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

[glfredrick]

Mark 10:23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 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 election is unconditional and men are chosen not based on anything they do or become within this life, and all the elect are irresistibly drawn to faith and salvation; then why does Jesus draw the distinction regarding the difficulty of those with wealth to be saved?

Could it be that wealth causes one to depend upon his own resources? Could it be that wealth can lead to materialistic distractions? Could it be that wealthy feel they must give up 'too much' in order to be a disciple?

Why would any of these factors even matter if God chose or passed over them without their wealth being a condition? And would any of these deterrences be any real hinderance to an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit? How can one person be any more "difficult" than another if the Calvinistic system is right?

Are you ONCE AGAIN making the grave error of equating "election" with "salvation?" Seems to be a habit with you... :BangHead:

 

[Skandelon]

The word 'saved' [sozo] in this context is referring to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God, not to the eternal state of the soul, i.e., BEFORE one can see the kingdom of God one must be born from above. Sozo, in this passage, is not synonymous with the birth from above or the acquisition of the free gift of eternal life.

By this reasoning are you supposing that someone can be saved in one since but not another? If not, what purpose is the distinction?

"The Calvinistic system" is in agreement with Christ, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.”

And of course non-Calvinist affirm this truth as well. Surely you are not implying that we believe we can be saved apart from God, are you?

"With faith, all things are possible." <---BY GOD'S POWER

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, the word "difficult" is in the original text you cited in the OP.

Difficult is not "impossible." Election still works.

 

[kyredneck]

By this reasoning are you supposing that someone can be saved in one since but not another? If not, what purpose is the distinction?...

Go, review Jn 3. BEFORE one can even see OR enter into the kingdom of God, one must FIRST be born from above.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you ONCE AGAIN making the grave error of equating "election" with "salvation?" Seems to be a habit with you... :BangHead:

Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation.

Are you suggesting that God has made many of the non-elect reprobates he unconditionally chose to pass over to become wealthy? I don't know how you suppose the distinction between unconditional election and conditional salvation answers this problem.

Could you explain it to us please?

Suppose Joe Heathen, a non-elect reprobate born and raised in Ohio, grows up in a typical family where he hears the gospel on occasion but continually rejects Christ throughout his entire life. He was a very wealthy and materialistic man who clearly loved his money more than most anything else. He dies in his sin and faces judgement.

Explain how the distinction between Joe not being unconditional elected and not meeting the conditions of salvation matter in this scenario. Thanks.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, the word "difficult" is in the original text you cited in the OP.

Difficult is not "impossible." Election still works.

I never said it was "impossible," in fact my question was in regard to why it would be "more difficult" for those who are wealthy. Please go back and re-read the OP. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Go, review Jn 3. BEFORE one can even see OR enter into the kingdom of God, one must FIRST be born from above.

If you have proposed in the OP '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.

No, I've only inquired as to the distinction in one who is wealthy being unconditionally elected, irresistibly regenerated and thus effectually brought to faith and salvation versus any other average poor fellow with regard to why it might be any more difficult?

And are you suggesting that one might 'enter God's kingdom' prior to believing and being justified? As if the rich guy would need to enter the kingdom (through being reborn) and then he would believe and be saved? So are there unsaved people in God's kingdom? Please explain.

 

[kyredneck]

.....my question was in regard to why it would be "more difficult" for those who are wealthy. ....

I reiterate from a previous post:

....Again, Edersheim sheds light on this: “We need scarcely here recall the almost extravagant language in which Rabbinism describes the miseries of poverty; Many sayings might here be quoted. It was worse than all the plagues of Egypt put together (Babha B. 116 a); than all other miseries (Betsah 32 b); the worst affliction that could befall a man (Shem. R. 31).] we can understand his feelings without that.....Rabbinism had never asked this; if it demanded almsgiving, it was in odious boastfulness; To make a merit of giving up riches for Christ is, surely, the Satanic caricature of the meaning of His teaching.] while it was declared even unlawful to give away all one's possessions [a Arach. viii.4.], at most, only a fifth of them might be dedicated. [b Kethub. 50 a.]”

In other words, this young man not only loved his riches, but he had been taught all his life that it was unlawful to give all his riches away.....

 

[InTheLight]

I never said it was "impossible," in fact my question was in regard to why it would be "more difficult" for those who are wealthy.

So far, no one has answered you. There have been side issues raised as smokescreens but no straight answers.

