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

[canadyjd]

can you not read or understand? the rich man did NOT fear or worship God, which is what Cornelius did, who also prayed to the Lord. THIS is the difference.

I read just fine and understand quite well. Do you always have to insult someone when you make a post?

Jesus said he lacked only “one thing”. Jesus did not say the “one thing” was related to “not fearing God or not worshipping God or not praying to God” The “one thing” lacking was related to his wealth. If you read other words in this passage that I missed, please point them out to me.

Since something concerning his “wealth” was this “one thing” that was lacking, all the rest of his worship, prayers, reverence, alms giving… all the rest of his “good works”, and keeping the law must have been acceptable to God.

Since your assertion that the rich young man did not fear God or worship God or pray to God cannot be substantiated by the words of the passage, it must be rejected as the “difference” between Cornelius and the rich young man.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

I read just fine and understand quite well. Do you always have to insult someone when you make a post?

Jesus said he lacked only “one thing”. Jesus did not say the “one thing” was related to “not fearing God or not worshipping God or not praying to God” The “one thing” lacking was related to his wealth. If you read other words in this passage that I missed, please point them out to me.

Since something concerning his “wealth” was this “one thing” that was lacking, all the rest of his worship, prayers, reverence, alms giving… all the rest of his “good works”, and keeping the law must have been acceptable to God.

Since your assertion that the rich young man did not fear God or worship God or pray to God cannot be substantiated by the words of the passage, it must be rejected as the “difference” between Cornelius and the rich young man.

peace to you

It is not insulting to say that it is very clear that there is a real difference between both accounts. But you are trying to show problems that are not there because you don't understand what both accounts mean

 

[SavedByGrace]

I read just fine and understand quite well. Do you always have to insult someone when you make a post?

Jesus said he lacked only “one thing”. Jesus did not say the “one thing” was related to “not fearing God or not worshipping God or not praying to God” The “one thing” lacking was related to his wealth. If you read other words in this passage that I missed, please point them out to me.

Since something concerning his “wealth” was this “one thing” that was lacking, all the rest of his worship, prayers, reverence, alms giving… all the rest of his “good works”, and keeping the law must have been acceptable to God.

Since your assertion that the rich young man did not fear God or worship God or pray to God cannot be substantiated by the words of the passage, it must be rejected as the “difference” between Cornelius and the rich young man.

peace to you

the account of the rich ruler is before the cross, when the Law of Moses was still in force, and that of Cornelius, after, when the Law did not save anyone.

 

[canadyjd]

the account of the rich ruler is before the cross, when the Law of Moses was still in force, and that of Cornelius, after, when the Law did not save anyone.

You believe people were saved by keeping the Law? Really?

Your first attempt to explain the difference between the rich young man and Cornelius was to assert the rich young man did not fear God, or worship God, or pray to God.

When that answer was shown to be inconsistent with scripture, you have a new theory. The second attempt is to assert the rich young man was held to the standard of being saved by keeping the law, and Cornelius was saved by grace.

But the rich young man had kept the law since his youth. Jesus, Himself, stated he only lacked “one thing” and that one thing related to his wealth.

No where in the OT law are rich people required to give all of their wealth to the poor. So clearly, Jesus is not holding the rich young man to the “keep the OT Law” standard to be chosen for salvation by God.

And you accuse me of having no understanding.

thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

You believe people were saved by keeping the Law? Really?

see, I did tell you that you really don't understand! the very chapters that you quote from the Gospels says:

"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

very clear and simple!

 

[canadyjd]

see, I did tell you that you really don't understand! the very chapters that you quote from the Gospels says:

"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

very clear and simple!

But the rich young had kept the Law. Very clear in the passage, Jesus said he only lacked “one thing” related to his wealth.

Then Jesus gave him another standard for eternal life. He told him to give away all his possessions to the poor.

That is not part of OT Law.

You must read the entire passage in context to understand its meaning. You didn’t do that. That’s why your explanation is wrong.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

But the rich young had kept the Law. Very clear in the passage, Jesus said he only lacked “one thing” related to his wealth.

Then Jesus gave him another standard for eternal life. He told him to give away all his possessions to the poor.

That is not part of OT Law.

You must read the entire passage in context to understand its meaning. You didn’t do that. That’s why your explanation is wrong.

peace to you

When Jesus says to him "keep the Commandments", is this not The OT Law? You said to me, "You believe people were saved by keeping the Law? Really?". Jesus Himself answers you and proves you WRONG!

 

[canadyjd]

When Jesus says to him "keep the Commandments", is this not The OT Law? You said to me, "You believe people were saved by keeping the Law? Really?". Jesus Himself answers you and proves you WRONG!

