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

[quantumfaith]

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.

At the least, a very "rational" take on the issue.

You do know that Shakespeare was a mathematician? One of his most famous lines:

O ratio, O ratio, wherefore art thou o ratio?

 

[humblethinker]

At the least, a very "rational" take on the issue.

You do know that Shakespeare was a mathematician? One of his most famous lines:

O ratio, O ratio, wherefore art thou o ratio?

:laugh:lol, good math geek humor...:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Are we reading the same passage of scripture?

I'm looking at Mt 19, Mk 10, Lk 18

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

No, followed IMMEDIATELY with the reponse, "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother."

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

You're making the kingdom of God here to mean eternity in heaven? The kingdom of God is here now, not off somewhere in the far distant future or dimension. It is a very real present reality.

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.

I repeat from post #89:

“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.”

You've just made acquisition of the free gift of eternal life, and entering into the Kingdom of God here synonymous. Prove it to be so. You're making a HUGE presumption, maybe even some ' scriptural Zumba' as you call it.

 

[Skandelon]

“You're making birth from above and entering the kingdom synonymous.

Help us understand. Are you arguing that one can be born from above and NEVER enter the kingdom?

 

[kyredneck]

Help us understand. Are you arguing that one can be born from above and NEVER enter the kingdom?

Yes, meaning the spiritual kingdom of Christ here on earth. And I'm convinced that a significant number of those that do enter in don't remain there, maybe even the majority of them.

How many heathen around the world through all the ages have died without ever hearing the gospel of the kingdom?

Do you put these folks in hell?

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes, meaning the spiritual kingdom of Christ here on earth. And I'm convinced that a significant number of those that do enter in don't remain there, maybe even the majority of them.

How many heathen around the world through all the ages have died without ever hearing the gospel of the kingdom?

Do you put these folks in hell?

Are they guilty sinners, or are they innocent? They're definitely not innocent, all have sinned.

They put themselves in hell.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, meaning the spiritual kingdom of Christ here on earth. And I'm convinced that a significant number of those that do enter in don't remain there, maybe even the majority of them.

How many heathen around the world through all the ages have died without ever hearing the gospel of the kingdom?

Do you put these folks in hell?

I'll rephrase the question; Do you believe that those that have never heard the gospel of the kingdom are damned to hell?

 

[preacher4truth]

Are they without sin? What are the wages for sin?

 

[quantumfaith]

I'll rephrase the question; Do you believe that those that have never heard the gospel of the kingdom are damned to hell?

Ky,

Well I am a "little" with you on this question of those who never heard the gospel....I think. It is something I do not know, and am ambivalent about, you know, one of those "mysteries". Decisions like this are the job of the Deity. (As O'Reilly would say)

But I still do not make your connection as to a distinction between "heaven and Kingdom of God". I see them essentially synonymous.

 

[Bob Alkire]

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.

My friend, we will disagree here as we do on our soteriology, but such is life. At lease we aren't and shouldn't be enemies. We get to heaven we shall see who was correct and who wasn't. I have a feeling we shall see much of our beleives will fall inro both accounts.

The young man desires to do something to earn eternal life, and so Jesus knows how to expose his blindness.

The one thing he lacked was the childlike faith that is necessary to enter the kingdom , but he must cut off his trust in wealth before he is able to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So, just so I'm sure we are understanding you...you DON'T affirm the doctrine of Unconditional Election?

I most certainly do affirm it, but that has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to start one on Unconditional Election, please go ahead and maybe I'll join in.

What I want to know from you is your understanding of 1Cor 1:27ff in the light of your views expressed on Mark 10:23. If you would please let me have that it would be great.

Steve

 

[quantumfaith]

My friend, we will disagree here as we do on our soteriology, but such is life. At lease we aren't and shouldn't be enemies. We get to heaven we shall see who was correct and who wasn't. I have a feeling we shall see much of our beleives will fall inro both accounts.

The young man desires to do something to earn eternal life, and so Jesus knows how to expose his blindness.

The one thing he lacked was the childlike faith that is necessary to enter the kingdom , but he must cut off his trust in wealth before he is able to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I most certainly do affirm it, but that has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to start one on Unconditional Election, please go ahead and maybe I'll join in.

I'm confused. I need you to clarify your view.

I said, "You seem to argue that God chose people based on their being "unwise" or "poor." Is that right?"

and you replied...

"I don't argue for it; I simply state it."

