I think I'm liking my position more and more because it seems to hold water against some of the passages that those against the prosperity gospel would use. Here again is my position which I stated in my previous post.
For now, I'm leaning towards the view that God can bless Christians to the point of them becoming rich, but a Christian should not be get greedy either or become too materialistic. This view sorta factors in both sides.
The implications of my view would mean that it is not a sin to be rich. Also, someone can be rich would being a lover of money or without chasing after riches or becoming materialistic.
Passages that the anti-prosperity crowd use:
1 Timothy 6:7-10
7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Here I don't see that this conflicts with a position like mine. This passage is not saying that a Christian can't be rich but rather that they should not chase after that lifestyle. Otherwise, someone can become rich as a result of working hard, saving up, making good investments, and being rich was just incidental to all of that work.
Also, there is some degree of difference between wanting to live well (having all bills paid off, seeing a cool car you want, etc) vs. wanting to live lavishly. Plenty of gray areas there.
(wish I could make a gray colored smiley)..
1 Timothy 3:1-3 (only quoted part of vs 2)
1 ...Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach,...
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money
My response again would be that a Christian can be rich without being a lover of money. Also, if one necessarily followed from the other, then why did God ever make promises of blessings to Abraham and many in the OT? If it's wrong now then why wasn't it wrong back then?
Luke 12:15
15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
This is a tougher one because of the last part of the sentence. It seems to equate having an abundance of possessions with greed. But i see that the full context was about "sharing" since the discussion that Jesus is involved in here starts with that issue in Luke 12:13. Jesus then goes on to give a parable of the rich fool...
16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
In my view, the point of the parable is not to say that having an abundance is wrong, because crops being ready to harvest and how much are ready is in part a natural event. All the crops could be easily destroyed. The issue here is how the rich man handled the abundant harvest. His only focus was on himself as opposed to also considering giving to others.
If the anti-prosperity crowd are trying to paint an image that all Christians should be poor (or can't be rich) and that they have to always give to the poor, then a Christian would never have anything for himself. If we follow that logic, then why not also give your clothes, then what are you left wearing? Even Jesus had a treasurer that
held money (John 12:4-6) which means not all of the money was given away to the poor. But at the same time, I disagree with the push by some in the prosperity gospel camp to overemphasize blessings and riches, because that would lead many to become materialistic.
What do you guys think? Feel free to disagree or agree or offer your own alternative explanations!