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

[preacher4truth]

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!

Yep. Thank you. :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

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:

1. I don't believe you even answered it, and based on Skan's followups I think we know who was right.
2. I do believe in unconditional election, I don't believe in how it is defined by your camp. Wrong yet again.
3. Never got past two as if you are wrong to start off with any conclusion you arrive at will follow suit.
:wavey:

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Think that Skan has been working overtime recently trying to use the bible to show how 'stupid" DoG are, but think that reverse is happening!

 

[webdog]

Think that Skan has been working overtime recently trying to use the bible to show how 'stupid" DoG are, but think that reverse is happening!

what an ignorant thing to say...and from someone who starts thread after thread on the topic..

 

[glfredrick]

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."

Not from what I am seeing, but you might see what they wrote as being that, for you disagree with the other conclusion, that Jesus is saying that salvation is of God alone, and whether a man is wealthy or not makes no difference to Jesus ("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.

IF one holds that salvation is an endeavor for humans to initiate, as you hold, then yes, you would be correct. But that is not at all what Jesus is saying... He is saying, "with God all things are possible." In other words, you are wrong, and wealth is not a hindrance -- to God.

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?

Because Jesus was making a point from AN EPISODE that happened in real time, right before their eyes, not just saying something out of thin air.

And, again (and again, and again), had Jesus JUST said that, you may have a valid point, but that is not the end of His thought on the matter. Now, all together, out loud, what else did Jesus say? :laugh:

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

The connotation might be the swing vote. Hard does not eliminate the potential. Difficult seems to eliminate the potential. Perhaps Jesus knew just what He was saying?

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?

Well, because it is... Jesus said so. HE also said, "Narrow is the way..." and, "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord..." But, it may be an argument from silence on your part to assume that it is easy for the poor? Perhaps it is "hard" for everyone, "but with God, all things are possible..."

 

[quantumfaith]

Think that Skan has been working overtime recently trying to use the bible to show how 'stupid" DoG are, but think that reverse is happening!

JF,

You are most often fair minded and gentle with your fellow believers (from the other side), it is not like you to make such a claim that Skan (or anyone else) is trying to make DoG look stupid. That is not the JF, I have come to know.

 

[Skandelon]

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...

Is being tall a true sign of being blessed by God for entering his kingdom? Of course not. I think we all agree on that point, right.

So, if Jesus trying to make that point said, "How hard it is for tall people to enter the kingdom of God!" and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a tall man to enter the kingdom of God?"

Why do you suppose he would say that? Why wouldn't he just say, "Tall people are not favored, or they are not given any preference..." Why go so far as to indicate the tall people are at some kind of disadvantage? That is the question you all don't seem to understand.

 

[Aaron]

I'm not about to read this entire thread, so apologies up front if the point I make has already been touched on.

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?

1. I don't ready anywhere in the text that it says it's more difficult to save a rich man than a poor man.
2. I do read elsewhere that not many rich men are even called, and the reason is to confound the wisdom of men, not because it's too much trouble.
3. It appears to me that Christ was correcting the carnal thinking of His disciples, who as Jews placed a tremendous weight on geneaology and inheritances.

Scandal appears to be "begging the question," as he uses the term.

 

[glfredrick]

JF,

You are most often fair minded and gentle with your fellow believers (from the other side), it is not like you to make such a claim that Skan (or anyone else) is trying to make DoG look stupid. That is not the JF, I have come to know.

Other than the fact that his statement is, in this case, true, I would have to agree with you.

Most of the threads Skandelon starts are designed to somehow "trap" a DoG person into making an error or admitting that their theology is incoherent or does not "make." So far, he is not winning the day. We may be at the point where we have to agree to disagree, but DoG people are not on the retreat, nor should we have to be, even though that seems to be the current attitude around here.

 

[Skandelon]

what an ignorant thing to say...and from someone who starts thread after thread on the topic..

Yes, that does appear to be a bit out of character for JF. :tear:

 

[Skandelon]

Not from what I am seeing, but you might see what they wrote as being that, for you disagree with the other conclusion, that Jesus is saying that salvation is of God alone, and whether a man is wealthy or not makes no difference to Jesus ("with God all things are possible").

Of course it's possible with God. None of us deny that. But clearly it is hard if you are rich because "you cannot serve both God and money." Rich people have more of a tendency to serve the latter thus making it more difficult for them to submit to serving God. Why is that interpretation not valid? Because it doesn't fit within the Calvinistic framework of unconditional election and effectually calling.

IF one holds that salvation is an endeavor for humans to initiate, as you hold

A complete misrepresentation of our view. God initiates salvation, not man.

In other words, you are wrong, and wealth is not a hindrance -- to God.

I'm not the one who believe's it is a hindrance to God. I believe it is a hinderance to the man, but since the man has nothing to do with being regenerated in your view this concept of hindrances to faith doesn't fit your dogma.

