short money is very spiritual. Just try and pay a tithe of all that you get every time you get it to the one who teaches you God's Word (A tithe is a tenth by the way) and find out how spiritual it really is. Even the thought of this is an abomination to some Christians (who preach Jesus all day but avoid this doctrine) never mind the world outside the church. It is the litmus test of a true Christian. If you are not giving to God His portion then you have not the spirit in you, and if you have not the spirit then you are none of His. And this is not a work of the law. Even Abraham 400 plus years before the law was given to Moses paid tithe to the King of Salem. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7 If you sow to the flesh you shall of the flesh reap corruption, but if you sow to the spirit you shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." This is the proper context for this oft taken out of context verse of scripture. The silence on this teaching in the church worldwide is deafening. It needs to be taught in all churches, it will soon winnow the crowd but at least the ones who stay will form a solid core from which true spirit growth has good ground to come forth all the more.

And finally God is not against us having money. He is the one who gives power to gain wealth remember. “Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things.” 1 Chronicles 29:12 When you pay tithe all you are doing is honoring the fact that He gives you everything to begin with. God wants us to have everything, He is going to give us everything. Jesus said: “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 an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” Matthew 19:29 The focus should be on the forsaking not what will be gained from it. To forsake is to forsake, to give it up. Once it is truly forsaken then the blessings come, by which time you really won’t care. This is a proof verse that He is not against us having things, He just doesn’t want anything to have you, which was the case with the rich young ruler. His riches possessed Him not the other way around. God wants us to put Him first, then He will give us all things and by that time we won’t even care if we get it or not. And as for the camel through the eye of a needle text, the Coptic or Syriac has this verse referring to the way thread which is made of camel’s hair is threaded, it’s the toughest to thread through the eye of a needled, it does not refer to an actual camel. This thread is just really coarse and very tough to thread but not impossible. It is all about having the right focus and attitude toward God, once you have that right then the floodgates of heaven will open as promised in the Old Testament

“Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.” Malachi 3: 10-12

sorella

You wrote...

"Now I'm all for charity and giving to the poor and all but that is not the ‘reason for being’ purpose of the Church. The Church's ‘reason for being’ function is to proclaim the Gospel to the world, end of! We will always have the poor with us and we should always be ever ready to help them out as much as we can, but that does not mean we take our collective eyes off the ball and turn into a charity giving entity so that the world will loves us. We are not of the world, they will always hate us, no matter what. Better to just keep proclaiming the gospel instead of adhering to the world’s every whim of conscious about the poor and needy, let them feed and clothe them, they’re the ones that have them poor in the first place."



If you can support all you say from the words of Jesus, fine.


What IS the Gospel? Its message? You see it as separated from what you term "the world"? We do not give because we seek applause; we give because God so loved the world that He gave His only Son; because all are Children of God.

We give because there is hunger. And we are feeding Jesus then also.

Because we love as He loved; look at the times He fed hungry people.

A lady who founded a big American Order said, "I refuse to preach the gospel of words to a starving people" Another, "Love is love; food is love with a full belly"

A gospel that does not address the physical needs of people is an empty one.

Jesus ,lived among us; honoured this life.

It is hard to imagine anyone who truly knows and loves the Lord Jesus wanting to own things htey do not need; read Acts, please.

So many arguments here; makes the head spin, when it really is so very simple.... if you have two coats, give one to someone in need. ..... It is so very, very simple, if you know and love the Lord Jesus. Then you will ache to obey His commandments.

WE make others poor by the kind of arguments you use. US.

And we starve Jesus thus.

Blessings this day.....

Soul Winner wrote: »

We are all guilty of not doing loads of things that Jesus said should be done. For instance He commanded that wherever the Gospel is preached that it is also to be told what the woman with the alabaster box did. Matthew 26, Mark 14. What did she do? She poured precious ointment on Jesus. And Judas who was the keeper of the money bag asked, “Why this waste?” This ointment could have been sold for much and the money given to the poor.” But Jesus rebuked Judas and said: “Why trouble ye the woman? She had done a good work unto me. Ye have the poor with you always but me ye don't have always." It's curious that it was at this point that the scripture says that Satan entered Judas and from there it was all downhill for him. The spirit that Judas had which said "Why this waste?" is still prevalent in the world today. The world hates anyone who preaches the Gospel to make their living by it, when Paul teaches that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. We have the poor with us always. The world makes them poor and then gets on the church's conscience to feed and clothe them.

Now I'm all for charity and giving to the poor and all but that is not the ‘reason for being’ purpose of the Church. The Church's ‘reason for being’ function is to proclaim the Gospel to the world, end of! We will always have the poor with us and we should always be ever ready to help them out as much as we can, but that does not mean we take our collective eyes off the ball and turn into a charity giving entity so that the world will loves us. We are not of the world, they will always hate us, no matter what. Better to just keep proclaiming the gospel instead of adhering to the world’s every whim of conscious about the poor and needy, let them feed and clothe them, they’re the ones that have them poor in the first place.

Paul says in Galatians 6 that we are to share materially with the one's that teach us the Word of God. And as these teachers are now in the office of the Old Testament Levite priests where the tribes where to put their tithes, it is now here that we are to pay our tithes and offerings, that is the storehouse for spiritual food. Now I know there many charlatans out there who appear to be Gospel preachers but they’re not. Nothing should be giving to them, I’m talking about true teachers of God’s Word, those who rightly divide it as the scripture declares, not those who hunt and peck for verses which support their own selfish ambitions instead of furthering God’s purposes. To give to the true teachers who rightly divide the Word is to give to God. Paul says that you prove the genuineness of the God’s spirit in you by the way you give. God is a giver, He gave His only begotten Son. The Son gave His life. If His spirit is in you by faith than He will make a giver out of you. But the giving is supposed to be to God, not to the world. Paul warns in this context that if we do not do this then we are not sowing to the spirit. And Jesus said concerning the tithe that, "…this ye ought to have done…" Luke 11:42 And in the Old Testament God curses them who do not keep the storehouse full by tithing off their increase. "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.” Malachi 3:8-10 The New Testament store house is where we get our spiritual food, our Teachers of the Word. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God."

In short money is very spiritual. Just try and pay a tithe of all that you get every time you get it to the one who teaches you God's Word (A tithe is a tenth by the way) and find out how spiritual it really is. Even the thought of this is an abomination to some Christians (who preach Jesus all day but avoid this doctrine) never mind the world outside the church. It is the litmus test of a true Christian. If you are not giving to God His portion then you have not the spirit in you, and if you have not the spirit then you are none of His. And this is not a work of the law. Even Abraham 400 plus years before the law was given to Moses paid tithe to the King of Salem. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7 If you sow to the flesh you shall of the flesh reap corruption, but if you sow to the spirit you shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." This is the proper context for this oft taken out of context verse of scripture. The silence on this teaching in the church worldwide is deafening. It needs to be taught in all churches, it will soon winnow the crowd but at least the ones who stay will form a solid core from which true spirit growth has good ground to come forth all the more.

And finally God is not against us having money. He is the one who gives power to gain wealth remember. “Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things.” 1 Chronicles 29:12 When you pay tithe all you are doing is honoring the fact that He gives you everything to begin with. God wants us to have everything, He is going to give us everything. Jesus said: “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 an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” Matthew 19:29 The focus should be on the forsaking not what will be gained from it. To forsake is to forsake, to give it up. Once it is truly forsaken then the blessings come, by which time you really won’t care. This is a proof verse that He is not against us having things, He just doesn’t want anything to have you, which was the case with the rich young ruler. His riches possessed Him not the other way around. God wants us to put Him first, then He will give us all things and by that time we won’t even care if we get it or not. And as for the camel through the eye of a needle text, the Coptic or Syriac has this verse referring to the way thread which is made of camel’s hair is threaded, it’s the toughest to thread through the eye of a needled, it does not refer to an actual camel. This thread is just really coarse and very tough to thread but not impossible. It is all about having the right focus and attitude toward God, once you have that right then the floodgates of heaven will open as promised in the Old Testament

“Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.” Malachi 3: 10-12

PDN

I see two unbalanced and dangerous extremes in the Church - the Poverty Gospel and the Prosperity Gospel.

