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

[Skandelon]

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.

Not at all, I welcome being shown where I've made a logical fallacy, that is a valid point in a debate. But, I will hold you to proving that accusation by the standards set by the common rules and definitions of each given fallacy. I wouldn't be a very good debater otherwise.

IF (again) your initial premise is that salvation begins with the actions of a man, THEN your premise is correct.

1. I don't believe salvation begins with the action of men and I never have.

2. The premise of my OP is that Calvinism is true and thus men enter the kingdom through the means of being unconditionally elected and then effectually called. The question is then posed regarding what Jesus meant by referring to the difficulty of rich people entering the kingdom UNDER that given premise.

If you are not dealing with that given premise (Calvinism is true) and answer that given question (why did Jesus say it is hard for a rich man to enter), then you are not on topic.

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.

Translation: if you don't merely accept the answer given, even if it doesn't address the nature of the question, then I'll dismiss you with a non-existanct fallacy.

You have answered why Jesus would show how the rich are not preferred, you have NOT answered the question as to why Jesus would indicate it is hard for the rich to enter. Kyredneck has, but with a much different approach.

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.

ORRRRR... I enjoy theology and debate and you only know me through this one very small aspect of my life as I engage you, someone with whom I disagree regarding Calvinistic soteriology, on an online theology debate forum. :wavey:

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.

Many here don't reveal more personal information about themselves on both sides of this discussion (and for good reason) yet I don't hear you making the same appeal to them.

Could it be that my work doesn't allow me to post in a public format, but that other admins and moderators do know me personally thus making me accountable to my words and actions?

Let's try to assume the best about each other rather than the worse, ok?

 

[preacher4truth]

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 mean reply in a way differently than yourself?

You've been thoroughly anwsered and proven wrong by several of us here, thus your "I think kyredneck is the only one to..." is ridiculously inaccurate.

Oh! I have an idea:

Quit playing your pretend game as if you've come up with some profound OP that has bewiledered and counfounded everyone (all the while pointing to others somewhere out there as all wise more than you as a pretense of humility) and admit your faulty OP has been dismantled.

There is no such thing as "more difficult" to get saved. That's your error, and it's due to your proof-texting theology.

And stop with your pretending at the end of your above quote like no one has shown you why Jesus expressed why it is hard for the rich to enter heaven, you've been shown His point many times, and it's in the text beyond your proof-text. It's called context.

This is what you do in your threads, and replies to others you pretend, and all of us who have answered you witness this behavior. That, and "you welcome being shown a logical fallacy" on your part until you're actually shown your logical fallacy dozens of times, then you bring in strawman number infinitum as a rebuttal.

:wavey:

 

[Robert Snow]

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

He reminds me of Wile E. Coyote.

Just because you get your rear handed to you when you debate Scandelon, doesn't mean you should be so quick to attack him!

 

[Aaron]

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...

Depends on who the audience is and what they think. I've made statements to this effect to you before about your supposed power to believe what you choose. You didn't think it irrelevant then.

Which means there is a condition God uses to decide who he does and doesn't call...

That's right. It's His purposes according to election, not a quality or lack thereof in the recipient of His grace. Your problem is as I identified early on. You think of God like a man, who chooses this one or that one based on some merit within the chosen one.

Think of Him as a Creator, who created this vessel to store treasure, or this vessel to use as a bedpan. Then you'll see the issue isn't the vessel, but the Creator and His purposes.

...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?

What does the Scripture say? The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the world. Will there ever be time that it isn't? Christ said the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. Will there ever be a time that it isn't so?

A gospel that at any time is palatable and reasonable to an unregenerate man is not the Gospel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Which means there is a condition God uses to decide who he does and doesn't call...[\quote]

ITS A FWD / and you did a backslash\

 

[preacher4truth]

Just because you get your rear handed to you when you debate Scandelon, doesn't mean you should be so quick to attack him!

Rear handed to me and attacking? :laugh:

Not quite and not at all.

I know, you and the other cheerleaders see when your pal is proven incorrect as an attack. But you have to remember, to be a true pal, you have to tell your pal the truth, even when it hurts. Why not be a true pal to skan today?

Rather than your feckless response, here is what has truly happened "pal:" He's been handily discredited and proven wrong by more than myself. Thus he continues to play pretend, just like, you.

If you'd open your Bible and read it, and get off your cheerleading campaign? Well, nevermind. No need for me to expect such high things to happen.

:wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What does the Scripture say? The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the world. Will there ever be time that it isn't? Christ said the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. Will there ever be a time that it isn't so?

