The rich young ruler

[Fresh Air]

I'm spending much time on the life of Christ this year, and those, like Ruckman, who maintain He taught a different Gospel than Paul are just flat out wrong. For instance, He said to the prostitute who wept over Him at Simon the Pharisee's house:

Luke 7.48  And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49  And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50  And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

One of the cardinal things you see represented in His life, again and again and again, is that He came looking for belief. Of course, humility and repentance accompany that, and works later reveal it, but nevertheless, He came looking for belief. It was the same with Abraham, David, et al in the Law and the Prophets. The only thing that ever has or ever will get a soul into God's Heaven is His grace obtained by us with the hand of faith.

 

[prophet]

Name one who did.

David did.

Saul of Tarsus did.  Bible says so.

Yet God said "why persecuteth thou me?"

Mat 5:20
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Schoolmaster.

Anishinaabe

And that Schoolmaster (The Law) is what the Old Testament saints kept and followed. Old Testament salvation involved both Faith and Works. Just as it will be in the time of Jacob's trouble.

Mosaic law: Lev 20:10
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

David: 2Sa 11:3-4
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness:and she returned unto her house.

Wanna try again, liar?

Anishinaabe

 

[Anchor]

I'm spending much time on the life of Christ this year, and those, like Ruckman, who maintain He taught a different Gospel than Paul are just flat out wrong. For instance, He said to the prostitute who wept over Him at Simon the Pharisee's house:

Luke 7.48  And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49  And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50  And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

One of the cardinal things you see represented in His life, again and again and again, is that He came looking for belief. Of course, humility and repentance accompany that, and works later reveal it, but nevertheless, He came looking for belief. It was the same with Abraham, David, et al in the Law and the Prophets. The only thing that ever has or ever will get a soul into God's Heaven is His grace obtained by us with the hand of faith.

My question springs out of a study I am currently doing on the mechanics of salvation, based on the very clear, mechanical passage of Rom. 10:8 FF "...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The mechanics are "confess"; "believe"; with the catch-all mechanic of "shall call."

In the effort to know what these mechanics look like I have chronicled all of the personal conversions, illustrations of conversion, parables about conversions, and almost conversions (but lost) to see how these mechanics look in practice.  The most notable observation is that calling, confessing, and believing present themselves with a vast array of perception according to the different individuals.  For example, the prostitute you mentioned in your post never said a word, yet was declared "thy faith hath saved thee." Even more difficult, at least in my notion, is the woman taken in adultery in John 8 who only records 3 words (which have nothing to do with the Gospel) and no penitent action at all, yet she leaves free of condemnation. 

Hence the question on the rich ruler--would his selling all, etc., have been, in fact, a confession that he was now a follower of Christ and a statement of belief in him?  Crying and wiping feet with hair seemed to suffice as such. 

 

[Bob H]

Mark 10:21 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven..."

When the rich young ruler comes to Christ with the question "...what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life..." Christ eventually answers him with the above.  Now, we know from the narrative that the rich ruler finds that particular demand of Christ to be too heavy for him, for he "went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

However, theorizing only, if the rich young ruler had indeed followed Christ's directive and sold all and given it to the poor would he have indeed been granted salvation ("...treasure in heaven...")? Would selling have been a de facto "tak[ing] up the cross, and follow[ing] me"?

Depends on his motive..............................Maybe the "selling" part wasn't his main concern. Maybe it was the "follow me" part. He could of built up his fortune again.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm spending much time on the life of Christ this year, and those, like Ruckman, who maintain He taught a different Gospel than Paul are just flat out wrong. For instance, He said to the prostitute who wept over Him at Simon the Pharisee's house:

Luke 7.48  And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49  And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50  And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

One of the cardinal things you see represented in His life, again and again and again, is that He came looking for belief. Of course, humility and repentance accompany that, and works later reveal it, but nevertheless, He came looking for belief. It was the same with Abraham, David, et al in the Law and the Prophets. The only thing that ever has or ever will get a soul into God's Heaven is His grace obtained by us with the hand of faith.