The Poverty Gospel makes out that it is a blessing to be poor, and that the rich are wicked and ripe for God's judgement. It quotes a lot of Scripture to support itself (and ignores a lot as well). If we really believed the Poverty Gospel then we wouldn't give to charity at all - because by helping the poor we are actually removing a blessing from them!

The Prosperity Gospel teaches that God wants you to be rich and that material prosperity (and usually physical healing as well) stand coequal with salvation in God's priorities. It also quotes a lot of Scripture to support itself (and ignores a lot as well). This heresy is a religious baptising of American consumerism.

The problem with both the Povery Gospel and the Prosperity Gospel is that they oversimplify, and therefore distort, the biblical teaching.

The Poverty Gospel acts as if there are only 2 kinds of people: the righteous poor and the wicked rich.

The Prosperity Gospel acts as if there are only 2 kinds of people: the righteous rich and the wicked poor.

In fact the Bible teaches that there are four kinds of people: the righteous poor, the wicked poor, the righteous rich, and the wicked rich. The concept of the righteous rich is an interesting theme that runs through both the Old and New Testaments.

Those of us who live in Ireland have no choice in whether God wants us rich or poor - we are already incredibly rich by most people's standards purely by accident of birth. Consider the following:
a) If you receive the most basic social welfare payment in Ireland then you are among the top 12.5% richest people in the world.
b) If you live on the minimum wage then you are among the top 10% richest people in the world.
c) If you own your own computer then you are among the top 5% richest people in the world.
d) If you live on the average industrial wage in Ireland then you are in the top 2.5% richest people in the world.
e) If your net household income exceeds 1000 euro per week then you are the elite of the elite and are among the richest 1% of the entire human race.

So, for those of us in Ireland, we are rich already. The question is not whether God wants us to be rich or not, but whether we will be among the righteous rich or the wicked rich.

In answer to the OP, I think we should treat our wealth as a responsibility, rather than as a gift. The biblical concept of stewardship is that we recognise that 'our' wealth actually belongs to God rather than to us. Therefore we need His guidance to handle our finances responsibly, biblically, and in a way that helps the poor.

sorella

Amen to most of this. Later. I realised thinking on it that I had misread what you say. Being a Monastic means a different significance to some words eg poverty.

So I amend my first remark:)

Your definitions are odd to us; we vow Holy Poverty and, as a true Mendicant Order of longstanding, we live it out. we own no property and keep no money. All goes to the work we do. We live simply - within reason ie to be safe. I am one of the very few who has access to a computer. It saves so much for my work as our Historian etc.

Poverty also is not about money; it is about the giving of all we have and are, as Jesus gave all for us. Skills, time, strength.. We would never see our poverty as extreme or dangerous; an odd word to use? It is simply practical Christianity; read Acts. Holding all in common and giving all we do not need to the poor.

Somehow it has become a very "comfortable" idea that these are extremes. Not so

PDN wrote: »

I see two unbalanced and dangerous extremes in the Church - the Poverty Gospel and the Prosperity Gospel.

The Poverty Gospel makes out that it is a blessing to be poor, and that the rich are wicked and ripe for God's judgement. It quotes a lot of Scripture to support itself (and ignores a lot as well). If we really believed the Poverty Gospel then we wouldn't give to charity at all - because by helping the poor we are actually removing a blessing from them!

The Prosperity Gospel teaches that God wants you to be rich and that material prosperity (and usually physical healing as well) stand coequal with salvation in God's priorities. It also quotes a lot of Scripture to support itself (and ignores a lot as well). This heresy is a religious baptising of American consumerism.

The problem with both the Povery Gospel and the Prosperity Gospel is that they oversimplify, and therefore distort, the biblical teaching.

The Poverty Gospel acts as if there are only 2 kinds of people: the righteous poor and the wicked rich.

The Prosperity Gospel acts as if there are only 2 kinds of people: the righteous rich and the wicked poor.

In fact the Bible teaches that there are four kinds of people: the righteous poor, the wicked poor, the righteous rich, and the wicked rich. The concept of the righteous rich is an interesting theme that runs through both the Old and New Testaments.

Those of us who live in Ireland have no choice in whether God wants us rich or poor - we are already incredibly rich by most people's standards purely by accident of birth. Consider the following:
a) If you receive the most basic social welfare payment in Ireland then you are among the top 12.5% richest people in the world.
b) If you live on the minimum wage then you are among the top 10% richest people in the world.
c) If you own your own computer then you are among the top 5% richest people in the world.
d) If you live on the average industrial wage in Ireland then you are in the top 2.5% richest people in the world.
e) If your net household income exceeds 1000 euro per week then you are the elite of the elite and are among the richest 1% of the entire human race.

So, for those of us in Ireland, we are rich already. The question is not whether God wants us to be rich or not, but whether we will be among the righteous rich or the wicked rich.

In answer to the OP, I think we should treat our wealth as a responsibility, rather than as a gift. The biblical concept of stewardship is that we recognise that 'our' wealth actually belongs to God rather than to us. Therefore we need His guidance to handle our finances responsibly, biblically, and in a way that helps the poor.

homer911

The Christian Churches in the USA seem to be obsessed with this topic (based on what we see from the high profile Christian Leaders and authors anyway) A worthy item for dicsussion and some good responses!

sorella

Please can you explain this as we see a very different scene there. Thank you.

homer911 wrote: »

The Christian Churches in the USA seem to be obsessed with this topic (based on what we see from the high profile Christian Leaders and authors anyway) A worthy item for dicsussion and some good responses!

BrianCalgary

No I need to wade in.

The story of the rich man I think is not about money but asks the question: are you prepared to give up what you love most to follow Jesus?

Secondly I have a friend who is very wealthy. He views his wealth as a gift and a trust from God. He is constantly asking God what should he contribute to? My friend has done quite few wonderful things in thrid world countries with his money.

God blesses each of us with something different. As Christians we need to refelect on how we use what God does give us. We need to recognize that it all comes from Him and we should give back.

I will find a link to our pastors recent sermon on this topic.
http://68.145.168.191/southview/resources/audio.htm

Jan 18 sermon I believe.

sorella

Interesting ideas.

But Jesus was very specific indeed. In many texts.

And read Acts; the very early Church. Who knew Jesus in this life ...

Of course, we would love to be millionaires.... to give it all away and feed all the needy ones we could. .

Why keep any? Cannot take it with you after all.

The gift God gives to each and all of us is the gift of the needs of others; the ability to give.....the gift of loving others more than we love ourselves...... It takes many forms ..

Blessings

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No I need to wade in.

The story of the rich man I think is not about money but asks the question: are you prepared to give up what you love most to follow Jesus?

Secondly I have a friend who is very wealthy. He views his wealth as a gift and a trust from God. He is constantly asking God what should he contribute to? My friend has done quite few wonderful things in thrid world countries with his money.

God blesses each of us with something different. As Christians we need to refelect on how we use what God does give us. We need to recognize that it all comes from Him and we should give back.

I will find a link to our pastors recent sermon on this topic.
http://68.145.168.191/southview/resources/audio.htm

Jan 18 sermon I believe.

Soul Winner

sorella wrote: »

If you can support all you say from the words of Jesus, fine.

And the whole of scripture too. Giving TO GOD is very important to God. It has pride of place in the Tabernacle in the Old Testament in the Table of Shewbread. God loves the hilarious giver as it states in the New Testament and the only time God ever killed anyone in the new Testament was over giving. The first murder in the Old Testament was over giving. Able did it right and Cain did it wrong. Cain brought the wrong offering. he offered God fruits of the ground that God had cursed. Able did it right, he brought the lamb which is a type of what God himself will do for us. Fruits of the ground offerings are 'my way of giving' offerings, whereas bringing the lamb from the flock was 'God's way of giving offerings'. So which is it going to be? Giving to God God's way? Or giving to the poor Judas' way? Sure we give to the poor but do it with a heart of compassion but more importantly give God's portion to God first.

sorella wrote: »

What IS the Gospel? Its message?

The gospel is this: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Galatians 1:3-5

sorella wrote: »

You see it as separated from what you term "the world"? We do not give because we seek applause; we give because God so loved the world that He gave His only Son; because all are Children of God.

We give because we have God's spirit in us, we cannot give to God without it, and not just money, time also and commitment to the work of the ministry.

sorella wrote: »

We give because there is hunger. And we are feeding Jesus then also.

Yes but that is a separate type of giving to what I was talking about. Gving to God is much more important than giving to the poor and needy.

sorella wrote: »

Because we love as He loved; look at the times He fed hungry people.

