1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If election is unconditional why would it be more difficult for the rich to be saved?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Aug 6, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 9
  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mark 10:23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    If election is unconditional and men are chosen not based on anything they do or become within this life, and all the elect are irresistibly drawn to faith and salvation; then why does Jesus draw the distinction regarding the difficulty of those with wealth to be saved?

    Could it be that wealth causes one to depend upon his own resources? Could it be that wealth can lead to materialistic distractions? Could it be that wealthy feel they must give up 'too much' in order to be a disciple?

    Why would any of these factors even matter if God chose or passed over them without their wealth being a condition? And would any of these deterrences be any real hinderance to an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit? How can one person be any more "difficult" than another if the Calvinistic system is right?
     
    #1 Skandelon, Aug 6, 2011
  2. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    29
    Doesn't true Calvinism state that predestination doesn't do violence to man's free will? Isn't man allowed free will and the mystery of God is something we must trust. I do think this is a great question though.
     
    #2 SolaSaint, Aug 6, 2011
  3. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Because they are hindrances....all who perish have an inordinate love of sin,sometimes wealth allows people to get lost in "the good life"...rather than laboring under a burden of sin....they cannot get enough of it.

    Just as God ordains the means of grace.....there are means that keep people in bondage....it is not two seperate issues. Those who perish remain carnally minded...they never are set free from it.:thumbs:
     
    #3 Iconoclast, Aug 7, 2011
  4. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    Because God purposed it.

    Do you deny that anything happens which God did not always intend to happen?

    Who could? Such denial would state that the eternal purposes of God are thwarted millions of times every day.
     
    #4 Luke2427, Aug 7, 2011
  5. freeatlast

    freeatlast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon that is a good point and one of many against unconditional election with no volition.
     
    #5 freeatlast, Aug 7, 2011
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    This amounts to nothing more than a fallacy of "begging the question." If you want to engage in debate you must address our points of contention without presuming your premise proven. We all believe God's purposed our particular view of soteriology, the question is to answer why God would purpose it in a Calvinistic manner while making this distinction regarding the wealthy versus non-wealthy coming to faith. They don't appear to reconcile and I'm asking for you to explain the apparent contradiction, not to simply restate your view as if its been proven.
     
    #6 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  7. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Election? Unconditional.

    Salvation? Conditional.

    For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

    We have here a picture above of God's Sovereignty and choice in election and His 0plan to confound the wise, the noble &c. You can include the rich, as they fit within this picture above perfectly. God has chosen, and this election is unconditional, and we see what and whom God has chosen for His Glory.

    Good thing God said not many, instead of not any, forthere are those who are rich that He has elected. Salvation is conditional upon whether one is His elect/chosen.
     
    #7 preacher4truth, Aug 7, 2011
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Isn't the hindrance of being "Totally Depraved" sufficient to make all people equally as "difficult" to save? What does ones wealth have to do with that?

    I agree, but you state that as if (1) God's election of the individual was a condition of their being chosen or (2) God's irresistible work is somehow hindered by wealth??? Please explain.

    Since you bring it up lets discuss the purpose of both:

    1. What purpose does the means of wealth serve that is not already accomplished by their natural born condition of "total inability?"

    2. Are you suggesting that because a person is NOT elect that God may make them wealthy so as to hinder them from coming? If so, why? Isn't their natural condition enough of a hindrance? We know from Calvinistic teaching that they were chosen or passed over because of their wealth, so this suggests that their wealth is a condition of their being non-elect, is that your view?

    3. What does the means of "provoking to envy" or "signs and wonders" accomplish that the irresistible calling doesn't accomplish? I understand that the gospel is meant to inform the elect in the Calvinistic system, but what purpose is there in "provoking the will?"
     
    #8 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation.

    Are you suggesting that God has made many of those reprobates he unconditionally chose to pass over to become wealthy?
     
    #9 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  10. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Yes, how dare Luke2427 presume his position proven, when you practice the same thing and must be the only one justifiable in doing so.

    I think he addressed your OP and dissolved it rather handily, and the question being begged is where is your answer to it without this disparaging response?

    All things according to His purpose. This is also in election.
     
    #10 preacher4truth, Aug 7, 2011
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is apparent that you are not familiar with formal fallacies of debate. I politely encourage you to google "debate fallacies" and specifically the one called "begging the question," so as to be better informed as to my correction of Luke's post.

    Nothing was meant to be personally disparaging. It is very common in formal debate to point out fallacies. If you feel I've committed one then quote it and show it where the fallacy has been committed. I'll be glad to engage that type of discussion, but I refuse to go in mindless and endless circular arguments with people who refuse to engage the point of contention.
     
    #11 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  12. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,443
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How’s that?!? By beating the Calvinist drum: God is Deterministically Sovereign!….God is Deterministically Sovereign!…Do you deny it?...Do you deny it?...To do so denies God’s Sovereignty!...To do so denies God’s Sovereignty!...


    Oh yeah baby!!! “Now, if you what more Scandelon, we can turn into a personal conflict!” “Ugg, we Calvinist got more than one drum to beat on to deal with your kind of premise!”

