Featured Easier?

Ok, let me stop you right there. If they are all born totally depraved then why would it be necessary for God to 'specifically arrange' anything to 'preoccupy' them so as to prevent them from coming to repentance? They are BORN unable to come according to Calvinism, so why does he make such arrangements? Why does he speak in parables, etc?

I know why. He doesn't want them to repent at that time. Many of the same people who yelled "Crucify Him!" are the same ones who come to faith in Acts 2 after the powerful gospel is preached and the HS is poured out. Prior to that the people were clearly being blinded from the truth about who Christ was.

That wasn't the point I was making. I was referring to Christ used of a child as an example of what we must become like in order to enter the kingdom. Children are hardened. They are lost, and in need of reconciliation, but not hardened. "Do not let your hearts GROW hardened."

Not really. I understand that Calvinists affirm the need for means...i.e. an elect man must still hear the gospel in order to believe its message. But I'm asking about the PURPOSE of such means as envy, which is said to PROVOKE their wills. Why provoke the will of a totally depraved person? What will that accomplish? Nothing according to your system. Signs and wonders will accomplish nothing in your system. They can't convince anyone unless they are first regenerated, thus the purpose of such means is lost. They serve NO real purpose.

Its natural to think that someone who disagrees with you just 'doesn't get it.' In fact, I'm feeling much the same way about you. But I was Calvinistic for about a decade of my life. Some doubt the reality of this as they can't grasp the concept that someone might understand a position but actually chose to reject it. In my experience, very few Calvinists actually understand the scholarly perspective of their opponents. They came out of ignorance into their understanding of Calvinism and really have never explored any of the other alternative interpretations of their proof texts.

For example, most Cals I know today still think that all scholarly non-Cals believe that God looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe in Christ and then elects to save them. If that was the only alternative view to Calvinism then I'd still be one today.

 

Reductio ad absurdum (yet another fallacy)

 

So, you don't affirm the typical Calvinistic doctrine which teaches that one must first be born again to come to faith and repentance?

 

Laughing so hard I can hardly hit these impossibly tiny iPhone letters!

 

It doesn't make any difference if you are rich or poor in God's eyes, because as Jesus said "with man it's impossible, but with God all things are possible. Jesus was saying that salvation is impossible apart from God's intervention. Now from our perspective, being rich is a hindrance because the more we have, the less we depend on God.

Matthew 19:25-26 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

When Jesus said "with men it is impossible", He was responding to the question "who can be saved?".

That is the whole point Jesus was making (IMO). It is impossible to be saved on our own. God must do it.
In other words, left up to man, no one would be saved.

If anything, this proves Calvinism.

 

We all affirm the need of God's intervention, but we are disagreeing as to ones response to God's appeal to be reconciled. A rich, educated, successful man, one who may be serving the master of mammon, may be less willing to 'humble himself' and leave that master. Where as the prostitute who is destitute, broken and alone may be more willing to cry out for help. When each of these is approached with the gospel appeal they must respond.

In the Calvinistic view they are on equal grounds in that they are both "totally depraved" and unable to respond unless first regenerated and if chosen will certainly be saved, so their wealth, state of mind, and circumstances really don't matter. Yet, the scriptures seem to suggest such things DO matter. That is the problem that Calvinists are not dealing with here...

 

Your Calvinist problem is a non-problem because it is a problem of your own making.

The fact is that the PERICOPE (you do know that big fancy theological term, right?) extends to Jesus conclusion of the matter... With man that is impossible, but with God all things are possible. In the direct context of the ENTIRE CONVERSATION, Jesus was pointing out the simple fact that salvation is of God and not of man.

Because you equivocate "election" with "salvation" you fail to understand the nuance -- wait, let me rephrase that, you DO understand the nuance, but you fail to grasp the fact that God DRIVES that nuance -- that stipulates that NO human issue is greater or lessor cause for God's salfic actions on behalf of any given human being.

Whenever one takes a saying of Jesus out of the entire context of the discussion they are apt to arrive at a totally false conclusion. Almost as if they are in the same boat with the Scribes and Pharisses of Jesus day in their inability to grasp what Christ was actually saying in His parables and teachings. :thumbs:

 

Agreed :thumbs:

 

From a DoG perspective, in what way is it more difficult for a rich man to go to heaven? More difficult than what? The disciples were happy because they had given up everything unlike the rich man. God equates their action as an effect of faith that results in eternal rewards.

 

Tradition posits that the rich man actually did give up everything, and his name was Barnabas. Don't know if it's true or not, but if true it was because all things are possible with God.

 

[snipped - inflammatory and personal. Stick to the topic.]

 

Its all perspective. Just a chapter before Jesus said, "With faith all things are possible." But does that suggest that one can be saved apart from God? Of course not. The point is that there are some things which hinder someone humbling accepting that they need help, and need to believe in a savior. Being a slave of money is one of those things which Jesus points out here and in many other texts. That truth cannot be denied, but Calvinism attempts to do that by suggesting that such things don't make any difference because God's work is irresistible regardless of ones wealth or other circumstances. That is just not biblically supported.

One must rely on Christ for salvation and 'strong,' educated, rich people see such things as a 'crutch' or a weakness (i.e. our current president). This can prevent them from humbling themselves as scripture calls us to do. It is really that simple.

 

I can assure you that attitude is prevalent among all atheists, rich or poor. It's an attitude of arrogance which says only the stupid and weak seek God.

The reason Jesus used the rich as an example is because the Jewish belief that having riches meant God's blessing was upon them. The whole discussion Jesus had with the disciples about this must be seen in a Jewish context.

 

[snipped]
Can we get a moderator in here to break these guys up?

 

I agree that pride can be found in all classes of people, but according to this text and others those who are rich, wise, learned (by the worlds standard) have greater issues to overcome in this regard for obvious reasons.

Children on the other hand are used as an example of humility and openness. Why? If they are born totally depraved in the manner suggested by Calvinists then what difference does their age make? Age, like wealth, affects ones perspective and openness to receive the gospel. This is not only proven biblically, but by experience. Most people who follow Christ testify that they came to Christ early in life. Any one who works with kids knows this to be true, especially in comparison to those who have grown calloused by a life of rituals and rebellion as the Jews of Christ's day had.

 

I was an adult when I was saved. I had no Christian upbringing. God sought me. I did not seek Him.

I also have known many people who "thought" they were saved as children, but they only did what was expected of them and realized as adults they were not committed to Christ. Why do you think so many youth are leaving the church?

 

Partially true, but moreso He placed before you circumstances for you to seek Him. Acts 17:26-27.

This doesn't mean they were not saved as children, however, it means their spiritual growth occurred much later.

 

That is great. But not near as common as I'm sure you know.

No one would deny that. God is certainly in the business of seeking and saving that which is lost.

Many are turned off by the perceived hypocrisy of religious organizations etc, but yes there are many who through times of rebellion from the faith of their parents, but studies also show that many come back after they become married and have kids. Others go to 'house churches' and places that don't do record keeping etc so they appear to 'drop out' but are actually more engaged in real relationship than some others in the bigger more established traditional churches. But that is a whole other topic.