Jesus Preaching to the Rich Young Ruler: Standard for Salvation or Something Else?

Does the Bible give latitude on the plan of salvation? Is there any hint that some variety is acceptable within permissible boundaries? There is only one Bible and one plan of salvation. God is very clear on that. How did we get to where there is the present degree of difference between those who might generally identify with one another?

We must get the gospel/salvation right. I don't believe there is a more critical subject today. If there is, I don't know what it is. Nothing bothers us more than wrong teachings about salvation, much of which are found in professing evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Nothing matters more to an individual than whether he’s ready for eternity or not. Being deceived about this is the most damning thing that could occur to a person, far worse than genocidal murder on a scale of bad, even worse than someone taking out a school bus full of children. That means, as unbelievable as it may sound, what evil Mao in China did is not as bad as someone teaching a false gospel. We don't want to tell someone the wrong thing about salvation. We've got to get this right. We know that Jesus and the Apostles were concerned about responses to the saving message, because that is expressed all over the NT. We should be too.

The title of this report indicates that there are at least two ways that preachers can go on this text of scripture, on the rich young ruler, which is found in Matt 19:16-30; Mk 10:17-31; Lk 18:18-30: Jesus is either teaching salvation/the gospel as He does throughout the gospel accounts, or something else post-salvation. And if He is teaching salvation, giving it an explanation that contradicts the rest of Christ's preaching is wresting the Scriptures (cf. 2 Pet 3:16-17), privately interpreting the text (cf. 2 Pet 1:16-21) and falsely dividing the Word of truth (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). There is only one right response to this text, and its really not that difficult.

Among false positions concerning this account of the rich young ruler, here are two popular versions, both of which will be scrutinized: (1) what Jesus preached to the rich young ruler was completely different than what He taught in other places and His gospel so it couldn't be the gospel, and (2) the rich young ruler was already saved and lacked assurance and commitment, a position derived from Keswick theology.

Ones take on this passage and many similar ones in the NT (e.g. Matt 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 5:1-11; 9:23-26, 57-62; Jn 12:24-25; etc) will very likely tell where you fall in the spectrum of belief on the required saving response to the gospel message.

The text of this account of the rich young ruler can be found in Mk 1:17-31, Matt 19:16-30 and Lk 18:18-30. We will use them interchangeably in this report.

False Positions on the Rich Young Ruler

False Position No. 1: The Rich Young Ruler is Not About Salvation Because it's Different To What Jesus Preached Elsewhere

This position was preached at an EBMC church, the sermon titled “The Rich Young Ruler" (Jan 21, 2024), one of a variety of different positions within the denomination, all of which of course are accepted equally as truth, reflecting their foundationally corrupted view of truth (by their actions and beliefs they reject the absolute truth of Scripture and embrace a form of relativism). We were curious as to how this heretical Evangelical Mennonite denomination would deal with this passage, which would be similar to many other evangelical churches.

The young evangelical preacher who preached this sermon is (or was at the time) an “elder” in one of the EBMC church’s (for the sake of non-required mercy, seeing that he rarely preaches in these churches, we will leave his name out of this report) indicated what Jesus preached to the rich young ruler was completely different than what He had taught in other places and different than Christs gospel allegedly, so it couldn't be the gospel, but what it exactly was he didn't know either. It is a lie but it is well reflective of the serious confusion and unsound doctrine being promoted and glorified in evangelicalism, running rank in its institutions, and why it has gone apostate in its entirety. He preached an entire sermon on the "Rich Young Ruler," but didn't know what the text was about with any confidence. Unbelievable. You can’t make this up. He certainly doesn't belong in any type of teaching position, certainly NOT an "elder," which according to the Bible is actually a pastor, not some convoluted church position invented by evangelicals.

He says the statement that Jesus makes here, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments, kinda had me puzzled.” Why was he puzzled?

“Because it goes almost contrary to his other teachings, to the other teachings of Jesus, and the other teachings of the NT of how we become saved, this goes contrary to that. I just read earlier in this message that in the previous chapter if you want to enter heaven you have to become like a child. Have a child like faith and trust and dependance in Jesus, He said that just one chapter before this. Maybe you remember the story of Nicodemus, . . . you have to become born again to enter heaven. Or going even further, how does Paul describe being saved. The Philippian jailer . . . and they tell him, believe, believe you and your family. So why does Jesus here say, if you would enter life, keep the commandments. Well lets remember who this young man thinks Jesus is. Who does this man think Jesus is? He is just another rabbi, he is another teacher. So Jesus kinda plays along and gives a typical rabbi answer, a typical pharisee answer. If you were to go around that time and ask a Pharisee how to get into eternal life, they would tell you this exact thing: keep the commandments. And you will enter life. So Jesus gives this young man the typical rabbi answer, for that time period. Keep the commandments. . . . He says I kept those, something is still missing. Jesus then gets at the heart of this young man."

1. This speaker clearly does not understand the law and its role in salvation, which then means he does not understand the true gospel. This is not a difficult subject of Scripture by any means, at least not for anyone that is genuinely converted, and this guy should not be teaching people from behind a pulpit, period. Jesus is using the law as the schoolmaster (cf. Gal 3:24), to expose to the young man his unconverted nature, being guilty of transgressing God's holy law. The ruler says he kept the law, but the real truth is, he did not, and Christ exposed this by his covetousness, transgressing the tenth commandment. He could not keep the law, no matter how hard he tried. He was guilty of breaking Gods law, and breaking one point of the law makes you guilty of all (Jam 2:10), but the truth is, he broke more than one point, contrary to what he said. Jesus is simply doing here what every true born again believer does when he preaches the gospel to the unsaved: using the law as a schoolmaster to expose the sinners sinful condition, position and predicament, and that there is no escape when you sin even once against the law of God. The idea is for them to become guilty before God of their transgression and wickedness, to see themself as God sees them with the rightful punishment of eternal damnation, which ought to bring about fear of the Lord and ideally prompt repentance (gifted by God, as the sinner responds adequately to the conviction and reproof of God's Spirit—Rom 2:4).

