Easier?

[revmwc]

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.
He claaimed to be a Calvanist. That their former Pastor as a Calvanist taught it that way. Their are many who believe this. A pAstor I knew taught Calvanism the way this man believed it. Most folks associate Calvanism to this belief. When in the TULIP doctrine in Calvanism was developed after Calvans death by his followers. Calvin never taught that way but it is associated to his name because his followers became known as calvanist.


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.

But most folks like to bring in the TULIP's or DoG into these. The big problem most folks have is they assume if you say you are Calvnist they think 5 point. If one says they aren't Calvanist they are accused of being Arminian. There are many who are neither 5 pointers nor Arminian. I and it seems you fall into that catgory of not following the TULIP concept. God saves us by Grace and elects us due to foreknowledge.

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.

There in you missed the point. God has elected those who accept Christ How, by Baptism, Baptism of and with the Holy Spirit. That means when man has made the decision once to choose Christ and truly received Him that person is sealed by the power of God. Can one choose to fall away from service, Annaias and Sapphira did, Paul said the man living in sin though saved should be turned over to satan for destruction of the flesh yet the soul of that man was saved. God does the work of Salvation not man, but man must make the choice to accept or reject Christ.

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.

God is omnipotent He can do whatever He wills, guess what He willed that men should chose for Him or against Him in order to determine their eternal home. Interesting you say Paul was guilty of Blasphemy for He said in
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Seems Paul says God knew the choice someone would how did God foreknow us?

Proginosko:
to have knowledge before hand
to foreknow
of those whom God elected to salvation
to predestinate

See the very first thing the word means "to have knowledge before hand"
He knew you and I before hand, before we were born he knew us. He knew the choices we would make. He knew we would choose for Christ and because of that he did Predestinate us, He called us, he justified us and He glorified us, why because He knew us beforehand. How is that blasphemy? To see God as Omnicient and knowing us before hand. How is that placing man on the highest throne and not having God act of His own accord. His Omniscience in knowing our choice has lead to Him Presdestinating us. That is all the act of God. We could choose Him all day long and He wouldn't be obliged to save us, to call us, to elect us, but Because He is omniscient He did all those things based on his Knowing us Beforehand and rewarding us for the choice He knew before hand we would make.

My answers in BOLD

 

[glfredrick]

Wow revmwc... I'm sure that no Calvinist has ever had to deal with THOSE arguments before. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[revmwc]

Wow revmwc... I'm sure that no Calvinist has ever had to deal with THOSE arguments before. :smilewinkgrin:

It something how sure you get about things! I sure this debate has gone on for centuries and will until the Lord returns. Unless we have to come together to fight off persecution then this little debate will be just that a little issue.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

You seem determined not to understand. It is not difficult for a rich man to save himself (elect or not), it is impossible for him, just as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. But praise be! It is not impossible for God to save him, for though he may try to resist, as I did for the longest time, God is stronger.

Steve

 

[Amy.G]

You seem determined not to understand. It is not difficult for a rich man to save himself (elect or not), it is impossible for him, just as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. But praise be! It is not impossible for God to save him, for though he may try to resist, as I did for the longest time, God is stronger.

Steve

That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

 

[webdog]

You seem determined not to understand. It is not difficult for a rich man to save himself (elect or not), it is impossible for him, just as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. But praise be! It is not impossible for God to save him, for though he may try to resist, as I did for the longest time, God is stronger.

Steve

Jesus never said it is difficult to save himself, that is your spin on what Christ is saying. You seem determined not to understand the point winman is making.

 

[Skandelon]

Doesn't Jesus' teaching regarding how we cannot serve two masters help understand the clear intent of this text?

Why did the rich young ruler turn and walk away after expressing a desire to follow Jesus? "Because he was a man of great means." He had a lot to loose. And when he considered the cost of 'building the tower and going to war' (being His disciple) he decided the cost was too high for him and he chose to walk away. That cannot be anymore clear.

When he was held up to the standard of perfection he fell short and we all know the only alternative is relying completely on God's grace, something those who are wealthy are less likely to do because of their own self-sufficiency and pride. I know because it takes one to know one.

 

[jbh28]

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.

so from mans perspective, it would be more difficult. But not from God's perspective. It may take more work to convict the lost sinner, but the difficultly comes form mans side. Once God regenerates the heart, the sinner will come.

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.

From God's perspective, it's not more difficult. Nothing is really difficult with God.

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.

Moot point. Jesus isn't talking about election here.

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.

Again, you are arguing against hyper Calvinism and not Calvinism.

 

[Winman]

so from mans perspective, it would be more difficult. But not from God's perspective. It may take more work to convict the lost sinner, but the difficultly comes form mans side. Once God regenerates the heart, the sinner will come.

If it takes more work, then it is more difficult, even for God. The scriptures show God strives with men.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

This verse alone argues against Irresistible Grace, if God's grace is irresistible and invincible as that Calvinist author wrote, a man really cannot strive against God, he would be instantly overpowered. It would be like standing in front of a tank and trying to stop it, except that God is far more powerful than a tank.

