Easier?

[Martin Marprelate]

Then Jesus said "How hardly" can they that have riches enter the kingdom of heaven, and that it was "easier" for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a "rich man" to enter heaven.

This passage and Jesus himself was speaking of the great difficulty of a rich person being saved. Yes, it is not impossible, but it is difficult.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of what the passage is saying. The Lord Jesus tells us explicitly that with men it is impossible, not difficult.

This does not agree with Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

It agrees with it absolutely and is the only possible sensible understanding of the pasage. If God did not elect unconditionally and call irresistibly, no rich man would ever be saved. (Actually no one at all would be saved, because we're all rich in the sense that we all have things we don't want to give up for the Gospel.

And if Irresistible Grace is true, then a rich man (if he is one of the elect) will get saved as easily and surely as any other elect person. In fact, it will be impossible for him not to be saved. And it would be easy, God does everything for him.

As someone else has pointed out, you are confusing Calvin with his evil younger brother, Hypercalvin. Yes, all God's elect will be saved, but they won't get saved without hearing the Gospel and they won't get saved without repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. This is so hard for rich folk (and proud folk and stubborn folk and intellectual folk and wordly-wise folk etc., etc.) that if it weren't for God's free electing grace they would never make it to heaven. Praise God for Free Grace! :thumbs:

I am amazed that you cannot see how this passage refutes both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

I am amazed that you can't see that this passage necessitates Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

Steve

 

[HankD]

Please go back and read my last post.

It is a response that shows that even the "elect" can have a difficult time coming to Christ during the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

The difficulty is with our human preception on our side of salvation not with God's ability or degree of difficulty.

I gave the example of the publican in the temple beating his breast and crying out "God have mercy on me the sinner". That doesn't sound as if he was having an easy time of it, yet he went home justified.

Paul aslo resisting with Christ revealing Himself to him and asking Paul about the difficulty of kicking against the goads.

This is neither from the C or A point of view but what can actually happen in the Triune work of salvation (conviction, justification, sanctification).

On the other hand, youngsters who have not drunk deeply of the dregs of sin often times have very mild reproval of sin.

I was saved later in life while in the military and I had a very difficult time of it until I caved in (or was made to cave in).


HankD

 

[jbh28]

It did not answer the question at all. If men are elected unconditionally before they are even born, being rich or poor has no bearing over whether they will be saved. And if the elect are called by effectual and irresistible grace, no love of riches or any other factor will prevent them from being saved.

Icon's post agrees with the non-Cal view and refutes the Cal positiion.

No, his answer was the correct answer. you just don't like it.

icon's post doesn't refute any Calvinist position. i'm not sure what Calvinist position you think it refutes.

 

[Winman]

What you are saying is the exact opposite of what the passage is saying. The Lord Jesus tells us explicitly that with men it is impossible, not difficult.


It agrees with it absolutely and is the only possible sensible understanding of the pasage. If God did not elect unconditionally and call irresistibly, no rich man would ever be saved. (Actually no one at all would be saved, because we're all rich in the sense that we all have things we don't want to give up for the Gospel.

As someone else has pointed out, you are confusing Calvin with his evil younger brother, Hypercalvin. Yes, all God's elect will be saved, but they won't get saved without hearing the Gospel and they won't get saved without repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. This is so hard for rich folk (and proud folk and stubborn folk and intellectual folk and wordly-wise folk etc., etc.) that if it weren't for God's free electing grace they would never make it to heaven. Praise God for Free Grace! :thumbs:

I am amazed that you can't see that this passage necessitates Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

Steve

Pure baloney.

If Calvinism is true, then it wouldn't matter what the man is, rich or poor, proud or humble, if God elects him he will be irresistibly saved. It would not be anymore difficult for a rich elect man to be saved than a poor elect man, both men will be saved when God effectually calls them, they cannot resist.

 

[jbh28]

And surely Jesus wasn't saying it was a more difficult task for God to save a rich person than a poor person. That would be absurd.

So what was he saying then?

I didn't see a reply to this...

 

[jbh28]

Pure baloney.

If HYPER Calvinism is true, then it wouldn't matter what the man is, rich or poor, proud or humble, if God elects him he will be irresistibly saved. It would not be anymore difficult for a rich elect man to be saved than a poor elect man, both men will be saved when God effectually calls them, they cannot resist.

I fixed it for you...Election as Icon said isn't without the means.

 

[Skandelon]

Please go back and read my last post.

It is a response that shows that even the "elect" can have a difficult time coming to Christ during the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

The difficulty is with our human preception on our side of salvation not with God's ability or degree of difficulty.

