Look to the children...

[Skandelon]

Mark 10:13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.


If Calvinism's teaching of Total Depravity is true and all men are born in such a state as being totally unable to receive God's appeal to be reconciled, then what is Jesus' intent in this passage?

Did he happen to know all these particular children were "elect?"

If a non-elect child is in the same fallen/depraved condition as the non-elect adult, what would be the significance of one being a child in order to enter God's kingdom?

If it has to do with the "humility" of the child, as referred to in other parallel passages, then again, what does that have to do with being a child when according to Calvinists true Godly humility which might lead to salvation is only a result of regeneration, not youth?

Please explain.

 

[Van]

A similar question might be why is it harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom? No one gets in unless altered by Irresistible Grace, therefore it should be a piece of cake for anyone so altered rich or poor. I know, Jesus again did not really mean what He was saying.

 

[Skandelon]

A similar question might be why is it harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom? No one gets in unless altered by Irresistible Grace, therefore it should be a piece of cake for anyone so altered rich or poor. I know, Jesus again did not really mean what He was saying.

That's correct, the wealth of a man wouldn't matter in the least if it was only about the effectual call. It is clear that wealth can hinder in the same way that youth can benefit.

 

[Iconoclast]

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Looks like Jesus did make a distinction saying these little ones who believe in me.

Did he happen to know all these particular children were "elect?"

If a non-elect child is in the same fallen/depraved condition as the non-elect adult, what would be the significance of one being a child in order to enter God's kingdom?

If it has to do with the "humility" of the child, as referred to in other parallel passages, then again, what does that have to do with being a child when according to Calvinists true Godly humility which might lead to salvation is only a result of regeneration, not youth?

Please explain.

Yes....Jesus knows who are elect....He knows each one by name. Not as some would suggest......."a target group" of random strangers.

 

[Skandelon]

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

[glfredrick]

I did not notice where Jesus got real specific about any one individual child.

He was making an allusion about simple childlike faith. And, yes, He would know which of the children "who believed" would enter His kingdom, just like He knew that the rich young ruler would turn away.

By the way, why do you always goad the board to an argument with the implied ad hominem. Perhaps we're just tired of arguing with you -- period.

 

[Skandelon]

I did not notice where Jesus got real specific about any one individual child.

That is the point. If he had you might have a defense by saying "that child was elect," but because he refers in GENERAL to all children it clearly points to Jesus' intent in showing the difference in the nature of a child versus that of an adult. A child hasn't grown hardened by the corruption of the world and rebellion. He may be a sinner, but he is not hardened and calloused. He is open and willing to listen. Kind of like the Gentiles were who hadn't received the revelation of God and grown calloused to it yet .... "the Gentiles will listen."(Acts 28:28).

He was making an allusion about simple childlike faith.

What makes children more able/willing to have this so called "simple childlike faith" if it is all about regeneration? What does their YOUTH have to do with anything if Calvinism is true?

And, yes, He would know which of the children "who believed" would enter His kingdom, just like He knew that the rich young ruler would turn away.

That doesn't address the argument being made. The question is what does his wealth matter in a system where unconditional election and effectual regeneration are all that determine whether one is saved? Why would his riches make it any more difficult for him to come to Christ or enter the Kingdom if indeed man's will doesn't play a determining role?

By the way, why do you always goad the board to an argument with the implied ad hominem. Perhaps we're just tired of arguing with you -- period.

Because provoking man's will works. Read Romans 11:14.

 

[glfredrick]

That is the point. If he had you might have a defense by saying "that child was elect," but because he refers in GENERAL to all children it clearly points to Jesus' intent in showing the difference in the nature of a child versus that of an adult. A child hasn't grown hardened by the corruption of the world and rebellion. He may be a sinner, but he is not hardened and calloused. He is open and willing to listen. Kind of like the Gentiles were who hadn't received the revelation of God and grown calloused to it yet .... "the Gentiles will listen."(Acts 28:28).