Paul tells us no one is saved by keeping the law, not one single person. Salvation has always been by grace, even in OT times. The OT saints had faith in God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah. The blood of Christ covers their sins as well as ours.

When Jesus told the rich young man to keep the commandments if he wished to have eternal life, He wasn’t lying. If he could keep the commandments perfectly,, he would have had eternal life. But he couldn’t keep the law perfectly, which is why Jesus gave him a different standard than the OT Law.

Jesus told him to give away his possessions and follow Him. That is an offer of grace. His possessions kept him from accepting this offer and following Christ.

Jesus told the disciples how hard it is for the rich to enter into heaven. Having just watched this event they were astonished.

The rich young man was the personification of a good Jewish man, keeping the law and earning his way into heaven by his “good works”.

“Who then can be saved?”, they asked. In their minds, if this good man couldn’t make it to heaven, no one could.

Jesus answered “With men, this is impossible”. The “this” is salvation. Jesus is saying it is impossible for men to earn heaven. But with God, all things are possible. Salvation is dependent upon God from start to finish.

The answer to the OP is that no one is “chosen” for salvation based on their good works getting God’s attention, not prior to Christ nor after His resurrection.

God choses people for salvation according to His own will and desires, not based on what we do prior to salvation.

peace to you

 

[MB]

Good points all. However, Jesus said he only lacked “one thing”. You mentioned several things; living money more than Christ (though the passages doesn’t explicitly say that), bragging about keeping the law and pride.

If I told you that I had kept all of the commandments from child hood would you believe me?
Should we think Christ didn't know this was not true?

Does God require us to “clean ourselves up” from our sinful attitudes such as love of money, bragging, pride, before He choses us for salvation?

How could we be saved while still in our sins if we did? Since we are saved while still in our sins the sin is not what's important at this moment. What is? isn't it our trust and Love of Him. Was the rich man distraught over his sins. Nope. He lied and said he hadn't sined. There is no man with out sin.
Christ knows all. He knows what your condition is before you tell Him. Proof that he loved his money is in the fact that he just walked away disappointed. IOW he loved his money and did not plan on giving up that money.Some think wasn't wrong enough for him to be denied. I hope they look at Annaias and Sappihira. They fell down dead because they loved money and kept some back lying to God just as the rich man did. Acts 5:1-5.

Why the additional commandment to the rich young man to give away all his possessions? No where in the OT or the new are people required to give away all their possessions prior to being “chosen” for salvation.

To show the man him self in that he couldn't do it because he loved the money more.

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.

What’s the difference?

peace to you

Cornelius Gave from the heart but the rich man could not do that because of his love for it.
MB

 

[MB]

But the rich young had kept the Law. Very clear in the passage, Jesus said he only lacked “one thing” related to his wealth.

We do not know that he kept the Law. Christ knows better. "There is no man with out sin".

Then Jesus gave him another standard for eternal life. He told him to give away all his possessions to the poor. would he not learn how to be saved
Now you're just being ridiculous. You know better than that. Christ did not tell him he would be saved. Christ Said come and follow me. What do you suppose would happen if Christ told you to come and follow Him, and you did. Would you learn how to be saved following Him?

That is not part of OT Law.that

You must read the entire passage in context to understand its meaning. You didn’t do that. That’s why your explanation is wrong.

peace to you

MB

 

[MB]

The Lord Jesus expects us to love Him above all else. If we can't do this we are not saved.
MB

 

[1689Dave]

In the thread concerning Cornelius (Acts 10), some are arguing that God chose Cornelius and his household for salvation based on his good works which were pleasing to God. Synergism.

However, Matthew 19 and Luke 18, we have the similar account of a rich young man who asked Jesus, “what good thing must I do” for eternal life?

Jesus tells him to keep the commandments, which he claims to have done since his youth.

Jesus tells him he only lacks 1 thing, telling him to give all his wealth to the poor and follow Him.

Jesus never contradicts the man’s claims of keeping all the commandments since his youth. In fact, he says he only lacked 1 thing.

My question is, why did God accept the good works of Cornelius and chose him for salvation, but reject this young man’s good works, setting a different standard for eternal life… namely giving away his wealth?

God chose Corneilus as a wretched sinner and gave him a new heart that performed good works by nature. Later Peter preached to him and his friends showing the gospel lifestyle. But he was already saved.

The rich young ruler could not measure up to the law he trusted to save him. Jesus only proved how futile it was to him. The saved trust in Jesus as their righteousness and good works follow.

 

[MB]

God chose Corneilus as a wretched sinner and gave him a new heart that performed good works by nature. Later Peter preached to him and his friends showing the gospel lifestyle. But he was already saved.