    BOOM, BOOM, BOOM: According to His purpose!…According to His purpose!…God is Deterministically Sovereign!…God is Deterministically Sovereign!….

    :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #12 Benjamin, Aug 7, 2011
  13. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,443
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, Scandelon. :tonofbricks:I thought my illustration might help make it more clear. :BangHead:
     
    #13 Benjamin, Aug 7, 2011
  14. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    No need to falsely paint me as not being familiar with debate. More derogatory nonsense. You're again being personally disparaging. Yet, all you have to say is it wasn't meant then it's all good. No need to try and belittle another with your accusations.

    "Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death, So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?" Proverbs 26:18-19

    ...except for the fact I for one am not deceived.

    Yes, you're just joking, and/or there are never any intentions when you get personal. Would you allow this grace to extend to others as to yourself?(excluding those who sympathize with your theology) Not so much.

    - Peace
     
    #14 preacher4truth, Aug 7, 2011
  15. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    One more thing, Jesus didn't say it was "more difficult" for the rich to be saved (than others?) as you say in your OP:

    Mat_19:23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Mat_19:24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    Mat_27:57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus.

    Mar_10:25 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    I don't see here Jesus saying it is more difficult for them than anyone else to be saved. I think you missed His point here.

    Jesus was making a point with this illustration, and it doesn't say what you want it to say.

    Is there a passage that says it more difficult for the rich to be saved than anyone else? This is your implication by the stated OP, it definitely implues it is more difficult for them than others.

    If you attempt to say there are, and show me what he must "do" by selling all he has, then you're preaching works salvation in that view, and again missing the point. I'm certain you don't believe in works based salvation.
     
    #15 preacher4truth, Aug 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2011
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    These are means to salvation ,or damnation...we are not robots, or puppets as AIC likes to say.....either sign given is a great blessing...or a great curse.
    To whom much is given, much is required.
     
    #16 Iconoclast, Aug 7, 2011
  17. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,917
    Likes Received:
    2,133
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All you need to do is read on a couple of verses. 'With men it is impossible, but not for God; for with God all things are possible' (Mark 10:27). If it were up to man, no rich person would ever be saved. But praise God for irresistible grace, He can save even rich folks like you and me. :godisgood:

    Steve
     
    #17 Martin Marprelate, Aug 7, 2011
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    We all agree that without God salvation would be impossible, so I'm not sure how this addresses the question of the OP.

    Nor would any poor man for that matter. So, why the distinction?
     
    #18 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Icon, please learn to use the quote feature. You make it difficult to reply to your posts. If you can change the color of your words, it is just as easy to put mine in quotes and leave yours out.
    Which accomplishes what exactly? Means have a purpose and I'm asking what purpose does this means serve?

    I asked: Isn't their natural condition enough of a hindrance? We know from Calvinistic teaching that they were chosen or passed over because of their wealth,

    That changes nothing. Those chosen according to Calvinism weren't chosen with their wealth as a condition, thus the question is the same regardless of why God passed over the others.

    Why? Just because you say so? This is not an argument, it is just another way of saying, "You have thought of an argument we don't have an answer for so I'll dismiss it as you over thinking stuff."

    Means that accomplish WHAT in the salvation process exactly?

    Means that accomplish what in the damnation process exactly?

    I agree, we are free moral creatures, but that doesn't answer the question being posed.

    So, how do you require much of someone who is not elect and is born totally depraved since they have been given virtually NOTHING?
     
    #19 Skandelon, Aug 7, 2011
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,513
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The word 'saved' [sozo] in this context is referring to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God, not to the eternal state of the soul, i.e., BEFORE one can see the kingdom of God one must be born from above. Sozo, in this passage, is not synonymous with the birth from above or the acquisition of the free gift of eternal life.

    Reference Jn 3:21: “But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.” Take note, this young man ran to Christ, and kneeled to Him, and Christ loved him; Edersheim says, “He loved him - as He loves those that are His own”. And when this young man replies, “Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth”, there's no reason to question his sincerity, or the truthfulness of it, Christ didn't.

    Christ said to him, “If thou wouldest be perfect [not acquire eternal life], go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”

    Again, Edersheim sheds light on this: “We need scarcely here recall the almost extravagant language in which Rabbinism describes the miseries of poverty; Many sayings might here be quoted. It was worse than all the plagues of Egypt put together (Babha B. 116 a); than all other miseries (Betsah 32 b); the worst affliction that could befall a man (Shem. R. 31).] we can understand his feelings without that.....Rabbinism had never asked this; if it demanded almsgiving, it was in odious boastfulness; To make a merit of giving up riches for Christ is, surely, the Satanic caricature of the meaning of His teaching.] while it was declared even unlawful to give away all one's possessions [a Arach. viii.4.], at most, only a fifth of them might be dedicated. [b Kethub. 50 a.]”

    In other words, this young man not only loved his riches, but he had been taught all his life that it was unlawful to give all his riches away.

    It doesn't matter with the Spirit of God, He Blows where He wills.

    Of course not.

    "The Calvinistic system" is in agreement with Christ, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.”
     
    #20 kyredneck, Aug 8, 2011
Page 1 of 9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...