I gave the example of the publican in the temple beating his breast and crying out "God have mercy on me the sinner". That doesn't sound as if he was having an easy time of it, yet he went home justified.

Paul aslo resisting with Christ revealing Himself to him and asking Paul about the difficulty of kicking against the goads.

This is neither from the C or A point of view but what can actually happen in the Triune work of salvation (conviction, justification, sanctification).

On the other hand, youngsters who have not drunk deeply of the dregs of sin often times have very mild reproval of sin.

I was saved later in life while in the military and I had a very difficult time of it until I caved in (or was made to cave in).


HankD

While still a weak answer in my opinion I think this is the strongest of all the answers to these arguments. At least it honestly acknowledges the 'difficulty' and addresses the argument instead of pretending it doesn't exist, as some do.

I still think this undermines the most obvious reading of the text, nevertheless at least its an answer. :thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

I fixed it for you...Election as Icon said isn't without the means.

As usual, you try to walk the fence. It can't be done. You can't say Irresistible Grace is both resistible and irresistible, but that is what you and others are trying to do. If God calls a person with effectual irresistible grace that man will immediatelly become willing to believe, whether he is rich or poor, whether he is a good man by man's standard, or the most evil person on earth, whether he is proud like Pharaoh, or humble like Moses. He will be instantly regenerated and become willing to believe with no effort on his part whatsoever.

Isn't that what you teach? Salvation is all of God? The man plays no part whatsoever? If so, it would not matter if a man is rich, if God has elected him and irresistibly calls him, he will immediately become willing.

You are inconsistent with your own doctrine. Hyper Calvinists at one time were called Consistent Calvinists, because they held true to the doctrine. You are trying to be both a Calvinist and and Arminian, it is Arminians that say God's grace can be resisted. Now you are agreeing with them.

 

[jbh28]

As usual, you try to walk the fence. It can't be done. You can't say Irresistible Grace is both resistible and irresistible, but that is what you and others are trying to do. If God calls a person with effectual irresistible grace that man will immediatelly become willing to believe, whether he is rich or poor, whether he is a good man by man's standard, or the most evil person on earth, whether he is proud like Pharaoh, or humble like Moses. He will be instantly regenerated and become willing to believe with no effort on his part whatsoever.

Isn't that what you teach? Salvation is all of God? The man plays no part whatsoever? If so, it would not matter if a man is rich, if God has elected him and irresistibly calls him, he will immediately become willing.

You are inconsistent with your own doctrine. Hyper Calvinists at one time were called Consistent Calvinists, because they held true to the doctrine. You are trying to be both a Calvinist and and Arminian, it is Arminians that say God's grace can be resisted. Now you are agreeing with them.

i'm not inconsistent. Actually, all calvinist except for hypers would say that God's grace can be resisted. Irresistible grace is a terrible term and doesn't reflect the doctrine correctly. You should know that by now. You just don't like what we say because you can't get your fake point across. It's ok.

"Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do - but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non-elect effectively resist Him all their lives." - http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

 

[Winman]

i'm not inconsistent. Actually, all calvinist except for hypers would say that God's grace can be resisted. Irresistible grace is a terrible term and doesn't reflect the doctrine correctly. You should know that by now. You just don't like what we say because you can't get your fake point across. It's ok.

"Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do - but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non-elect effectively resist Him all their lives." - http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

I understand what the word "irresistible" means. You may say it is an unfortunate term, but it is the term Calvinists have used for hundreds of years.

Here is a definition from a Calvinist.

Irresistible Grace (or the Efficacious Call of the Spirit)

Although the general outward call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, the special inward call of the Spirit never fails to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made. This special call is not made to all sinners, but is issued to the elect only. The Spirit is in no way dependent upon their help or cooperation for success in his work of bringing them to Christ. It is for this reason that Calvinists speak of the Spirit’s call and of God’s grace in saving sinners as being “efficacious,” “invincible,” or “irresistible.” The grace which the Holy Spirit extends to the elect cannot be thwarted or refused; it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ.

I know all about your concept of a "general call" that this author speaks of. But if God elects a rich man and calls him by his "special inward call of the Spirit" as this author puts it, this call NEVER FAILS to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made.

Notice this author (Joel Barnes) says that the Spirit is in no way dependent upon the elect person's help or COOPERATION for success in bringing that person to Christ. So it matters not whether the person is proud or stubborn, the Holy Spirit is not dependent upon the man's cooperation.

