Matthew 19:16-17

(Eph 2:8-9 NKJV) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, {9} not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Ken

 

It is my understanding of this passage that neither were really the crux of the matter.

The point of the story was not so much to give the young man some "guidelines" to follow to be saved, but to show him what was keeping him from attaining heaven.

Unfortunately, he chose the things that were keeping him from heaven.

To directly answer your question, (b) follows (a). We believe, and therefore are saved unto good works. We follow the commandments after we believe, because we love Jesus, and wish to be obedient.

 

This is a passage that is often refered to as an inconsistency in the Scriptures. However, the solution is found in verses 20-21.

Notice Christ's answer, "If thou wilt be perfect...come and follow me." Thus we, along with this man, see that keeping the commandments is not enough to inherit eternal life. Rather "this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."(I John 5:11-12)

 

Don, the "WE'in Matthew is not talking about people in the church age. Bro.Coley, I told you

[ July 28, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: KEVO ]

 

I'm afraid, Kevo, that I don't understand your post.

The "WE" isn't talking about people in the church age? Could you clarify?

And "I told you, Bro. Coley"? Care to let us in on the secret?

 

kevo and "bro coley" are Ruckmanitish dispensationalists it appears based on these comments and the comments in the thread on salvation in teh tribulation. You were right about the issue in Matthew 19. Christ was illustrating the nature of saving faith and what it was that was keeping this man from salvation. He had things that were more important.

 

kevo and "bro coley" are Ruckmanitish dispensationalists it appears based on these comments and the comments in the thread on salvation in teh tribulation. You were right about the issue in Matthew 19. Christ was illustrating the nature of saving faith and what it was that was keeping this man from salvation. He had things that were more important.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

This is name calling on Pastor Larrys part.This should call for discipline.

 

Yeah, and he didn't even get the name right! This stuff is coming right out of Clarence Larkin! These guys are Larkinites!

 

The first step to salvation is the realization that a person cannot be "good" enough to obtain it on the basis of works. Notice, first of all, the young man addresses Jesus as "Good Master". This is the first thing Jesus reponds to in his reply.

17"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:"

Perhaps Jesus was implying "Are you ready to admit that I am God?".

Then the young man's question was: "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" In other words he was looking for a way to earn his salvation by good works. Then Jesus answered "but if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." If you want to earn your salvation by being good you must keep the commandments - all of them. This should have brought this young man to the realization that he could not be "good" enough to earn his salvation (Gal 3:24 & James 2:10).

Jesus was doing what any good soul-winner would do in this situation. He was faced with someone who had, what we call in the South, a "good ol' boy" mentality that anyone who is a "good" person and doesn't harm anyone else should go to heaven. Jesus was trying to help this young man realize what it really means to be "good" - that God is good and man is not. This is the first step toward salvation.

Salvation always has and always will be by grace through faith. It was even this way for Abraham (Romans 4:2-3).

 

As some have said in here, this passage reveals the inadequacy of self-righteousness through written law and commandments, and how that even the literal fulfilling of the letter of the law was not the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law, as also revealed in Romans 2:17-29.

Christ revealed that even though this person claimed to have kept the written law, including the last commandment Christ mentioned in verse 19, "love thy neighbor as thyself," Christ was able to reveal the true heart of this individual in how if this person truly loved God and his fellow man, then he would have no problem in giving up his temporary world possessions and lovingly giving the value of them to the poor, and following the living God, Christ.

Therefore righteousness through the letter of the law was proven to be without love, which therefore testified that it was without righteousness; for love is the fulfilling of the law, not the keeping of the written law to the letter (Romans 13:10).

Christ did not actually want this person to give up his possessions for the poor, for this person would have also then been poor himself, and he then could have easily given the money back to himself. Christ was simply demonstrating how the written law does not produce true righteousness in men, even when it is followed to the letter. For the law is not of faith, and it was demonstrated as so by this person refusing to have faith in Christ, while instead choosing to trust in his own self-righteousness of keeping the letter of the law.

God bless.

 

Matthew:19 16-17 vs John 20:30-31

John 20
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book :
31 But these are written (the Gospel of John), that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

Where is the name calling? "Ruckmanitish dispensationalist" describes your position does it not? Or has he changed to teach something else?

(BTW, Thomas, I was not aware Larkin taught that. The only person I have heard it from was Ruckman and a follower of his. My apologies for that.)

I am myself am a Grace dispensationalist for the most part (i.e., the dispensationalism held by Grace Theological Seminary in previous days as taught by McClain, Kent, Whitcomb, etc.)

You guys need to relax a bit. I was simply making a comment about where your views come from.

[ July 29, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Dear Brother Coley,

You asked…

You should have had another category

(d) None of the above

Because no sooner had the young man boasted that he was keeping all the commandments (b) , The Lord proved that he wasn't by giving him one he couldn't keep.

HankD

 

This young man came to Jesus and called Him Good Master , which Jesus challenged, not as a denial of His deity, but to impress on this young man the seriousness of the implication. "Are you sure you really mean that?" would be a modern paraphrase.

The young man's question, "What good thing shall I do?" implies that he wanted to perform some work that might gain him eternal life.

Jesus' challenge was to elevate this young man's concept of "good." The comment "Good Master" is followed by a request for something "good" that he may do to gain heaven. Jesus' concept of good was that which is divine. Only an act of a good God could grant eternal life.

Jesus' reply, "If thou wilt enter into life..." implies that this young man had not yet received eternal life, even though he had, in his estimation, kept all of the commandments.

Jesus did not believe, nor did He teach that mere outward keeping of the commandments of the law brought anyone salvation. Jesus goes to great lengths to show this man that he has not kept the commandments and, as a result, is in need of God's grace.

 

Larkin did teach dispensations before Ruckman. Dispensational Truths by Clarance Larkin. But just because we believe the same way he does doesn't mean he or Dr.Ruckman taught us. I love Dr. Ruckman and have read some of Larkin's material. What makes anyone think think that God didn't show us this truth?
Pastor Larry the only reason we are being picky about name calling is because I got kicked off for name calling. I am tired of not knowing what I can say and what I can't. I may get kicked off again. I know one thing,the rules are different for KJVonly folks. When I got kicked off, I was warned and kicked off at the same time,but Pastor Larry can continue his personal attacks and get away with it.

 

Don,I told Bro.Coley Sunday night when he started this thread that I didn't know of any dispensationalist on bb. Would someone please explain what Paul meant in 2Tim 2:15,if he didn't mean what he said,"rightly dividing the word of truth". I believe he meant to rightly divide the word of truth. Of corse some of the other versions probably don't read the same. Hey, maybe that is why only the KJV folks know how to rightly divide the Word,we are the only ones with the Word.And we believe the word and don't try to change it to suit us. Yes a revelation from God

 

You are probably correct again Dr. Coley.