glfredrick
New Member
I am asking him for a reason...
-
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!
Easier?
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
I am asking him for a reason...
It doesn't change what you posted.
When does the Bible ever say its easy for the elect to enter the kingdom of God? Was it easy for Christ? Was it easy for Paul? Was it easy for the martyrs? Who's it easy for? Is it easy for you Winman?
(Acts 14:21-23) After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
(Acts 14:21-23) After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Is this a joke? If men are elected unconditionally by God, and if all God elects are drawn irresistibly by God to believe in Jesus, then why should it be more difficult for a rich man to be saved than a poor man?
You know very well that this scripture is a problem for Calvinism. If Unconditional Election is true, then it should not matter whether a person is rich, poor, good, evil, or whatever. All elect would be equally saved.
So what if a rich man is more proud than a poor man in your system? Effectual Grace will overcome that easily. Was Jesus saying it is more difficult for God to save a rich man than a poor man? Absurd! And why would Jesus single out rich people in this passage? Why didn't he say it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for "any man" to enter the kingdom?
You know very well Jesus is saying it is more difficult for a rich person to be saved, that is the whole lesson of the story of the young rich ruler. He went away sorrowful because he had great possessions.
This story refutes Calvinsim and you know it.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Winman,
Of course you are right on this point. Likewise, the signs and wonders that Christ said would have caused the ancient cities to repent wouldn't have really done a thing if Calvinism is true. (ref. Matt 11:21)
And the parables that Jesus used to prevent the Scribes and Pharisees from repenting and being healed were completely unnecessary if Calvinism is true. (ref Mark 4; Matt 13)
So too, provoking the Jews to envy so as to save some would be useless, because what would provoking their will by envy accomplish that the work of irresistible grace doesn't? (ref. Rom 11:14)
There are countless such examples of how Calvinism simply does not fit within the overall teaching of the scriptures.
Of course you are right on this point. Likewise, the signs and wonders that Christ said would have caused the ancient cities to repent wouldn't have really done a thing if Calvinism is true. (ref. Matt 11:21)
And the parables that Jesus used to prevent the Scribes and Pharisees from repenting and being healed were completely unnecessary if Calvinism is true. (ref Mark 4; Matt 13)
So too, provoking the Jews to envy so as to save some would be useless, because what would provoking their will by envy accomplish that the work of irresistible grace doesn't? (ref. Rom 11:14)
There are countless such examples of how Calvinism simply does not fit within the overall teaching of the scriptures.
What in the world does this verse have to do with Luke 18:24-25?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Think about? If you think I would have any issue with that verse then you don't know much about what I believe.
You probably spin in it into a support for the sovereignty of the human will, along with Romans 9, and the incident in which Christ says the rich would never be saved aside from the divine intervention of God.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Based on this response I suspect you don't know what non-Calvinistic scholars actually teach about Romans 9 or the other 'proof texts' used to support Calvinism, right?
This post answered the question. Well stated.
On Luke 18 though, someone in the thread said that wealth was associated with God's favor by the Jews, and now that I think of it, this explains the reaction of the Apostles, "Who then can be saved". I always wondered about that, but evidently their thinking is, "If its impossible even for the Rich, then what about us?"
So Christ wasn't singling out the rich apparently, but implicitly referencing everyone, when he remarked on how hard it was for even the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is especially clear in the version recorded in Mark:
(Mark 10:23-30) And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus *answered again and *said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 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."
They were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?"
Looking at them, Jesus *said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
Peter began to say to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You."
Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
So, commenting on how its hard for everyone, Christ says that even if you've left all, you will still face persecution.
But anyway, the implication is apparently that its impossible for everyone - even the rich - to be saved, aside from God sheperding his own to his eternal Kingdom.
It occurs to me also that the noncal position is most consisent with the conception of Salvation as a one-time "decision" made by an individual, instantaneously leading to eternal security.
This is oblivious to the conception of Salvation as a lifelong process - but one wrought by God.
So Christ wasn't singling out the rich apparently, but implicitly referencing everyone, when he remarked on how hard it was for even the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is especially clear in the version recorded in Mark:
(Mark 10:23-30) And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus *answered again and *said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 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."
They were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?"
Looking at them, Jesus *said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
Peter began to say to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You."
Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
So, commenting on how its hard for everyone, Christ says that even if you've left all, you will still face persecution.
But anyway, the implication is apparently that its impossible for everyone - even the rich - to be saved, aside from God sheperding his own to his eternal Kingdom.
It occurs to me also that the noncal position is most consisent with the conception of Salvation as a one-time "decision" made by an individual, instantaneously leading to eternal security.
