So what about the Rich Young Ruler?

His elect.

 

And they are?

 

Hello - This is my first post on the BaptistBoard. My most recent study has been this subject so I choose this space to try a post. I'm not sure about all the Icons but reading your posts has already been enlightening. Thanks.

 

Those whom He chose before the foundation of the world. See Ephesians 1.

Trying to get out of what was presented earlier?

 

Let's understand sheep.

Sheep are those wooley critters that say, "baa" "baa" and FOLLOW a shepherd to greener pastures and still waters. That definition is applied in parallel to man in that "whosoever" will follow Jesus as sheep follow the shepherd.

The real question is this: Are there those among us who are predisposed to respond to the Gospel Message?
To that, all I can say is I believe there are, but they alone are not all that fit into "Jesus' sheep". They are more fortunate in that they are willing to "hear" and believe. Whereas, those not predisposed are reluctant to hear, and have greater difficulty doing so.

 

Welcome.

Ken

 

You have very sneakily changed the text here. The verse does not talk about what God foreknew; it talks about whom he foreknew. That is a significant difference. Your attempt at explaining this passage falls short of what Paul wrote.

 

In regard to your position, you believe that all are "called" equally, correct? There is not a "general" call to all, and an "effectual" call only to the elect, is there?

If this is a correct statement, then consider Romans 8:29-30:

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined
to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called;
whom He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

You believe that God "foreknew" those who would believe, and that He "predestined" these to sanctification (being conformed to the image of Christ). Notice that the text declares that those who are "predestined" are "called." You make no provision for an effectual calling. Only a general calling. BUT, the text declares that those whom are predestined are called.

You may try to argue that this is a "general" call that goes out to all, but then that doesn't fit with the context of the passage. It is implicit that all that God foreknew He predestined, all that God predestined He called. All that He called (not some) He justified. This is where it breaks down for the non-Calvinist. There is a special, unique calling on these who have been predestined.

All that the Father has given to the Son will come to Him.

Do you believe that God's foreknowledge makes Him "more" gracious, loving, kind, etc.? One has yet to satisfactorily explain how the Divine Being with absolute and perfect foreknowledge is more loving, etc., when He KNOWS that there will be those who will reject Him and that He will send them to Hell - yet He still permits them to be born anyway. Pinnock and Boyd are consistent "Arminians" at this point because they realize the problem that foreknowledge presents to free will.

Rev. G

 

I don't think you'll ever get a satisfactory answer about this. Calvinism has the same sort of problem (effective double-predestination, whether or not the intent of double-predestination is there).

IMO, it doesn't matter. One simply cannnot argue for or against Calvinism/Arminianism based on what one thinks is loving or fair. Whatever the truth is, it is what it is no matter how we feel about it.

 

The problem with this interpretation of the Romans passage is that Paul puts this "calling" before justification. But we are justified when we have faith. So this special calling has to happen BEFORE someone accepts the offer of salvation, because when that offer is accepted, they are immediately justified.

 

Absolutely no disagreement there, friend. ALL are called to faith and repentance. This is different from "effecutal calling,"which only the elect receive.

You are correct. Paul was not wrong to say that there is a unique calling given to the elect. That is my entire point.

Rev. G

 

I have read this thread, and perhaps this has been answered, but here is my question about the rich young ruler:

Why did Jesus say it is more difficult for the rich to enter heaven?

I mean, if salvation is unconditional and monergistic, why would God say that the difficulty was relative to condition. Rich, poor, black, white, American, Russian, if election is unconditional, why do these things matter?

I can see how this story makes perfect sense from a non-Calvinist approach, but I do not see how it makes any sense from a Calvinistic one.

 

God calls His people in the conditions and situations they are in. And some have a more difficult time, from a human perspective, than others because of wealth, power, abusive childhoods, poor economic conditions, etc.

But praise be to God that His power leads His people to victory in Jesus regardless of the circumstances they may be under, as He enables them to rise above those circumstances.

Ken

 

Well, first of all, you may have a couple of misunderstandings concerning Calvinism. Salvation is not unconditional--it is conditioned upon faith. It is election to salvation that is unconditional.

Salvation is not monergistic, either. Some parts of the salvation process are monergistic, but we cooperate in certain parts of the salvation process. For instance, we really repent, we really have faith, and we certainly work in concert with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification.

Second, Jesus doesn't say it is MORE difficult for a rich man (or that the difficulty is relative to condition), just that it is very difficult. Which is no problem for Calvinism at all, since according to total depravity, eternal life is impossible for anyone (rich men included) without the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit bringing them to the faith required.

Notice, too, that Jesus gives the solution to the problem of how difficult it is. The solution to the impossibility of salvation is that impossible things become possible through God's work.

(The reason anyone remains unsaved has everything to do with conditions within them: they love something else, be it riches or whatever, more than they love God. Reprobation is certainly conditional.

The reason anyone is elected to salvation has nothing to do with conditions within them: they are just the same as everyone else--naturally loving something else more than they love God. But God, on the basis of his unconditional choice, takes this person who naturally loves something else, and for whom salvation is impossible because of this entrenched love for things other than God, and through His work, makes the impossible possible.)