My question springs out of a study I am currently doing on the mechanics of salvation, based on the very clear, mechanical passage of Rom. 10:8 FF "...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The mechanics are "confess"; "believe"; with the catch-all mechanic of "shall call."

In the effort to know what these mechanics look like I have chronicled all of the personal conversions, illustrations of conversion, parables about conversions, and almost conversions (but lost) to see how these mechanics look in practice.  The most notable observation is that calling, confessing, and believing present themselves with a vast array of perception according to the different individuals.  For example, the prostitute you mentioned in your post never said a word, yet was declared "thy faith hath saved thee." Even more difficult, at least in my notion, is the woman taken in adultery in John 8 who only records 3 words (which have nothing to do with the Gospel) and no penitent action at all, yet she leaves free of condemnation. 

Hence the question on the rich ruler--would his selling all, etc., have been, in fact, a confession that he was now a follower of Christ and a statement of belief in him?  Crying and wiping feet with hair seemed to suffice as such.

Don't forget all these passages that mention the mechanics:

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/%27getting-saved%27/msg24281/#msg24281

 

[lnf]

Mark 10:21 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven..."

When the rich young ruler comes to Christ with the question "...what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life..." Christ eventually answers him with the above.  Now, we know from the narrative that the rich ruler finds that particular demand of Christ to be too heavy for him, for he "went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

However, theorizing only, if the rich young ruler had indeed followed Christ's directive and sold all and given it to the poor would he have indeed been granted salvation ("...treasure in heaven...")? Would selling have been a de facto "tak[ing] up the cross, and follow[ing] me"?

Depends on his motive..............................Maybe the "selling" part wasn't his main concern. Maybe it was the "follow me" part. He could of built up his fortune again.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  It goes to the heart of the rich young ruler.  He wasn't willing to give all to follow Christ.  What he didn't understand is that he only needed to be willing to give up his fortune to follow Him.

I see a couple of alternate scenarios:  1.  He did exactly what Jesus asked.  Sold his fortune, gave to the poor, took up the cross and followed Him.  :::eternal life:::
2.  He told Jesus, "OK, let me take care of that.  I'll be right back."  Then Jesus saying, "I see your heart.  Come, take up the cross and follow me."...effectively leaving the fortune intact.  :::eternal life:::

Either of these scenarios could have resulted in granting the rich young ruler's desire for eternal life.  Sometimes we only need to be willing to give all, as opposed to actually being called to give all.

It all boils down to the heart.

 

[Anchor]

Depends on his motive..............................Maybe the "selling" part wasn't his main concern. Maybe it was the "follow me" part. He could of built up his fortune again.

The promise of "treasure in heaven" was given to selling and giving.  Question remains, if he had sold/given would that have been sufficient for "heaven"?

 

[HereIStand]

Depends on his motive..............................Maybe the "selling" part wasn't his main concern. Maybe it was the "follow me" part. He could of built up his fortune again.

The promise of "treasure in heaven" was given to selling and giving.  Question remains, if he had sold/given would that have been sufficient for "heaven"?

Tom, Ransom and others have answered well. Just to add a few additional thoughts.
If the rich young ruler would have sold all of his possessions, this would have revealed the true nature of his faith.
Yet, Christ exposed the surface-level nature of his faith by rebuffing it.

Recently, I've been reading Mark Dever's book of sermons from the Old Testament. In a sermon on Ruth, Dever notes how Naomi first tried to dissuade Ruth from going with her, and he offers an interesting historical note on how these actions of Naomi are viewed with Jewish tradition: "Naomi's example teaches us, the rabbis say, to rebuff a proselyte three times both to see if he is sincere and to show him that it is hard to be a Jew! (p. 226)."

Perhaps there was something of this rabbinic tradition in Christ's response to rich young ruler, who unlike Ruth proved himself to be all too easily dissuaded in his faith, thereby revealing its lack of depth.

 

[bruinboy]

If his name was written in The Lamb's Book of Life, before time began, he couldn't have refused.   But since it obviously wasn't, he was not able to receive the grace of God unto salvation. But Jesus knew what the ruler was going to do before he gave him the ultimatum.  Not really that difficult.   