A gospel that at any time is palatable and reasonable to an unregenerate man is not the Gospel.

So then only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim.1: 10).

 

[glfredrick]

Not at all, I welcome being shown where I've made a logical fallacy, that is a valid point in a debate. But, I will hold you to proving that accusation by the standards set by the common rules and definitions of each given fallacy. I wouldn't be a very good debater otherwise.

Well, you said it... :laugh:

1. I don't believe salvation begins with the action of men and I never have.

Yet you take that track in your debates -- always. That seems weirdly inconsistent and incoherent to me.

As a for instance, in this particular thread, you have asked the Calvinist why being rich or wealthy makes salvation more difficult (or harder). We have responded very soundly that it does not, because salvation is of the Lord (all together now, out loud, "but for God, nothing is impossible"). So, in essence, if, as you suggest here, that salvation IS more difficult (or harder) for the rich (or wealthy) then you are indeed placing some weight on the action of men in the salvific sense.

I am very familiar with the Articles of the Remonstrance and have pointed them out here on this board repeatedly. I understand that "Arminian" theology stipulates that God's grace is the beginning point for any salvific event, but there is that pesky little addendum (and I am using this term very loosely in this application, it is not a "true" addendum) to the section on God's grace in the Articles, that says that God's grace is applied because of the actions of men, who first believe in faith. That is incoherent, and why the Synod of Dort roundly condemned the Articles as heretical.

You hold mightily to the addendum in the Articles but you cannot see it in this passage, where Jesus used the real life example of a rich man coming to Him to teach on God's sovereign salvation.

2. The premise of my OP is that Calvinism is true and thus men enter the kingdom through the means of being unconditionally elected and then effectually called. The question is then posed regarding what Jesus meant by referring to the difficulty of rich people entering the kingdom UNDER that given premise.

No, and in fact, the premise of your OP is exactly where you beg the question. You, in fact, assume that Calvinism is false and you pose a question to attempt to prove it. Most of your threads are similar in that nature, but I don't want to paint you with that wide a brush. Each can stand on its own, save that your personal common theme is the attempt to post something to which Calvinists and Arminians "must agree" then set out to take apart the Calvinist position with any number of fallacies, rhetoric, and rabbit trails.

If you are not dealing with that given premise (Calvinism is true) and answer that given question (why did Jesus say it is hard for a rich man to enter), then you are not on topic.

Oh, but I have... You simply do not like the fact that my answer goes in some other direction than your begged question.

Translation: if you don't merely accept the answer given, even if it doesn't address the nature of the question, then I'll dismiss you with a non-existent fallacy.

Whoa, for a second there I thought that you were making an admission of guilt! :laugh:

You have answered why Jesus would show how the rich are not preferred, you have NOT answered the question as to why Jesus would indicate it is hard for the rich to enter. Kyredneck has, but with a much different approach.

I'll let Kyredneck stand or fall with his own take on this issue. He and I diverge at some point in his response.

But, I have dealt with the issue of why Jesus would show that the rich are not preferred -- the answer has to do with the very human elements of the story, set in a 1st century context, where the Jewish worldview was that the rich were blessed by God and the ones assumed to inherit God's kingdom. Jesus was setting the record straight, and added something to the entire doctrine, "with man salvation is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

ORRRRR... I enjoy theology and debate and you only know me through this one very small aspect of my life as I engage you, someone with whom I disagree regarding Calvinistic soteriology, on an online theology debate forum. :wavey:

That is true. I also know you through your blog and I know you through the fact that you hide rather well behind a web persona.

Many here don't reveal more personal information about themselves on both sides of this discussion (and for good reason) yet I don't hear you making the same appeal to them.

I understand that the Interweb is a place where a lot of people hide out, and where they can get very bold while sitting at home in their underwear before a computer keyboard.

But, that being said, this is a Baptist forum where true truth should be the issue on tap for all participants. If it is anything other than that, one might have grounds to question the motives of the person doing the hiding. I recall the times when certain individuals (whether rightly or wrongly) have been "outed" for being someone they were not.

I find openness the remedy for that issue, and I am willing to take my stand for the gospel and for what I write in public, for I am accountable to God for my words.

I would support a move on this board to make our signatures carry our information, and make it mandatory for membership, but i realize that no Interweb forum will ever go to that length lest they loose readership, and with that advertising revenue (And speaking of that, why am I getting slammed by googleads.g.doubleclick/page every time I surf THIS site?).