From God's perspective, it's not more difficult. Nothing is really difficult with God.

Then why did God say he will not always strive with men? Sure sounds like a battle is going on to me.

Moot point. Jesus isn't talking about election here.
Again, you are arguing against hyper Calvinism and not Calvinism.

It is not moot. If God elected you before you were born, it would not matter if you became the richest, most evil, most proud, most arrogant and stubborn person on earth, the moment God applies his effectual grace (if Calvinism were true), you will instantly repent. You cannot resist, you must repent and believe.

It would not be difficult for God or for you if Calvinism is true. Like I wrote earlier, it would be like the fairy tales, God would wave his magic wand over you and you would instantly be transformed from a frog into a prince. I wouldn't be surprised if the persons who wrote this story got their idea from Calvinism and the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

If you are elect, even if you are rich you are going to instantly get saved the moment God applies irresistible grace to you, it would be no more difficult than saving any other man.

You can deny all you want, Jesus said it is more difficult for a rich person to be saved. This refutes both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

And Hyper Calvinists are simply consistent Calvinists. As Dr. Laurence M. Vance wrote;

The only proper use of the term hyper-Calvinist is in practice not profession. As one writer has said, "When we talk about 'hyper-Calvinism' we are not talking about the extending of Calvin's doctrines to a place beyond which he taught, but we are merely talking about an overemphasis on what he taught." [SIZE=-1]107[/SIZE] To say that Charles Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist and his predecessor John Gill was a hyper- Calvinist is to say that Spurgeon did not put the emphasis on Calvinism that Gill did. Spurgeon was just not as consistent as Gill, although he admits they were united in most of their beliefs:

Hyper Calvinists are consistent Calvinists who follow the doctrine where it logically leads. Moderate Calvinists are slightly ashamed and embarrassed by their doctrine and try to walk the fence between Calvinism and free will.

 

[revmwc]

The "eye of the needle" mentioned in the Bible, was one of the many gates providing passage through Jerusalem's massive walls. The "Needle Gate" was used when the city's main gates were closed at night. It was designed for security so that enemies could not simply ride into the city. The gate was so small, that a rich man would have to unload his camel and then with great effort, lead his camel through –a slow & difficult process. Jesus likened the process to entering heaven: we must come to God stripped of all our importance –a seemingly impossible task until we realize with God, all things are possible.

This was taught to me in my teens as to what the "eye of the Needle" was in which Jesus refered. I understand it hasn't been proven that the needle gate even existed. but according to some it did. With great effort the Camel passed through the "Eye of Needle" and with great effort the rich man gives up on his worldly efforts and his worldly desires and accepts Christ as His saviour. What is difficult for man is very much Possible for God.

 

[David Lamb]

Jesus never said it is difficult to save himself, that is your spin on what Christ is saying. You seem determined not to understand the point winman is making.

I think you must have misread Steve's words, Webdog. He didn't say that Jesus stated it is diffucult to save himself. He wrote (my emphasis)

It is not difficult for a rich man to save himself (elect or not), it is impossible for him, just as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
​

 

[Mark_13]

The camel must have free will if its hard for him to go through the eye of a needle because otherwise it would be a foregone conclusion he would go through. Anyone with me on this?

 

[Mark_13]

The "eye of the needle" mentioned in the Bible, was one of the many gates providing passage through Jerusalem's massive walls. The "Needle Gate" was used when the city's main gates were closed at night. It was designed for security so that enemies could not simply ride into the city. The gate was so small, that a rich man would have to unload his camel and then with great effort, lead his camel through –a slow & difficult process. Jesus likened the process to entering heaven: we must come to God stripped of all our importance –a seemingly impossible task until we realize with God, all things are possible.

This was taught to me in my teens as to what the "eye of the Needle" was in which Jesus refered. I understand it hasn't been proven that the needle gate even existed. but according to some it did. With great effort the Camel passed through the "Eye of Needle" and with great effort the rich man gives up on his worldly efforts and his worldly desires and accepts Christ as His saviour. What is difficult for man is very much Possible for God.

So, the camel had to be led through, one assumes he would never go through of his own accord, (whether an actual needle or this hypothesized "needle gate" which if it even existed was so small the Apostles wondered how anyone could be saved.)

-------------------

Camels are cantankerous in the extreme - but he would be dragged through that gate if need be, not just relinquished to his own devices.

Camels were something that was owned. They were livestock, they were beasts of burden. If the rich man is a camel, then who owns him.

 

[jonathan.borland]

But if a camel could actually go through some undiscovered gate called needle-eye then why did the disciples say it was impossible? Jesus probably then meant an actual threading needle. Maybe there were seamstresses nearby or something.

 

[glfredrick]

There being not one shred of evidence for an actual needle gate (newest presidential scandal perhaps?) points to the fact that Jesus was talking about a sewing needle -- and it is impossible for a camel to pass through that no matter what -- precisely His point...

 

[Skandelon]

I think everyone is making this much too difficult.

