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

[George Antonios]

The God's word tells us that no one is or ever was saved by the law.

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Not a single person was ever saved by keeping the OT Law, though if they could have kept the Law, they would have been saved.

The only way to reconcile this is to realize the purpose of the OT Law was demonstrate the requirements of God are beyond our ability to keeping perfectly, therefore; our need for a savior.

peace to you

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why were the “good works” of this rich young man not adequate to warrant God choosing him for salvation? By all accounts, he sincerely wanted to worship God. He sincerely wanted to please God by keeping the Law, the same as Cornelius

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?

 

[AustinC]

Not a single person was ever saved by keeping the OT Law, though if they could have kept the Law, they would have been saved.

The only way to reconcile this is to realize the purpose of the OT Law was demonstrate the requirements of God are beyond our ability to keeping perfectly, therefore; our need for a savior.

peace to you

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

 

[canadyjd]

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?

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I have not considered the passage in this way.

You have hit the nail on the head by saying he didn’t really understand his sinfulness. That may have been the “one thing” Jesus was referring to when he said he lacked one thing.

If true, his wealth or his love of it wasn’t really the problem. He may have believed his generous giving was his ticket to heaven. To give all his wealth away would have left him totally dependent on the one (Jesus) he was told to follow to obtain eternal life.

Again, thank you for the well thought out reply, I’m going to re-think my understanding of this passage.

peace to you

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sure, I'm game. You go, boy.



What's tiresome and soooo redundant on this board is parrots like yourself that pick up a little Reformed Theology, get their brains sucked out and replaced with creeds and solas, never have an original Bible thought of their own after that and attack, insult, and criticize those that do exercise their Right Of Private Judgement.

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

 

[percho]

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

 

[canadyjd]

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

Thank you for the comments.

peace to you

 

[MB]

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

 

[canadyjd]

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

Thanks for the comments.

Cornelius was not told to give up his wealth and follow Jesus. We don’t really know how he would have responded.

Peace to you

 

[MB]

Thanks for the comments.

Cornelius was not told to give up his wealth and follow Jesus. We don’t really know how he would have responded.

Peace to you

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

 

[canadyjd]

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

I don’t believe that “giving always comes back to us”, certainly not in this life where wealth always passes away.

I do think God moves first, but the rich young ruler stood in the presence of Jesus Christ and was specifically told what he must do to inherit life. Cornelius was given no such command.

No doubt the RYR was a big “giver”. He was generous with his wealth, but he still lacked one thing.

Why did Jesus tell him, first, to keep the commandments?

Peace to you

 

[percho]

I don’t believe that “giving always comes back to us”, certainly not in this life where wealth always passes away.

I do think God moves first, but the rich young ruler stood in the presence of Jesus Christ and was specifically told what he must do to inherit life. Cornelius was given no such command.

No doubt the RYR was a big “giver”. He was generous with his wealth, but he still lacked one thing.

Why did Jesus tell him, first, to keep the commandments?

Peace to you

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Thanks for the comment. Yes, the thread is old but not yet a “zombie” so when someone commented, I responded. Kind of feel obligated since I started it.

peace to you

 

[percho]

Thanks for the comment. Yes, the thread is old but not yet a “zombie” so when someone commented, I responded. Kind of feel obligated since I started it.

peace to you

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Yes, that is absolutely the answer. The question the RYR asked was what good deed must he do to gain eternal life.

Jesus said keep the commandments… and so on.

After the RYR left, Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

The disciples said “who then can be saved”

The answer from Jesus…

With man…. Impossible

With God…. All things are possible.

The answer to the question of the OP…

… the difference is God chose Cornelius for salvation and then made sure it happened.

peace to you

 

[Alan Gross]

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

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

 

[Alan Gross]

And your point is?

I hope we all know that calling someone a "Calvinist" just means God has shown them 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.

If I wanted to pejorative slam it I could easily dismiss it with sound argument

like shooting spitballs at a battleship.

why throw rocks?

No rocks thrown, here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.