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

[Skandelon]

Have you really known me to turn tail and run that easily?

I didn't predict you would run, I predicted you would not be able to support your accusation and apparently I'm right.

I would also find you arguing for "common ground" but in so doing, there is always a twist that seeks to place an anthropocentric twist on the topic at hand.

Huh, you mean the twist that I'm an Arminian and disagree with Calvinists on certain points of doctrine, but not others? Shocking.

This is evident to all who read your posts, no matter what you actually write. You DO have an ulterior motive and it has been exposed again, and we have talked about this many a time.

The motive to defend my views and debate yours on a forum created for that purpose. Again, quite shocking. I really should be ashamed of myself.

Additionally, you have now placed on me the burden of going through post after post after post to find some expression of what you do. That in and of itself is a fallacy, making your detractor do excessive research to prove a moot point.

If you don't have evidence to back up your accusation that I believe man initiates salvation then I have a suggestion, DON'T MAKE THE ACCUSATION.

This is another fallacy... I am too ignorant to grasp the nuance of your question. But, in fact, I do, which is precisely why I am answering the way I am.

You claimed the premise of the argument was that I believe man initiates salvation, so what else am I to conclude when in fact I've NEVER believed such a thing, and the argument of the OP actually presumes that Calvinism is true? Baffling...

Earlier, I told you that your position is theologically incoherent. Here you demonstrate just that. Man's response dictates the situation. You said it. You see God as a general initiator (presumably through His previnient grace) and that His initiation is to all people in all circumstances, at all times, with the actual result of His (non-effectual) call left up to the individual, who in essence trumps the very throne of God, because THEIR actions dictate all else. That is PRECISELY what I am arguing and a valid expression of what you ask me to provide above.

It's fine to argue against the Arminian take on this passage all you want, but it doesn't address the question posed in the OP as to why Jesus said it was hard for a rich man. This is called the "you too fallacy," whereby the debater points to problems he sees with the opponents views rather than dealing with the problem being presented to him about his own view.

That has been answered countless times already. It was an object lesson that had a different conclusion than the one you derived from reading only part of the pericope. In other words, you proof-texted a portion of a portion of Scripture, which was not intended to be taken apart at the seams the way you did -- were called on it -- and now wish to press the point.

Ok, so your official answer is that God was meaning only to say that the rich were not preferred but that they could be saved (through the normal mechanics as proposed by Calvinists). So, why didn't he just say, "the rich are not preferred, instead of saying its easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom?" Was it just hyperbole? Was he just overstating his case for effect? Is that the answer I'm hearing? I'm trying to help you out here...

Your attempt to "point out the difference between some of the more extreme tendencies on this BB as compared to the more mainstream teachers such as..." proves that what I and others have said concerning your ulterior motive in this thread. It is what we have been saying all along. You had NO INTENTION of taking the Calvinistic side

Excuse my rudeness, but "DUH." Just as it is pretty clear you, or Aaron or one of the other Calvinists here are not going to take the Arminian side. The POINT was to point out that in mainstream circles some of the issues aren't POINTS OF CONTENTION between Arms and Cals, but HERE they are. In my view, they are UNNECESSARY points of contention, because as MacArthur and others point out, there is a tendency with some reformers to teach that God doesn't really love everyone or desire all to be saved...a view that Calvin himself rejected.

Actually, that is a factor, but not ultimately in a salvific sense.

If not, then are you in support of Kyredneck's view regarding the "entering of the kingdom" not being a reference to salvation, because that seems to be the only way to claim this is not "in a salvific sense," right?

Now, back atcha... Does money mean that someone is more the sinner and more damned than they were before?

No. It means they will have a more difficult time letting go and trusting God when confronted with the Gospel appeal, as I explained.

 

[preacher4truth]

skandelon, you've been thoroughly answered, your OP dismissed as error, which it is, and now all you are doing is trying to change your intentions to something other.

This is how you work in all of your threads, replies, responses: You're proven incorrect, then you resort to strawman arguments, rabbit trails, a pretend world that "we don't understand" (a personal attack), and the mutli-colored chameleon of changing intentions.

