# Legitimate offer of salvation to the rich young ruler



## dlowrie290 (Mar 21, 2014)

Hi all,

I am in a written conversation with an Arminian and the topic of the legitimacy of the Gospel call to the non-elect came up. Here is the excerpt from my synergistic friend...



> Regarding the scriptures you quoted, one was Jonah 2:9. There is no doubt that salvation is of the Lord. I agree with you on that. However, this does not mean that man does not have the free choice to receive salvation. Of course salvation is of the Lord, but too many times in scripture we see God calling people to repent, and they refused out of their own will. If you look at Mark 10:21,22, we see the story of the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler was called by Jesus to follow Him. Yet, out of the rich young ruler’s free will he walked away without eternal life. If you believe that God chose only some individuals to be saved, how do you interpret the passage in Mark 10:21,22? Why would Jesus call him to follow, if this man was not chosen for salvation? It would seem useless and strange for Jesus to be calling this man to follow Him.



Now, I have been going over Mark 10:17-31 (gotta throw in that context  ) for about 2 weeks. Reading commentaries, looking at the Greek text and just plain reading the text of scripture for the plain truths that it is expounding. I feel I have a pretty good handle on what's being said and why it's being said. Jesus is exposing the fact that this rich young ruler (RYR) is an idolater, is self-righteous, and doesn't recognize his own inability and inherent sinfulness; and even when Christ reveals that to him, he isn't willing to let it go and he walks away saddened. Jesus then talks about the impossibility of salvation for those with wealth, but what is impossible with men is possible with God.

But the question of my friend still stands. Is the offer of salvation to the RYR a valid offer granting that the RYR wasn't among the elect? Or should we just ask if the offer of salvation is legitimate only for the elect? I get that it is effectual to only the elect. Is the Gospel call an offer at all, or is it a command, or both? Does the Gospel have more application than that of bringing the elect to spiritual life and all that entails; does it also bring condemnation to those that reject it? If so, can I get that scripture reference or am I just way off track?

Feel free to throw me any additional points that might help in my response to my Arminian friend. 

Thanks to all and God bless


----------



## Cymro (Mar 21, 2014)

The call is universal but only the few are chosen, so that it is they who respond. But
the remainder are without excuse for they also have been commanded to repent and
believe the gospel. They WILL not come that they might have life. Their wills are in bondage
through sin and therefore can only choose according to its dictates.
As for the rich young ruler we ought not close the door on him. The word says that, Jesus beholding
him loved him. The Rev John Kennedy stated in another context, Christ cannot love and not save!
Who knows that although the RYR went away,does that rule out his future salvation? How many of
us repeatedly over many years of hearing the gospel, went away untouched and carried on following
the desires and devices of our hearts. But blessed be God, His love did not go away but bore fruit later!


----------



## Cymro (Mar 21, 2014)

I forgot to add, that the gospel when declared and commanding all men to
repent, is a savour of life to some, and a savour of death to others. Visit Isaiah 6:10,
which is also taken up by John 12:38-41, and it tells us "that they could not believe",
because what God would do to them through the preaching of the truth.
And that is the awful solemnity of the ministry,that though there is joy over one soul
coming to Christ, yet the same sermon at the same time will harden what is already 
hard. As the Puritans illustrated, clay is hard but when the the sun rises it hardens the
clay further,


----------



## Sherwin L. (Mar 21, 2014)

I've been thinking about this in recent weeks, and I think you're on the right track. The purpose of evangelism to every tribe, tongue, and nation is not so that everyone has the chance of salvation, but so that God can be glorified in the predestination of _both_ the elect and the reprobate. The gospel "invitation" in some ways is universal-- we are to proclaim it to everyone because that is our command, but it is the Lord's sovereign work to save some and not others. Jesus proclaimed the gospel to many who He knew would reject Him-- people who were never meant to be saved. Before the throne, these unregenerate souls will glorify God in some way or another, but will stay pay the price for their unrepentant lives.

In other words, Christ's "offer" to the rich young ruler was not so much to have him invite the Lord into his heart as it was a verbal admonition that true salvation could not be marked such an impenitent life. I liken it to the giving of the Mosaic Law-- it was not a way of salvation, but a standard to highlight the sinfulness of national Israel.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 21, 2014)

The gospel was truly offered to him. The terms of the gospel are not "the elect are now permitted to believe" but "believe and be saved." Had he believed, he would have been saved. Election doesn't limit or invalidate the universal call of the gospel.

Your arminian friend is assuming that election is opposed to free offer, and that Christ knew who was and who wasn't elect. The first is wrong, and I am not sure what evidence could be brought for the second.


----------



## psycheives (Mar 21, 2014)

Reformed folks are divided on this. The debate is over the topic of "the free offer of the gospel" also called "the well-meant offer of the gospel". This issue goes hand in hand with the views on "common grace."

