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

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Lucifer is not mentioned in the text, so I don't believe Jesus is making that distinction.

Jesus is addressing His disciples. His intention is to ensure they understand that God alone saves and having great wealth does not mean God has blessed you and you are going to heaven.

Jesus is not addressing the issue of unconditional election or effectual calling in this passage. There are other passages where He does, in fact, address these issues.

His purpose in this passage is to use the incident with the rich young man to teach His disciples important truths. God alone saves. Just because you are rich, doesn't mean you are going to heaven. It is clear from the disciples response that they believed that very thing, since they are amazed and asked "who then can be saved?".

The misconception that God blesses the rich and they are going to heaven is seen in the response of the disciples when they are amazed and say, "who then can be saved?". Clearly, they believed there was a connection between being rich and going to heaven. The disciples were making a connection between the financial status of the individual and being saved. Jesus was correcting that misunderstanding while putting the focus on the truth that God alone saves.

From previous posts with you I know that will not satisfy you. Instead of attempting to understand the passages in context, imho, you are simply looking for an opportunity to attack reformed theology.

I leave you, therefore, to your efforts.

peace to youraying:

 

When you assign to someone something they did not say, that is a close cousin to a lie.

It seems like with as much cutting and pasting as you do, you would at least check out what someone said before posting.

 

I don't argue for it; I simply state it. There it is in the word of God. Why don't you just read the text again?

'For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption-- that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."'1 Cor 1:26-31 (NKJV)

It seems to fall in exactly with Rom 9:14-15.

Steve

 

Ya think?

What's the context?

Oh yes, let's avoid that because it totally destroys your false notion that it is "more difficult" when the text never assumes nor says this.

But keep your proof-text, you'll need it to continue your erroneous endeavor to prove something Christ never said nor implied. You said it, not Him, but hey, as long as skan is "right."

God alone does all the saving, that is the point. Virtually "How then can man ever be saved?" (the disciples clearly stunned) "With man this is impossible, this is only possible with God." (Jesus making the clear point salvation is all Him) But Skan? No. He says it means it's "more difficult."

You're in grave error.

Carry on.

 

You're correct, it says what and whom God has chosen, yet being so plainly conveyed, as you show skan, it must be rejected, as his faulty OP must be correct.

These passages prove skans deficient interpretations (actually proof-text out of context) utterly flawed.

I assumed [snip - no reason to question another Christian integrity because you disagree with them] would allow him to lose his pride and admit the text of the OP doesn't support his theory that it is "more difficult." Salvation is not more difficult for one over another, for salvation is all of God. "With men, impossible (salvation) but only possible with God."

I was wrong about him, and the text is crystal clear.

 

It's extremely important here to adhere to Hodge's first rule of scripture interpretation; ”The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.” Edersheim shed much needed light on this passage CONCERNING THAT PLACE IN TIME, and you just brush it off. Not only did the young ruler love his riches but he had been taught all his life that it was unlawful to do what Christ had just told him to do.

“Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”. Gill makes some good points here:

“go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: not that either the law of God, or Gospel of Christ, require this to be done of all men, and at all times; for though it is a duty binding upon all, and always, to relieve the poor and the needy, yet a man is not obliged to give all that he has to them; see 2Co 8:11 nor does either legal or Christian perfection lie in doing this: a man may give all his goods to the poor and yet be destitute of the grace of God, 1Co 13:3 much less can such an action merit the heavenly treasure of eternal life. Nevertheless of some persons, and in some cases, it has been required, that they part with all their worldly substance, for the sake of Christ and his Gospel; as the apostles were called to leave all and follow Christ, as this man was also....”

...And by that you mean:

that difficulty to a rich man making it to heaven

or

that difficulty to a rich man avoiding eternity in hell
or

that difficulty to a rich man being born from above

or

that difficulty to a rich man obtaining the free gift of eternal life

I repeat from post #24, “If you have proposed in the OP that 'sozo' and/or 'entrance into the kingdom' to be synomynous with the birth from above or the acquisition of the free gift eternal life, the burden of proof is on you to show it to be so.” And you have not done that.

And post #32, “You're making birth from above and entering the kingdom synonymous. You've proposed it, prove it. Build your case.” And you have not done that.