The only one it could be difficult for is God, the man plays no part in his salvation whatsoever. To say it would be difficult for God to regenerate a man because he is rich is laughable to say the least.

You are trying to walk the fence. Someday you will fall off, you should decide now which side you want to be on.

 

[jbh28]

I understand what the word "irresistible" means. You may say it is an unfortunate term, but it is the term Calvinists have used for hundreds of years.

Here is a definition from a Calvinist.



I know all about your concept of a "general call" that this author speaks of. But if God elects a rich man and calls him by his "special inward call of the Spirit" as this author puts it, this call NEVER FAILS to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made.

Notice this author (Joel Barnes) says that the Spirit is in no way dependent upon the elect person's help or COOPERATION for success in bringing that person to Christ. So it matters not whether the person is proud or stubborn, the Holy Spirit is not dependent upon the man's cooperation.

The only one it could be difficult for is God, the man plays no part in his salvation whatsoever. To say it would be difficult for God to regenerate a man because he is rich is laughable to say the least.

You are trying to walk the fence. Someday you will fall off, you should decide now which side you want to be on.

Is it more difficult for God to save a rich person than a poor person? you still have avoided answering this.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Is it more difficult for God to save a rich person than a poor person? you still have avoided answering this.

The original question was not whether it was hard for God but whether it was hard for the rich man, which are Jesus' own words, not Winman's.

 

[jbh28]

The original question was not whether it was hard for God but whether it was hard for the rich man, which are Jesus' own words, not Winman's.

I know that. I'm responding to something that Winman said.

 

[percho]

Jesus did not say there would not be any rich in the kingdom of God.
No one asked him, well, what about the poor. May have gotten the same answer.

I believe that particular person was of the elect and will be in the kingdom of God.

One thing for sure he would have to be born again and he'll have about as much to do with being born of the Spirit as he had to do with being born of the flesh.

 

[Winman]

Is it more difficult for God to save a rich person than a poor person? you still have avoided answering this.

Generally, yes. A rich person tends to be proud and self reliant. It is more difficult generally to convince a rich person they are on the wrong track, their success convinces them otherwise. The pleasure that riches brings also makes it more difficult to convince a rich man to give them up, and serves as a continual temptation.

But that is exactly the point, if Calvinism were true, none of this would be true, the very moment God applies his effectual irresistible grace that rich person would immediately become willing as any other man. It would make no difference if he was rich or how enslaved he was to the pleasures of sin, he would that moment become willing. If this is how God's grace works, it would be no more difficult to save a rich man than any other man.

And if men are elected unconditionally as Calvinism teaches, it would not matter whatsoever if a man is rich. If God has elected him, he will be saved. God will apply his irresistible grace to this elect rich man and he will instantly be saved, just as easily as any other elect person, whether they be rich or poor.

When I said it would be laughable to believe it would be more difficult for God to save a rich man, I was speaking from the Calvinist perspective and assuming UE and IG were true (which neither are true). You believe God supernaturally regenerates the man, it would make no difference what he was before, rich or poor. It is like a fairy tale, one wave of the magic wand and he would be transformed from a frog into a prince.

 

[glfredrick]

Generally, yes. A rich person tends to be proud and self reliant. It is more difficult generally to convince a rich person they are on the wrong track, their success convinces them otherwise. The pleasure that riches brings also makes it more difficult to convince a rich man to give them up, and serves as a continual temptation.

But that is exactly the point, if Calvinism were true, none of this would be true, the very moment God applies his effectual irresistible grace that rich person would immediately become willing as any other man. It would make no difference if he was rich or how enslaved he was to the pleasures of sin, he would that moment become willing. If this is how God's grace works, it would be no more difficult to save a rich man than any other man.

And if men are elected unconditionally as Calvinism teaches, it would not matter whatsoever if a man is rich. If God has elected him, he will be saved. God will apply his irresistible grace to this elect rich man and he will instantly be saved, just as easily as any other elect person, whether they be rich or poor.

When I said it would be laughable to believe it would be more difficult for God to save a rich man, I was speaking from the Calvinist perspective and assuming UE and IG were true (which neither are true). You believe God supernaturally regenerates the man, it would make no difference what he was before, rich or poor. It is like a fairy tale, one wave of the magic wand and he would be transformed from a frog into a prince.

Simply put, you are arguing against a strawman version of Calvinism.

Calvinism does not disavow the free moral agency of human beings. It merely states that God already knows the decisions.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Simply put, you are arguing against a strawman version of Calvinism.

Calvinism does not disavow the free moral agency of human beings. It merely states that God already knows the decisions.

