By faith or by choice

When one is dead in sins, and blinded to the Gospel, not free, but enslaved to sin, this would be his choice by his nature.

 

Did he expose his true heart by calling Jesus "Good teacher?'
Lord asked him if he knew that by calling Him that, he was addressing jesus as being God!

Also, his very tone was that of self rightiousness, "I have kept all the law FROM BIRTH"

How could he be one of the sheep?

 

I really don't know how to respond to an OP that is full of lies and false doctrine.

Rick, many here are glad you are back, but I kind of liked the lack of false teachings while you were gone.

John

 

He couldn't have been, contrary to what another has said.

His sheep follow Him.

 

No JF (man, you like to misquote scripture), it's:

"...Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth".

 

Always follow? Always obedient?

This is just a snapshot of this young man, similar to the one given of Nicodemus in Jn 3, they both were attracted to the Saviour. Who knows if he didn't become as one of those in Acts 2 who 'sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need'.

I choose not to judge him harshly, it doesn't appear that Christ did.

 

Because salvation is the unmerited favor (grace) of God through faith, and that grace is a gift of God, would I be correct in assuming that you consider the faith as also a part of that gift of salvation?

Having to over come the inexpressible fear of heights, and, knowing that the ladder performed sufficiently in the past, I express belief. That expressing and acting upon belief is based upon knowledge and history.

Would this be an acceptable illustration of your statement?

Hearing brings the knowledge, but what (if you are agreeable with the illustration that I submitted) provides the historical context that causes action oriented belief?

Or is active belief departing the subject?

Would you then agree that these all are gifts of God: faith, grace, salvation, justification, and righteousness?

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith that is saving faith is not merely hope. Faith has substance and evidence. Would you not consider this is like James states, "showing faith by my works works?"

I think you are correct in stating that faith is created by God.

See, this is where I personally have a disagreement and probably with most of the BB.

I do not consider that any part of work of salvation can begin without first the person becoming aware of the need of salvation through conviction. That conviction cannot occur without God first making the person alive to even sense the conviction. That this process of awareness and conviction are the birthing process of the new believer. As such the conception then is start of "regeneration" and regeneration not a one time act of God (except at the point - or appointment - of conception), but a continual flowing process in which a person from time to time becomes "renewed in the Spirit," until we are complete and clothed in His presence.

Illustration: A greater number of criminals are most angry they were caught, and the greatest number have no remorse for their crime nor the conviction that judgment placed upon them. However, there are a very few, who knowing they are guilty, are truly remorseful, and admit to the crime and the just penalty. Rather they look for a way to escape, and reason to vent their anger.

What was the difference in the two thieves? One had "Godly sorrow" the other did not. Godly sorrow can only be brought to a person in whom God has quickened. That is why the thief could both rebuke the other and express longing toward Christ.

What is it about this view in which you disagree, and why?

 

observed=kept!

 

Only the living can make a bona fide choice.

Although He did choose Judas, a devil, in order for the scriptures to be fulfilled, I don't believe Christ would have called the young man to be a disciple if he weren't one of His own.

 

youth NOT birth

 

Think that the arms/non calls fall down in 2 main areas from what has been posted here regarding salvation...
err in undercutting the effects of the fall, that we are really Spiritually dead, and in the fact that election is based upon will of God, not will of man!

 

Who said always? Keep this on track without assumptions.

This would have been a perfect opportunity to show he was a sheep, but he didn't. Error lies in the fact when we think he kept the Law, adn many believe this, yet the text suggests otherwise.

Your proof he was a sheep is in what, because he kneeled? There is no proof he was a sheep, nothing suggests this.

He was covetous, a law breaker, and lost. That's judging harshly? Since when is truth judging harshly? I can state these things, and also have compassion on him as Jesus did, we have many in our churches that need the same, they're simply religious and don't know they're lost.

If he did in Acts 2 demonstrate the things you state, then that would show repentance and saving faith, something he didn't have prior. He was depending upon the Law instead, and alluded to this fact, something no one was able to keep as Scripture suggests.

Now, nothing in the text suggests he's a sheep, except for your eisegetical insertations, and I say this in honest truth, and not as derogatory.

However, the text does suggest he was covetous, that he didn't keep the Law, and it can also be argued he was dishonest.

Jesus exposed his own heart to him. He went away guilty and sorrowful.

 

Where does the text suggest otherwise?

It was Christ that answered his question thus:

“Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother.”

Paul crystallized 'fulfilling the law' this way:

“Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.”

Christ did not rebuke or dispute him for his answer, the text says He loved Him. It's quite apparent the young man had agape for Christ. I've no doubt he also had agape for his neighbor, and I've no doubt what the source of that agape within him was.

 

Be careful or FAL will start posting a verse that says only those who keep the commandments can enter heaven.

Love is the essence of the believer that makes even the thorns attractive on the rose bush of the believer's life.

 

It was suggested in the text when he was being dishonest, in that, he was covetous, yet claimed to have kept the Law.

You don't have to have an explicit rebuke to see the truth here, although there is a dispute against him. He was covetous, which is breaking the Law. It looks to me he had agape for his possessions, not for Christ, and over and above Christ. That's in the text. If he had such agape for his neighbor, he certainly refused to sell his possessions for the poor or for others. He held what he had, he was a covetous man.

Your conclusions are eisegetical. Nothing suggests he loved his neighbor. Everything suggests he loved his things instead.

As a matter of fact, on the "thing that he was lacking," it was that he was covetous. Breaking one point of the Law is being guilty of all. Jesus showed him where he failed to keep the Law, in covetousness, and covetousness is actually idolatry, which in turn breaks the first and second command. That was his gentle rebuke, and the dispute that you are missing. This is how the text shows otherwise.

- Peace

 

Who is practicing "eisegesis" more, the one who simply reads and states what this particular bit of scripture says....precisely, or the one who is wishes to tell us what it really means but doesn't actually come out and say?

 

Isn't the op akin to asking if we get to work by car or by road?

 

Luke, welcome back.

I would agree that we don't really make a choice TO BELIEVE God's revelation. For example, look at Romans 1. The people KNEW GOD. His revelation was 'clearly seen' and 'understood.' The only CHOICE that was made was the choice to "trade the truth in for a lie." This is why they were deemed to be 'without excuse.'

Once someone is revealed the clear truth of God the only CHOICE to be made is to acknowledge it as the truth or to trade it in for a lie.

Those who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved. So, the active CHOICE is not to ACCEPT or BELIEVE it, for even the demons believe. The active CHOICE is to reject what you have clearly seen and know to be true or to act in accordance with the clearly revealed truth. This is why their condemnation is well deserved and they truly have NO DEFENSE.

It's like this. If you saw a robbery but it was your son who was doing the stealing, you might suppress it or hide it so as to protect him and because you didn't want to believe he would do such a thing. Over the years you convince yourself that you never saw him steal. You are not having to make the active choice to believe what you saw...you just know it. The active choice was to reject that truth for so long that you came to believe it yourself. That is what Paul describes happens to the people in Romans 1. They 'KNEW GOD' because God made himself abundantly clear to them, but they CHOSE to trade that truth in and eventually came to believe their own lies. See the difference?

 

By what standard do you think we're going to be judged before the tribunal of Christ?

For deeds done while in the body.

Is there a scripture reference for that?

 

For the determination of...?