2. Not only is he confused and not speaking the truth, he speaks nigh blasphemy. He claims Jesus is pretending to be a Pharisee since the rich young ruler addressed Him as a Rabbi. "Who does this man think Jesus is? He is just another rabbi, he is another teacher. So Jesus kinda plays along and gives a typical rabbi answer, a typical pharisee answer." What was the "typical rabbi answer," that Jesus gives him, which apparently was "for that time period," deceiving the rich ruler by the way, and lying to him—according to this preacher? "Keep the commandments." Jesus was telling him to keep the commandments, because that is what the Pharisees would have told him, Jesus playing along and pretending to be a Pharisee, for what purpose we shall never know, for even this preacher didn't know. That is incredibly unBiblical and borderline blasphemy, if not altogether. Jesus is doing NO such thing here, nor would He ever. Does this preacher not believe that Jesus is God? That Jesus was sinless? Pretending to be a Pharisee would be deception, bearing false witness, and that is a sin. Like we said, blasphemy, and the preacher is in deeper trouble with God than when we started.

3. What Jesus taught in the discourse with the rich young ruler is absolutely no different than any of His other teachings in Scripture. At the most fundamental level, it couldn't be different as that would indicate contradiction in Scripture, which would then indicate that Scripture has errors, all of which would indicate an untrustworthy and corrupt manual from God (God forbid!), the very opposite to the infallibility and inerrancy that Scripture says of itself, and we know to be true.

What Jesus said in Mk 10:21 (Matt 19:20; Lk 18:20), "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me," is no different than what He preached in Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; 17:32-33; Jn 12:24-26; etc, for instance. Consider one example:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mk 8:34-37)

(a) Jesus is preaching the gospel here to “the people . . . with his disciples also.” (v. 34). "The people," the multitudes, were almost entirely unconverted, with very, very few exceptions. He is preaching to "his disciples also," since not every disciple is a true believer (e.g., the “many of His disciples” in Jn 6:60-66, Simon the sorcerer, Balaam, Demas, etc), and out of his twelve disciples, one was unsaved, Judas. Furthermore, of the many "disciples" that followed Him, almost everyone left Him (Jn 6:60-66), again indicating unsaved. Jesus was not preaching in vv. 34-38 to lost people how to be better Christians, but rather the message of salvation to mostly unsaved people, the gospel (which is the message of the four Gospels), to repent and receive salvation. The message of the four Gospels is NOT practical sanctification, but salvation. "Come after" Jesus is ALWAYS salvific lingual, e.g., "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6).

(b) This text in Mark teaches that one who does not become a disciple of Christ (a follower of Christ), like the rich young ruler, will be eternally damned. In v. 34, denial of self and taking up the cross is a representation of the sinner coming to the point of saving repentance, something refused by the young man, with a resultant lifestyle of continued following of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ’s call to sinners to “follow me” (v. 34) was a call to salvation, since the Lord’s “disciples follow him” (Mk 6:1; Matt 8:23; Lk 22:39; Jn 18:15; 21:20). Matthew the apostle was converted in such a manner (Lk 5:27-28), as were the two sets of apostle-brothers (Mk 1:15-20; Lk 5:1-11) — according to the apostles themselves: Mk 10:26; Matt 19:27; Lk 18:28, and confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ: Mk 10:27-31; Matt 19:28-30; Lk 18:29-30. The rich young ruler would not, the cost was to high earthly wise, but its worthwhile to mention that Jesus did not chase Him down and offer him a watered-down version of the gospel, that kind that gets pounded from majority of evangelical and fundamental pulpits across the world today. This young man, exceedingly rich, a ruler in Israel, possibly famous, full of enthusiasm and zeal, seeking for eternal life as it seemed, walked away as lost as he came because he was not prepared to leave his lifestyle behind in order to follow Christ, and Jesus allowed him to go, not chasing after him, commenting, "how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mk 10:24-25). This is how we have to treat those who will not obey the hard but life-saving message of the gospel. You cannot force someone to be saved. It's out of the sinners own volition whether he will come to the cross of Christ, and it must be, but we don't dumb down the message to make it more palatable and less offensive. All that does is create two-fold children of hell.

(c) The rich young ruler was commanded to take up the cross. He would've understood that one who was bearing a cross in the land of Israel in Christ’s day was on his way to the shameful and extremely painful death of crucifixion (Jn 19:17) — repentant faith in Christ involves losing one’s life, that is, turning from our own way of living and sinful ways, from an exaltation of self and comfort to surrender to Christ as unconditional Lord (Mk 8:35). It’s an exchange of masters (Matt 6:24), a call to suffering and humility.

(d) The person who wishes to continue to live his own way and life, to “save his life,” as the rich young ruler did, will eternally lose “both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28, 39), while one who turns from his own way, denying himself, taking up the cross, and losing his life for the sake of Christ and the gospel, will save his life or soul (same Greek word “pseuche”) by receiving eternal life. “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (Jn 12:25). Losing ones life involves denying self, surrendering to the King, and dying to self, even as Christ explicitly stated here in Jn 12, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (Jn 12:24). The death of the sinner to self, sin and the world, by repentant faith in the gospel of Christ, results in an exchange of lives: discarding the old nature and receiving a new life and nature (2 Cor 5:17), a new heart (Ezk 36:26-27), having died with Christ, buried with Him and raised to newness of life (Rom 6:3-5), and so the new quickened saint brings forth fruit (Matt 13:23; Jam 1:18) starting at the moment of conversion (Col 1:4-6), in similitude to the seed of wheat.

(e) To encourage the unsaved, such as the rich young ruler, to give up their own way and surrender to Christ’s Lordship for salvation, Christ reminds them it profits them nothing if they gain the whole world, but lose their own souls (Mk 8:36-37). The ruler chose the deceptive profits and vanity of the world in exchange for his soul, possibly one of the saddest lines in Scripture, one I have no doubt that young man has regretted for thousands of years already: "And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." (Mk 10:22). Lukes account tells us, "And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich." (Lk 18:23). In his satanic- and self-deception, he placed greater value on his riches and possessions than his own soul, which has parallelism to the vain promises Satan attempted with Christ in a time where he perceived Christ to be weak, post-40 day fast, "All these things will I give thee ["the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"], if thou wilt fall down and worship me." (Matt 4:8-9). Unlike the rich young ruler, Jesus did not kowtow to Satan and embrace the lie, proclaiming, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt 4:10). Thats the choice the young ruler would make. How terribly sad that a man would exchange his eternal soul for the temporal riches of the world, yet there are billions of people in the world doing the exact same thing.

What we have described above is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and those who corrupt these crystal clear passages do not understand the gospel accurately and may well be false teachers (cf. 2 Pet 3:16-17). The account of “the rich young ruler” presents a huge problem for those who wish to hijack the salvation explanations of Jesus and twist them into something more convenient, to superficial professions of faith wholly absent of the supernatural, superdramatic conversion of the new birth that produces true disciples.