The closest thing I've seen to an answer is this: "Nothing is impossible with God, but electing a rich man is 'difficult.'"

 

[Skandelon]

I've read Edersheim's quote several times and I'm not seeing how it answers my question. It only seems to show why it would be difficult for a Jew to give up all his riches (a point I confirmed from the beginning), but it doesn't appear to answer the question regarding why Jesus would relate that difficulty to a rich man being saved...unless you affirm that man's will is affected by that wealth thus influencing him to choose in favor of his wealth (which just so happens to be the exact scenario of what happens with the Rich young ruler)

 

[Skandelon]

So far, no one has answered you. There have been side issues raised as smokescreens but no straight answers.

The closest thing I've seen to an answer is this: "Nothing is impossible with God, but electing a rich man is 'difficult.'"

They might correct you by saying that electing the rich man is not difficult, but irresistibly drawing him to new-birth, faith and repentance is? That is what I'd like them to explain.

 

[kyredneck]

....And are you suggesting that one might 'enter God's kingdom' prior to believing and being justified?

No. But God's knigdom is here, now. God's kingdom is joy, peace, and righteousness in the Holy Spirit. Period. And one must profess and believe to enter into that.

As if the rich guy would need to enter the kingdom (through being reborn)...

There it is. You're making birth from above and entering the kingdom synonymous. You've proposed it, prove it. Build your case.

and then he would believe and be saved?

That is how one becomes saved, profession, belief, faith; it is not, however, how one becomes born from above. Man has zilch to do with that. "..not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

So are there unsaved people in God's kingdom? Please explain.

I've no idea how you've derived such a hairbrained notion from what I've posted.

Do some googling of your own:

regeneration and conversion

eternal salvation and gospel salvation

regeneration before belief

 

[kyredneck]

I've read Edersheim's quote several times and I'm not seeing how it answers my question. It only seems to show why it would be difficult for a Jew to give up all his riches (a point I confirmed from the beginning), but it doesn't appear to answer the question regarding why Jesus would relate that difficulty to a rich man being saved...

....and you've yet to show 'being saved' to be used in the eternal sense either. It's your proposal, prove it.

 

[glfredrick]

Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation.

Are you suggesting that God has made many of the non-elect reprobates he unconditionally chose to pass over to become wealthy? I don't know how you suppose the distinction between unconditional election and conditional salvation answers this problem.

Could you explain it to us please?

Suppose Joe Heathen, a non-elect reprobate born and raised in Ohio, grows up in a typical family where he hears the gospel on occasion but continually rejects Christ throughout his entire life. He was a very wealthy and materialistic man who clearly loved his money more than most anything else. He dies in his sin and faces judgement.

Explain how the distinction between Joe not being unconditional elected and not meeting the conditions of salvation matter in this scenario. Thanks.

Sure, I'll explain it... Election is one aspect of the process of salvation. In debates such as this, you almost always equate election with salvation, "Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation..."

Yet, there may be a general rejection of God by the elect person "until that time" when God effectually calls them and they are indeed regenerated, which can easily answer the issue about the "difficulty" of a rich man.

Not at all sure why that is so difficult to grasp, save that your constant conflation of election and salvation makes the process untenable, and rightly so. If election did equal salvation, as you continually press, then you would be correct in your assumptions. But, as election does not equal salvation, but is but one of the component parts, there is plenty of room for initial rejection, resistance, the issues surrounding personal moral freedom, etc.

After all this discussion, one might wonder why you remain in this fundamental error of theology...

 

[Skandelon]

....and you've yet to show 'being saved' to be used in the eternal sense either. It's your proposal, prove it.

As if within the Calvinistic system one doesn't irresistibly lead to the other? That is why I asked what I did above.

If being reborn WILL certainly and irresistibly lead to enter God's kingdom and thus eternal salvation then what does this distinction matter in regard to the wealth of the individual?

 

[Benjamin]

Sure, I'll explain it... Election is one aspect of the process of salvation. In debates such as this, you almost always equate election with salvation, "Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation..."

Yet, there may be a general rejection of God by the elect person "until that time" when God effectually calls them and they are indeed regenerated, which can easily answer the issue about the "difficulty" of a rich man.

Not at all sure why that is so difficult to grasp, save that your constant conflation of election and salvation makes the process untenable, and rightly so. If election did equal salvation, as you continually press, then you would be correct in your assumptions. But, as election does not equal salvation, but is but one of the component parts, there is plenty of room for initial rejection, resistance, the issues surrounding personal moral freedom, etc.

