Medicine, PossessionsrobfrenchJuly 1 2005, 14:30:37 UTC
(1) I've not read the original work from which Van Til quote comes. However, the context from which Ciara quotes it is not of speaking to the world, but of speaking to the Church. In that case, being "in your face" most certainly is appropriate: much of the New Testament serves exactly that purpose. We judge within the Church, we correct within the Church, we rebuke and instruct within the Church, etc. They can take it.
(2) Ciara, my original thought on seeing your post was actually not of the specific passage in Luke that has been discussed here, but rather the story of the rich young ruler. With that in mind, I read something interesting in "The Holiness of God", by R.C. Sproul. Christ's exchange with the ruler actually begins with the second half of the Ten Commandments, aka the second table of the law--those commandments that deal with neighbor. The rich young ruler, seemingly unconcerned, claims to have kept all of those. Of course, extrapolating from the sermon on the mount, we know he hasn't. To drive the point home, then, Christ gives a command that will force the man to acknowledge that he hasn't kept the commandments, because he has in fact failed at the first part of the law: love of God. Does the man place anything before God? In fact, he does... money, as is demonstrated when Christ asks him to sell all his possessions.
Point being, money, or anything else, must not be ahead of God in our priorities/loves. Granted, this ought to be a relative no-brainer. Maybe I just like to see myself type.
Re: Medicine, Possessionsmade_aliveJuly 1 2005, 15:32:13 UTC
:) i think i like to see myself type too, but that was good stuff.
but the rich young ruler and disciples alike were commanded to sell all and follow Christ.
why do you believe scripture is not commanding you to sell your possessions and give to charity? thats really what i dont get. im beginning to understand how it might mean different things for different people but how is anyone exempt from this command?
(2) Ciara, my original thought on seeing your post was actually not of the specific passage in Luke that has been discussed here, but rather the story of the rich young ruler. With that in mind, I read something interesting in "The Holiness of God", by R.C. Sproul. Christ's exchange with the ruler actually begins with the second half of the Ten Commandments, aka the second table of the law--those commandments that deal with neighbor. The rich young ruler, seemingly unconcerned, claims to have kept all of those. Of course, extrapolating from the sermon on the mount, we know he hasn't. To drive the point home, then, Christ gives a command that will force the man to acknowledge that he hasn't kept the commandments, because he has in fact failed at the first part of the law: love of God. Does the man place anything before God? In fact, he does... money, as is demonstrated when Christ asks him to sell all his possessions.
Point being, money, or anything else, must not be ahead of God in our priorities/loves. Granted, this ought to be a relative no-brainer. Maybe I just like to see myself type.
Reply
but the rich young ruler and disciples alike were commanded to sell all and follow Christ.
why do you believe scripture is not commanding you to sell your possessions and give to charity? thats really what i dont get. im beginning to understand how it might mean different things for different people but how is anyone exempt from this command?
Reply
Leave a comment