If this were live debate, you'd be red-faced as the platform and intention would be set and unchangeable, each of your proof-texted theologies would be handily and readily dismantled, and all of this would take place in a setting contrary to what the web allows you do do here, which is again, pretend.

:wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

No. It means they will have a more difficult time letting go and trusting God when confronted with the Gospel appeal, as I explained.

The whole rest of the thread is just he-said/he-said, so I am going to leave it alone. It is no longer even close to edifying for either of us, or the readers of this board.

About your response to my question above, you have failed to actually respond to the question. I respect that your answer is in keeping with your theological position, but the question was:

Does money mean that someone is more the sinner and more damned than they were before?

The answers are either yes or no. I'm presuming by your response that you choose yes, because you indicate that it is now "more difficult" for them to enter the salvific encounter than it was before or without their wealth.

That is a curious position to take, when the Scriptures indicate that we are all in the same state, without hope and save for the actions of Christ alone, damned.

 

[JesusFan]

Have you really known me to turn tail and run that easily?

Of course, if I searched for a quote from one of your posts, what I would find is that you often attribute salvation to God. I mentioned that above.

I would also find you arguing for "common ground" but in so doing, there is always a twist that seeks to place an anthropocentric twist on the topic at hand. This is evident to all who read your posts, no matter what you actually write. You DO have an ulterior motive and it has been exposed again, and we have talked about this many a time.

Additionally, you have now placed on me the burden of going through post after post after post to find some expression of what you do. That in and of itself is a fallacy, making your detractor do excessive research to prove a moot point.

It is okay for you to be Arminian -- really -- if that is what you hold, so be it. But how about arguing it POSITIVELY for a change instead of trying to sneak it in the back door by arguing NEGATIVELY against the opposition. If it is truly the point you wish to make, set it out there in all its glory and make it. Don't pose a question and ask for agreement, when in fact, even before you pose the question you know that there will not be agreement. That tactic is worn out and does not work.



This is another fallacy... I am too ignorant to grasp the nuance of your question. But, in fact, I do, which is precisely why I am answering the way I am.

You have, in a sense, asked a "complex question" akin to, "Did your wife enjoy it when you stopped beating her?" and any response I give you in accordance with your initial question will implicate me in a doctrine that I certainly do not accept, hence my reasoned answer to your OP.



Earlier, I told you that your position is theologically incoherent. Here you demonstrate just that. Man's response dictates the situation. You said it. You see God as a general initiator (presumably through His previnient grace) and that His initiation is to all people in all circumstances, at all times, with the actual result of His (non-effectual) call left up to the individual, who in essence trumps the very throne of God, because THEIR actions dictate all else. That is PRECISELY what I am arguing and a valid expression of what you ask me to provide above.

Also, your stated premise, that Calvinism is true, is not true in your instance, for you do not hold that position and it is very clear, from the questions you ask to your response directly above. As I just asked above, why not make a POSITIVE case for your doctrine instead of attacking the doctrine that you dislike or even despise by stacking up a strawman argument that does not meet the actual dictates of the doctrine?

Ok, that explaination is fine so far, but finish it. Why, if God is sovereign in salvation in the way you believe, does he go so far as to mention the difficulty of rich men entering the kingdom?[/QUOTE

That has been answered countless times already. It was an object lesson that had a different conclusion than the one you derived from reading only part of the pericope. In other words, you proof-texted a portion of a portion of Scripture, which was not intended to be taken apart at the seams the way you did -- were called on it -- and now wish to press the point. :BangHead:



Your attempt to "point out the difference between some of the more extreme tendencies on this BB as compared to the more mainstream teachers such as..." proves that what I and others have said concerning your ulterior motive in this thread. It is what we have been saying all along. You had NO INTENTION of taking the Calvinistic side and are in fact using a form of subterfuge in your actions to try to trap Calvinists in some error of doctrine.



Actually, that is a factor, but not ultimately in a salvific sense. In our sin nature, we are attracted to all sorts of power, fame, finance, and other controls over ourself and others. That is a given. In fact, that is precisely why God's sovereignty over election is a kingpin in the Calvinistic doctrine, and more so, in the Scriptures from which Calvinistic doctrine is derived. Left to our own devices, we WILL chose sin and power, and fame, and control, and riches, and more so, we WILL even give God the credit, though He calls us to a radically different expression of life than what the world offers.