Could it be that my work doesn't allow me to post in a public format, but that other admins and moderators do know me personally thus making me accountable to my words and actions?

Let's try to assume the best about each other rather than the worse, ok?

I do not find that all that comforting, especially with the stance that most of the mods and admins take on this board. There is an agenda here that is other than my own, but I continue for my truthful stated purpose, to hone my arguments in theology against some of the weirdest doctrines and theology I've ever seen in contemporary Christian circles, while the people yet call themselves "Baptist."

There is some great knowledge and insight contained in the members on this board, and even some of the names that might make my ignore list can offer some insights from time to time. I believe Paul wrote something about preaching the gospel for false motives, and said something along the lines of "let it be, God will sort it out..."

 

[preacher4truth]

Let's try to assume the best about each other rather than the worse, ok?

You know if you practiced this it would be nice. Practice what you're preaching.

 

[preacher4truth]

As a for instance, in this particular thread, you have asked the Calvinist why being rich or wealthy makes salvation more difficult (or harder). We have responded very soundly that it does not, because salvation is of the Lord (all together now, out loud, "but for God, nothing is impossible"). So, in essence, if, as you suggest here, that salvation IS more difficult (or harder) for the rich (or wealthy) then you are indeed placing some weight on the action of men in the salvific sense.

Amen and yes we have, and on multiple occasions, and there have been several of us whach have done so. What surprises me about his character is that he pretends, and it is pretending, that he has never been answered readily, when he knows he has.

It is not "more difficult" for the rich to be saved, as salvation is only possible from God Himself. The context gives us the answer. It's very plain and easy to see it in this instance. Yet note, he only wants to hang onto his proof-text portion, (Matthew 19:23) which when examined, even it by itself doesn't support his deficient theory.

Someone needs to rightly/correctly handle this Word of Truth in this passage and get off the hobby horse wherein he thought he had an "aha!" moment to disprove "calvinist" thought. He's incorrect, and after looking at the context, again, it actually reinforces our biblical position.

- Peace

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, you said it... :laugh:



Yet you take that track in your debates -- always. That seems weirdly inconsistent and incoherent to me.

As a for instance, in this particular thread, you have asked the Calvinist why being rich or wealthy makes salvation more difficult (or harder). We have responded very soundly that it does not, because salvation is of the Lord (all together now, out loud, "but for God, nothing is impossible"). So, in essence, if, as you suggest here, that salvation IS more difficult (or harder) for the rich (or wealthy) then you are indeed placing some weight on the action of men in the salvific sense.

I am very familiar with the Articles of the Remonstrance and have pointed them out here on this board repeatedly. I understand that "Arminian" theology stipulates that God's grace is the beginning point for any salvific event, but there is that pesky little addendum (and I am using this term very loosely in this application, it is not a "true" addendum) to the section on God's grace in the Articles, that says that God's grace is applied because of the actions of men, who first believe in faith. That is incoherent, and why the Synod of Dort roundly condemned the Articles as heretical.

You hold mightily to the addendum in the Articles but you cannot see it in this passage, where Jesus used the real life example of a rich man coming to Him to teach on God's sovereign salvation.



No, and in fact, the premise of your OP is exactly where you beg the question. You, in fact, assume that Calvinism is false and you pose a question to attempt to prove it. Most of your threads are similar in that nature, but I don't want to paint you with that wide a brush. Each can stand on its own, save that your personal common theme is the attempt to post something to which Calvinists and Arminians "must agree" then set out to take apart the Calvinist position with any number of fallacies, rhetoric, and rabbit trails.



Oh, but I have... You simply do not like the fact that my answer goes in some other direction than your begged question.



Whoa, for a second there I thought that you were making an admission of guilt! :laugh:



I'll let Kyredneck stand or fall with his own take on this issue. He and I diverge at some point in his response.

But, I have dealt with the issue of why Jesus would show that the rich are not preferred -- the answer has to do with the very human elements of the story, set in a 1st century context, where the Jewish worldview was that the rich were blessed by God and the ones assumed to inherit God's kingdom. Jesus was setting the record straight, and added something to the entire doctrine, "with man salvation is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."



That is true. I also know you through your blog and I know you through the fact that you hide rather well behind a web persona.



I understand that the Interweb is a place where a lot of people hide out, and where they can get very bold while sitting at home in their underwear before a computer keyboard.

But, that being said, this is a Baptist forum where true truth should be the issue on tap for all participants. If it is anything other than that, one might have grounds to question the motives of the person doing the hiding. I recall the times when certain individuals (whether rightly or wrongly) have been "outed" for being someone they were not.

