Well there are a number of differences, none of which, I believe, confirm the Calvinist position. First of all the Jailer was in a position where he had nothing to lose by following Jesus. Indeed he was ready to commit suicide, so he was essentially at the end of his rope. Generally speaking that is a good place to be when confronted with the Gospel, as the consequences to following Jesus don't look so bad at that point.
The rich ruler though had everything to lose. Jesus sort of put the cart before the horse. He could have said merely, "Follow me and you shall have eternal life" but Jesus wanted to make sure that the ruler knew the consequences of following Jesus. It was essentially the same consequence that faced all of Jesus disciples at that time. They would all die penniless and suffer persecution. So Jesus told him that if he wanted eternal life he would have to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. He was faced with an eternal decision. A CHOICE if you will. Surrender all, including his riches, or die in your sins. He chose to die in his sins rather than suffer the consequences of his choice to follow Jesus.
As a general rule Jesus does not advise us as to the negative consequences of following him, but he does note that if you follow him there will be negative consequences. One has to be at a point where the idea of the negative consequences does not negate the desire for the eternal rewards before one can truly follow Jesus. The rich young ruler was not there.
Now it is interesting to note that Jesus, who is God, loved this man. Now a lot of Calvinists insist that God does not love those who are not his sheep. But here we have a man who first of all lies to Jesus face when he says he has kept all of the commandments since his youth and yet immediately it is noted that Jesus, beholding him in this sinful reprobate state "loved him." Clearly Jesus desired that this man have eternal life and thus it cannot be said that God loves only the elect, since this man clearly was not going to be one of the elect, but one of the lost. Jesus gave the man the instructions for him to have eternal life and despite the fact that Jesus loved him, this man went away rejecting him. He was not one of Christ's sheep, yet God still loved him and was desirous of his salvation (1 Tim 2:4).
So the question is, how can this man, whom Jesus loved, have rejected him? I thought Jesus only loved those whom he came to die for?
I think regeneration has less to do with the asking of the question and more to do with the response to the answer received.
I totally agree!!! If you give the correct response to the answer, then you will be saved; then you will be born again; then you will become a Child of God. Scripture makes that clear in dozens of places. So what does it mean? It simply means that regeneration is the consequence of the correct response to the answer, not the cause.
Nothing could be more obvious.
First of all, this is really straying from the main topic regarding regeneration and the logical order of salvation. That being said, you are making far too many assumptions to draw the conclusions you are.
First of all, you are saying that this passage shows proof that God loves even those who are not his sheep. This assumes that this man is in fact never saved. That is pure speculation on your part.
Second, it does not say directly that he "chose to die in his sins rather than suffer the consequences of his choice to follow Jesus." It says he "went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions." When Jesus spoke to the disciples about this after, He commented on how difficult it was who have riches to enter the Kingdom. Moreover, He said that with men it is impossible, but for God it IS possible.
For the rich young ruler it is difficult to enter the Kingdom, and in fact impossible for him to do so of his own accord. This man went away sorrowful because of what he had to sacrifice, but it DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that he did not go off to sell everything he had as Jesus had commanded. The purpose was illustrative of the insurmountable difficulties in men entering the Kingdom of their own accord. You are reading more into it than is there.
I totally agree!!! If you give the correct response to the answer, then you will be saved; then you will be born again; then you will become a Child of God. Scripture makes that clear in dozens of places. So what does it mean? It simply means that regeneration is the consequence of the correct response to the answer, not the cause.
Well, we clearly don't agree on the relationship of regeneration to faith because we have different cause and effect views.
Casting aside the "problem" with all the unborn babies, deceased children, imbeciles, bushmen, and any others who might not hear the Gospel and "give the correct answer," you are describing salvation through works.
Salvation is through faith which is an unmerited gift from God. You cannot earn it; you cannot barter it; and you cannot win it on Jeopardy.
You can only receive it and be grateful for it.
Regeneration is the consequence of the correct response to the answer...
Gnosticism.
I believe that sanctification is progressive but difficult to all of us because of our past experiences and backgrounds. What you have stated is simply superstition. Superstition is a belief in magic which relies on allegedcausal relations between the nature of things involved. It is believing such things as: if I could put a pin in an effigy of someone I could cause that person pain.
What you have done is reduce salvation to an incantation. I do not believe the power resides in the words, as if my speaking could bring God down to me, but simply this is the way God ordained the nature of salvation. We are under authority, not in control and thus we simply use the means by which God created and sustains to come into relationship with him. Your understanding reminds me of the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19)