 

[Biblebeliever]

If the Law could be kept

It could be kept and it was kept: (Josh. 22:2;
1 Kings 11:34; 2 Kings 18:6; Psa. 119:55).

then we have no need for Jesus Christ since we can be made pure under the Law.

I did not say that they were made pure under the law. Nor did I say that the Old Testament saints were perfect and without fault.

What I said is that they did keep the Law back in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the Law and with an element of faith.

And as I said earlier; just because the Old Testament saints kept the Law, we still needed the Lord Jesus Christ to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice that could take away our sins.

Remember,  Eternal redemption could only come by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore; again, the redeeming work of Christ on the cross of Calvary is the only thing that can purchase the eternal redemption of any saved person in any Dispensation.

And while the animal sacrifices back in the Old Testament could provide a covering for sins, those very sacrifices could not take away sins though. Only the redemptive work of Christ on Calvary's cross could take away sin.

Another thing to remember is that the Old Testament Saints were in a way saved on credit.

David and all the saints of old were just as filthy as you and I are

Of course! They weren't perfect. That should be obvious to anyone who is a serious student of the holy Scriptures.

... and they failed God with his law and needed forgiveness. None of them perfectly kept the law.

I did not say that they perfectly kept the Law. What I said is that they kept the Law.

And I understand that they failed God.

That is why when a Saint in the Old Testament did fail to keep the Law at one point, there was a provision in that Law which that Saint could offer a sacrifice for, and when he did offer that sacrifice, he was forgiven and once again, he was keeping the Law.

They were all SAVED by faith .... not law keeping.

They were saved by Faith AND Works. And that involved Law Keeping.

 

[RAIDER]

This thread brings up an interesting question.  As IFB we often hear that OT folk were saved by looking forward to the cross.  We are saved by looking back at the cross.  How much did OT saints (such as Noah and Moses) know about the cross?

 

[theophilus]

This thread brings up an interesting question.  As IFB we often hear that OT folk were saved by looking forward to the cross.  We are saved by looking back at the cross.  How much did OT saints (such as Noah and Moses) know about the cross?

The animals sacrifices that God had commanded showed them that the shedding of innocent blood was necessary for the forgiveness of sins.  They probably didn't know just how that blood would be shed.

 

[RAIDER]

This thread brings up an interesting question.  As IFB we often hear that OT folk were saved by looking forward to the cross.  We are saved by looking back at the cross.  How much did OT saints (such as Noah and Moses) know about the cross?

The animals sacrifices that God had commanded showed them that the shedding of innocent blood was necessary for the forgiveness of sins.  They probably didn't know just how that blood would be shed.

Good thought.  So many times we think that all the OT saints knew the details about the death, burial, and resurrection. 

 

[Fresh Air]

My question springs out of a study I am currently doing on the mechanics of salvation, based on the very clear, mechanical passage of Rom. 10:8 FF "...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The mechanics are "confess"; "believe"; with the catch-all mechanic of "shall call."

In the effort to know what these mechanics look like I have chronicled all of the personal conversions, illustrations of conversion, parables about conversions, and almost conversions (but lost) to see how these mechanics look in practice.  The most notable observation is that calling, confessing, and believing present themselves with a vast array of perception according to the different individuals.  For example, the prostitute you mentioned in your post never said a word, yet was declared "thy faith hath saved thee." Even more difficult, at least in my notion, is the woman taken in adultery in John 8 who only records 3 words (which have nothing to do with the Gospel) and no penitent action at all, yet she leaves free of condemnation. 

Hence the question on the rich ruler--would his selling all, etc., have been, in fact, a confession that he was now a follower of Christ and a statement of belief in him?  Crying and wiping feet with hair seemed to suffice as such.

That is an interesting idea for a study, and I can see what you are saying. I would add that, and you know this of course, salvation is a matter of the heart. Christ saw the heart of the prostitute and judged it to be humbled, penitent, and found faith. He looked at the heart of the rich young ruler and found the opposite, and it was precisely that heart problem which He kept trying to address with him.