You missed the whole point of my post.

sorella wrote: »

A lady who founded a big American Order said, "I refuse to preach the gospel of words to a starving people"

Well she should have read what Peter said to the lame man when he asked Peter for money. "Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Acts 3:6

sorella wrote: »

A gospel that does not address the physical needs of people is an empty one.

That's heresy my dear. Paul said that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and Jesus said it is better to enter life lame than to go whole into destruction.

sorella wrote: »

Jesus ,lived among us; honoured this life.

And your point is?

sorella wrote: »

It is hard to imagine anyone who truly knows and loves the Lord Jesus wanting to own things htey do not need; read Acts, please.

I did, I just quoted you a verse from it, read above. In the New Testament they gave everything they had, which is probably why we don't hear much teaching on ‘giving’ in it. Why teach on tithing when they're giving everything? In any case God claims a tenth of all that we have. The tithe is the Lord's and to deliver that to where He says to deliver it is more important to Him than feeding the hungry. As long as Jesus performed miracles and fed the people He had thousands following Him. As soon as He said “Take up your cross and follow me” they all left Him save a few.

sorella wrote: »

So many arguments here; makes the head spin, when it really is so very simple.... if you have two coats, give one to someone in need. ..... It is so very, very simple, if you know and love the Lord Jesus. Then you will ache to obey His commandments.

Laying a ‘feed the poor trip’ on the Church is a Satanic attack designed to keep the Curch from doing what it is primarily supposed to do. Proclaim the Gospel!

sorella wrote: »

WE make others poor by the kind of arguments you use. US.

Like I said, it is not the Church’s primary function to feed the poor rather it is to preach the Gospel to them.

sorella wrote: »

And we starve Jesus thus.

That’s trip laying Christianity and it is heretical. You give them to eat and stop laying the trip on everyone else. We all have our own charitable responses that we do for the needy which Jesus says to do in private anyway. But the Gospel we are to proclaim boldly and loudly from the roof tops. I can't beleive you said: "A gospel that does not address the physical needs of people is an empty one" that doctrine is straight from the pit of hell.

santing

Most has already been said, I just want to add two Scripture verses:

And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." (Luk 16:9-13 ESV)

Wealth is a blessing, but not the "proper" blessing for a Christian.

I have experienced times of need and times of abundance. In any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of contentment, whether I go satisfied or hungry, have plenty or nothing. I am able to do all things through the one who strengthens me. (Php 4:12-13 NET)

Paul knew the secret of both having nothing and having plenty ... through Him who strengthened him.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

I see two unbalanced and dangerous extremes in the Church - the Poverty Gospel and the Prosperity Gospel.

Well my friend is not preaching the prosperity gospel, and I am certainly not preaching the Poverty Gospel. I think it is bad to romanticise poverty. It's damn hard.

In fact the Bible teaches that there are four kinds of people: the righteous poor, the wicked poor, the righteous rich, and the wicked rich. The concept of the righteous rich is an interesting theme that runs through both the Old and New Testaments.

Those of us who live in Ireland have no choice in whether God wants us rich or poor - we are already incredibly rich by most people's standards purely by accident of birth.

Yes, I don't see why my friend rejects the notion of accident of birth... as if we were predestined to be rich Irish Christians.

So, for those of us in Ireland, we are rich already. The question is not whether God wants us to be rich or not, but whether we will be among the righteous rich or the wicked rich.

In answer to the OP, I think we should treat our wealth as a responsibility, rather than as a gift. The biblical concept of stewardship is that we recognise that 'our' wealth actually belongs to God rather than to us. Therefore we need His guidance to handle our finances responsibly, biblically, and in a way that helps the poor.

Good post, very informative and agreeable.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The story of the rich man I think is not about money but asks the question: are you prepared to give up what you love most to follow Jesus?

Indeed, like luxury!

Húrin

Soul Winner wrote: »

So which is it going to be? Giving to God God's way? Or giving to the poor Judas' way? Sure we give to the poor but do it with a heart of compassion but more importantly give God's portion to God first.

That doesn't make much sense. Judas didn't want the coins because he cared for the poor, but because he was personally stashing it for himself. It was customary for the disciples to sell what they had and give to the poor, which was the legitimate cause Judas was appealing to, to mask his thieving.

We don't offer sacrifices to God. We give to God by giving to the poor.

Yes but that is a separate type of giving to what I was talking about. Gving to God is much more important than giving to the poor and needy.

That is a false dichotomy.

You missed the whole point of my post.

Well, to be fair, you didn't really read my OP.

That's heresy my dear.

No, that's James 2:14-18

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Laying a ‘feed the poor trip’ on the Church is a Satanic attack designed to keep the Curch from doing what it is primarily supposed to do. Proclaim the Gospel!

How does feeding the poor (or better yet, helping them feed themselves) restrict the preaching of the gospel? If anything it aids it.

sorella

This is from Todd Bentley? "Fresh Fire Ministries"?

Verbatim in parts.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And the whole of scripture too. Giving TO GOD is very important to God. It has pride of place in the Tabernacle in the Old Testament in the Table of Shewbread. God loves the hilarious giver as it states in the New Testament and the only time God ever killed anyone in the new Testament was over giving. The first murder in the Old Testament was over giving. Able did it right and Cain did it wrong. Cain brought the wrong offering. he offered God fruits of the ground that God had cursed. Able did it right, he brought the lamb which is a type of what God himself will do for us. Fruits of the ground offerings are 'my way of giving' offerings, whereas bringing the lamb from the flock was 'God's way of giving offerings'. So which is it going to be? Giving to God God's way? Or giving to the poor Judas' way? Sure we give to the poor but do it with a heart of compassion but more importantly give God's portion to God first.



The gospel is this: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Galatians 1:3-5



We give because we have God's spirit in us, we cannot give to God without it, and not just money, time also and commitment to the work of the ministry.



Yes but that is a separate type of giving to what I was talking about. Gving to God is much more important than giving to the poor and needy.



You missed the whole point of my post.



Well she should have read what Peter said to the lame man when he asked Peter for money. "Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Acts 3:6


That's heresy my dear. Paul said that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and Jesus said it is better to enter life lame than to go whole into destruction.



And your point is?



I did, I just quoted you a verse from it, read above. In the New Testament they gave everything they had, which is probably why we don't hear much teaching on ‘giving’ in it. Why teach on tithing when they're giving everything? In any case God claims a tenth of all that we have. The tithe is the Lord's and to deliver that to where He says to deliver it is more important to Him than feeding the hungry. As long as Jesus performed miracles and fed the people He had thousands following Him. As soon as He said “Take up your cross and follow me” they all left Him save a few.


Laying a ‘feed the poor trip’ on the Church is a Satanic attack designed to keep the Curch from doing what it is primarily supposed to do. Proclaim the Gospel!


Like I said, it is not the Church’s primary function to feed the poor rather it is to preach the Gospel to them.


That’s trip laying Christianity and it is heretical. You give them to eat and stop laying the trip on everyone else. We all have our own charitable responses that we do for the needy which Jesus says to do in private anyway. But the Gospel we are to proclaim boldly and loudly from the roof tops. I can't beleive you said: "A gospel that does not address the physical needs of people is an empty one" that doctrine is straight from the pit of hell.

sorella

We sell our jams and crafts at markets for our work with the homeless and abandoned babies, and in summer many come over from the North, evangelising Donegal.

As Catholic Nuns wearing the full Monastic Habit, we get attacked often.

Our work of course get swept aside as trivial... "That won't get you to heaven!"

AS we reply; thankfully, that is up to God, not you!

We are a mendicant order, owning nothing.

Three such evangelists even attacked what they called our "expensive"car"; a 98 Susuki Waggon.... As we assured them that was a gift from a kind man whose wife we prayed for and who recovered. God's provision in great need.. "( we call if the Nunmobile and the colour purple matches our veils)

They then got into a very new, sleek sports car.....

My point is that it is so easy to try to discredit others; because their way is different from yours.. as I said at the start, this has to be, like so many other things, personal choice; our work and our lives are as Monastic Nuns..... dedicated and consecrated as Brides of Christ to our work, for over 150 years now, of caring for the homeless. In the Holy Name of Jesus.

So we see Poverty differently; we live very simply, so that others may simply live. Not a sterile penury. A total giiving.