4. When he finally gets to what he thinks it might mean what Jesus said in v. 21, he rejects it as a salvific passage. The passage reads:"Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." (Mk 10:21). This is his explanation:

“What does passage mean? Does this mean that all Christians and followers of Jesus should sell all they have and give it to the poor? Well no. Actually selling all you have and giving it away is just another deed in a sense. This man wanted a good deed, so Jesus gave him one. The highest one probably possible for man. Selling all that you have and giving it away does not give you an automatic ticket to eternal life, right. The one thing it would do is loosen your grip on your love for money and wealth and to help dethrone the god of money in your life. I can actually see how this good deed could work contrary to gaining eternal life, and that a person could put their trust into this good deed rather than in Jesus Christ. Look at me God, I gave it all away. Look at me, reward me, and you could put your trust in that. It’s just another good deed. Good deeds don’t get us into heaven, good deeds come out of us as a result of our salvation.”

In other words, according to this evangelical the ruler must have been saved, because Christ was asking him to do this "good deed" and "good deeds come out of us as a result of our salvation.” He clearly implies that the man must have been saved, because Jesus was asking him to give all his riches away and follow Him, good deeds that apparently only come out of salvation (which isn't true, millions of people the world over perform good deeds like this, while clearly unsaved). But the words and context specifically tells us that this is only referring to one thing: salvation. And Jesus says he was unsaved, and more than once. Jesus said it in Mk 10:23-25 (even repeating the same words twice) and then further indicated that soteriology was its only subject (vv. 23-25 and 29-31). The apostles referred to the event as salvation only in Mk 10:26-28. There is ONLY one meaning and that is salvation. Period.

Jesus: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. . . . And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first." (Mk 10:23-25, 29-31)

Apostles: "And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee." (Mk 10:26-28)

The phrases "enter into the kingdom of God!" and "eternal life," and "saved,"are fairly simple to understand, and we need not explain them. Because he rejects the clear meaning of the said text and subject, soteriology, he is forced to change the meaning of the passages, and this is almost always the work of a false teacher. Some will take it ever further and eisegetically change the actual meaning of "kingdom of God" and "eternal life" and "saved" to fit their presupposed beliefs, which is a definitive illustration of wresting the Scriptures, an "error of the wicked" (2 Pet 3:16-17), as our next example illustrates.

We would agree in part with his assessment on the potential issue in the instruction of relinquishing all your money and material in the matter of trusting in the works of your good deeds to gain your salvation, but if this was truly an issue in this said discourse and instruction of the Lord, wouldn't have been stated so? Of course it would have, but none of the three harmonious accounts even hints at that analysis. Why not? Because God the Son is giving the instruction, and we do what we says, and further, the ruler wasn't left with just those two instructions, there were three more, which completes the reception of salvation by a sinner, all of which bears out the command to repent and believe. It wasn't just sell and distribute, but most importantly, come, take up the cross and follow me. This will be further expounded below.

5. Repeatedly in the text we are told what it's all about, so there is no confusion, which only rests in the mind of those who cannot understand the truth, who cannot rightly divide the word of truth. It’s not that difficult, and will be explored further below. It’s actually really really easy, at least for those that are truly born again and thus know and understand the truth, which is undoubtedly not the case with this preacher and majority of others in the EBMC denomination, many of which are a fulfilment of 2 Tim 3:5:

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

As this sermon continued on, there was zero differentiation between saved and unsaved, in spite of such confusion and vagueness absent from the pages of Holy Writ. One has no idea what he is referring to, but this type of confusion is normal in evangelicalism today (and most of fundamentalism) and may well be intentional in this setting where the preacher himself has no clue no as to what the text actually means. Most preaching today reflects such convoluted talking points. One ponders who the target really is. Again, such confusion is found nowhere in Scripture. The Bible is not confused about it, but almost everything that comes across the pulpit from these churches produces massive confusion, contradiction and compromise.

6. The evangelical Mennonite preacher, like majority of evangelicalism, protestantism, Christendom in general, including among the Baptists, has a fundamental misunderstanding of salvation/gospel which results in perversion of critical texts of Scripture like this exchange between Christ and the rich young ruler, and then Christ and the apostles, a text of Scripture that dovetails to perfection with other salvific passages that are likewise corrupted and twisted into something besides salvation, typically post-salvation discipleship (e.g. Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; 17:32-33; Jn 12:24-26; etc). In the Bible however, discipleship and salvation are the same. The call to discipleship is the call to salvation, and vice versa. What Jesus was commanding the rich young ruler was nothing different than the gospel He preached in Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; 17:32-33; Jn 12:24-26; etc.

Concerning discipleship, let's consider one example that proves the point that the call to discipleship is a call to salvation. In Matt 28 the word "teach" in v. 19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," which is the clarion call and commission to preach the gospel to the unsaved, is translated from the exact same word as "disciple" ("matheteuo"), used in the sense here to go and preach the gospel and make disciples by having people come to repentance (Lk 24:47) and faith (Mk 16:15-16), and thus receive the remission of sins (Lk 24:47; Mk 16:16; Jn 20:23), after which the believers/ disciples should be baptized (v. 19; Mk 16:16). The response to the preaching of the gospel is people becoming disciples by the new birth (Ac 14:21), for one is discipled or taught “unto the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 13:52) by the “foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor 1:21). Its also noteworthy that the word "teaching" in v. 20 (i.e. "teaching them to observe all things," which takes place after conversion and baptism), is a different Greek word than "teach" or disciple unto salvation (v. 19), and that is the word "didasko," which means to teach or hold discourse with people to instruct them like a teacher. "Matheteuo" carries the meaning of actually making the disciple while "didasko" is teaching the made disciple. The obvious truth that is being purveyed here is that the new birth makes disciples (v. 19a), and all truly born again believers are disciples that continue in God's Word (Matt 28:19b, 20).