And #33,”....and you've yet to show 'being saved' to be used in the eternal sense either. It's your proposal, prove it.” And you have not done that.

No matter how something like wealth might affect man's will, man's will has zilch to do with the birth from above, for it's "..not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

No matter how something like wealth or envy might affect man's will, man's will has zilch to do with the birth from above, for it's "..not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

FINALLY! A question that makes sense to me! Do you now understand that 'BEFORE one can even see OR enter into the kingdom of God, one must FIRST be born from above'?

“What is the difference regarding the difficulty of their "enter the kingdom?” For all the reasons you've been citing all along. It is a certain fact that His redeemed, born from above children are perfectly capable of having an evil heart of unbelief , which prevents them from entering into the 'land of milk and honey', 'the sabbath rest', 'the kingdom of heaven, which is here on earth, now.

 

Page 9...NOW will someone answer Skan's question without twisting, bending and contorting in avoiding the very simple question asked on page one, that amazingly nobody seems to understand...while holding to a pretty complex systematic theology?

 

My friend, I can't answer for him, but I'm sure he does.
For me and my soteriology, I see it plain. For so many wealthy folks they find their comfort and safety in self and what they have achieved. It could be harder for them to see themselves as a sinner headed for hell in the need of a Savior. God knew before the foundation of this world that I would use my volition to accept His free offer of salvation.
I've know many wealthy Christians and read of many other one such as J.C. Penney, but from witnessing I have found few of the wealth are interested in Jesus or at lease when I was talking to them. Some have accepted the offer of salvation then and later but most just want to get me out of their office or home as quick as they can.
So yes it could be harder for the wealthy to see a need for a Savior in how I see the Scriptures.

 

Just so that Webdog can assuage his conscience on this issue (and I might add, why doesn't HE answer?), I have actually answered, but I will recapitulate here:

Jesus draws no distinction, only that the wealthy SET THEMSELVES APART in the way they see God. "Hard" is not "impossible" and "with God all things are possible."

All of the above is true... Jesus said as much in the passage and we know as much from real world example. But none of those things necessarily exclude someone from the kingdom of God.

Ultimately, they do not matter, except as EXAMPLE TO US.

"But with God all things are possible" is your sticking point. Jesus was, in essence, refuting ANY man-centered attempt to justify their own salvific experience. As has been said here before, in the 1st century, the Jewish mindset focused on the wealthy being "blessed" by God and the poor not so much. We see a greater example of this worldview in the parable (or actuality, this is up for debate because it was the only "parable" where actual names are used) of Lazarus and the Rich Man and also in the Beatitudes, where Jesus taught with authority things that confounded the existing Jewish worldview, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." etc.

There is no ACTUAL hindrance to the salvation of rich or poor. It is as God decrees, when He decrees it, and in the manner in which He decrees it. To us, it may seem a hindrance, to God there is no hindrance, which Jesus made abundantly clear in context.

 

Maybe they are equating the 'difficulty' of a thing with the odds of a thing happening.
ie: God chose proportionately less rich people to be saved, therefore, statistically the odds are such that if you happen to be rich then it's going to be 'hard' for you to be saved because the odds are stacked against you.

 

How silly...I don't hold to unconditional election, so there is nothing for me to answer. Like I've said repeatedly, your reading comprehension skills are quite lacking making your line of work puzzling.

Case in point. Jesus clearly draws such a distinction in the text...it's as plain as day, yet you cannot (won't) comprehend it...and in doing so STILL do not answer Skan's question. :laugh:

 

I don't see Christ trying to woo this young man to accept him as his Saviour in order to gain eternal life, in fact Christ cites DOING THE LAW in response to the young ruler's question, “ what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” I repeat from my first post:

“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.””

I believe the evidence supports that the young ruler already belonged to the Lord, but Christ now required of him to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and BECOME HIS DISCIPLE, and the young man balked.

 

Are we reading the same passage of scripture?

"What must I do to inherit eternal life?".......followed shortly by the proclamation of Jesus,

"How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God".

IMO, you must do scriptural Zumba to take from this that this young man was already headed for eternal life in the Kingdom of God.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: