Featured What is the difference between Cornelius and the rich young ruler?

That is true. It is also true that the same word of God tells us that men were saved by works under the law.
The question is how to reconcile those two truths, and the answer is not to ignore either part.

 

I think the difference is that the RYR had no sense of his sin. He seems just to have had the nagging feeling that he was missing something. Every time that the Lord Jesus refers someone to the Law, it is to convict him of his sin. Cornelius prayed and fasted, so it seems that he was aware that his good deeds were not enough to save him.

The one hope that I have for the RYR is that he went away 'troubled.' If he had gone off angry of laughing or indifferent, I wouldn't have much hope for him; but he went away 'troubled.' He was convicted, and maybe it's just possible that he came back to the Lord Jesus a few days later, and this time called Him 'Lord' instead of 'teacher.'. Who knows for sure?

 

Indeed, if man could have been saved by keeping the law, Jesus would never have needed to come and be a ransom for many.

 

Honestly, what do you want, they are Calvinists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

 

Heb 5:7,8 who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, (unto the previously mentioned death)

The obedience of Son are the works relative to faith in the One able to save him out of death ἐκ θανάτου Noun - Genitive Singular

Therefore

V 9 and having been made perfect (out of death ie in the lowest parts of the earth), he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,

Because the above took place, God elected to impute righteousness to Cornelius and his family.

that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

I would say the very same applied to Saul/Paul

 

Simply this story tells me about, Pride and Humility, and selfishness and generosity. The rich man could never give up his wealth because it made him who he was.. Cornelius's wealth wasn't as important as to keep him from knowing Jesus
MB

 

This is true.

Cornelius was already giving his wealth away. Giving always comes back to us, sometimes 10 fold more than we had to begin with. God loves a cheerful giver. He helped those he gave to. I'm not saying he was saved because of his giving. He was saved because God had seen to it.. that he heard the gospel. God always makes the first move.
MB

 

My guess Ecc 12:13 The end of the whole matter let us hear: -- 'Fear God, and keep His commands, for this is the whole of man.

I did not realize this was an old thread.

 

Peace and love to you also.

Relative to the OP, methinks election trumps all. I like the following statement relative to the passage following the rich young ruler.

Matt 19:25,26 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

I hope we all know that calling someone a "Calvinist" just means God has shown them the The Eternal Doctrines of Grace, Supernaturally, so that they know how God Gloriously saves souls, as He has ALWAYS Planned.

And, that any and all opposition to them, in a 'pejorative' flavor, attempting to express contempt or disapproval (if and when that were the case) is like shooting spitballs at a battleship.

 

And your point is? If I wanted to pejorative slam it I could easily dismiss it with sound argument but God has his adherents in many belief systems, so why throw rocks? Frankly, I view Calvinism as a guidepost, a structure if you will to higher understanding but I do not revere it as the end all cure all for believers to rest on.

 

No rocks thrown, here.

 

Im not suggesting you are throwing rocks… that would be most unchristian of you. Rather, I was stating that using the term “Calvinism” could be used as a slur to one’s theological stance and that’s wrong.

I myself could be considered a Calvinist because I hold to Doctrines of Grace however I do not consider myself one anymore than I consider myself Roman Catholic for believing in the Trinity. A person who labels one that way misses the bigger picture.