Now, back atcha... Does money mean that someone is more the sinner and more damned than they were before?

what is very interesting in all of these discussions is that it seems to me that
either God Will is greater than man will, and IF he really desires one to be saved, they will be!
or else God Will equal to man will, as God wants us saved, but we have to permit.allow that for it to happen!
Also think that our brother Skan has a hard time admitting he is a classic Arm in Sotierology, as if it a bad name or something!

 

[InTheLight]

what is very interesting in all of these discussions is that it seems to me that
either God Will is greater than man will, and IF he really desires one to be saved, they will be!

Sure, so why is it harder for God to do this with a rich man?

 

[JesusFan]

Sure, so why is it harder for God to do this with a rich man?

the point is that from human viewpoint it would be, from Gods it is the same...

Saved sinner is same process/ regardless if rich or poor!

That was Jesus main point, that God saves either rich/poor, and that nothing is "hard" for Him to do in saving of them!

 

[Batt4Christ]

But if God's saving Grace is "irresistible" - then.......

Election? Unconditional.

Salvation? Conditional.

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

We have here a picture above of God's Sovereignty and choice in election and His 0plan to confound the wise, the noble &c. You can include the rich, as they fit within this picture above perfectly. God has chosen, and this election is unconditional, and we see what and whom God has chosen for His Glory.

Good thing God said not many, instead of not any, forthere are those who are rich that He has elected. Salvation is conditional upon whether one is His elect/chosen.

 

[glfredrick]

Sure, so why is it harder for God to do this with a rich man?

I've answered that countless times... What was Jesus response to the disciples when they asked?

 

[preacher4truth]

I've answered that countless times... What was Jesus response to the disciples when they asked?

lol...

Let's follow proof-text methodology throughout the entire Bible. In doing so each verse will cancel out the previous verse, undo the context at hand.

Perhaps we should throw a dart and whichever verse we land upon will be our doctrine for the day, and such will become a providentially given verse all for the objective of dismantling Calvinism.

All up until a real Bible student actually comes along after looking at the context for all of 12 seconds, and utterly dismantles the false interpretation of the proof-text, the shaky OP, and hence the entire premise comes crumbling down, all due to employing a proper hermeneutic, which leads to the real meaning and point of the text at hand.

Next scene? Enter strawman. :wavey:

- Peace

 

[Crabtownboy]

Because God purposed it.

Do you deny that anything happens which God did not always intend to happen?

Who could? Such denial would state that the eternal purposes of God are thwarted millions of times every day.

Why would God's "eternal purpose" be to condemn millions to separation from him for eternity? And, you did not answer the question as to why a rich man, any rich man has more difficulty being saved than others.

 

[Skandelon]

The whole rest of the thread is just he-said/he-said, so I am going to leave it alone.

You mean the parts where I quote what you said and soundly rebut your words...yeah I'd leave that alone too if I were you. Next time you have an accusation be willing to support it.

It is no longer even close to edifying for either of us, or the readers of this board.

I agree. It stopped being so when you turned the subject onto me and my motives rather than the subject at hand.

About your response to my question above, you have failed to actually respond to the question. I respect that your answer is in keeping with your theological position, but the question was:

The answers are either yes or no.

Did you miss the part where I said, "No. " ??????

I'm presuming by your response that you choose yes,

Wow. And you accuse me of not accepting an answer that is given?

because you indicate that it is now "more difficult" for them to enter the salvific encounter than it was before or without their wealth.

Having more of a hinderance to coming to Christ doesn't make you MORE of a sinner, as if God is ranking the level of the sin, it just makes it harder for the person to submit and enter. And I'm not sure what "more damned" would even mean??? Are you asking if their pain will be greater in hell or something?

That is a curious position to take, when the Scriptures indicate that we are all in the same state, without hope and save for the actions of Christ alone, damned.

Where does it say that we are in the "same state?" My understanding is that some have grown more calloused than others depending on their choices along the journey. Yes, we all need the intervention of Christ, but it is certainly more difficult for some to enter than others in my view.

 

[webdog]

GLF, looks like I'm not the only one who thinks your reading comprehension skills are off. Don't take it personally