NNE, whether rich poor or middle class can save themselves. That is indeed impossible.

But, as Jesus just said one chapter earlier, "With faith all things are possible."

It is a given FACT according to scripture AND human experience that intelligent, successful, wealthy individuals often see religion and faith in God as a crutch and a weakness.

Of all people Calvinists should acknowledge this as one of their favorite proof texts says, "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

Now, the reason I reject that as a support verse for Calvinism is because on the one hand they claim election is "unconditional," and then they point to a verse which lists a condition (being weak) as proof. Are people chosen because they are weak or are the weak because they are chosen? It says he chooses the weak, which lends itself to suggest God chooses them based upon their weakness. ( i.e. "Humble yourselves and you will be exalted.")

 

[revmwc]

I think everyone is making this much too difficult.

NNE, whether rich poor or middle class can save themselves. That is indeed impossible.

But, as Jesus just said one chapter earlier, "With faith all things are possible."

It is a given FACT according to scripture AND human experience that intelligent, successful, wealthy individuals often see religion and faith in God as a crutch and a weakness.

Of all people Calvinists should acknowledge this as one of their favorite proof texts says, "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

Now, the reason I reject that as a support verse for Calvinism is because on the one hand they claim election is "unconditional," and then they point to a verse which lists a condition (being weak) as proof. Are people chosen because they are weak or are the weak because they are chosen? It says he chooses the weak, which lends itself to suggest God chooses them based upon their weakness. ( i.e. "Humble yourselves and you will be exalted.")

If one takes the illustration of the needle gate whether it was real or just a story we see what Jesus meant. The Holy Spirit draws or leads all of us to salvation for without His conviction of our sinful state no one says Jesus is Lord. No one will profess Christ except the Spirit leads.

Jesus said He had to be lifted up so all men could drawn to Him.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

We are not the children of God if we are not led by the Spirit of God:
Romans 8: 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The camel was led through the needle gate into the city.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it

Jesus was saying that the rich can be saved but it is difficult to draw them away from the cares of the world. Just as we must give up the cares of the world.

 

[glfredrick]

And Hyper Calvinists are simply consistent Calvinists. As Dr. Laurence M. Vance wrote;

Hyper Calvinists are consistent Calvinists who follow the doctrine where it logically leads. Moderate Calvinists are slightly ashamed and embarrassed by their doctrine and try to walk the fence between Calvinism and free will.

Winman, if your logic is true, then the contra position ends up as Pelagian. I'm sure that you might want to modify your stance.

There ARE in fact nuances between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism proper, just as there are between Pelagianism and some moderate position. Details matter. That's why we have the tenats of ordo salutis to explain the nuances between those details.



Romans 8:29–30 (ESV)
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified ...

Note that faith does not preceed foreknowing, nor does it preceed calling.

In the Reformed tradition, the ordo salutis is election / predestination, followed by evangelism, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is evangelism, followed by faith / election, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, and glorification.

There literally is no "camp" for those of a "non" persuasion, for they deny that there is a logical order of salvation and their ultimate theology is incoherent.

Titus 3:5 (ESV)
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Acts 26:18 (ESV)
18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Jude 24 (ESV) 24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,

Romans 5:9 (ESV) 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

 

[Mark_13]

There ARE in fact nuances between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism proper, just as there are between Pelagianism and some moderate position. Details matter. That's why we have the tenats of ordo salutis to explain the nuances between those details.

Romans 8:29–30 (ESV)
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified ...

Note that faith does not preceed foreknowing, nor does it preceed calling.

In the Reformed tradition, the ordo salutis is election / predestination, followed by evangelism, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is evangelism, followed by faith / election, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, and glorification.

There literally is no "camp" for those of a "non" persuasion, for they deny that there is a logical order of salvation and their ultimate theology is incoherent.

Very succinctly and well put - maybe common knowledge to some, but thanks for the review.

Just another verse to throw into the mix that occurs to me:

(John 10:16) "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

So on the general subject of livestock animals (e.g camels), i.e. the property of the shepherd, here we have sheep yet again. And Christ alludes to other sheep, i.e. the Gentiles, even though at the time his mission was still exclusively to the Jews. But he considers the Gentiles who will believe to be already his sheep, even though as the verse states they have not even heard his voice yet - though they will according to the passage.

And this same passage emphasizes very strongly that all these sheep, even those who have not yet been called, are in fact the property of the shepherd. This is clear as it talks earlier about hired hands that do not care about the sheep.

 

[jbh28]

And Hyper Calvinists are simply consistent Calvinists. As Dr. Laurence M. Vance wrote;



Hyper Calvinists are consistent Calvinists who follow the doctrine where it logically leads. Moderate Calvinists are slightly ashamed and embarrassed by their doctrine and try to walk the fence between Calvinism and free will.

Not at all. The "logical" end is filled with false premises. Please understand this. Taking something to the extreme isn't the same as taking something to the logical end. Why do you eat? Can you die before God let's you die? Why don't you jump off the empire state building. You can't die until it's time for you to die. See what happens when you take something to the extreme?