So the three big views are (outlined here): 
1) The Arminian view. 
2) The middle Calvinist view (usually Infralapsarians) "affirms well-meant offer" and "affirms common grace" - view of the Christian Reformed Churches and United Reformed Churches. Also Orthodox Presbyterian Churches's view http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=59
3) The high Calvinist view (usually Supralapsarians) "denies the well-meant offer" and "denies common grace" but instead affirms "sovereign particular grace" - view of the Protestant Reformed Churches: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html & http://rfpa.org/pages/protestant-reformed-faith-well-meant-offer



> As WIKI says: concerning whether or not an evangelist can sincerely say that God desires the salvation of everyone in attendance and is waiting and hoping for them to "repent and believe." The concern is that this message is no different than the Arminian delivery. The heart of the matter, according to the majority report submitted to the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1948, is "whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men."[4] Those taking the negative position are sometimes labeled Hyper-Calvinists.[5]





> This label is disputed, however, in that some who deny the free offer accept the idea of a "general call". David J. Engelsma states: "Ours is a denial that arises out of the Reformed faith itself, that is in perfect harmony with all aspects of the Reformed faith (including the serious, external call to all who come under the preaching!), and that is made for the sake of the maintenance of the Reformed faith. It is not a rejection of the church's duty to preach the gospel to all men indiscriminately. We believe that the many must be called."[6]



Hyper-Calvinist is to refuse to preach the gospel to others because God will find a way. Therefore, the Protestant Reformed Churches who DO preach the gospel and DO perform missions work BUT also believe God's gospel is only meant to call the elect and God only desires to call the elect may NOT be accurately labelled "hyper-calvinist".


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 21, 2014)

Ruben:

Just so.

And, further, I've said it many times here before with respect to other such suppositions: on what basis would you possibly presume that the RYR was a reprobate? Besides a very few individuals about whom Scripture gives us that sort of knowledge (e.g., Esau, Judas), we have no warrant to even bring this up with respect to other particular persons. It is violative of what WCF 3.8 cites with respect to the "high mystery of predestination." It is not for speculative and certainly not for discouraging purposes, but rather to encourage us on in hope, assurance, and obedience. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## LeeD (Mar 21, 2014)

Cymro said:


> The Rev John Kennedy stated in another context, Christ cannot love and not save!


Brother Jeff,

Thank you for both of your responses in this thread. I agree with most all of what you said. The quote you shared from Rev Kennedy doesn't seem supportable by Scripture. I feel like we as Calvinists should carry a tremendous heart of desire to see all repent and believe the Gospel. I have seen in many (myself included) dear believers a hint of reluctance in unashamedly calling the unregenerate to repentance and faith in Christ. Never do we see such an attitude in Jesus. He made broad calls without hesitation. We wept over Jerusalem and then pronounced judgment upon the inhabitants of the city. I don't ever want to minimize the great heart of our Savior and His willingness to save sinners. As a matter of fact, I need to be regularly reminded of this!

Matthew 11:28 "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
Luke 19:41 "And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it..."
Luke 13:34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."
John 7:37 ""Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink."
John 6:35 ""I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."


----------



## earl40 (Mar 22, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ruben:
> 
> Just so.
> 
> ...



Of course we may qualify statements one is reprobate if they do not come to faith. If the RYR came to faith he would have been saved when Jesus offered then or later on, In other words, "Had he believed, he would have been saved" does not say the RYR is reprobate.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 22, 2014)

In His human nature, with a reasonable soul, as the Shorter Catechism says, Christ did not know whether this man was of the elect or not, unless it was revealed to Him. So His offer of the way of salvation to someone who truly exercised faith and repentance was as bona fide as if one of Christ's ministers, without such divine insight offered it.

At some point in His relationship with Judas, Christ in His human nature, was aware of Judas's destiny, and relates to him regarding the Gospel accordingly.

The results of such an offer to people that we do not know are elect or not are left to God, who is glorified in their salvation or judgment.

Some people seem to assume that because Jesus was God that He knew everything in His human nature. Maybe the fact that Jesus wasn't omniscient in His human nature, is more difficult to understand than that He wasn't omnipresent or omnipotent in His human nature.

But He did, and still has a "reasonable", finite, soul, alongside His Godhead.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cymro (Mar 22, 2014)

Reprobates are all those who continue in unbelief until they die. So that
to hold that God loves the reprobate is to believe that He who is love can
have His love frustrated, wasted and superfluous. That is why Kennedy
would posit that God cannot love and not save. His love is as irresistible
as His grace and accomplishes its design even the securing of those whom 
He has given eternally to His Son.
Because of our finite and limited knowledge, not knowing who the elect are,
it is our task to preach the gospel to all and sundry. And through that public 
proclamation His own are called out of darkness into the kingdom of His 
dear Son. His people are loved with an everlasting love, which is not true
of the non elect. That is why He cannot love and not save.
Respecting the reference to Christ weeping over Jerusalem, I would follow
Gordon Clark's view, who quotes unreservedly from Dr John Gill on this 
matter.
Hyper Calvinism has been mentioned, which I always have taken to mean,
those who would only preach the Gospel to sensible sinners. Which is
Insensible!


----------