Food matters; without it how can anyone live?

Dignity matters; street dwellers are treated like dirt, and baby girls in India are literally thrown away.

One by one, they can be saved physically; and so many see the lovingkindness of our God only when they are treated with lovingkindness. And so they turn to Jesus and are saved in all ways... and often they in turn work with the needy.

Yet we still feed whoever and whatever; no proseltysing.

"Love one another" : it is so very simple

But always YOUR CHOICE. Always that freedom.

NB We need rich ones too to give to us!!!!

Blessings this day

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said, it is not the Church’s primary function to feed the poor rather it is to preach the Gospel to them.

It may not be our primary function, but if we neglect to feed the poor when we have the opportunity to do so then the Gospel we are preaching is a lot of hot air:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

Giving to the poor is part of the good works that are an inevitable result of anyone truly receiving the Gospel.

If someone feels called to a life of voluntary poverty, such as a nun, then fair play to them, the same applies if they are called to celibacy. I thank God that He has called me to neither.

There are plenty of Scriptures that warn us about serving Mammon and chasing after wealth, but that must be balanced with Scriptures that speak of God blessing us with material wealth (for instance in 2 Corinthians Chapter 9).

I accept that, simply by living in a Western European country, I have been blessed with a measure of wealth that would seem staggering to a large proportion of the earth's population. Therefore I am to use that wisely. This, for me, means living by the following principles.
1. I am not to act or think as if my finances are my own or have been gained by my own efforts. Instead I treat them as a gift from God and use them as God directs.
2. I am to be obedient to God's Scriptural commands concerning giving. Therefore I tithe 10% of my gross income to the Church and then give additional gifts and offerings to world missions etc. as I feel the Holy Spirit is directing me.
3. I am to view God, not the world, as the source of my finances. As we teach our church: the Celtic Tiger may be dead & stuffed, but we were always depending on the Lion of the tribe of Judah anyway!
4. All gifts from God are to be enjoyed. We should not feel guilty about enjoying a good meal, driving a nice car, or taking a holiday.
5. However, we should avoid excessive consumption or materialism. While I see nothing wrong in owning a nice car, I am still driving an 8-year old vehicle with 150,000 miles on the clock. I could afford a replacement, but the old car does its job well and I enjoy driving it - so there is no need to spend unnecessarily. In a similar vein, this week I am in the States serving on our denomination's International Council. I could have legitimately flown business class and the denomination would have picked up the tab for my expenses. Instead I always shop around for the cheapest economy seats, because I think it better to claim the minimum expenses possible and so not drain funds that the denomination can use for real ministry.

I like the example of the recently much-maligned preacher Rick Warren (he who delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration). Warren is the author of one of the best selling books in history, The Purpose Driven Life. Obviously he is extremely wealthy, earning millions in royalties. One of the first things he did when the royalties began rolling in was to calculate how much salary he had received from his Church over the past 20 years. He then repaid them every cent. Now he gives 90% of his income to the Church or to charitable causes. A modern day example, I believe, of the biblical concept of the righteous rich.

sorella

Small point; "voluntary poverty" and "Monastic poverty" are entirely different.

Blessings

PDN wrote: »

It may not be our primary function, but if we neglect to feed the poor when we have the opportunity to do so then the Gospel we are preaching is a lot of hot air:


Giving to the poor is part of the good works that are an inevitable result of anyone truly receiving the Gospel.

If someone feels called to a life of voluntary poverty, such as a nun, then fair play to them, the same applies if they are called to celibacy. I thank God that He has called me to neither.

There are plenty of Scriptures that warn us about serving Mammon and chasing after wealth, but that must be balanced with Scriptures that speak of God blessing us with material wealth (for instance in 2 Corinthians Chapter 9).

I accept that, simply by living in a Western European country, I have been blessed with a measure of wealth that would seem staggering to a large proportion of the earth's population. Therefore I am to use that wisely. This, for me, means living by the following principles.
1. I am not to act or think as if my finances are my own or have been gained by my own efforts. Instead I treat them as a gift from God and use them as God directs.
2. I am to be obedient to God's Scriptural commands concerning giving. Therefore I tithe 10% of my gross income to the Church and then give additional gifts and offerings to world missions etc. as I feel the Holy Spirit is directing me.
3. I am to view God, not the world, as the source of my finances. As we teach our church: the Celtic Tiger may be dead & stuffed, but we were always depending on the Lion of the tribe of Judah anyway!
4. All gifts from God are to be enjoyed. We should not feel guilty about enjoying a good meal, driving a nice car, or taking a holiday.
5. However, we should avoid excessive consumption or materialism. While I see nothing wrong in owning a nice car, I am still driving an 8-year old vehicle with 150,000 miles on the clock. I could afford a replacement, but the old car does its job well and I enjoy driving it - so there is no need to spend unnecessarily. In a similar vein, this week I am in the States serving on our denomination's International Council. I could have legitimately flown business class and the denomination would have picked up the tab for my expenses. Instead I always shop around for the cheapest economy seats, because I think it better to claim the minimum expenses possible and so not drain funds that the denomination can use for real ministry.

I like the example of the recently much-maligned preacher Rick Warren (he who delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration). Warren is the author of one of the best selling books in history, The Purpose Driven Life. Obviously he is extremely wealthy, earning millions in royalties. One of the first things he did when the royalties began rolling in was to calculate how much salary he had received from his Church over the past 20 years. He then repaid them every cent. Now he gives 90% of his income to the Church or to charitable causes. A modern day example, I believe, of the biblical concept of the righteous rich.

Soul Winner

Húrin wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. Judas didn't want the coins because he cared for the poor, but because he was personally stashing it for himself. It was customary for the disciples to sell what they had and give to the poor, which was the legitimate cause Judas was appealing to, to mask his thieving.

Point conceded.

Húrin wrote: »

We don't offer sacrifices to God. We give to God by giving to the poor.

So what about Paul's admonition in Galatians 6 to share materially with the one's who teach us in the Word which Paul equates to sowing to the spirit? Giving to the poor to be seen of men will get its reward down here not in Heaven. Do it in private and you will have your reward in heaven.

Húrin wrote: »

That is a false dichotomy.

No its not.

Húrin wrote: »

Well, to be fair, you didn't really read my OP.

Well in fairness I wasn’t responding to your post anyway. I was responding to sorella’s

Húrin wrote: »

No, that's James 2:14-18

Well James also advocated that works of the law will get you into heaven. If he’s right then Paul is wrong because Paul says that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” Galatians 3:10

Húrin wrote: »

How does feeding the poor (or better yet, helping them feed themselves) restrict the preaching of the gospel? If anything it aids it.

I never said it did. If you re-read my posts you will notice that I said that I am all for feeding the poor and giving to the needy. It just shouldn’t become a function of the church that eclipses its primary function which is to proclaim the Gospel to all nations. This has happened is and is very prone to happening to churches. They take their eye off the ball as it were. They forget that their primary reason for being is to do what Paul did. Preach the faith of Christ Jesus. To preach that God accepts you as you are and that if you trust Him with your life and claim His promises He will fill you with His spirit and His spirit will bare fruit in and through you and you will be saved by that faith. Imitating Jesus with fleshly outward performance that gets the thumbs up by the world will not get you any reward in heaven only down here. It is like putting the cart before the horse. Put the horse befor the cart and we will not only be saved but can do great works through the inner workings of His spirit including feeding the poor etc etc…

sorella

Our "horse" is very firmly always before the cart, my friend; how dare you suggest other wise, if that is what you are doing?

This is the lady whose words you said came from Satan?

http://www.peacehealth.org/AboutPH/Cusack.htm

Really! I mean REALLY!!!

So judgemental you are.

All charities need for folk to know who they are and what they do to raise awareness and funds.

But what you hear and see is a fraction of what they do. Just enough for folk to see to help.

Our faith has to be lived in real terms. Following Jesus who fed the many thousands who followed him .. "lest they faint by the wayside".

He is our Captain; at the helm of our ship; our Pilot, our Lord ;; alleluia!! JESUS!
"Put the horse befor the cart and we will not only be saved but can do great works through the inner workings of His spirit including feeding the poor etc etc… "

Soul Winner

sorella wrote: »

Our "horse" is very firmly always before the cart, my friend; how dare you suggest other wise, if that is what you are doing?