The Mennonite evangelical preacher had a problem with what Jesus told the rich young ruler: sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow me, specifically with the two former commands, selling and distributing. The truth is, men don't have to give up their money to be saved. No. They have to give up everything. Their life, their self, their sin, their loves, their desires, their dreams, their people, their absolute everything, to be saved. That is scriptural faith and it exposes the major reason why there are so MANY false professors in the churches, including the EBMC denomination, almost entirely. They don't like Jesus proclaiming the absolute requirement to be saved, which ties into repentance and Christ's Lordship: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mk 8:35; Matt 10:39; 16:25; Lk 9:24; 17:23; Jn 12:25). The money was the one thing, however, that the young ruler couldn't part with, because he was covetous. Only less the number of the commands to "follow me" did Jesus command to give up your life, your self (“psuche”), in order to have eternal life. You can't hang on to your soul (“psuche”) and expect Jesus to cleanse it for all eternity. For a soul to be converted (Ps 19), to be restored (Ps 23), to be returned to God (Is 55:7), it must be offered to God by faith.

Those who hang on to their soul won't have it cleansed. Judas Iscariot is a contextual example in Scripture, who would rather hang on to his own soul, controlling his own life and destiny, rejecting the call to surrender to the King, than be "clean[sed] every whit:" (Jn 13:10). In Jn 13 at the last supper in the upper room, Jesus refers to the twelve apostles in his dialogue with Peter concerning the washing of his feet, Peter opposing this humble act of the Lord, and the Lord exclaiming, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (Jn 13:8). In other words, if you are not being washed and cleansed by the water and pure blood of Christ, you are unsaved, and that was Judas. Peter then in his quick witted response desires Jesus to not only wash his feet but also his hands and head, to which Jesus replies, part of which was quoted already: "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." (Jn 13:10). They weren't all clean, they hadn't all lost their life for Christ and the gospel's sake, as Peter and the other apostles had mistakingly assumed during the rich young ruler discourse, where "Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee." (Mk 10::28). "We" as in him and the other 11 apostles, but Judas was unregenerate and an evil betrayer, buying his time to make a buck in betraying the Son of man, but the apostles couldn't have known that as he was one of them, following Christ, preaching the gospel, performing the exact same great miracles as the others (cf. Matt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13). The exemplar case is very real, more so today than ever. Many claim the name of Jesus (cf. Matt 7:21-23) but most have never actually been cleansed at all from their sin, which is an important element of assurance of salvation (Lk 1:77), hence the massive struggle with salvation assurance that such people can never attain to, finally relying on faith in faith, or faith in Biblical promises, subjective parameters absent from the pages of Scripture, the actual practical reality of the new birth being absent from their lives, the remission of sins they have never received, which the fakes, counterfeits, hypocrites, and the rest of the false professors cannot comprehend, though they have deceived themselves into a psuedo belief, either ignorantly or wilfully rebellious to the cost of true conversion, The Call to Discipleship is a Call to Salvation, which requires the lost and cost of the sinners life, while opposed by the fleshly nature of man (cf. Jn 3:19-21).

7. If you were to take all of what I've described here and then plugged it into the rich young ruler passage, you would have Jesus commanding the typical evangelical or fundamentalist to sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow, but these would most likely say, "No." However, they're still saved. The rich young ruler apparently got special treatment or a special message that cannot be applied to or repeated by any other single person in the history of mankind, since apparently Jesus preached a different gospel everywhere else. You don't have to leave all, to forsake all (Lk 14:26-33) and follow Christ, like the apostles did (Lk 18:25-30; cf. Matt 19; Mk 10) to have eternal life in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The requirement in these environments at a minimum is a supreme superficial profession of faith with the idea that maybe in the future it will grow into something more, but not necessarily. When someone makes a profession of faith that is never accompanied by perpetual righteousness and holiness, and true peace with God that produces immediate and continual obedience, that doesn't mean he's unsaved. You can't judge that without being guilty of teaching salvation by works.

Again, this so-called “elder” (another word and position being corrupted in evangelicalism) should not be teaching others, since he does not understand sound doctrine. In fact, what this maybe reveals more than anything is a high likelihood of need for the new birth, the cause of his great perplexion concerning an important text of scripture that CLEARLY teaches soteriology from start to finish (Mk 1:17-31, Matt 19:16-30; Lk 18:18-30). Though many actually believe the heretical view of this preacher, most do not articulate it from the pulpit. At least he was honest in that regard.

False Position No. 2: The Rich Young Ruler Already Saved but Lacked Assurance and Commitment.

A Baptist preacher/teacher believes that the rich young ruler was already saved and lacked assurance and commitment, a heretical position derived from Keswick theology, a position also not to uncommon. This man (Jeff Barger) writes and teaches the following concerning this text:

“Because of religious conditioning, the young man’s question to Jesus (Mark 10:17) sends people in a certain direction. In his time and culture, “eternal life” did not necessarily refer to duration, but could describe a quality of life, a full-orbed life. We must keep in mind that possession of eternal salvation does not guarantee one will have a perfect theology. None of us has this. Nor does possession of eternal salvation guarantee one will have assurance of it. As for Mark 10:23 and the subject of the Kingdom, the Kingdom is not salvation, and it is not heaven. On multiple occasions Jesus spoke to his saved apostles about the possibility of them not entering the Kingdom. The subject of the Kingdom is not applicable to the need of unsaved persons but rather is restricted in application to the lives and Christian service of believers. The rich ruler walked away from an opportunity to make Jesus the King of his life. Jesus is the Savior of every believer, but He is not the King (Lord) of every believer’s life. The latter is a choice believers must make, daily if not multiple times daily. An important point I always make is: It is no harder for a billionaire to be saved than it is for a beggar. Unfortunately, some of God’s people complicate the matter by adding conditions to salvation that God has not put there. Divesting oneself of his wealth, for example, is not a condition of salvation, nor is a commitment to Christian living (Romans 4:4-5). It is more difficult for a materially wealthy believer to make Jesus the King of his life because of the natural tendency to place confidence in wealth. In order for one to be theologically consistent who believes works play no role in receiving eternal salvation, he must say that Jesus did not tell the rich ruler how to be saved (Mark 10:21). The Lord spoke to the man about works. This leaves one with these options: 1) either Jesus lied to the man about how to be saved (Jesus “loved him,” 10:21), or 2) the man did not need to be saved because he already was. My conviction about the rich ruler is that he was a child of God who had no assurance of his salvation. A problem for him were his erroneous religious beliefs. God has many children like this."

We feel almost bad for documenting this statement on the rich young ruler, loaded with lies, half truths and outright heresy.

1. Besides the straw man and red herring logical fallacies, there are outright lies in the above.

• It is blatantly untrue that "Jesus spoke to his saved apostles about the possibility of them not entering the Kingdom." This is untrue and actually quite heretical, since no one is losing their salvation. It is even worse given the context, where he attempts to bend, twist, wrest and manipulate the words of Christ into some other meaning to fit his heretical philosophy.