I find openness the remedy for that issue, and I am willing to take my stand for the gospel and for what I write in public, for I am accountable to God for my words.

I would support a move on this board to make our signatures carry our information, and make it mandatory for membership, but i realize that no Interweb forum will ever go to that length lest they loose readership, and with that advertising revenue (And speaking of that, why am I getting slammed by googleads.g.doubleclick/page every time I surf THIS site?).



I do not find that all that comforting, especially with the stance that most of the mods and admins take on this board. There is an agenda here that is other than my own, but I continue for my truthful stated purpose, to hone my arguments in theology against some of the weirdest doctrines and theology I've ever seen in contemporary Christian circles, while the people yet call themselves "Baptist."

There is some great knowledge and insight contained in the members on this board, and even some of the names that might make my ignore list can offer some insights from time to time. I believe Paul wrote something about preaching the gospel for false motives, and said something along the lines of "let it be, God will sort it out..."

Solid response...helpful post:applause::applause

 

[kyredneck]

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.

Ah, the kind words of a brother, both refreshing and an inspiration for us all to do likewise. Thanks Bob.

The young man desires to do something to earn eternal life,...

I'm certain that was the general belief among most of the Jews of that day, probably even with His disciples. The Comforter, who would reveal all things to them, had not yet come, the revelations of the NT were by no means complete. It was not yet understood that eternal life was a free gift. I believe this young man is often, wrongly, viewed in a bad light for even asking the question, perhaps classed in the stereotype of a self righteous Pharisee, which I am convinced does not apply to him.

When the young ruler responded, “All these things have I observed”, Christ did not dispute the truthfulness of his statement, neither did he rebuke him for being self righteous. In Romans 2, Paul brings to light, “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified”, and this comes solely because ' the work of the law has been written in their hearts', i.e., “circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter”.

Notice the 'Do Nots' in the Lord's response to his question, “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother”, and Paul later brings to light in the same epistle, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law”. Agape, 'thinking of others', is the very essence of the religion of Jesus Christ, and there's no reason to believe this young man was not fulfilling the law in this respect.

The account given in Matthew includes yet another question from the young man, “What lack I yet?”, and Christ told Him, 'If you wish to be complete, sell all that you have and come be my disciple'. And who knows? This is all we're told of him. He may well have later joined with the Church at Jerusalem and been one of those who, “had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.”

“With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

....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...

I do not dispute the truthfulness of that.

....but he must cut off his trust in wealth before he is able to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

And as you said brother, “ ...we will disagree here as we do on our soteriology,”; his belief in Christ comes because he has life, not the other way around. He was already 'thinking of others', which is indicative of the law written in his heart, which only God can do. I believe him to be a perfect example of Jn 3:21; he ran to Christ and kneeled to Him solely because God had already wrought within him.

 

[Skandelon]

Depends on who the audience is and what they think. I've made statements to this effect to you before about your supposed power to believe what you choose. You didn't think it irrelevant then.

What about Thomas? Was the effectual regenerative work just not sufficient for him that HE CHOSE to demand to SEE with his own eyes for him to believe?

That's right. It's His purposes according to election, not a quality or lack thereof in the recipient of His grace.

Isn't being wealthy or unwise a quality or lack thereof? How can you call this Unconditional election?

What does the Scripture say? The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the world.

It's foolish to those who are perishing, not because it is REALLY foolish, but because THEY have deemed it to be foolish. That means THEY have decided to "trade the truth for a lie." They made the decision to reject it and call it foolish, it's not really foolish. Its God's eternal truth and there is nothing hindering them from responding in faith to that truth, thus making them without excuse when they are judged for rejecting it.

 

[Skandelon]

So then only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim.1: 10).

Right, it produces the potential for life because faith is the means through which we are made alive. Faith comes by hearing. Believe and you will live! Your faith has healed you! So, the gospel is the means of faith and faith is the means to new life.

 

[Skandelon]

Yet you take that track in your debates -- always. That seems weirdly inconsistent and incoherent to me.

I challenge you to find one quote from me that even suggests that I believe man is the initiator in our salvation. Just one quote.

I suspect this challenge will be ignored.

We have responded very soundly that it does not, because salvation is of the Lord (all together now, out loud, "but for God, nothing is impossible"). So, in essence, if, as you suggest here, that salvation IS more difficult (or harder) for the rich (or wealthy) then you are indeed placing some weight on the action of men in the salvific sense.

You still don't understand the argument of the OP. Please try to understand.