This is the lady whose words you said came from Satan?

http://www.peacehealth.org/AboutPH/Cusack.htm

Really! I mean REALLY!!!

So judgemental you are.

All charities need for folk to know who they are and what they do to raise awareness and funds.

But what you hear and see is a fraction of what they do. Just enough for folk to see to help.

Our faith has to be lived in real terms. Following Jesus who fed the many thousands who followed him .. "lest they faint by the wayside".

He is our Captain; at the helm of our ship; our Pilot, our Lord ;; alleluia!! JESUS!
"Put the horse before the cart and we will not only be saved but can do great works through the inner workings of His spirit including feeding the poor etc etc… "

Look sweetheart, what you guys do for the poor is wonderful and great and all and I for one think it is a mostly unrewarded good work and am convinced that God sees every drop of sweat that you guys produce for the sake of these people and I in no way want to be in conflict with you about that. I too have couple of charities that I give to but that is a personal thing for me and something I don’t like going on about in any degree of length.

But when it comes to the Gospel that Jesus died to bring about and that the martyrs of the Church who throughout the centuries suffered hideous and horrible deaths to preserve, I am afraid I must defend it and strive to keep it alive and to avoid the preaching of it being eclipsed and swamped by even good and well intentioned works.

Charities and Churches should be separate entities and Churches should give to and help Charities as an auxiliary function but it should not in no wise be allowed to tune into one and forget what its primary commission is, to proclaim the good news to all nations.

santing

sorella wrote: »

This is the lady whose words you said came from Satan?

http://www.peacehealth.org/AboutPH/Cusack.htm

Really! I mean REALLY!!!

So judgemental you are.

Very interesting lady, see Wikipedia. I would love to read some of her books such as: "Nun of Kenmare: An Autobiography (London: Jonah Child [1888], and Do. [reiss.] (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1889), and Do. [facs. rep. edn.] (London: Routledge/Thoemmes 1998), xv, xx, 556p., port.; Life Inside the Church of Rome (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1889), 408pp.; The Story of My Life (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1891), xi, 403pp. [presum. reiss. of Autobiography, 1889]; A Remarkable Book and Two Remarkable Relics (London: Marshall Bros. 1892); What Rome Teaches (London: Marshall Bros. 1892); The Black Pope: A History of the Jesuits (London: Marshall, Russell & Co.; Brighton: DB Friend & Co. [1896]); His Yarn, and Another Story (London: Marshall, Russell, & Co. [1897]); Is there a Roman Catholic Church? (London: Marshall, Russell & Co.; Brighton: D. B. Friend & Co. 1897); Revolution and War, the secret conspiracy of the Jesuits in Great Britain (London: Swan: Sonnenschein & Co. 1910), 2nd ed. (London: George Allen & Co. 1913); new and revised ed., (London: Stanley Paul & Co. 1913). COMM, Irene ffrench Eager, The Nun of Kenmare (Cork 1970). "

But if someone claims to hear "her" voice today, and is talking with "her" today, I would also be inclined to say that that message comes from Satan, not from God. That person is deceived, it isn't Mary Cusack at all.

sorella

Young man; the name is SISTER. respect and protocol please.

What you write is unscriptural simply and very patronising.

Read Jesus.

You are making a false dichotomy here.

Because we are on the same side; although you seem to seek to refuse to see that. Why?

This is not about secular charitites. Who seem to have offended you. But about men and women who in Christ Jesus go our to serve Him; dressed in the Holy Habit of religion and thus witnesses to His love.

It is simply about being the hands and feet and voice of Jesus. Period.

Prayer is the lovingkindness of the Lord. Our love expressed is the Gospel also.

None of which excludes the teaching of the Gospel of Salvation; in truth it creates a door to reach folk for Jesus.

So you would attack eg Mother Teresa also?

And Saint Francis who embraced and cared for lepers, saying," We preach the Gospel by our lives, and by works when appropriate.."

Fr Damian of Molokai..

The Gospel we all preach ...

It cannot exist in a bubble separated from our physical lives; the old Celtic word for the body was the "soul-shrine". We say in the NT the "temple of the Holy Spirit"

So no more can we tend the body without tending the soul also, and vice versa

As all the saints knew well.

Bless your journey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look sweetheart, what you guys do for the poor is wonderful and great and all and I for one think it is a mostly unrewarded good work and am convinced that God sees every drop of sweat that you guys produce for the sake of these people and I in no way want to be in conflict with you about that. I too have couple of charities that I give to but that is a personal thing for me and something I don’t like going on about in any degree of length.

But when it comes to the Gospel that Jesus died to bring about and that the martyrs of the Church who throughout the centuries suffered hideous and horrible deaths to preserve, I am afraid I must defend it and strive to keep it alive and to avoid the preaching of it being eclipsed and swamped by even good and well intentioned works.

Charities and Churches should be separate entities and Churches should give to and help Charities as an auxiliary function but it should not in no wise be allowed to tune into one and forget what its primary commission is, to proclaim the good news to all nations.

sorella

Gee; I never read stuff like that..

Not sure where you are coming from on your last words here; try not to limit God maybe?

It would scare me to death.

Blessings....

santing wrote: »

Very interesting lady, see Wikipedia. I would love to read some of her books such as: "Nun of Kenmare: An Autobiography (London: Jonah Child [1888], and Do. [reiss.] (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1889), and Do. [facs. rep. edn.] (London: Routledge/Thoemmes 1998), xv, xx, 556p., port.; Life Inside the Church of Rome (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1889), 408pp.; The Story of My Life (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1891), xi, 403pp. [presum. reiss. of Autobiography, 1889]; A Remarkable Book and Two Remarkable Relics (London: Marshall Bros. 1892); What Rome Teaches (London: Marshall Bros. 1892); The Black Pope: A History of the Jesuits (London: Marshall, Russell & Co.; Brighton: DB Friend & Co. [1896]); His Yarn, and Another Story (London: Marshall, Russell, & Co. [1897]); Is there a Roman Catholic Church? (London: Marshall, Russell & Co.; Brighton: D. B. Friend & Co. 1897); Revolution and War, the secret conspiracy of the Jesuits in Great Britain (London: Swan: Sonnenschein & Co. 1910), 2nd ed. (London: George Allen & Co. 1913); new and revised ed., (London: Stanley Paul & Co. 1913). COMM, Irene ffrench Eager, The Nun of Kenmare (Cork 1970). "

But if someone claims to hear "her" voice today, and is talking with "her" today, I would also be inclined to say that that message comes from Satan, not from God. That person is deceived, it isn't Mary Cusack at all.

santing

sorella wrote: »

Not sure where you are coming from on your last words here; try not to limit God maybe?

It would scare me to death.

Blessings....

It certainly should scare you to death ...

It is coming from A Free Spirit by Patrick Francis

The revelations to Patrick Francis in A Free Spirit are both fascinating and encouraging. Margaret Anna Cusack (1829- 1899) was internationally known as a campaigner for social justice and founded an order of nuns called the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace. As a soul in spirit, she had already indicated to Patrick Francis that she was one of his guides. In 1998, she revealed to him that she wanted to work with him in writing a book. In it, she tells how evolved souls who have passed over try to help people on the Earth.

Húrin

Soul Winner wrote: »

No its not.

So how do we materially give to God, in a way that does not involve helping the poor? Can we give to God anything that he does not already have? Everything on earth is the Lord's. (Pslam 24:1)

Yes, the spread of the Gospels requires money, and that should be given, but I don't see the point in giving to that purpose when it has no shortage of money. The argument also assumes that giving to the poor is separate from preaching the Gospel. Service offers a valuable evangelising opportunity, and demonstrates to those who do not yet believe that the Gospels have a real effect on believers.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well James also advocated that works of the law will get you into heaven. If he’s right then Paul is wrong because Paul says that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” Galatians 3:10

I don't think James did say that. In any case, his words are as much a part of the scriptures as Paul's, and that is what we are both appealing to.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am all for feeding the poor and giving to the needy. It just shouldn’t become a function of the church that eclipses its primary function which is to proclaim the Gospel to all nations.

I agree. I wouldn't want to do that at all. I just reject the segregation between the two that states that helping the poor does not do anything to preach the good news.

philologos

James said faith without works is dead, which is true.
Paul said righteousness comes through faith, which is also true.