You have the same problem when looking at Romans 11:14 when Paul speaks of the hardened Jews being provoked to envy so that they might be saved. Since in your view man's will has nothing to do with their being regenerated the idea of their will being provoked to envy has no real purpose.

It's the same problem with Jesus' words about Tyre and Sidon and the fact that if the modern cities had the signs and wonders that the ancient cities had that they would have come to repentance. If such means could not lead men to repentance due to Total Inability, as Calvinism teaches, then Jesus wasn't correct in his assessment. The problem with Calvinism is that it makes the means which are clearly meant to provoke man's will meaningless and the passages describing them very unnecessarily confusing.

And, again (and again, and again), had Jesus JUST said that, you may have a valid point, but that is not the end of His thought on the matter. Now, all together, out loud, what else did Jesus say? :laugh:

Look at my response to JF about tall men. If what you say is true, Jesus could have just simply stated that Rich men have no more access than poor men. And when Peter asked, they how can any of us be saved the same point would have been made. With God all things are possible, even the salvation of a rich man who is very much HINDERED by his love for money...

 

[preacher4truth]

Other than the fact that his statement is, in this case, true, I would have to agree with you.

Most of the threads Skandelon starts are designed to somehow "trap" a DoG person into making an error or admitting that their theology is incoherent or does not "make." So far, he is not winning the day. We may be at the point where we have to agree to disagree, but DoG people are not on the retreat, nor should we have to be, even though that seems to be the current attitude around here.

That is what this thread is designed to do, trap. Failure #___ for him.

He reminds me of Wile E. Coyote.

He thought of this passage (proof-text) and thought he had something, only to find out it reinforces DoG doctrine. It dismantles his theory completely.

His entire premise is a failure in his OP, along with his misinterpretation of the text. I know he is not a preacher, so I cut him some slack. His inability to admit his error and still pretend to be waging a battle over it is unfortunate, and shows how misinformed he is, and also shows his dire need for a better hermeneutic to supplant his proof-text methods. Not many have allowed him to take them down his rabbit holes after several have lined him out on his fallacies within this passage and along the lines of his faulty OP.

No need to move onto "other areas" as he attempts to go that route, nor is there need to re-hash why he is wrong, as he has asked several times for proof, only after given proof he skips over that, and a page later asks for it again. Nothing but weak tactics from one who is losing, better yet, has lost.

He's seen the proof, but this is his way. Perhaps after several pages of drowning it out he thinks no one will notice. Too late.

On a stage with an audience in real time, he'd be out of options and be red-faced. There would be no escaping with strawmen at all. The web serves as a buffer for him to continue to dodge and appear correct because it is not live nor in real time. In real life? No chance on this topic for him, his error is blatantly apparent.

He's clearly in error. He knows it. If not, then too bad. Everything else is simply fodder for him. He cannot get this text down in context, nor admit his error. This tells me alot about him.

- Peace

 

[Aaron]

Think that Skan has been working overtime recently trying to use the bible to show how 'stupid" DoG are, but think that reverse is happening!

what an ignorant thing to say...and from someone who starts thread after thread on the topic..

Yes, that does appear to be a bit out of character for JF. :tear:

I'd say it's perfectly in character. It appears to be an accurate, impartial judgment of your manner of interaction.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd say it's perfectly in character. It appears to be an accurate, impartial judgment of your manner of interaction.

And that response is exactly what I expected from Aaron. Love ya buddy. :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, I have an idea.

Instead of spending so much time analyzing, criticizing, demeaning and ridiculing me when I present well known and vetted arguments that have been presented by much smarter people than any of us over the decades, why don't you spend that time in study of God's word and come up with a reasonable answer as to why Jesus would specifically indicate that its difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom?

I think kyredneck has really been the only one to provide an answer to the actual question, but his view differs from the rest of you in that he believes the "kingdom" spoken of is not in reference to heaven and eternal salvation. I'm still looking for other scholars who support that view to study it a bit more.

The rest of you have made a point that I have already conceded to regarding how people view the wealthy as blessed and preferred by God and that Jesus was showing that the rich aren't preferred and that the only way they can be saved is with God's help, just like the rest of us. But that doesn't explain why he would go so far as to express the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom.

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh, I have an idea.

Instead of spending so much time analyzing, criticizing, demeaning and ridiculing me when I present well known and vetted arguments that have been presented by much smarter people than any of us over the decades, why don't you spend that time in study of God's word and come up with a reasonable answer as to why Jesus would specifically indicate that its difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom?

I think kyredneck has really been the only one to provide an answer to the actual question, but his view differs from the rest of you in that he believes the "kingdom" spoken of is not in reference to heaven and eternal salvation. I'm still looking for other scholars who support that view to study it a bit more.