Obviously, when someone asked me how I deal with this question I would refer them to MY PREMISE, which is NOT that man initiates salvation, but that man's response to God's initiation according to his own free will is a factor, thus the difficulty would make sense because the love of money is a deterrent of the human will (a lesson Jesus teaches elsewhere too). But that is NOT the premise of the argument in the OP. The premise of the OP is that Calvinism is true, as explained before...

You hold mightily to the addendum in the Articles but you cannot see it in this passage, where Jesus used the real life example of a rich man coming to Him to teach on God's sovereign salvation.

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?

your personal common theme is the attempt to post something to which Calvinists and Arminians "must agree" then set out to take apart the Calvinist position

That common ground thread was an honest attempt to point out the difference in some of the more extreme tendencies on this BB as compared to more mainstream teachers such as MacArthur. He himself stated his own concern about growing tendency among reformed believers as has Piper. It just seems apparent you have an axe to grind against me personally because regardless of what I say, the tone I attempt to portray, or the nature of the argument you are going to turn it into a debate about me and my motives instead of addressing the topic at hand. This is a debate forum Guy. Debate the topic or ignore it, but please don't keep attempting to paint me as some evil villain just because I seek to debate a soteriological view with which I disagree on a public internet debate forum. I think if anyone objectively reads back through my posts they will see that I do stay on topic and defer as much of the personal attacks as possible in order to do so. Why can't you?

Oh, but I have... You simply do not like the fact that my answer goes in some other direction than your begged question.

Actually, you have told us why Jesus addressed the common misconception of the rich being favored, you have yet to tell us why Jesus would say it is hard for them to enter. Could it be that the "love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?" Naw, that would be too simple.

I'll let Kyredneck stand or fall with his own take on this issue. He and I diverge at some point in his response.

Yes, it was the part where he answered the question and you didn't.

But, I have dealt with the issue of why Jesus would show that the rich are not preferred

Yes you have. Good work. Now answer the question about why Jesus said it was hard for them to enter and we can move on.

That is true. I also know you through your blog and I know you through the fact that you hide rather well behind a web persona.

The "blog" I haven't opened in months, maybe years, but that I just posted some answers to common questions on this topic as a reference? That blog? The one where I am very cordial and kind to Christians of all views and never resort to personally attacking others character or questioning their motives? Is that the blog you are talking about? Yeah, you got me there.

I do not find that all that comforting, especially with the stance that most of the mods and admins take on this board.

I'd dare say there are more reformed admins than not, but whatever. Continue you personal vendetta in order to avoid the topic, I think objective viewers can see right through it. My conscience is clear. Blessings.

 

[preacher4truth]

You still don't understand the argument of the OP. Please try to understand.

Obviously, when someone asked me how I deal with this question I would refer them to MY PREMISE, which is NOT that man initiates salvation, but that man's response to God's initiation according to his own free will is a factor, thus the difficulty would make sense because the love of money is a deterrent of the human will (a lesson Jesus teaches elsewhere too). But that is NOT the premise of the argument in the OP. The premise of the OP is that Calvinism is true, as explained before...

I just love how you consistently try to wiggle out of being proven incorrect time after time after time. Your intent in the OP is to prove Calvinism incorrect by wrongly assessing a passage of Scripture that nowhere implies salvation "more difficult" in order to exalt your freewill error. You've failed, and the passage actually refutes your OP when looked at in context. I know this frustrates you and foils your plan altogether.

glfrederick, myself, others completely understand your OP, no need to play the "we don't get it" card, as it is too simplistic to miss. No need to subtliy dismiss anothers intellectual capabilities to understand, it's not necessary and is pejorative in nature, and the OP is not "deep" or confounding in nature by any stretch of the imagination, as it misses the point of our Lord entirely. I know it is difficult for you to give credit where it is due, and it is due here, and you'd have to swallow lots of pride in order to give it.

The error you hold to is glaring, your passage misunderstood by yourself, the premise that it is "more difficult" is a freewill based fallacy erased by the context of Matthew 19, by the very Words of Christ alone. God alone saves.

 

[JesusFan]

I challenge you to find one quote from me that even suggests that I believe man is the initiator in our salvation. Just one quote.

I suspect this challenge will be ignored.

You still don't understand the argument of the OP. Please try to understand.

Obviously, when someone asked me how I deal with this question I would refer them to MY PREMISE, which is NOT that man initiates salvation, but that man's response to God's initiation according to his own free will is a factor, thus the difficulty would make sense because the love of money is a deterrent of the human will (a lesson Jesus teaches elsewhere too). But that is NOT the premise of the argument in the OP. The premise of the OP is that Calvinism is true, as explained before...