But I still have a case... In speaking so generically, neither did Jesus promise that ALL children would enter His kingdom, something you are assuming based on the text, but that is really an argument from silence.

What makes children more able/willing to have this so called "simple childlike faith" if it is all about regeneration? What does their YOUTH have to do with anything if Calvinism is true?

Nothing, and that is the point. Christ was not speaking in particular TO little children, He was speaking to adults and using little children as an example. Basing an entire theology of soteriology on one allusion of Christ with little children is rather far reaching, no?

That doesn't address the argument being made. The question is what does his wealth matter in a system where unconditional election and effectual regeneration are all that determine whether one is saved? Why would his riches make it any more difficult for him to come to Christ or enter the Kingdom if indeed man's will doesn't play a determining role?

Above, you are insinuating determinism... We've been down that road before. Calvinism is not determinism, Luke2427's arguments aside.

Because provoking man's will works. Read Romans 11:14.

No, actually, it just causes a great many of us to click the ignore button... You are not provoking in any biblical sense, you are bullying the board to get them to kowtow to your style of argumentation. If you will recall my very first response to one of your posts, I said as much then and have not yet changed my mind.

 

[Skandelon]

But I still have a case... In speaking so generically, neither did Jesus promise that ALL children would enter His kingdom, something you are assuming based on the text, but that is really an argument from silence.

I never suggested that all children would enter His kingdom. I simply pointed to the nature of a child and the significance of Jesus' intent in pointing to their youth as being of value in entering the kingdom. I've explained why that would be the case in my system of thought (growing calloused etc). What is your reasoning?

Nothing, and that is the point. Christ was not speaking in particular TO little children, He was speaking to adults and using little children as an example.

You just contradicted yourself. I asked you what does their "youth" have to do with anything, and you say "nothing" and then go on to affirm that Christ does use children (youth) as examples. You did all this while dodging the question as to what their being a child has to do with ANYTHING???

Why didn't he say, look at this old folks? Or look at these middle aged folks? What does their being YOUNG have to do with anything in your system???

Basing an entire theology of soteriology on one allusion of Christ with little children is rather far reaching, no?

Seriously? With the thousands of books written on this subject and even the hundreds of posts I've written on this subject, you think our "entire theology" rests on this alone? I think you know better than that. That is a diversion so as not to answer the clear difficulty this passage presents for your view.

Above, you are insinuating determinism... We've been down that road before. Calvinism is not determinism, Luke2427's arguments aside.

Good to know you distinguish yourself from his form of theology, but my comments have nothing to do with hard determinism. I think they apply to your views as much as they would Luke's. What does wealth have to do with one's being saved in your system? It is same with youth or wealth...in our view they make a difference for the reasons mentioned, but how does that make a difference where unconditional election (wealth and age doesn't matter when chosen) and effectual regeneration (will of man doesn't matter) are the factors that decide if someone will or will not enter God's kingdom?

No, actually, it just causes a great many of us to click the ignore button...

I get plenty of replies, typically more than I can keep up with as it is, so I'm not too worried about it...but thanks for your concern.

You are not provoking in any biblical sense, you are bullying the board to get them to kowtow to your style of argumentation. If you will recall my very first response to one of your posts, I said as much then and have not yet changed my mind.

Again with the personal attacks and speculations? Is that necessary? Can you not just talk about the subjects at hand?

As I replied to you in the beginning when you started the personal attacks...I'll repeat it now. This is a Baptist DEBATE Forum. Notice the word DEBATE. Look it up. Study it. If you are NOT ok with that intent then don't come here. And especially don't belittle, accuse and ridicule those who come to the board with the intent of debating opposing views.

You know what is clear to me? When a simple argument is made that has an easy "pat answer" the Calvinists, like yourself, gladly reply and provide argumentation, but when the debate goes beyond your realm of understanding, pat answers, or easy replies, you resort to this line of attack. It is like the cat who gets backed into a corner and must lash out with claws bare. It is so painfully obvious and it only reveals the weakness of your system or a personal lack of objectivity.