Manifestly it is because the question, "what must I do to geain lifer eternal?" -- is a general question, and Jesus gave a general response.
the command to "follow Me" is manifestly not to live a life secluded from the world, for Christ and His disciples did not (except when imprisoned), but to confront the world with the gospel.
That is an argument for one kind of monasticism over another, but not an argument against monasticism altogether. Perhaps you are under the impression that monks were all recluses; then you need to familiarize yourself with the history of the European civilization and pay attention to the role monasteries played in building it.
The Beatitudes simply say who is in receipt of divine blessings more than others, and the poor figure first, and the "meek" after them. The general meaning of the Beatitudes is that those who deny themselves are blessed. The moneyed class is not mentioned at all. So, poverty, other things being equal is a blessing. In contradiction to the spirit of the Reformation.
Why do you insist on continuing to misquote Jesus' words??? It is the poor IN SPIRIT and not specifically the materially poor. I recognize a need to validate your own pious interpretation of the Beatitudes, but even a cursory reading shows that being poor is no guarantee of salvation. In fact, Jesus further teaches in the next chapter of Matthew:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt. 6:1-4)
There is blessing in having the means to give to the needy and, rather than "giving it all up" and taking a vow of poverty and becoming a monk, we are told to NOT give for the attention of others so that we are seen as pious for the "sacrifices" we've made for God. There is really nothing that we can do that can compete with what He has done for us! A recognizable trait of the righteous is that God always provides our needs. It's as David said in Psalm 37:24-26, Because the LORD is the One who holds his hand. I have been young and now I am old, Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken Or his descendants begging bread. All day long he is gracious and lends, And his descendants are a blessing.
Manifestly it is because the question, "what must I do to geain lifer eternal?" -- is a general question, and Jesus gave a general response.
Wrong. It is question by an individual with a particular problem preventing him from following Christ, as he was too attached to his riches, possessed by possessions. Yet men such as Abraham could follow the Lord in faith despite having great possessions. Accordingly, the sell all requirement is nowhere repeated, despite your attempt to invoke duplicate accounts, and instead, as said and shown you, the general injunction (them that are rich in this world) is to trust in God, not riches, and be willing and ready to share.
Your own Bible commentary sees the "sell all" command as being for perfection in an individual case: "In the case of this man, it involves selling his possessions and giving to the poor; only so can he follow Jesus." (http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/19) .
Moreover, riches themselves are not evil, and once a rich man sells all he has then he is as a poor man, and the command to follow Christ is not one that must require living in a monastery.
You simply reject all this and compel Christ and thus Paul as well to be absolutely teaching that the rich must sell all and (usually) join a monastery to gain eternal life, which is manifestly not what Scripture teaches. And i am sure many RCs RCs disagree with you here.
That is an argument for one kind of monasticism over another, but not an argument against monasticism altogether.
I was aware of different kind of monasticism, but it is your description of a monastic life in distinction to non-monasticism that conveyed a life in seclusion. If leaving all to serve God in the word of God with prayer while living with believers but in daily interaction with the world, then i know some evangelical monks.
But what Scripture reveals as regards following Christ is not normatively literally selling all and leaving work in the secular world, nor was this required in general of the rich, but as requiring a surrendered body and forsaking all in heart to serve God in the word of God and prayer, normatively in daily interaction with the world in which they live and work.
Thus after the temporary intensive training in the organic community at Jerusalem (and never seen replicated) they all went everywhere literally preaching the word. (Acts 8:4; 11:19-21) And they usually had their own houses (1Cor. 11:23) while the chief example of conveying the gospel in Acts 13-28 was not living in an organic community, but one who carried on a life of preaching the word and prayer while being very active in the world. And who gave the general requirement for the rich. However, you have variously taught, first that
"a rich man must end his days in a monastery if he wants to be saved ?"
Then, moving the goal posts,
"The most convenient way to do so today is a monastery.'
And said ,
If a rich man wants to be saved, he needs to do what Christ told another rich man. A monastery provides for that need, and practically speaking I do not see an alternative but to enter a monastery.
Then
Monastery would be an excellent choice, at least for widowed people.
Yet apart from my statement, "joining a monastery in escaping society is not what the Lord is speaking of", you also said that "I agree with the rest of your post." Which was ,
Riches can be one's real security is idolatry, or can be a hinderance to faith, and thus being rich is not to be one's real goal in life, and therefore the command to certain rich souls to divest themselves of their wealth .
However, the command to the rich by Paul in 1Tim 6 was not to divest themselves of all their wealth and live in poverty, but "that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate [share];" (1 Timothy 6:17-18)
Being ready to share of their wealth out of a heart surrendered to Christ is not the same as divesting themselves of all their wealth and living in poverty. Yet it is hard for a rich man as a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, due to the false security and selfishness that usually genders, which is contrary to salvific faith. But with God all things are possible.
And as said, it is not by literally leaving all that one gains eternal life, but by having saving faith which is characterized by obedience, forsaking all in heart being part of that, (Lk. 14:33) and the resultant works of faith are rewarded in grace in addition to the gift of eternal life.
So you believe "a rich man must end his days in a monastery if he wants to be saved, as practically speaking you do not see an alternative, also agree that "the command to the rich by Paul in 1Tim 6 was not to divest themselves of all their wealth and live in poverty. "
Interpreting the RC interpreter of the Interpreter.