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

[kyredneck]

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

You believe rich people are damned to hell?

Does any one besides me find this confusing?

It's not confusing. It's real simple. Only the living are able to make a choice. Dead men do nothing.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

So, what you are saying is that a rich man's heart is likely to be more "depraved" or "evil" than a poor man's heart, thus making it more difficult for God's irresistible call to change?

I'm not trying to argue against the point yet, just understand it.

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.

Why? If its all of God's doing what is more difficult about it?

Is it comparable to the difference of a strong man lifting a 1 pound weight versus lifting a 2 pound weight? As if God has to work just a bit harder to regenerate a rich man's heart than that of a poor man? Is that what Jesus is referring to?

Or are you saying, that Jesus is speaking from a "human perspective" as if people actually do have something to do with the conversion of a soul? So, from a "human perspective" it appears Arminianism is true (i.e. that you can persuade someone to believe), so I'll address these people from that perspective by referring to the difficulty they will face when witnessing to a rich person?

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.

I understand, but I'm asking about why it appears that Jesus says that some will choose not to come because they have more money...or that it will be more difficult for them to come because they have wealth. Why would that be a hinderance if unconditional election and effectual calling is true?

 

[webdog]

5 pages now...will someone answer Skan's question already!?

 

[kyredneck]

5 pages now...will someone answer Skan's question already!?

Skan's [shallow] premise is that wealthy people are more likely to burn in hell than poor people are.

My premise is that eternity is not even in consideration here in Christ's response to and about the young man.

 

[Skandelon]

You believe rich people are damned to hell?

Of course not. I believe that Jesus is speaking of the influence that wealth has on the will of man (because I do believe in free contra-causal free will).

Envy may provoke man's will unto salvation according to Paul in Rm 11:14. Why? Because man's will is in play.

In the same manner, the wealth influences a man's will. It makes some people feel they can earn their way to heaven. It gives people a feeling they are better than others, and humility is needed. "You can't serve both God and mammon." Those already in service to mammon have more of a barrier to overcome...thus the comment regarding the 'difficulty' referred to by Christ.

It's not confusing. It's real simple. Only the living are able to make a choice. Dead men do nothing.

Ok, and if a rich man is made alive by God's effectual call and a poor man is made alive by God's effectual call what is the difference regarding the difficulty of their "enter the kingdom?"

 

[webdog]

Skan's [shallow] premise is that wealthy people are more likely to burn in hell than poor people.

My premise is that eternity is not even in consideration here in Christ's response to and about the young man.

Since you do not even understand Skan's premise, I'm not sure how you can form your own.

 

[JesusFan]

Isn't the hindrance of being "Totally Depraved" sufficient to make all people equally as "difficult" to save? What does ones wealth have to do with that?

What is impossible for man is possible for God! Dont forget jesus final concluding point on this discussion!

I agree, but you state that as if (1) God's election of the individual was a condition of their being chosen or (2) God's irresistible work is somehow hindered by wealth??? Please explain.

Election by God is direct cause of us accepting jesus as our saviour.

Saved because we are elected by God, NOT elected by us getting saved!

Think points to God being glorified by choosing the "baser elements" of this age. most not smart/wise/rich etc when compared to mankind at large!

Since you bring it up lets discuss the purpose of both:

1. What purpose does the means of wealth serve that is not already accomplished by their natural born condition of "total inability?"

only "purpose' in this passage was that Jesus was showing that Those in this
world wealthy will find it easier to trust in possessions and God..
jesus main point was to show them that God is one to save, as they would trust in wealth, but God can still move on them to place trust and faith in God!
Also was adressing help belief wealth showed Gods blessing, jesus pointing out not so, cursing IF not part of plan of God!

2. Are you suggesting that because a person is NOT elect that God may make them wealthy so as to hinder them from coming? If so, why? Isn't their natural condition enough of a hindrance? We know from Calvinistic teaching that they were chosen or passed over because of their wealth, so this suggests that their wealth is a condition of their being non-elect, is that your view?