James argument relates to Jesus talking about bearing fruit and the fig tree. Doesn't seem like a diachotomy to me.

sorella

That is interesting; but not necessarily demonic.

I do not like that though at all. But some religious go strange in strange ways:)

One thing Vatican 2 did was to stream out much of the deep mysticism in religious life and it is a terrible loss to the Church and the world.

Many see and hear things that others cannot; I am not always sure of the meaning of it. The Ignatian idea is of discernment of spirits.

I heard a radio programme many years ago of folk who saw angels; a lady there said that God would never send one to her as she would be terrified and He would not scare her; that is what I meant.

Yet we know angels are sent. and they come in many guises.

But other aspects of deep awareness and spirituality are a different matter indeed; for God to decide not us.

Read re Padre Pio and bilocation...

Blessings

santing wrote: »

It certainly should scare you to death ...

It is coming from A Free Spirit by Patrick Francis

Soul Winner

Jakkass wrote: »

James said faith without works is dead, which is true.
Paul said righteousness comes through faith, which is also true.

James argument relates to Jesus talking about bearing fruit and the fig tree. Doesn't seem like a diachotomy to me.

James also said that we are 'justified by works' not only that 'faith without works is dead'. Faith in God can do no other than to bring about good works but the good works is not what God is interested in primarily, because He knows they cannot come about without faith working first. What He is looking for is faith and that’s it, always just faith. works are inevitable result of faith in God. And once He sees faith God puts His spirit in us and places us judicially in Christ, which means He sees us as just-like-Christ (justified). To turn around and say that we must now prove that we have Christ in us by the way we perform under the law is to remove yourself from the covering wrought in Christ and to again be brought under bondage to the rudiments of the world which is what Christ came to deliver us from in the first place. To try and get in by performing works of the law is to say that what Christ done was not good enough, that you must somehow add to His perfect performance. It is a message from hell, it is Satan as an angel of light telling you that if you know good and evil you will be like God, IT IS A LIE don’t fall for it. God wants faith and faith alone.

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21

Here’s James:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was notRahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:20-26

Frist off Abraham was a liar. He lied about his wife in Egypt and got her to lie too because he was afraid that he would be killed there because of her beauty and James says he was justified by works? Rahab ran a whorehouse and she lied to the soldiers when they came for the spies and yet James says she was justified by her works? Lying and whoring saved her??? No, her faith saved her. She did what spies told her to do with the scarlet thread and that faith saved her, not her lying and whoring. Abraham trusted God would keep his promise that through Isaac his seed would be reckoned and obeyed God on the mount and would have sacrificed Isaac and that faith was counted unto him for righteousness, not his works.

And even if you wanted to listen to James, it was James who agreed in council with the other apostles that Peter be the apostle to the circumcision (the Jew) and that Paul was to be the apostle to the uncircumcised (Gentiles or non Jew) so even if you want to side with James you must listen to Paul and Paul said that we are justified by faith and not of works of the law.

Now here’s Paul:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Romans 3:28

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 5:1

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. Galatians 2:16

"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." Galatians 3:11

"So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24

The writer to the Hebrews (whom I believe was Paul) states in Hebrews 10 that to fall away from the path of faith then there remains no more remission.

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10 v 29

To come out form the covering that Christ died to bring is to fall from grace, which by the way means “unmerited favor” i.e cannot be earned, as soon as it is earned, it is no more grace, rather the reward is reckoned of debt and not a gift of God as Paul says to the Ephesians:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8

So if you want to be rewarded for your works, then so be it, you are under a curse if your works are not perfect by the standard of the law. If you are going to be justified by works of the law then you must keep it perfectly and perpetually and ignorance is not an excuse. If you come under one jot of the law then you must keep the whole law.

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Galatians 3:10

If there is anyone that cannot see the difference between what James says and what Paul says then I have failed in attempting to point it out. The Epistle of James was not read in all the churches until it was added to the cannon of scripture in the 5th century, and that only because of controversy over this very issue, faith alone verse faith and works.

Paul’s epistles were read in all the churches right from the get go. And Paul was chosen directly by Jesus after the resurrection. There is no evidence that James ever accepted Jesus’ teaching before the resurrection, in fact there is evidence that Jesus’ family (including His brethren) wanted to lay hands on Him arguably because they thought He was beside Himself due the claims He was making about Himself.


"Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it." Luke 8:19-21

Paul was an intellectual of the highest order, taught at the feet of Gamaliel and behind nobody with regards to a knowledge of the law, he knew it backwards, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Whereas James was merely a blood relative and was chosen to head the church at Jerusalem for that reason. Who are you going to listen to?

James wrote his epistle to the 12 tribes scattered so if you are not one of them then he was not talking to you anyway. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (non Jew) and even if you want to listen to James you must listen to Paul because in Acts 15 Paul is chosen by the first Church council at Jerusalem to be the apostle to the Gentiles (not that he needed it, Jesus had already separated him out to be the apostle to the Gentiles).

It was in the Church at Jerusalem where Paul and his companion Titus were being spied on to see if Titus was circumcised. Titus was a Greek and had faith in God but that was not good enough for the Church at Jerusalem. Listen to what Paul had to say about it:

“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” Galatians 2:3

They actually hired people who were not even brethren to spy on them to see if Titus was circumcised. What does that tell you about the state of the Church at Jerusalem at that time. Paul is being persecuted everywhere he goes because he preaches Christ but these bozos in Jerusalem are looking up skirts for Jesus. I’m sticking with Paul.

sorella

Yawn...

More Todd Bentley and no Jesus.

Am not reading this simply. One glance is enough and more than enough..

Off to walk with my Lord Jesus in Matthew 25...As He holds His hand out to us to lead us in His ways. We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Matthew 25 from the mouth of God.

As we say to the evangelists who attack us with, "That won't get you to heaven..." that is up to God not you; and whatever He chooses is fine by us. We love and trust Him utterly.

And we do not get up every morning thinking about OUR salvation and OUR needs; that is all promised after all.

But about how we can help and work for Jesus that day by serving His little needy ones.

And praising Him with every breath...

Blessings to all here... May the Lord Jesus shine the Light of His countenance upon you and be gracious unto you. And bring you His peace which the world can never give.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is anyone that cannot see the difference between what James says and what Paul says then I have failed in attempting to point it out. The Epistle of James was not read in all the churches until it was added to the cannon of scripture in the 5th century, and that only because of controversy over this very issue, faith alone verse faith and works.

Sorry, that is ahistorical and wrong. There was no formal canon of Scripture to which the Book of James could be added. What happened in the first 400 years of the Church's history was that individual churches found certain books to be helpful for worship, and we know this because those books are quoted by early authors and occasionally included in lists. There were also debates over whether some books should be treated by Scripture as not, and these included Hebrews (which I don't believe was written by Paul), James, the Second and Third Epistles of John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation (all of which were eventually accepted) the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement (all of which missed the cut).

James is cited as being Scripture by Cyril of Jerusalem (348 AD), the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), Athanasius (367 AD), Gregory of Nazianius (380 AD), the Syrian Apostolic Canons (380 AD), Rufinus (380 AD), Epiphanus (385 AD), Jerome (390 AD), Augustine (397 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD).

James is mention is being up for debate by Origen in 225 AD (along with 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude).

If anyone has told you that James was added to the Canon in the 5th Century then they have quite clearly been having you on.

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was notRahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:20-26

Frist off Abraham was a liar. He lied about his wife in Egypt and got her to lie too because he was afraid that he would be killed there because of her beauty and James says he was justified by works? Rahab ran a whorehouse and she lied to the soldiers when they came for the spies and yet James says she was justified by her works? Lying and whoring saved her??? No, her faith saved her. She did what spies told her to do with the scarlet thread and that faith saved her, not her lying and whoring. Abraham trusted God would keep his promise that through Isaac his seed would be reckoned and obeyed God on the mount and would have sacrificed Isaac and that faith was counted unto him for righteousness, not his works.

I don't think you're reading your own post. Abraham being a liar has nothing to do with the passage from James that you quote. James specifically says that the incident he is referring to is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. This was a case where Abraham's act of obedience was evidence of his faith. If he said he believed God but failed to trust God enough to take Isaac up the mountain, then that would have demonstrated that his faith was not genuine saving faith at all.