Yet, you say you affirm the doctrine of unconditional election? Please reconcile this for me. Thank you.

What I want to know from you is your understanding of 1Cor 1:27ff in the light of your views expressed on Mark 10:23. If you would please let me have that it would be great.

In regard to 1 Cor, I really like how Adam Clarke said it, "God has chosen by means of men who are esteemed rude and illiterate to confound the greatest of the Greek philosophers, and overturn their systems; and, by means of men weak, without secular power or authority, to confound the scribes and Pharisees, and in spite of the exertions of the Jewish sanhedrin, to spread the doctrine of Christ crucified all over the land of Judea, and by such instruments as these to convert thousands of souls to the faith of the Gospel, who are ready to lay down their lives for the truth."

In regard to Mark 10:23, the above fits perfectly because it too expresses the natural hinderance of those who are rich or noble to humbly accept the gospel call.

But, notice Clarke's words. Non-Calvinist DO have a doctrine of election. We DO affirm that God has chosen some for noble purposes. For example, we agree that Peter, a average uneducated fisherman, was hand selected by God to be used for the noble purpose of taking the message of redemption to the world and in doing so confound the wisdom of the known famous religious elite and philosophers of that day. I think you do an injustice to the text to suggest that this is in reference to God selection of certain individuals who will or won't believe the apostles message. I would think it would also be an injustice to the doctrine of Unconditional Election in that it appears to suggest that God selected those who would be saved based at least in part on their being weak, unwise and unknown.

 

[glfredrick]

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:

Okay, here is a test of my reading comprehension skills...

1. You think that a reasoned answer that I made is silly.
2. You don't hold to unconditional election.
3. So, point 1 + point 2 = you don't have any answer.
4. Which seems rather silly to me, and at best a dodge.
5. You repeat yourself.
6. You know that my reading comprehension skills are quite lacking.
7. And that makes my line of work puzzling.
8. You draw a point from the above listed examples (huh?)
9. Jesus does indeed draw a distinction in the text.
10. That distinction is plain as day (What does that mean, a literal 24-hour period, the time that the sun is above the horizon, some length of time, etc.?)
11. I cannot (or will not) comprehend "it".
12. And I'm still doing (which seems to be "not answering Skan's question (sic), even though I very clearly did answer Skan's question (sic) for all to see).

So, to draw a conclusion based on what you just wrote, which I might add would require almost ANYONE to be forced to "read between the lines" (which is a colloquialism for "try to figure out what a person is talking about when they have not been clear, but obviously have some point in mind that everyone is supposed to know), I have failed to satisfy YOU with the answer I gave to the question that Skandelon posed.

Weird, huh... :laugh:

Perhaps you simply don't like my answer, which would have been a better and more truthful response on your part. :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

Incorrect. Jesus does draw the distinction by making the statement. Even if he is only drawing attention to the what the wealthy have done, he is still acknowledging the distinction by making a comment (twice) regarding the difficulty for the rich to enter. That must be dealt with regardless of whether they are setting themselves apart or Jesus is...either way, Jesus acknowledges the distinction.

But, is Jesus saying that the wealthy (rich) "cannot" enter? If so, you have a point. But, I believe that He was making some other point than the one you are working on, that being that "with God, nothing is impossible" in opposition to "with man, distinctions seem to make a difference."

Again, we agree on this point, but I'm not arguing that it might "exclude them from the kingdom." I'm asking why it would be difficult for them to enter if Calvinism's teaching is true.

The text does not say "difficult" you do, and at the end of the day, it is not more difficult for a wealthy (rich) man to enter the kingdom than for any other man -- which was, exactly, the point Jesus was trying to make. Calvinism is satisfied... :wavey:

And what purpose would that example serve that is not accomplished through the effectual means of regeneration?
Not at all. We all affirm salvation only comes through faith Christ. Without him salvation would not be possible. With faith all things are possible.

Salvation includes faith and repentance, both gifts of God. Neither something that we humans do without the grace of God, so says the Calvinist, so says the Arminian. Anyone else is in the no-man's land of semi-Pelagianism or full outright Pelagianism. Agree?

 

[preacher4truth]

But, is Jesus saying that the wealthy (rich) "cannot" enter? If so, you have a point. But, I believe that He was making some other point than the one you are working on, that being that "with God, nothing is impossible" in opposition to "with man, distinctions seem to make a difference."