• He rejects the plain meaning of "eternal life" and attempts to change its meaning, from some unproven cultural and historical account. In his attempt to twist and wrest the meaning of the very simple to understand phrase "eternal life," so as to keep a false gospel and false sanctification going, he exposes himself to be a wicked heretic, just like Peter says in 2 Pet 3:16-17, an "error of the wicked."  

• He says, "An important point I always make is: It is no harder for a billionaire to be saved than it is for a beggar." Blatant lie, which we know from this context of the rich young ruler alone. Mk 10:24-25, "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." It is difficult to all UNSAVED wealthy people to be saved, as difficult as a camal attempting to walk through the eye of a needle, for they trust is in their riches.

• He says, "The rich ruler walked away from an opportunity to make Jesus the King of his life." He would be right if he was referring to salvation, but he's not. He believes that the rich young ruler is a saved man, only lacks what Keswick heresy can provide for him: discipleship, submission to Lordship, obedience, etc.

• Blatant and dangerous lie: "My conviction about the rich ruler is that he was a child of God who had no assurance of his salvation." He was not a child of God, Jesus even says it plainly, repeatedly, but Barger rejects the plain words of Christ for some fictious fable bouncing around the inside of his cranium.

• Another lie: "A problem for him were his erroneous religious beliefs. God has many children like this." God has no children that come to Him to find out how to be saved and have eternal life-- they already have it!! God has no children who claim they perfectly kept most of God's law as an unsaved sinner!! God has no children like this who are unsaved!! All His children are born again, while the rick young ruler was not, and nor is Jeff Barger.

• Another lie: "In order for one to be theologically consistent who believes works play no role in receiving eternal salvation, he must say that Jesus did not tell the rich ruler how to be saved (Mark 10:21)." No, this is definitely not true, and turns Christ's preaching into a works-gospel, which is not only wicked but blasphemous. Jesus did not teach any form of works for salvation. Everything in this context in the account of the rich young ruler is about salvation, everything, and we have laid that out in above example, and also further below, so we won't rehash it here. Further, this account corresponds perfectly with many other passages of Scripture where the same salvific truths are taught, such as Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; 17:32-33; Jn 12:24-26; etc.

Barger is a pathological liar and the Bible is crystal clear that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. . . . And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:8, 27)

2. This is textbook Keswick theology and its false gospel, almost to precision. It is heresy, and it is very bad, reflective of a false gospel, and corrupted sanctification. He's been infected with a very common and corrupt misunderstanding of the Bible found in the independent fundamental Baptist world, which is that of Keswick theological heresy, Revivalism, also referred to as "Deeper life," "Higher life," "Victorious life," "Crucified life," etc. I’ve sadly seen it affect my own family and many others to their detriment. There are many lies and falsehoods taught here about this account, but not the first time I heard someone so brash about Christ' teachings. Blatant Keswick theology: "Jesus is the Savior of every believer, but He is not the King (Lord) of every believer’s life." In other areas of this essay we cover the damnable heresy of dividing Christ's Saviourship and His Lordship, which is not only a false "gospel" but also a false "Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4). This is also a blatant lie. Jesus is not divided in two. He is not some kind of bipolar god. You either receive Christ for who He is, or you don't. Thats it. The Bible speaks of His Lordship incomparably manifold more than Saviour. Jesus is received as Lord, and becomes the repentant and surrendered sinners Saviour at the moment of the new birth. That is what the Bible teaches, not the false Keswick influenced gospel he has embraced, frequently referred to as the false gospel of "free grace," which is a false "proof-text" position influenced greatly extraBiblically and by pragmatism, and kept alive by twisting, wresting and eisegetically abusing Scripture. 

3. This man does not understand repentance, or the gospel/salvation. The only person that is "complicat[ing] the matter by adding conditions to salvation that God has not put there," is Jeff Barger! And he is apparently a teacher of other men! His students are being lied to and fed heresies and damnable heresies, and led to the slaughter down the broad road of destruction. The conditions he gives will save no one, only make false professing believers twofold more the children of hell than himself. None of the conditions that Barger has created out of thin air, or rather from the writings of some heretic, such as dividing Saviour and Lord of Jesus Christ, of claiming "kingdom of God" in Matt 19, Mk 10, and Lk 18 are not referring to heaven, are true to Scripture. Everything he wrote above is untrue, an absolute lie, right down to his use of "the" and "a." What he is advocating for is not found in Scripture but in the writings of very confused and unsound men, to put it simply.

Salvation is the only subject of this account (Matt 19, Mk 10, and Lk 18), from start to finish, the context prior and the context after. In fact, the four gospels are four gospels, not four books on sanctification. Jesus was not teaching an unsaved man how to be a better Christian or how to have assurance of salvation. This is crazy confusion and 100% contrary to what the text itself says, which he rejects for his own presuppositions. 

This is one of the worse presentations we have come across concerning the account of the rich young ruler. Jeff Barger certainly should not be teaching anyone, as he attempts to, since he clearly does not understand sound doctrine or the true gospel. The problem is deeper than just learning sound doctrine. What he needs is to be genuinely born again, since he rejects the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He has embraced a false gospel and false gospels do not save. This indicates he has believed a lie that has never genuinely converted him. Saved people do not believe and embrace false gospels. Unfortunately, men like Barger who are convinced of their heretical position are seldom willing to hear the contextual interpretation of the Bible that opposes their false teaching. There is reason for that. UNREGENERACY. They do the very opposite of the true believer (1 Jn 2:20-21): believe the lie and reject the truth, for they are void of the indwelling Spirit of God. And as they age, these spiritual reprobates (2 Tim 3:8-9) harden their hearts and stiffen their neck further and further to the truth, till there is a point of no return, the hog's and dog's (2 Pet 2:20-22).

The Rich Young Ruler was Unsaved, and What Jesus Preached is the Gospel and the Standard for Salvation

From the beginning, and throughout Jesus' ministry, He preached,

"Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

This is the crux of all of Christ's dealings with sinners, and likewise the apostles. We see this in Matt 3:2, 4:17, 10:7, Lk 10:9, 11, 11:20, and 21:31 and you could say it was the very foundation of Christ’s preaching (Matt 4:17; Mk 1:14-15; 6:12) because it was. When Jesus said that the kingdom was near or nigh, He was saying that the King had arrived and you're going to have to do something about that. What is it that someone does with the true King when He arrives? He receives Him as King. He submits and surrenders to Him as King. That's what Jesus preached, that He was King, and He needed to be received if you were to be saved. That also fits with Psalm 2. This is what the King expected of the rich young ruler.