I think your misunderstanding is coming from the word 'justified'. This word (dikao) has a double meaning. It can mean 'made righteous', but it can also mean 'declared righteous'. http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1344 So, if an innocent man was wrongly accused of murder, you could say that he was justified (in the sense of 'made righteous') from the beginning by the fact that he never committed the crime. However, at the end of the trial you could also say he was justified (in the sense of being 'declared righteous') by the not guilty verdict delivered by the jury.

I think that it is clear that Paul uses the word in the sense of being made righteous - something that happens by faith. But James uses the word in the sense of being declared righteous - something that was evidenced by Abraham's works.

JimiTime

On the James versus Paul debate. I think its clear that there were some debate between them. Such as the case of the Jews from James, coming to where Peter was, and Peter changing his ways when they came to a more Jewish orthordoxy. However, James' letter was likely written out of need. If his congregation were saying 'we have faith', yet sending away hungry men with no food, then their actions would betray their declarations. So James probably had to step up and say, 'Oi, lads, Look at the faithful throughout history, they were justified by faith, but only when they manifested it'. It was Abraham showed his faith, same with Rahab, that they became justified by it. James makes sense. I think its unwise to pit Paul against him. Pauls message seems to be purer, but James' seems to elaborate on what we should expect from faith. Maybe his congregation needed to be told? After all, Jesus when asked, 'How should we worship?' described an action, a work as it were, 'look after the orphans and widows'. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive, You can't truly have faith without works, I think this is James' point.

You pointed this out to me before, and I agreed with you. However, with further consideration, I'd have top back down on that and except James' point. If he was aiming it at a congregation that didn't aide their neighbour, then it probably had to be said.

midlandsmissus

I really feel quite strongly about htis.

I think you should keep the money you need to get by, but anything over that can't be justified.

I definitely don't buy the latest phone, brand new cars or whatever. How can you justify that in a world where people are starving.

Of course I'm not claiming to be mother theresa here, and I do treat myself with some things. But I give away a good bit aswell. There are so many people sitting out in the freezing cold begging for money in the city I'm in, and every time I go by them I think 'Imagine having to sit in the freezing cold all day' and I always give them my change. Its easy to take things for granted, a warm bed, roof over your head and all that, it's harder to stop and try to think how the people you see every day are really suffering.

I just don't see how people can be really rich, and know there are people who have nothing. If I won the lottery I would give it to everyone I could help.

As they say money doesnt make you happy, the happiest person I know is a man in my community who goes absolutely out of his way to help everyone else. He says its the happiest he ever felt.

sorella

Amen to this.

We work with homeless in many lands and have done for over 150 years now.

We advise never to give them money; many are addicts and it will go on a fix. So we suggest ways to help them; chocolate, as addicts need sugar. Any good food; gloves, scarf etc.

So they know more even than if you give money that you care.

One lady we know in the US gets up a little earlier than she needs to and makes sandwiches and a big flask of coffee.The folk know she will feed them then.

And yes, we all need "treats" of some kind. Yet somehow the more you give, the more simple things mean and the less you need to make you joyful.

Even Nuns have treats:)

Blessings this day

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I really feel quite strongly about htis.

I think you should keep the money you need to get by, but anything over that can't be justified.

I definitely don't buy the latest phone, brand new cars or whatever. How can you justify that in a world where people are starving.

Of course I'm not claiming to be mother theresa here, and I do treat myself with some things. But I give away a good bit aswell. There are so many people sitting out in the freezing cold begging for money in the city I'm in, and every time I go by them I think 'Imagine having to sit in the freezing cold all day' and I always give them my change. Its easy to take things for granted, a warm bed, roof over your head and all that, it's harder to stop and try to think how the people you see every day are really suffering.

I just don't see how people can be really rich, and know there are people who have nothing. If I won the lottery I would give it to everyone I could help.

As they say money doesnt make you happy, the happiest person I know is a man in my community who goes absolutely out of his way to help everyone else. He says its the happiest he ever felt.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, that is ahistorical and wrong. There was no formal canon of Scripture to which the Book of James could be added.

I never said there was. What I said was this:

Soul Winner wrote:

The Epistle of James was not read in all the churches until it was added to the cannon of scripture in the 5th century

If anything I was wrong about the 5th century. Saying it wasn't added to the cannon does not necessarily mean that there was a cannon. It just means that one was in the making, possibly due to the heresy of Marcion who created his own cannon which included throwing everything out except Paul and some of Luke. This debate was a very contentious matter back then, but Marcion was wrong to reject all scripture except Paul but he was right in that he knew Paul was the most important of all the apostles when it came to the gentiles. The epistle of James was probably added to the general cannon (which as already said was established in reaction to Marcion’s) in order keep everyone (the pro-Jamers and the pro-Paulers) happy.

PDN wrote: »

James is cited as being Scripture by Cyril of Jerusalem (348 AD), the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), Athanasius (367 AD), Gregory of Nazianius (380 AD), the Syrian Apostolic Canons (380 AD), Rufinus (380 AD), Epiphanus (385 AD), Jerome (390 AD), Augustine (397 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD).

It doesn't really matter, James still addressed his Epistle to Jewish Christians anyway or Christians descended from the 12 tribes and not to Gentiles, of which we are.

PDN wrote: »

James is mention is being up for debate by Origen in 225 AD (along with 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude).

Like Luther, Origen wasn’t entirely sure of the epistle’s authenticity. Luther called it ‘a right strawy little epistle with no word of Gospel in it’. I believe that James actually wrote it, and that he meant that you cannot be justified by faith alone, that you need works that can be seen too.

PDN wrote: »

If anyone has told you that James was added to the Canon in the 5th Century then they have quite clearly been having you on.

Possibly but it is of little consequence to this debate and not something that I will lose my faith over anyway.

PDN wrote: »

I don't think you're reading your own post. Abraham being a liar has nothing to do with the passage from James that you quote. James specifically says that the incident he is referring to is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. This was a case where Abraham's act of obedience was evidence of his faith. If he said he believed God but failed to trust God enough to take Isaac up the mountain, then that would have demonstrated that his faith was not genuine saving faith at all.

But I don’t believe that that is what James meant. James states that it was Abraham's works that saved him. But trusting God to fulfill His promises and showing this trust by willingly obeying God to sacrifice Isaac, is faith, it is not a work of the law. He acted on the promise of God and that faith was counted unto Abraham as righteousness. If Abraham is to be justified by the law then he cannot get in because he broke the law when he lied about Sarah. "Thou shalt not bear false witness". And this is even confirmed by James himself:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10

What Paul says is that if you want to be justified by works of the law then you must have always kept it perfectly and continue to keep it perfectly, you cannot have missed even one jot of the law if you want to be justified by it.

I agree with James when he says that faith without works is dead. But that is like saying that an apple tree is not really an apple tree unless it bears apples in its time. It's a rhetorical statement. It is only when he crosses the line and says that we can be justified by works and not faith alone that causes contention. If that is the case then Christ is dead in vain and Paul is right.

All I'm pointing out is that you cannot reconcile the two doctrines. Apple trees bare apples, an apple tree that doesn't is dead. Goes without saying. But just as apples take time to grow, so do good works as fruit of the indwelling holy spirit in us by faith takes time to come to fruition. You never whip an apple tree and command it to bare apples, it will do in its time, just leave it alone and the apple producing life in it will bare fruit in time.

It is the same with Christians who will not accept that you are Christian until they see good works coming from you first. The only one to whom good works are to be produced is God Himself, not other Christians. Preach Christ and fan the flame of faith and true good works from the eternal spring of the indwelling holy spirit will be the inevitable result, you won't be able to keep it from happening if you maintain daily faith in God's promises.

The only way that you can stop this true flowing of God's nature in us is to bring back the law that Christ Himself nailed to a His cross, and beat people over the head with it if they do not conform. It reverses the effect of the Gospel which Paul calls the power of God unto salvation. "...for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" II Corinthians 3:6

The thing is, I have never read any scripture where Jesus appeared unto James and specifically told him that he is to be the official fruit inspector apostle of the church. When I find that, I will listen to James. James is not even a disciple that Jesus chose during his earthly ministry and as far as we know is not one that he chose after his resurrection either. He did choose Paul though, and specifically chose him to bring the gospel to the gentiles, and this Paul preached that we are not justified by works but by faith. Those who want to be rewarded for the works of the law that they do for God, relax you’re gonna get it.