The text does not say "difficult" you do, and at the end of the day, it is not more difficult for a wealthy (rich) man to enter the kingdom than for any other man -- which was, exactly, the point Jesus was trying to make. Calvinism is satisfied... :wavey:



Salvation includes faith and repentance, both gifts of God. Neither something that we humans do without the grace of God, so says the Calvinist, so says the Arminian. Anyone else is in the no-man's land of semi-Pelagianism or full outright Pelagianism. Agree?

Exactly correct. A passage he set out to use (misuse) against Calvinists actually reinforces the Calvinist adherence to Biblical truth: God alone saves.

Never in this text does it even hint that it is "more difficult" for the rich to be saved. His proof-text mehtodology has been exposed in all its error.

The conclusion of repentance and faith as gifts further the truth that salvation is all of God.

 

[Skandelon]

But, is Jesus saying that the wealthy (rich) "cannot" enter? If so, you have a point.

Of course not. I think P4T and maybe some others have argued that point, in that Jesus is saying its impossible for the rich, so it is really impossible for you, but "with God all things are possible."

I'm agreeing with you that he just says it is "difficult" for the rich. I just believe it is difficult because their wealth is a deterrent in their making that choice to humble themselves and believe. I'm trying to figure out why you think it is difficult.

But, I believe that He was making some other point than the one you are working on, that being that "with God, nothing is impossible" in opposition to "with man, distinctions seem to make a difference."

And as I explained with my pendulum analogy (post 84), I agree with that point, but why not just say riches don't make a difference instead of saying as he did that it is HARD or DIFFICULT for the rich?

The text does not say "difficult" you do,

I say tomato, you say tomatoe? Hard or difficult, what's the difference?

"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" - Jesus

and at the end of the day, it is not more difficult for a wealthy (rich) man to enter the kingdom than for any other man -- which was, exactly, the point Jesus was trying to make.

Ok, so why did he do so by saying, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" and "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," instead of simply saying, "It doesn't matter if your rich or poor because God doesn't elect you based on anything good or bad about you, he doesn't choose you based on if you are rich or poor." Why? Why does he say it is hard for a rich guy to enter?

 

[Skandelon]

Never in this text does it even hint that it is "more difficult" for the rich to be saved.

So then why does Jesus say the words, ""How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" and "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?"

If it DOESN'T mean that it is more difficult for the rich to enter, then please tell us what it DOES mean and why did he word it this way? Please try to do so without insulting me personally if that is not too much to ask.

 

[JesusFan]

So then why does Jesus say the words, ""How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" and "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?"

If it DOESN'T mean that it is more difficult for the rich to enter, then please tell us what it DOES mean and why did he word it this way? Please try to do so without insulting me personally if that is not too much to ask.

You totally missed the main points the Lord was making here in this passage though!

he was addressing the issue that Wealth and Riches were NOT a true sign off being blessed by God, that God was God of both rich and poor, and that God would be saviour of both...

jesus main point is that God has to be One that saves even the wealthy, as He alone can do that work, and by them getting saved, God gets the glory!

 

[preacher4truth]

So then why does Jesus say the words, ""How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" and "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?"

If it DOESN'T mean that it is more difficult for the rich to enter, then please tell us what it DOES mean and why did he word it this way? Please try to do so without insulting me personally if that is not too much to ask.

Lose your "personally insulting" implications, I've not insulted you, and your coming across as insulting with your uneccesary remarks. Try to look at this objectively instead, and lead by example instead of stooping to such a level.

I've been honest with you, and not personal. Toward another? Well, not so much.

I've already answered you as to this question. So has glfrederick. So has the Word of God. Among others.

So stop pretending. You're not even being intellectually honest here, you've seen the answer, but you continue this so you can hope to gain some traction in a back and forth off of it, and end up somewhere about Queen Esther, or some other rabbit trail. Several of us have called you on these tactics you employ.

Hint: Stop using the part of the passage you want, without the concluding portion, that makes the point that others and I have shown you. Even in the passage you proof-tecxt, which you try to interpret, it doesn't say "more difficult." Thus the entire premise of your OP is faulty.

You're clearly incorrect in your OP and interpretation due to your proof-text methodology. I thought you were beyond this method?

Go back and re-read the answers you've been given that clearly show you in error, as glfrederick, martin, canady, myself, and possibly others have shown you. Admit you are incorrect and didn't discover an "aha!" moment to disprove a Calvinist premise, and admit your error. It's OK. You're just wrong here, but we appreciate your passion, at least I do. Make it a learning moment?