The rest of you have made a point that I have already conceded to regarding how people view the wealthy as blessed and preferred by God and that Jesus was showing that the rich aren't preferred and that the only way they can be saved is with God's help, just like the rest of us. But that doesn't explain why he would go so far as to express the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Skan, I do appreciate you "putting yourself out there" and your remarkable ability to absorb such criticism. Criticism which is so often unwarranted, and which in large part does not address the kernel of your provoking thought. Proclamations and pontificating does nothing for counter arguments and positions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, wisdom, insights and gleanings from your study.

 

[Skandelon]

1. I don't ready anywhere in the text that it says it's more difficult to save a rich man than a poor man.

So, if you were to say, "Skandal is hard to rebut because he is so smart," it wouldn't in anyway suggest that you thought it was harder to rebut my posts than others? And I know that is what you are thinking.

2. I do read elsewhere that not many rich men are even called, and the reason is to confound the wisdom of men, not because it's too much trouble.

So, by that statement I guess you don't believe election is quite so unconditional as some thing? Or do you believe God just sees to it that his elect remain unwise and poor after unconditionally chosen?

Scandal appears to be "begging the question," as he uses the term.

How so? I'm only presuming Calvinism is true and asking them to explain why Jesus would say it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom. How is that question begging?

What point have I presumed to be true that is not except that you would treat me with respect as a fellow brother in Christ? :love2:

 

[Aaron]

So, if you were to say, "Skandal is hard to rebut because he is so smart," it wouldn't in anyway suggest that you thought it was harder to rebut my posts than others? And I know that is what you are thinking.

If I were to model my statement after the statement Christ made about a rich man, I'd say, "How hard it is for Scandal to see the light! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Scandal to believe the truth of Calvinism." It's a statement about you. Not about God, His ability or the power of Calvinism, i.e. the Gospel. The only ones who would find this astonishing would be those who believed that a man must make his own decision to believe.

So, by that statement I guess you don't believe election is quite so unconditional as some thing? Or do you believe God just sees to it that his elect remain unwise and poor after unconditionally chosen?

I never said it wasn't conditional upon God's will. I just accept what God says. He says He doesn't call many rich men. You can worry about why all you want, but it isn't because it's any harder for God to deliver them than it is for Him to deliver a demoniac, and it isn't because the poor possess a quality that they lack.

How so? I'm only presuming Calvinism is true and asking them to explain why Jesus would say it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom. How is that question begging?

You presume the thing you think this passage proves.

 

[Skandelon]

If I were to model my statement after the statement Christ made about a rich man, I'd say, "How hard it is for Scandal to see the light! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Scandal to believe the truth of Calvinism." It's a statement about you. Not about God, His ability or the power of Calvinism.

Ok, we'll use your statement. If Calvinism's system were applied then my "seeing the light" would be incumbent upon God to effectually make me to see it, thus the point of mentioning how "hard" it is for me to see the light would be irrelevant, because it would be just as "hard" for anyone to see it because EVERYONE who see the light, whether Skandelon (or rich), would be chosen unconditionally and effectually made to see the light.

I never said it wasn't conditional upon God's will. I just accept what God says. He says He doesn't call many rich men.

Which means there is a condition God uses to decide who he does and doesn't call, OR it means God sees to it that many of those he has unconditionally elected remain unwise and poor according to the world standards. Which one do you think it is?

You presume the thing you think this passage proves.

Not in the argument of the OP, I don't. Of course I have a perspective and I believe this verse supports it just as you have verses you feel support yours, but that is not the argument being presented thus its not a fallacy of question begging.

 

[glfredrick]

Oh, I have an idea.

Instead of spending so much time analyzing, criticizing, demeaning and ridiculing me when I present well known and vetted arguments that have been presented by much smarter people than any of us over the decades, why don't you spend that time in study of God's word and come up with a reasonable answer as to why Jesus would specifically indicate that its difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom?

I think kyredneck has really been the only one to provide an answer to the actual question, but his view differs from the rest of you in that he believes the "kingdom" spoken of is not in reference to heaven and eternal salvation. I'm still looking for other scholars who support that view to study it a bit more.

The rest of you have made a point that I have already conceded to regarding how people view the wealthy as blessed and preferred by God and that Jesus was showing that the rich aren't preferred and that the only way they can be saved is with God's help, just like the rest of us. But that doesn't explain why he would go so far as to express the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom.

You are, in essence, begging the question, but I'm sure that you will respond and show how everyone else is doing that but never you.

IF (again) your initial premise is that salvation begins with the actions of a man, THEN your premise is correct. IF on the other hand, you are merely begging the question, and already have your preferred answer well in hand, THEN nothing anyone else has to say on the issue will either matter to you or compute for you.

THAT so many call you on this practice when you do it should point out a blind spot, i.e., you have a problem with Calvinism and have literally dedicated your life to defeating it. Why, I don't know and you won't share, even the smallest details of who you are, where you attend church, etc. All of which leads a lot of the rest of us to seriously distrust your motives.