The account of Christ’s dealing with the rich young ruler (Matt 19:17-30; Mk 10:16-31; Lk 18:18-30) is an excellent case study on salvation, on evangelism, and buttresses the following Scripture passages on salvation: Mk 8:34-38; Mt 10:32-39; 11:28-30; 16:24-26; 19:16-30; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 12:8-9; 13:23-30; 14:16-35; 17:26-33; 18:9-17, 18-30; Jn 12:24-26. These are at the heart of the teaching of Jesus.

Our attention will be on Luke's edition in 18:18-27, since Luke's Gospel is by far the richest concerning soteriology. Here are those verses:

“And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is , God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved. And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.“ (vv. 18-27)

The mostly unconverted Jews of Jesus' day thought the kingdom was for them. It was a given. Jesus spent much time to dispel that wrong assumption as recorded in the middle of the book of Luke. The older son, representing religious Israel, was on the outside of the Father's house, and the younger (prodigal) son on the inside, who represented the publicans and sinners, as that parable ends in Lk 15. The rich man in Lk 16 paralleled the religious leaders of Israel and he lifted up his eyes in Hell.

Jesus spoke of the kingdom in brutal terms in Lk 17, ending with many as a feast for carnivorous birds. As we enter Lk 18, we’d want to be sure that we were in the kingdom, rather than the victims of the slaughter there (cf. 2 Th 1:7-9; Rev 19:14-21). In Lk 18:9, Jesus starts with illustration after illustration to indicate the saving response to the gospel by humbling before God. He gives very little to no teaching on the work of Christ in salvation in them.

In the first one, He models the publican, who "would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." Jesus said He went away justified. Then Jesus deals with children and the need to humble one self like children to enter the kingdom of God. At the end of Lk 18, after the "certain ruler," we get the blind man who repeatedly cried out, calling Jesus "the son of David," and had a similar response as the publican with "Lord, have mercy on me." The beginning of Lk 19 presents rich Zacchaeus and his response with almost no sense of his doctrinal belief, except that He was going to turn from his old and sinful way and follow Jesus, just like the blind man did. Then after in Lk 19, Jesus tells still another story to illustrate the right response.

Tucked in the middle of all this is the account of a “certain ruler.” From the words of this passage in Mk 10, I'm convinced that this ruler of the synagogue, a very religious man, already had some belief in Jesus Christ to the degree that many would see as sufficient to be saved if they didn't see later that he obviously wasn't. From the parallel accounts, he ran to Jesus and knelt down before Him. This was all very public. He called Jesus "Good Master." The Pharisees didn't believe anyone was good, but God, which is why Jesus asked the question, "Why callest thou me good?" which He followed with, "None is good, save one, that is God."

For all this religious leader had allegedly done — he believed that he had kept all the law from his youth up (v. 21) — he still wasn't sure of eternal life. The rich young ruler had three problems, and Jesus dealt with all of them in this passage.

1. His first problem was not understanding His desperate need. His righteousness was not sufficient to save himself. He needed to see the desperate condition he was in if he was going to confront his second problem. Even if he did see his need, that wouldn't assume he was saved. The ruler was obviously covetous. He “layeth up treasure for himself,” rather than being “rich toward God.” (Lk 12:21). Jesus pinpointed that sin. He was self-righteous. He was proud. He wasn't abasing himself. He transgressed both the first and second greatest commandments.

2. His second problem related to the first, in that he wouldn’t repent and turn from his idolatry of riches. He wouldn’t forsake all for Christ (Lk 14:25-33). The love of riches and worldly possessions was too strong for him, and he wouldn't say no. He give his riches in exchange for his soul (Mk 8:36-37).

3. His third problem related to His reception of Jesus Christ. He was confessing that Jesus was God and that He was the source of eternal life. He was confessing that. Confessing it doesn't mean repentantly believing it. Jesus challenged that confession, to see where his allegiance lay and whether it came from a repentant heart, from a broken will, from a poor spirit. If Jesus was God, He could command. He listed commandments obviously from God that the young ruler said he had kept from his youth. Then Jesus focused on one other commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," one He had left out of His original list.

He commanded the young ruler:

“Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

There were five commands given (the fifth is listed in Marks account): “Sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow me.” This is exactly what Jesus had said in Lk 9:23-26; Mk 8:34-38 and Matt 16:24-26, what many would call “discipleship passages." Jesus is preaching to a lost Jew — why would he talk about discipleship with a lost person?? Furthermore, the pretext and context is completely and entirely about salvation, as is essentially everything in the four gospels (they are called "gospels" for a reason). What Jesus preached to the lost person in Lk 18 is the same He had preached in Lk 9:23-26 (and likewise with the other Gospel accounts, besides John). This is the response that should be called for in order for someone to be saved.

If you take the name of Jesus out of the equation here, the easy believist and non-lordship or anti-lordship people would say that this person blew his opportunity with the young ruler. He was front-loading works. He was confusing grace.

The young ruler was confessing Jesus was God and could give eternal life. Alright, if you think I'm God, in essence, Jesus was saying, then you will do what I tell you, and here's what I want. And Jesus commands him to sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow. The young ruler wouldn't do that. Why not? He wasn't repentant. He wasn’t desperate enough. He wasn’t of a poor spirit. He wasn't broken because of his sin. He was too self-righteous. He was proud. He wasn’t humble and submissive to the King. He wasn't surrendering to Jesus as his Lord. He refused to repent. He didn’t fear the Lord.

What got between him and Jesus, if he was serious about obtaining eternal life, was his stuff. He valued his things and riches, more than He did the Lord and King, heaven, the kingdom of God, or eternal life. Jesus was expecting total allegiance to Him as a term of salvation. You can’t embrace self or another idol such as material and riches or other sin and receive Jesus. That doesn’t work. Forsaking all and turning from everything is required. Nothing less. If the young ruler really did believe Jesus was God, and believed in God for salvation, then he would be willing to do whatever Jesus said. This is lordship. Someone who won’t "follow Jesus," who won't do whatever He says (which is vast majority of the evangelical and protestant world), doesn’t actually believe in Him. He is in rebellion against God. He won’t repent even though the King has come and revealed Himself.