After all this discussion, one might wonder why you remain in this fundamental error of theology...

I don’t get the explanation???

I almost hate to draw down on a Calvinist who seems to be expressing a form of compatibility considering some of the Hyper-Determinist dogma being pushed around here lately, but…

According to Calvinism: If God elects (pre-selects) a person for salvation that creature will be saved (God is sovereign like that). True?

Election (1) + a creature (1) = salvation (2)

Seems glfredrick is saying:

Election (1) + may not “initially happen” (0) but the creature is still elect and “will” (effectually be called) be saved + (1) still equals salvation (2).

So the question remains, If God sovereignly determined (elected) a creature to be saved what is the difficulty with the man being rich? Under the Calvinist view did God not appoint (determine) an exact time for that creature to be born again (effectually called), to live and to come to salvation? Is God not in control of the whole situation? If so, why does the creature being rich make it more difficult?

God effectually calls them at a certain ("that") time, true? What is the difference that makes it more difficult then?

 

[Skandelon]

Sure, I'll explain it... Election is one aspect of the process of salvation. In debates such as this, you almost always equate election with salvation

Actually, I've been the one to correct some Calvinists (can't remember if it was you), because they refer to monergistic salvation, when in reality you support monergistic regeneration for the reasons you state above. So, while I do recognize the distinction we all at times "simplify" the discussion in reference to salvation in general rather than each specific component of it. I welcome anyone to draw out those distinctions, as you have done here, but I'm only asking for clarity as to its significance in regard to all the components of what Calvinists affirm.

"Hardly a distinction worth mentioning when one also holds to the doctrine of "irresistible grace" by which those unconditionally elected are effectually drawn to meet all the conditions of salvation..."

Yet, there may be a general rejection of God by the elect person "until that time" when God effectually calls them and they are indeed regenerated, which can easily answer the issue about the "difficulty" of a rich man.

1. So, you are arguing that the difficulty of a rich man entering God's kingdom is in reference to the IMPOSSIBILITY of any other means saving him prior to his being "effectually called?" Wouldn't that be true of the wealthy and poor alike?

Think about it. You got a poor elect guy and a rich elect guy. Both hear the gospel and reject for a period of time until they are effectually called at God's appointed time. So, what is the distinction between the rich guy and the poor guy? Both are just as totally depraved from birth, right? Both MUST be regenerated in order to come to faith, right? So why the distinction regarding how much money one individual has over the other?

2. Is that what you understand kyredneck is arguing too? If not, what is the difference because I'm not seeing how his comments address the question at hand.

After all this discussion, one might wonder why you remain in this fundamental error of theology...

As would one holding my perspective looking at your "fundamental error." Such question begging comments don't serve our purpose, so let's just discuss the topic. Cool?

 

[kyredneck]

...If being reborn WILL certainly and irresistibly lead to enter God's kingdom....

Prove that. Show that most certainly beyond any doubt that ALL of His redeemed by the blood born from above children will enter into the reign of heaven. Prove that ALL of His redeemed by the blood born from above children will even have the opportunity to enter into the kingdom. Prove that ALL of His redeemed by the blood born from above children will even CHOOSE to enter into it.

THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE A BONAFIDE CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

The gospel of the kingdom is foolishness to all others.

... and thus eternal salvation then what does this distinction matter in regard to the wealth of the individual?

No, eternal salvation precedes gospel salvation. ONLY those have have recieved the free gift of eternal life (made alive) can choose to make a commitment to the kingdom of Christ.

 

[jbh28]

So the question remains, If God sovereignly determined (elected) a creature to be saved what is the difficulty with the man being rich?

Quick response: It has no baring on election.

Under the Calvinist view did God not appoint (determine) an exact time for that creature to be born again (effectually called), to live and to come to salvation? Is God not in control of the whole situation? If so, why does the creature being rich make it more difficult?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Simply because we are changing a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:26). Not every heart is the same. While yes, it's depraved, not everyone is as evil as he can be. So in that sense it's more difficult. We have some people that verbally blaspheme God while others just are apathetic. The one that blasphemes God would be more "difficult" from our point of view.

Remember we are looking at when a person comes to Christ why they came. What changed in their heart. We say that God changed them.

 

[Skandelon]

Show that most certainly beyond any doubt that ALL of His redeemed by the blood born from above children will enter into the reign of heaven.

You don't believe that all God redeems by the blood will enter heaven?

Does any one besides me find this confusing?