The rich young ruler could not measure up to the law he trusted to save him. Jesus only proved how futile it was to him. The saved trust in Jesus as their righteousness and good works follow.

Wrong Cornelius was not saved until he heard the gospel. You cannot be saved without knowing Jesus.
MB

 

[1689Dave]

Wrong Cornelius was not saved until he heard the gospel. You cannot be saved without knowing Jesus.
MB

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34–35 (KJV 1900)

This agrees with the new birth (salvation) before faith can exist. If not born again, the gospel is foolishness.

 

[AustinC]

How is it that Baptists are promoting Roman Catholic theology of justification by faith plus works endorsed via the Council of Trent which went directly against the Reformation? Yet, here we have people in this thread openly promoting salvation by works of the law. It's a mystery. Did Baptists secretly renounce the Reformation and return to Rome?

 

[canadyjd]

We do not know that he kept the Law. Christ knows better. "There is no man with out sin".

The rich young man claimed he kept the law since his youth. Jesus did not contradict that claim. Jesus told him he lacked only “one thing” which had something to do with his wealth, not with keeping the law.

The man didn’t claim he was sinless. The OT Law allowed for sacrifices for sin.

Jesus gave him instructions for eternal life that went beyond the OT Law. He was told to give all his possessions to the poor and follow Jesus.

If “good works” were necessary for God to chose someone for salvation, the rich young man would have been chosen for salvation.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34–35 (KJV 1900)

This agrees with the new birth (salvation) before faith can exist. If not born again, the gospel is foolishness.

then you believe in a WORKS SALVATION!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The rich young man claimed he kept the law since his youth. Jesus did not contradict that claim. Jesus told him he lacked only “one thing” which had something to do with his wealth, not with keeping the law.

The man didn’t claim he was sinless. The OT Law allowed for sacrifices for sin.

Jesus gave him instructions for eternal life that went beyond the OT Law. He was told to give all his possessions to the poor and follow Jesus.

If “good works” were necessary for God to chose someone for salvation, the rich young man would have been chosen for salvation.

peace to you

what about Abraham and Rahab in James chapter 2?

 

[kyredneck]

can you not read or understand? the rich man did NOT fear or worship God, which is what Cornelius did, who also prayed to the Lord. THIS is the difference.

??? Can you not read or understand? Are you dense? The young man ran to Christ, kneeled before Him, and saluted Him with language intended for the divine. Christ loved him, and did not dispute his claim of doing no ill towards his neighbor. The evidence points to this young man being circumcised in heart. Where he messed up is when he asked, "What lack I yet"? And Christ says, 'if you would be perfect sell all and follow me'. Christ actually put it forth to him to become His disciple, and he balked. I agree with Edersheim on this, 'saved' here is not in reference to the eternal salvation of the soul but of entering into the benefits of the kingdom, i.e., Christendom.

This is just a photo snap shot of this young man at this moment in time, just as with Nicodemus in Jn 3. Who knows that he did not indeed later on join with the saints in Jerusalem who sold all and held everything in common.

I choose not to judge him harshly.

"Concerning the rich young ruler of whom it is said Christ "loved him" (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that he was one of God's elect and was "saved" sometime after his interview with our Lord. . . . It is written, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out," and this man certainly did "come" to Him." A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God

 

[canadyjd]

??? Can you not read or understand? Are you dense? The young man ran to Christ, kneeled before Him, and saluted Him with language intended for the divine. Christ loved him, and did not dispute his claim of doing no ill towards his neighbor. The evidence points to this young man being circumcised in heart. Where he messed up is when he asked, "What lack I yet"? And Christ says, 'if you would be perfect sell all and follow me'. Christ actually put it forth to him to become His disciple, and he balked. I agree with Edersheim on this, 'saved' here is not in reference to the eternal salvation of the soul but of entering into the benefits of the kingdom, i.e., Christendom.

This is just a photo snap shot of this young man at this moment in time, just as with Nicodemus in Jn 3. Who knows that he did not indeed later on join with the saints in Jerusalem who sold all and held everything in common.

I choose not to judge him harshly.

"Concerning the rich young ruler of whom it is said Christ "loved him" (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that he was one of God's elect and was "saved" sometime after his interview with our Lord. . . . It is written, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out," and this man certainly did "come" to Him." A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God

I certainly do not discount the possibility the rich young man eventually become a follower of Christ. I hope to see him in heaven. We have to admit that is speculation, however.

The focus of the OP concerns the assertions by some that the “good works” of Cornelius were the reason God chose him for salvation.

My question is, if this were true of Cornelius, why not the rich young man?

peace to you