In Lk 18 or any of the parallel passages, Jesus says nothing to the young ruler about substitutionary death or sacrificially shed blood. The assumption is that the man already knew that He could obtain eternal life from Jesus. Hence his questions. Hence his running, coming to Jesus and bowing down before Him. He wasn't willing, however, to follow Jesus Christ, to do whatever Jesus said. If you are not willing to do that, then you do not in fact believe in Jesus Christ or want to believe in Him, even though you may profess Him with your lips. You won’t trust in Him and you are continuing to trust yourself. You are hanging on to your own life (and your own possessions) for your own sake. Your life doesn't belong to Jesus, it belongs to yourself. You won’t give it up, you won’t lose your life for Christ and the gospels sake (Mk 8:34-37; Matt 16:24-26; Jn 12:24-25).

All of the above is in the context of what is required to get into the kingdom, to have eternal life, according to God the Son. It reflects both repentance and faith. To turn this account into ‘discipleship” or “dedication” is to rip it from its context, to confuse what is required for salvation. It essentially perverts the gospel, diminishing saving faith to the intellect. Salvation does come from believing in Jesus Christ. He must however be the Jesus of the Bible, Who is God and Lord. That is a clear implication of the young ruler passage.

Non-lordship or anti-lordship people will shrink or depreciate the identity of Jesus. They make Him more palatable to a worldly audience. Why? They wish to keep their lives for themselves, and be saved in essence by a less than scriptural Jesus. Lots of people want Jesus as Saviour. The ruler wanted eternal life from Jesus, but he didn’t want Him as a Boss. This is the apostate of 2 Pet 2:1 who denies the Lord who bought him.

The rich ruler also wasn’t seeking to “do” works to earn for himself eternal life, as preachers oftentimes claim, especially those who use perverted versions of the Bible. He believed he had kept all the law since he was a youth and he still didn't think he had obtained eternal life. That's why he came to Jesus. Claiming he was trying to earn Heaven through works because he asked “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”, is eisegetically interpreting this passage and reading into the text something that isn’t there. But this is another fruit of the ungodly, blasphemous versions of Scripture.

The reason he didn’t get saved is not because he didn’t “accept Jesus as Saviour,” a common but misinformed phrase. The text says nothing about that. The man believed in Jesus as Saviour, he believed that Jesus could provide him the way of eternal life, or in other words, be saved. A plain reading of that text would have one conclude that the rich young ruler left sorrowful because He didn't want to sell, distribute, come, take up cross and follow. He wanted to keep his life for himself, because He refused to repent and surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord. He wasn't willing to trade a temporal worthless life out of faith for eternal life in glory. He loved his worldly possessions and riches more than he loved God. Thus he refused to repent and submit to Jesus as Lord. It’s that simple because that is exactly what the text says.

The ruler represented the stony soil of the parable of the sower.

"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away." (Lk 8:13)

The time between “receiv[ing] the word with joy” and the “time of temptation fall away,” may be very short, as we note in this account, but it isn't always. I think in many cases it is years, and for some, and entire lifetime (especially those who made a profession and prayed a prayer when they were very young). At some point of trials they fall away, and for the rich young ruler, it was immediately. We see that here as Jesus tried his faith, his belief that Jesus was God and the giver of eternal life. Matthew reads: “And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away." (13:6). The word had been received with joy, the sun came up, and because their was no root, which is Christ, he withered away. That fast, because Jesus wielded the Sword wisely, precisely how it must be. God tests faith immediately and ongoing.

He actually didn’t have genuine faith, a legitimate profession, so he couldn’t sustain any kind of profession when sacrifice was called for, as represented by the sun scorching. He had no root. Jesus tested his profession which couldn’t sustain the test of His commands. If he really did believe in Christ, He could give up his stuff, even as Abraham could offer up Isaac by faith. Lost people inevitably fail Gods test.

The man had come to Jesus to obtain eternal life. Do you think that Jesus was telling him what he needed to know or what? Look at the little phrase between "sell, distribute" and "come, take up the cross, follow me." “Thou shalt have treasure in heaven." If he would sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow Christ, he would have treasure in heaven, which is eternal, "where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:" (Matt 6:20). Jesus wasn’t teaching salvation by works. You can’t genuinely repent and believe if you love something more than Him.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matt 6:24)

The first steps towards salvation is to receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Th 2:10), and as it turned out, the ruler didn’t love the truth. He had a greater love, and it wasn't God. The young rich ruler could never truly believe in Jesus because he loved his possessions too much. People may mock the idea of giving up possessions to be saved, but Jesus said he needed to. He had to give up everything. If you want to be Christ’s disciple (which starts at conversion, what we are saved to), you must forsake all that you have (Lk 14:33; Mt 19:27-29), like the so-called prodigal, the lost young son did (Lk 15), like Saul of Tarsus did (Ac 9:4-20; Phil 3:3-11). You can't put Jesus on the shelf with all your other idols — He must be there alone — if you repentantly believe in Him.

The Rich Young Ruler Presents Serious Problems for the Anti-Lordship, Easy-Believism, Quick Prayerism Crowd

The rich young ruler presents a major problem for those who wish to hijack the salvation explanations of Jesus and turn them into something more convenient to superficial professions of faith. People for the most part don’t like the gospel language of denying self, losing ones life for Christ and the gospel, turning from all sin, self, stuff, and people, taking up the cross and surrendering to Jesus as Lord, Boss, King and following Him. They claim it corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ, even though Christ preached that as His gospel, when He preached to the lost multitudes, to lost “disciples,” and the lost rich young ruler. So did Jesus corrupt His own gospel, the simplicity that is in Himself? God forbid! Yet that is exactly what is being accused of Christ by these non-Lordship and anti-Lordship easy believists.

You could put the anti-Lordship, easy believism, quick prayerism 1-2-3 prayer after me position, or elements of that position, under the label it is commonly referred to as: "free grace." This abhorrent false gospel saturates evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and arose out of a tradition of the Keswick theological movement, Charles Finney, L.S. Chafer, Dallas Theological Seminary, Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, CRU (Campus Crusade for Christ), DL Moody, Jack Hyles, Sword of the Lord, etc, who reduced salvation to a kind of pragmatic presentation, like a sales pitch. They preached it over and over and over, producing professions and result, all of which were an assumed validation of its truth. A couple favourite verses took on major importance in the tradition. That message, however, over a period of time also eroded and began to disintegrate into something easier and simpler. When someone challenges it, it is as if the Bible is being disputed, but it really is a tradition propped up on years of repetition.