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?

That common ground thread was an honest attempt to point out the difference in some of the more extreme tendencies on this BB as compared to more mainstream teachers such as MacArthur. He himself stated his own concern about growing tendency among reformed believers as has Piper. It just seems apparent you have an axe to grind against me personally because regardless of what I say, the tone I attempt to portray, or the nature of the argument you are going to turn it into a debate about me and my motives instead of addressing the topic at hand. This is a debate forum Guy. Debate the topic or ignore it, but please don't keep attempting to paint me as some evil villain just because I seek to debate a soteriological view with which I disagree on a public internet debate forum. I think if anyone objectively reads back through my posts they will see that I do stay on topic and defer as much of the personal attacks as possible in order to do so. Why can't you?

Actually, you have told us why Jesus addressed the common misconception of the rich being favored, you have yet to tell us why Jesus would say it is hard for them to enter. Could it be that the "love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?" Naw, that would be too simple.

Yes, it was the part where he answered the question and you didn't.

Yes you have. Good work. Now answer the question about why Jesus said it was hard for them to enter and we can move on.

The "blog" I haven't opened in months, maybe years, but that I just posted some answers to common questions on this topic as a reference? That blog? The one where I am very cordial and kind to Christians of all views and never resort to personally attacking others character or questioning their motives? Is that the blog you are talking about? Yeah, you got me there.

I'd dare say there are more reformed admins than not, but whatever. Continue you personal vendetta in order to avoid the topic, I think objective viewers can see right through it. My conscience is clear. Blessings.

Just curious...

just WHY is the biblical doctrine of effectual grace of God being applied to his elect in irresistible fashion so abhorrent to you?
As it is the means God has to use to save any of us due to being dead in sins after the Fall?

is it "just" because it would mess with 'free will" theology for Sotierology than?

 

[Skandelon]

just WHY is the biblical doctrine of effectual grace of God being applied to his elect in irresistible fashion so abhorrent to you?

I wouldn't call it 'abhorrent,' I just think it is incorrect. I think some take my persistence and detail in debating subjects as being a passionate hatred for the opponent and his beliefs, but that just simply is not the case. As I've testified numerous times: My best friend (who I'm helping to move later this afternoon) and my brother are both Calvinistic. I love them dearly and we debate this issues cordially and with respect.

As it is the means God has to use to save any of us due to being dead in sins after the Fall?

I believe the means of grace for salvation is through the gospel, which is clearly able to be rejected. It is that simple.

is it "just" because it would mess with 'free will" theology for Sotierology than

No, I just don't think it is a biblical doctrine. I used to, but I don't anymore.

 

[glfredrick]

I challenge you to find one quote from me that even suggests that I believe man is the initiator in our salvation. Just one quote.

I suspect this challenge will be ignored.

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.

You still don't understand the argument of the OP. Please try to understand.

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.

Obviously, when someone asked me how I deal with this question I would refer them to MY PREMISE, which is NOT that man initiates salvation, but that man's response to God's initiation according to his own free will is a factor, thus the difficulty would make sense because the love of money is a deterrent of the human will (a lesson Jesus teaches elsewhere too). But that is NOT the premise of the argument in the OP. The premise of the OP is that Calvinism is true, as explained before...

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:

That common ground thread was an honest attempt to point out the difference in some of the more extreme tendencies on this BB as compared to more mainstream teachers such as MacArthur. He himself stated his own concern about growing tendency among reformed believers as has Piper. It just seems apparent you have an axe to grind against me personally because regardless of what I say, the tone I attempt to portray, or the nature of the argument you are going to turn it into a debate about me and my motives instead of addressing the topic at hand. This is a debate forum Guy. Debate the topic or ignore it, but please don't keep attempting to paint me as some evil villain just because I seek to debate a soteriological view with which I disagree on a public internet debate forum. I think if anyone objectively reads back through my posts they will see that I do stay on topic and defer as much of the personal attacks as possible in order to do so. Why can't you?

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, you have told us why Jesus addressed the common misconception of the rich being favored, you have yet to tell us why Jesus would say it is hard for them to enter. Could it be that the "love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?" Naw, that would be too simple.

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?

 

[InTheLight]

Continue you personal vendetta in order to avoid the topic, I think objective viewers can see right through it.

Like using the Hubble telescope to peer into the depths of Crater Lake, OR.