God causes the rain/blessing to fall on both saved/unsaved...
Some reason seems to allow wicked to financially be 'blessed" because this world is "all that they will get"
See lamenting in Psalms for why godly suffer/wicked prosper!

3. What does the means of "provoking to envy" or "signs and wonders" accomplish that the irresistible calling doesn't accomplish? I understand that the gospel is meant to inform the elect in the Calvinistic system, but what purpose is there in "provoking the will?"

God elects to apply to His chosen ones effectual Grace, can choose to have differing ways/agents to get jesus to them confirmed by gospel/signs/wonders situations etc

@ people get Gospel, see signs/wonders, have siutaion hit, health problrms etc

person chosen by god in Christ turns to lord in all of that
other person stays outside the camp by own free will choice!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We all agree that without God salvation would be impossible, so I'm not sure how this addresses the question of the OP.

Particular Redemption and Irresistible Calling are crucial to the proper understanding of these verses.

'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 is God's good pleasure to call mostly the poor and the weak, yes, and the foolish by the world's standards, to salvation. However, on some occasions he also calls rich, strong and wise people, but not very often. The Countess of Huntingdon, who was so greatly used by God in the Great Awakening in England, used to say that she was saved by the letter M. If v26 had said, 'not any noble' she would have been lost. But because the word is 'many,' she was saved to the glory of God.

So it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, but not impossible, for with God all things are possible. :thumbs:

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

Particular Redemption and Irresistible Calling are crucial to the proper understanding of these verses.

'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 is God's good pleasure to call mostly the poor and the weak, yes, and the foolish by the world's standards, to salvation. However, on some occasions he also calls rich, strong and wise people, but not very often. The Countess of Huntingdon, who was so greatly used by God in the Great Awakening in England, used to say that she was saved by the letter M. If v26 had said, 'not any noble' she would have been lost. But because the word is 'many,' she was saved to the glory of God.

So it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, but not impossible, for with God all things are possible. :thumbs:

Steve

How does this explanation reconcile with an unconditional election? You seem to argue that God chose people based on their being "unwise" or "poor." Is that right?

 

[glfredrick]

How does this explanation reconcile with an unconditional election? You seem to argue that God chose people based on their being "unwise" or "poor." Is that right?

Perhaps God "chooses" people according to His divine will and we don't know why?

It is us that have the issue with distinctions between people, and of late, as you use this to further your own argument -- you.

 

[Skandelon]

Perhaps God "chooses" people according to His divine will and we don't know why?

Well, apparently, according to what Steve appears to have said, we do know at least two reasons why: Those who are "poor and weak" are more likely to be chosen, thus can you really say the election is unconditional?

It is us that have the issue with distinctions between people, and of late, as you use this to further your own argument -- you.

huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

 

[glfredrick]

Well, apparently, according to what Steve appears to have said, we do know at least two reasons why: Those who are "poor and weak" are more likely to be chosen, thus can you really say the election is unconditional?

huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

God says in His Word that He is no respector of people...

You seem to wish to draw distinctions between types of people and use that as a wedge to further argue your point. Weird for a person who is supposedly interested in sharing the gospel with all persons.

 

[Skandelon]

God says in His Word that He is no respector of people...

You seem to wish to draw distinctions between types of people and use that as a wedge to further argue your point. Weird for a person who is supposedly interested in sharing the gospel with all persons.

I don't believe God IS a respecter of people and from my perspective this verse is clearly about how wealth might affect one's will to follow Christ, not God's preference over one social class. I'm not arguing as if my premise is the correct one, I'm asking how this passage reconciles IF the Calvinistic premise is true.

So, I'm not sure how you think this argument applies to me?

 

[InTheLight]

Perhaps God "chooses" people according to His divine will and we don't know why?