They also typically corrupt 2 Cor 11:3 as validation for their easy gospel. 'The gospel is "simple" enough for a child to believe, and Lordship salvation is not simple,' the "free-grace" crowd cries. The word “simplicity” translated from “haplotes” in 2 Cor 11:3 does not mean “simple” as we would think of it today, as in basic, easy, uncomplicated, but rather singleness, sincerity, mental honesty, the virtue of one who is free from pretence and hypocrisy, and also bountifulness and liberality. It doesn’t imply low intelligence or easy believism is required or it’s not the true gospel! That is a false definition and red herring to feed a false system of a simple, easy and quick salvation, when the Bible teaches something entirely different. It sure wasn’t simple or easy or quick for the rich young ruler was it? Or what about Paul, who did get genuinely converted (Ac 9)?

If it’s not the Biblical Jesus, it’s not the true Christ, and that won’t save. This is a major issue with the anti-Lordship, anti-true gospel easy believest position that pervert how to be saved and who Jesus is. They get both sides of the equation wrong. They do not understand who Jesus is, and thus what it means to believe in Him. They separate Christ’s Lordship from His Saviourship, a very popular tactic of easy believism for the purpose of inflating numbers in the church. At a certain point either one of these elements can dip below a saving knowledge, reception and substance. The two biggest corruptions about “believe” and “Jesus Christ” relate to one another. This false teacher perverts the true gospel with the belief that excludes or misdefines repentance, and a Jesus Christ that is not Lord. Again, these two points relate. How can one become sanctified without Biblical repentance, and how can one repent without submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ? Jesus is the only way to the Father. One cannot get there by their own way, which is idolatrous. Jesus said lest you repent you will perish (Lk 13:1-5). He also said, lest you believe, you will perish (Jn 3:14-16, 36). Thus part of what true saving faith requires is true saving repentance, which we cover in some detail here: Repentance — The Foundation of Salvation and Repentance is a Major Element of the Gospel and Must Always Be Preached, Including Its Description. Many people reject the call to repent, which is why their faith is false, purely intellectual. Many also refuse to believe because of self-righteousness and pride. Not believing that Jesus is Lord is not true faith, and will not result in immediate following after Jesus. Hence, in the very same camp and unsurprisingly, you have many that make a profession but have no real and permanent evidence of true salvation. But that is considered normal, and where Keswick currency of “carnal Christian,” “backsliding,” “lukewarm,” and “unbelief,” enter the picture.

This passage on the rich young ruler is a very telling one against the easy believism / pray a prayer crowd. When the ruler asked Jesus what he should do to have Eternal Life, Jesus did not lead him to pray a prayer or to just “believe.” Also, when the ruler turned away in sorrow, Jesus did not run after him or say, "I must have said the wrong thing." No, Jesus blamed the man's love of money for keeping him from repenting and truly turning to God by faith and believing in the gospel of Christ.

This would have to be one of the key passages on how to do evangelism, but it is rarely used as such. This is how Jesus evangelized.

Lordship Salvation is just Salvation. You cannot divide Jesus up and cherry pick which part of Him you desire. He is the LORD Jesus Christ. His rule must be submitted to in all areas of life, and receiving Jesus as Lord is receiving Him over all aspects of my life: what I believe, work, do, dress, listen to, watch, read, spend my time with, etc. When someone truly receives Christ, one receives the whole Christ, who is both Lord snd Saviour, who is Prophet, Priest, and King — one cannot receive a divided Christ, One in His Priestly office without receiving (or wanting) Him in His Kingly office.

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11)

I have no problem saying that salvation comes from obedience. It absolutely does. The Bible teaches that we are saved by obeying the gospel, which is the obedience of repentant faith, even as Jesus stated clearly in Jn 6 in response to the question:

"What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (Jn 6:28-29)

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Lk 13:3,5)

This is "obeying the gospel" as Rom 10:16; 2 Th 1:8; 1 Pet 4:17 succinctly demand. We obey the command to believe in Jesus Christ, which is based upon the command to repent. That command to repent and believe in Him is akin to a command to love Him and to serve Him.

God is seeking for those who will worship Him. The first act of worship is the offering of someone's soul to God. That is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also loving Him by obeying that commandment. It is serving Him because it is a sacrifice of yourself to Him. Can a person be saved who will not yield his self to God? No. He doesn't believe in the Lord. He isn't poor in spirit. He is hanging on to his own life. He wants his own way. And more. Like the rich young ruler.

Conclusion

The account of the rich young ruler is definitely a standard of salvation, not something else. If God the Son made it a standard, then we best do the same.

Today and about the last century, many men have been corrupting passages such as the rich young ruler by reading into the Bible a new doctrine, a new “salvation,” corrupting these passages especially (and others like it such as Mk 1:18-20; Lk 5:1-11). Maybe not all, but many wrest the Scriptures for a Lordless and repentant-less and non-changing gospel of easy believism. This false interpretation methodology is called eisegesis, and it derives from Rome. A subjective approach, eisegesis allows someone to make a text mean whatever he wants. He might start with what he'd like the Bible to say or perhaps defend his own thinking by finding a passage to say it. This changes God's Word as much as adding or taking away from the words, maybe worse.

Subjectively, the eisegetical interpreter introduces his own opinions as opposed to expounding literally, contextually, grammatically, giving careful attention to the God-inspired words employed (1 Jn 2:20-21, 27), comparing scripture with scripture (1 Cor 2:13-16) and rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15), expositing what the text actually says which is exegesis. Rather, they eisegete. They put in, instead of pulling out. They force ideas and views into the text that aren’t there. In this case it’s turning Christ’ salvation message into something else besides salvation, something along the lines of practical sanctification, which then dramatically changes the Gospel message, denies salvation and produces false pretending “believers” as two fold children of hell.

The power of God is in the message of a passage, not in the formulation of a sermon that doesn't communicate what a passage says. All of Gods words (Pr 8:8) are “plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.” (Pr 8:9). God's saints “know the certainty of the words of truth;” (Pr 22:21a). They know and love the truth (1 Jn 2:20-21; Ps 119:127) and “hate every false way.” (Ps 119:128).

Is this you? Or are you like the rich young ruler? Having a profession but never having genuinely repented and surrendered to the Lord, and thus never been born again? Please read here, with urgency, if you are yet dead in your sins: Are You Saved?