This is oblivious to the conception of Salvation as a lifelong process - but one wrought by God.
It does not answer why Jesus said;
Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
These verses do not make sense if Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace are true. If Unconditional Election is true, it doesn't matter if a man is rich or poor, good or evil, wise or foolish, if God elects them they will be saved. Calvinism states that God elects a man outside of anything in the man himself.
And if Irresistible Grace is true, if God elects a rich man that man will be irresistibly drawn and enabled to believe just like any other elect person.
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, these scriptures absolutely refute Unconditional Election. Being rich or poor makes no difference if God elects a man outside of anything in the man himself.
Last edited by a moderator:
So what was he saying then?
Winman you apparently didn't see my post #23 or are failing to see the conception of salvation as a process being referenced in Luke 18 and the parallel passages from the gospels. Certainly Christ was of the "elect" wasn't he (in a sense). In a sense, he was the most elect of anyone - how hard was it for him? Was there any chance he would have given in to Satan? Even if not - was it easy for him?
How hard was it for the apostles, all of whom aside from John I believe were executed. And regarding the one apostle who wasn't saved, Judas Iscariot, who did not enter, the Bible makes it clear repeatedly that he was foreordained for this fate. (I won't bring up all the numerous passages on that point, unless you challenge me on it.)
The fact that Christ is demanding that the Rich ruler give up all his worldly goods means we are to view entering the Kingdom of God in a broader context, not in the context of a one-time decision for Christ or what have you.
How hard was it for the apostles, all of whom aside from John I believe were executed. And regarding the one apostle who wasn't saved, Judas Iscariot, who did not enter, the Bible makes it clear repeatedly that he was foreordained for this fate. (I won't bring up all the numerous passages on that point, unless you challenge me on it.)
The fact that Christ is demanding that the Rich ruler give up all his worldly goods means we are to view entering the Kingdom of God in a broader context, not in the context of a one-time decision for Christ or what have you.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Yes, and such exhibits its manmade and thus imperfect nature. The fact that it holds preeminence for so many is evidence of a deeper issue. Those Calvinists who do not focus on it, such as, e.g. Al Mohler, demonstrate a degree of commendableness not present in the others.
This is a quite a tangent here, but just occurs to me:
The two on the cross on either side of Jesus - why did one "accept" Christ and not the other? One evidently considered it plausible enough that Christ was God, to ask him seriously, "If you're the Son of God then get us all out of this!" The other was intuitively drawn in another way, to the eternal kingdom, to implore Christ merely to "remember" him when he came into his Kingdom. What distinguished the two criminals - some spur-of-the-moment decision? Or in one of them rather was there already something intrinsic, put there by God, that made them drawn to the Savior as one of his own, something inherent in his nature that no act of the human "will" could ever conjure up on its own.
The two on the cross on either side of Jesus - why did one "accept" Christ and not the other? One evidently considered it plausible enough that Christ was God, to ask him seriously, "If you're the Son of God then get us all out of this!" The other was intuitively drawn in another way, to the eternal kingdom, to implore Christ merely to "remember" him when he came into his Kingdom. What distinguished the two criminals - some spur-of-the-moment decision? Or in one of them rather was there already something intrinsic, put there by God, that made them drawn to the Savior as one of his own, something inherent in his nature that no act of the human "will" could ever conjure up on its own.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
I would submit that both thieves had the same opportunity to believe: one accepted and one rejected. That'll preach, brother! Whosoever will, let him come!
I just want to back away a bit from my own interpretation starting in #23, to the effect its hard for everyone to enter the Kingdom of God, as for example even Acts 14:22 says that verbatim. And also, certainly there is a sense in Christ's discourse in which it being hard for the rich is emblematic of it being hard for everybody, at least its clear that's how the Apostles were interpreting what he was saying. And also passages like in Act 14 above clearly depict salvation as a process extending over time. However, Christ does say above that everyone who has left all their possessions like this for the sake of the Kingdom will receive eternal life, and clearly that is something that would be difficult the more rich you are. But Christ says flat out its so hard as to be effectively impossible. So that's the crux of it - he doesn't say its hard - he says its impossible.
So how does it being impossible for certain people to be saved contradict Calvinism.
As far as the rich there is a passage in the Old Testament, actually a handful, where it talks about the wealthy and godless, and how God occupies them with gladness of heart specifically so they won't ever come to repentance. As soon as I find it I will post it.
So how does it being impossible for certain people to be saved contradict Calvinism.
As far as the rich there is a passage in the Old Testament, actually a handful, where it talks about the wealthy and godless, and how God occupies them with gladness of heart specifically so they won't ever come to repentance. As soon as I find it I will post it.