I think perhaps we agree with each other, for the most part.

Good conversation...

 

[Anchor]

That is an interesting idea for a study, and I can see what you are saying. I would add that, and you know this of course, salvation is a matter of the heart. Christ saw the heart of the prostitute and judged it to be humbled, penitent, and found faith. He looked at the heart of the rich young ruler and found the opposite, and it was precisely that heart problem which He kept trying to address with him.

I think perhaps we agree with each other, for the most part.

Good conversation...

I'm pretty sure we agree with each other for the major part.  Salvation is by grace through faith. 

That being said, to acquire salvation requires a response that is objective.  Rom. 10 describes that response as 2-fold--"confess" and "believe"--under the over-arching term "shall call".  "Call" is not an isolated concept here, 1st promised in Joel, re-iterated in Acts 2, and plainly presented here in Rom. 10.

That an objective response is required is evident in the oft asked question of "What must I do to be saved"?--Mk. 10:17; Luke 3:7-14 [3 separate times]; John 6:28; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 9:6; Acts 16:30-31--that is always answered with something to do. Where the rub comes in is that the "to do" is manifested in a number of different ways--"...sell...and give..."; "...believe..."; "...repent, and be baptized..."; give away your coat; etc.

The purpose of the study is to discern the Scriptural manifestations of the clearly presented mechanics of Rom. 10.  Paul Washer has made his mark by "Declaring War on the Sinner's Prayer" based on his perception that the emphasis on praying to be saved is un-scriptural and counter-productive.  Yet, praying to be saved is a clear manifestation of the mechanics of salvation, evidenced in the Pharisee and publican (Luke 18:10-14), though both you and I will agree that the presentation of praying to be saved has been abused over the years.  On the other hand, praying is not the only (and may be considered the minority) manifestation.

It has been an interesting and eye-opening study. 

 

[Biblebeliever]

Mosaic law: Lev 20:10
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

David: 2Sa 11:3-4
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness:and she returned unto her house.

Wanna try again, liar?

Anishinaabe

Did I ever say that David kept the entire Law perfectly?

Did I ever say that David was without sin and fault??

What I simply said was David kept the Law.


Now did David break God's Law when he sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba?? Absolutely. And he also broke God's Law when he committed murder.

But when David offered the necessary animal sacrifices to atone for his sin, he once again was keeping the Law.

Again; here is Scripture showing that David did indeed keep the Law:


1 Kings 11:30-34
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

30 and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: 31 and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: 32 (but he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel 33 because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. 34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:



1 Kings 11:36-40
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 37 And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel. 38 And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. 39 And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever. 40 Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.



Psalm 119:49-56
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

ז  Zain

49 Remember the word unto thy servant,
upon which thou hast caused me to hope.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction:
for thy word hath quickened me.
51 The proud have had me greatly in derision:
yet have I not declined from thy law.
52 I remembered thy judgments of old, O Lord;
and have comforted myself.
53 Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law.
54 Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage.
55 I have remembered thy name, O Lord, in the night, and have kept thy law.
56 This I had,
because I kept thy precepts.

 

[Ransom]

Question remains, if he had sold/given would that have been sufficient for "heaven"?

Of course not. The ravings of our resident hyper-Dispensationalists aside, the way of salvation was always justification by faith, and never by mechanical obedience to a legal checklist. This is Paul's point in Galatians: Abraham was justified by his faith before there was a Law to obey, and what was begun by the Spirit of God could not be perfected by the flesh.

Jesus' point to the rich young ruler was that by his own standards he fell short. Only the new birth from above would bring him to saving faith.

 

[RAIDER]

What I simply said was David kept the Law.

The same thought could apply to us.  If someone asked me if I was a law-abiding citizen, I would say, "Yes!" even though I have received a speeding ticket.

 

[RAIDER]

Question remains, if he had sold/given would that have been sufficient for "heaven"?

the way of salvation was always justification by faith

Faith in what?

 

[Ransom]

Faith in what?

Faith in the promises of God. Ultimately, the promises of Scripture regarding Jesus Christ's ability to atone for sin.