PDN wrote: »

I think your misunderstanding is coming from the word 'justified'. This word (dikao) has a double meaning. It can mean 'made righteous', but it can also mean 'declared righteous'. http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1344 So, if an innocent man was wrongly accused of murder, you could say that he was justified (in the sense of 'made righteous') from the beginning by the fact that he never committed the crime. However, at the end of the trial you could also say he was justified (in the sense of being 'declared righteous') by the not guilty verdict delivered by the jury.

Even if I was misunderstanding the word "justified" (which I wasn't) it still does not resolve the core arguments of James and Paul with regards to how we obtain salvation. By Faith or by Works?

PDN wrote: »

I think that it is clear that Paul uses the word in the sense of being made righteous - something that happens by faith. But James uses the word in the sense of being declared righteous - something that was evidenced by Abraham's works.

But the act that Abraham did was not a work of the law. Abraham had never even heard of the law, so how could he be doing works thereof?

"...the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Galatians 3:17

Abraham had the promise that through Isaac his seed would be reckoned and then God commands him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham trusted God so much to keep His promise with regards to his seed being reckoned through Isaac that he was willing to sacrifice him, probably believing that God would raise him from the dead after the fact. This is evident in the verse where Abraham said to his servants "we will come back".

"He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then 'we' will come back to you." Genesis 22:5

As it turned out the angel stayed his hand instead.

Abraham trusted God and it was counted to him as riotousness. That is what we who are also the children of promise are to act like, not observing the law and doing works of the law which came 400 years late on the scene anyway. We are to trust God with our lives, not measure up the perfect standard of the law by which no flesh shall be made or declared justified. And if you come under one jot of it then you are indebted to do all of it just like the Galatians would have been had they been circumcised.

"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law" Galatians 5:3

Circumcision today is any outward sign tacked on from the law as an outward mark of conformity to it (look at me, I don't murder, I don't adulterate and so on) this will nullify your faith and bring you back into bondage to the law to which you must keep perfectly and perpetually.
But even if you could outwardly conform to it and fool your fellow Christians, you cannot fool God.

"Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" Matthew 5:21-22

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28

So not only can we not break the law in deed, we cannot even break it in our hearts. That's how impossible it is to keep the law, which is why Jesus came, to deliver us from it and its curse for not keeping it, taking on himself the penalty for our not keeping it, death. To resurrect the law now from the cross after that faith has come is to be guilty of the most heinous of sins, treading underfoot the blood of Christ and counting it as dung. We may as well just burn our Bibles now and spit on the flame as it chars within.

Puck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look sweetheart

I had to do a double-take when I read that. That was unbelievably disrespectful.

I am learning that being poor can be a blessing. I'm living very simply this year because I'm taking a year to do some missionary work. I used to be a picky eater, now I am delighted to be fed and food never tasted so good! I am more conscious of my dependence on God this year. Sometimes praying for my daily bread has meant exactly that. He has not failed me. Money can be dangerous, it can create the illusion of self-reliance and independence. It can also lead to greed. But having money is not in and of itself wrong, your attitude to it makes all the difference. I do know of rich people that give a lot to charity and in order to do so regularly they need to maintain their wealth.

We must not forget that it is God that gives us everything we have, for me being poor has made that easier to remember this year and I am thankful.

Soul Winner

Puck wrote: »

I had to do a double-take when I read that. That was unbelievably disrespectful.

Well she yawned at my post and then rubbished it while admitting she didn't even read it and then said that I was regurgitating verbatim something that some guy, whom I had never heard of before said, when all I was doing was quoting the Bible. That is also very disrespectful IMO but you didn't pull her up on that. Why not?

Puck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well she yawned at my post and then rubbished it while admitting she didn't even read it and then said that I was regurgitating verbatim something that some guy, whom I had never heard of before said, when all I was doing was quoting the Bible. That is also very disrespectful IMO but you didn't pull her up on that. Why not?

I felt yours was more disrespectful. There is a difference in scoffing at an argument and scoffing at a person, so I didn't find sorella's posts to be rude.

You're showing great humility here! Do two wrongs make a right? If you thought sorella was being disrespectful do you really think the mature Christian response is to return it?

This is dragging the thread off topic by the way. I would be happy to discuss this in a thread regarding respect towards our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Soul Winner

Puck wrote: »

I felt yours was more disrespectful. There is a difference in scoffing at an argument and scoffing at a person, so I didn't find sorella's posts to be rude.

You're showing great humility here! Do two wrongs make a right? If you thought sorella was being disrespectful do you really think the mature Christian response is to return it?

This is dragging the thread off topic by the way. I would be happy to discuss this in a thread regarding respect towards our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is calling someone 'sweetheart' that bad? To be honest I didn't even mean anything by it. I think she is a sweetheart, anyone who does the work she does is a real sweetheart, they're probably the least selfish people on the planet and I'm sure their reward is great because what they do, they do in faith, so what's wrong with calling them sweethearts? They have sweet hearts, even the mods never remarked on my usage of it so I'm at a loss to know why you're getting so knotty about it.

Puck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is calling someone 'sweetheart' that bad? To be honest I didn't even mean anything by it. I think she is a sweetheart, anyone who does the work she does is a real sweetheart, they're probably the least selfish people on the planet and I'm sure their reward is great because what they do, they do in faith, so what's wrong with calling them sweethearts? They have sweet hearts, even the mods never remarked on my usage of it so I'm at a loss to know why you're getting so knotty about it.

I'm not knotty about it really, I'm sure the Sister can fight her own battles anyway. I just think it comes across as quite patronising to refer to someone as "sweetheart" in the middle of a debate. To put the word "look" in front of it only ads to the patronising tone. There is a world of difference between me calling my niece sweetheart, calling my girlfriend sweetheart and calling a woman I've never met and am having a serious exchange of views with sweetheart. Or at least there is to me anyway.

But perhaps you genuinely only meant it as a warm, loving word of respect. It didn't come across that way to me but like I said, it's not my fight. Anyway, the Lord knows your heart and so do you.

Soul Winner

Puck wrote: »

I'm not knotty about it really, I'm sure the Sister can fight her own battles anyway. I just think it comes across as quite patronising to refer to someone as "sweetheart" in the middle of a debate. To put the word "look" in front of it only ads to the patronising tone. There is a world of difference between me calling my niece sweetheart, calling my girlfriend sweetheart and calling a woman I've never met and am having a serious exchange of views with sweetheart. Or at least there is to me anyway.

But perhaps you genuinely only meant it as a warm, loving word of respect. It didn't come across that way to me but like I said, it's not my fight. Anyway, the Lord knows your heart and so do you.

To be really really honest I was proabbly being a little bit patrinising at the time :pac: but I do believe that she is a real sweetheart because people who do the kind of work she does are very rare indeed, especailly those who do it in the name of Jesus and with Him in focus all the while.

sorella

Puck; thank you

When you are addressing a Nun, yes it is.

The correct form of address is Sister; Sorella means Sister.

When you are addressing any female you do not know also very rude indeed.

Over familiar. And very patronising.

As it was meant to be of course

Interesting thing is he would not do that to our face of course.

Not and live:)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is calling someone 'sweetheart' that bad? To be honest I didn't even mean anything by it. I think she is a sweetheart, anyone who does the work she does is a real sweetheart, they're probably the least selfish people on the planet and I'm sure their reward is great because what they do, they do in faith, so what's wrong with calling them sweethearts? They have sweet hearts, even the mods never remarked on my usage of it so I'm at a loss to know why you're getting so knotty about it.

Húrin

Soul Winner wrote: »

To be really really honest I was proabbly being a little bit patrinising at the time :pac: but I do believe that she is a real sweetheart because people who do the kind of work she does are very rare indeed, especailly those who do it in the name of Jesus and with Him in focus all the while.

Why do you think such people are so rare?

sorella

Odd to see oneself talked about like this I am here you know....

And not rare; there are many thousands around the world who love and live that love as we do.

Húrin

sorella wrote: »

Odd to see oneself talked about like this I am here you know....

And not rare; there are many thousands around the world who love and live that love as we do.

In a world of 6.8 billion people, a group of thousands is rare. I am interested to hear Soul winner's opinion though.

sorella

Yes indeed:)

Húrin wrote: »

In a world of 6.8 billion people, a group of thousands is rare. I am interested to hear Soul winner's opinion though.