Ah yes, the old "it's a mystery" argument. Very nice!

 

[preacher4truth]

It's not more difficult for the rich to be saved. It's all the work of Christ, alone, only.

The OP misses the point and lends itself to thinking in it it has found an "aha!" disproving Calvinism. It hasn't and it also misunderstands a nd misrepresents the meaning of the text and the main point: Christ must save, and He alone.

Christ does all of the work, and all of the saving, granting repentance, granting faith, and granting life.

 

[preacher4truth]

God says in His Word that He is no respector of people...

You seem to wish to draw distinctions between types of people and use that as a wedge to further argue your point. Weird for a person who is supposedly interested in sharing the gospel with all persons.

He's way off track in the OP.

All the saving is on Christs power, not in mans, and it is not "more difficult" for the rich. Why? Because it is God that saves. The OP if thought through logically lends itself to man having control of the saving power. He doesn't. Ever. (not saying skan believes man saves self, just that the logical conclusion of the OP lends itself to that end)

His interpretation misses the point and is deficient yet again in understanding a passage of Scripture.

When Christ regenerates, He enables one to believe.

The answer and this point is in these verses within the context:

"When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:25-26

Saving is all on God, not man. It's all God and zero man.

The OP is faulty and so is it's premise. He's been answered thoroughly.

- Peace

 

[Robert Snow]

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

Does any one besides me find this confusing?

I've read many things by Kyredneck that cause me to shake my head. Over 40 years in the Baptist church and I have never heard anything as strange as some of his home-grown theology. Very strange!

 

[Skandelon]

Nevermind...he edited his original post...

 

[quantumfaith]

He's way off track in the OP.

All the saving is on Christs power, not in mans, and it is not "more difficult" for the rich. Why? Because it is God that saves. The OP if thought through logically lends itself to man having control of the saving power. He doesn't. Ever. (not saying skan believes man saves self, just that the logical conclusion of the OP lends itself to that end)

His interpretation misses the point and is deficient yet again in understanding a passage of Scripture.

When Christ regenerates, He enables one to believe.

The answer and this point is in these verses within the context:

"When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:25-26

Saving is all on God, not man. It's all God and zero man.

The OP is faulty and so is it's premise. He's been answered thoroughly.

- Peace

PFT, you are the one who appears to "missing the point". His question is simply, if the calvinistic view of salvation is correct, then why would there be a statement about "it being more difficult for a rich man". Wealth and riches should play no role if irresistible grace and election to salvation is as the calvinist theology proposes.

pax

 

[Skandelon]

He's way off track in the OP.

What is off track exactly? This is too vague for a response.

All the saving is on Christs power, not in mans, and it is not "more difficult" for the rich. Why? Because it is God that saves.

So, what does Jesus mean when he makes that statement?

The OP if thought through logically lends itself to man having control of the saving power. He doesn't. Ever. (not saying skan believes man saves self, just that the logical conclusion of the OP lends itself to that end)

How is that the logical conclusion from asking how Calvinists reconcile the meaning of this verse?

His interpretation misses the point and is deficient yet again in understanding a passage of Scripture.

The OP doesn't offer an interpretation. It asks for one. One in which you have not attempted to offer to my recollection.

The answer and this point is in these verses within the context:

"When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:25-26

We all agree that salvation is impossible with people alone and that we need God. The bible also says that "with faith all things are possible," ....possible with God, but certainly not without Him! What does that have to do with the question of the OP?

Saving is all on God, not man. It's all God and zero man.

I agree, just like rebellion and choosing to reject is all on man and not on God, right! I mean, God didn't do anything to hinder man from being able to accept his geniune appeal, right? He couldn't be responsible for men not believing, that is ALL ON THEM, right?

The OP is faulty and so is it's premise. He's been answered thoroughly.

The premise of the OP is to presume Calvinism is true, so why would you say it's faulty?

When did the question get answer exactly?