Then I guess I'm a Calvinist. I need to go change my answer on that survey!

 

[revmwc]

Simply put, you are arguing against a strawman version of Calvinism.

Calvinism does not disavow the free moral agency of human beings. It merely states that God already knows the decisions.

Not if you believe as a man I once knew. He said he had no choice in salvation that when he was supposed to trust Christ he couldn't resist. That noone who was chosen by God could resist and God had determined the time and day that they would be saved. The rich man and all men for that matter can resist and reject salvation.

One of the Divine institution is Volition. God gave man the ability to make the choice for or against salvation. The Holy Spirit brings conviction but a person can resist that conviction and continue in rejection of Christ.

Once they have chosen Christ they can never lose that Salvation, that is what is so Great about our God. We make a concious choice to believe on Christ and call on the name of the Lord and we have eternal life. Even when we fall back into sin we are still saved Praise God. Then we practice 1 John 1:9 instantly and we continue walking in the Spirit of God and if 1 John 1:9 isn't practiced we walk in Temporal death as believers until we do practice 1 John 1:9.

God has elected those He knows will choose positively for Him. He did not determine they would be saved, He foreknew the choice they would make and Predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

A great God we serve.

 

[HankD]

Another scenario:

Did not the Spirit of God lead the apostles about?

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.​

Paul also, his life was full of trouble and difficulties after coming to Christ.​

The Spirit could have arranged for them to have 1st class passage on luxury liners of the day, provided willing and attentive crowds to hear the gospel to be housed and fed sumptously and be escorted in style into the presence of kings, etc but instead there was pain and suffering.​

So also for many coming into the kingdom:​

Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.​

It's not a question of the manner in which we come into the kingdom but God's choice. Some today do enter with ease (children who are able to believe).​

It's not a question of calvinism or any other theological view but of the will of God.​

Easy or difficult it's all up to God and yes the human will is involved.​

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.​

John 1
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

IMO, the reasoning together happens between verses 11 and 12.

HankD​

 

[glfredrick]

Not if you believe as a man I once knew. He said he had no choice in salvation that when he was supposed to trust Christ he couldn't resist. That noone who was chosen by God could resist and God had determined the time and day that they would be saved. The rich man and all men for that matter can resist and reject salvation.

How does "a man I once knew" define a major doctrine like Calvinism. Anecdotal at best, pure intentional fallacy if we do not give the benefit of the doubt. I hear this "type" of argument constantly... "He believes, she believers" and yet no one actually turns to the recorded doctrines of the subject matter at hand -- and preferably those argued via scriptural exegesis. They exist. Search them out before taking a stand on a doctrine that is truly little understood.

One of the Divine institution is Volition. God gave man the ability to make the choice for or against salvation. The Holy Spirit brings conviction but a person can resist that conviction and continue in rejection of Christ.

I am a Calvinist and I agree with volitition. God is NOT deterministic in a fatalistic sense as is so often pressed in these debates. Of course, I neither wish to argue my own point of view lest I fall into the trap I just mentioned. The position of true Calvinism is that God allows His creatures free moral agency -- BUT -- that He ABSOLUTELY knows their every move, thought, word, deed, belief and that ALL OF THOSE already fit within the plan He wills for His Creation. To say less is to make God to be something other than God, and perhaps that is the intention. ANYTHING that moves God from a position on His throne as divine sovereign over all is an attack on that same God.

Once they have chosen Christ they can never lose that Salvation, that is what is so Great about our God. We make a concious choice to believe on Christ and call on the name of the Lord and we have eternal life. Even when we fall back into sin we are still saved Praise God. Then we practice 1 John 1:9 instantly and we continue walking in the Spirit of God and if 1 John 1:9 isn't practiced we walk in Temporal death as believers until we do practice 1 John 1:9.

Interestingly, every doctrine that gives human beings the POWER to make their own choice in the matter ALSO gives those same humans the POWER to reverse that choice. To suggest otherwise is to be logically inconsistent. But, I can understand why some would want their cake on a pedestal, but to slice and eat as well. Sorry... Doesn't work that way.

God has elected those He knows will choose positively for Him. He did not determine they would be saved, He foreknew the choice they would make and Predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

You have just SOLIDLY placed MAN upon the highest throne, for God cannot act of His own accord unless or until MAN decides. Placed in the terms I just used that equates to blasphemy and everyone knows it -- which is why the arguments are convoluted and encased in nuance instead of plainly made.

A great God we serve.

To that, I heartiy agree.