The Rich Young Ruler & the Terms of Salvation - Glenn Conjurske

The Rich Young Ruler & the Terms of Salvation

by Glenn Conjurske

In preaching the gospel to the ungodly, I have often known the self-righteous to agree with every word, so long as I preach repentance, but the moment I begin to preach discipleship, they balk, and begin to object and oppose. The necessity of repentance they allow. It does not touch them. They think to stand among the “just persons, which need no repentance.” They are willing to allow that we must forsake certain sinful deeds in order to be saved—-though their list of deeds which are sinful is usually short enough. I spoke once with an old woman whose list of sinful deeds apparently extended to but one—-adultery, namely—-and she informed me that she was too old to sin. But though they have very defective views of what sin is, they acknowledge that it must be forsaken in order to be saved. Yet when we preach discipleship to them, they balk and dispute. They will allow that we must give up certain sinful deeds, but they have no notion that we must give up the essence of sin, which is our own will and way. They can spare certain sinful indulgences, but to submit unconditionally to Christ—-to give up their own will, way, possessions, position, plans, purposes, friends, relatives, and their own life also—-this they cannot brook.

And this response is nothing new. This was exactly the response of the rich young ruler to the preaching of the master evangelist, the Son of God. Here was a young man concerned about the salvation of his soul. He came to Christ and asked him, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And let it be observed in the first place that the Lord did not tell him, as most of our modern preachers would, that he had nothing to do—-that he was not to think of inheriting eternal life by doing anything. Neither did he tell him, either soon or late, that he had nothing to do but believe. He first preached the law to him, and when the young man justified himself on that ground, he preached discipleship—-and this, recall, in response to the direct question, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Did the Lord deceive him? Are we to believe that the Lord “loved him,” and proceeded to trifle with his precious soul? Such a belief is profane, and we can give no quarter to those who would rather condemn the Lord than give up their own false notions of salvation by grace. It really ought to go without saying that what the Lord preached to this man was the truth of the gospel. He did not deceive the man (whom he loved), nor put in his way an unnecessary hurdle, nor set him running in the wrong direction, or upon the wrong track. According to the modern preachers of cheap grace and antinomian faith, the rich young ruler would have been lost indeed if he had believed and acted upon the Lord’s preaching. He would then have been a victim of a works gospel, and guilty of failing to trust in Christ alone for his salvation, of self-righteousness, legalism, Pharisaism, Galatianism, popery, and some dozen or two other black heresies besides. All this for doing the one thing which the Lord told him he yet lacked.

Observe, the Lord first preached to him the commandments. “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” In this, however, we suppose the Lord was but testing him, for he purposely omitted those commandments which it is impossible for a sinner to keep. He said nothing of “Thou shalt not lust,” nor of loving God with all his heart, nor of loving his neighbor as himself. He spoke only of those things which a man may keep, and which many do keep. “Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.” “All these,” the young man says, “have I kept from my youth up.” The Lord does not dispute this, but neither does he proceed to speak of those commandments which the young man had certainly not kept. He speaks only of that which is man-ward, and omits altogether the first and greatest commandment, which is God-ward. He omits also the commandments which touch the desires of the heart, and speaks only of those which concern the outward deeds. On that ground the young man justifies himself. The Lord does not deny his claim, nor advance to the deeper requirements of the law, but proceeds directly to the terms of discipleship. “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.” Or, as another Gospel records it, “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.”

Now this is gospel preaching. “Sell all—-take up the cross—-follow me.” The law knows absolutely nothing of any such requirements. This is gospel preaching, and I further prove it by the fact that the Lord prefaced it with “One thing thou lackest.” If he had been preaching the law to him, he might easily have proved him lacking in many things. He did this easily when he stooped down to write on the ground, in the midst of a company of scribes and Pharisees. They all, “being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one.” And we may be certain that it was not “Sell all, and give to the poor” which he wrote on the ground, nor “Take up the cross and follow me.” Such things would have produced no conviction at all among the scribes and Pharisees. They would have disputed the Lord’s authority to lay such things upon them, and repudiated the terms themselves. It was doubtless the commandments which he wrote on the ground, the authority of which they all acknowledged—-for there can be no conviction without this—-and such of the commandments as would prove the guilt and deficiencies of the woman’s accusers. He might have done the same with this young ruler, but he was not dealing here with hypocrites, who brought the woman for judgement, caught in the very act of adultery, and left her partner in sin to go his way. He was dealing here with an honest inquirer after the terms of eternal life. Moreover (and it is of the utmost importance to understand this), he was obviously dealing with one who regarded him as a true prophet of God, and trusted in him to teach him the true way of salvation. The fact that he “went away sorrowful,” instead of impugning or disputing the terms which the Lord required of him, proves indisputably that he trusted Christ to teach him the truth of the matter. With such a man before him, the Lord proceeds immediately to the terms of the gospel, and so preaches the terms of discipleship.

But the strongest proof that what the Lord preached to this man was the truth of the gospel lies in the plain and patent fact that when he “went away sorrowful,” the Lord let him go. He did not call him back, and say, “Wait! Wait! I was only testing you. I was only preaching the law, by which no man can inherit eternal life. The terms of salvation lie in another direction altogether. It is not necessary that you forsake all and follow me. It is not necessary that you sell all, and take up the cross. Come back! Come! Come! Only believe in me, and eternal life is yours.” No such thing. And yet if it was not the true gospel which the Lord preached to him, if the true gospel lay rather in those propositions which we have hypothetically put into the Lord’s mouth in this paragraph, then we can only say that the Lord was guilty of inexcusable delinquency not to call him back. He was guilty of inexcusable trifling with the solemn things of eternity not to preach another message than he did.

Suppose some evangelist to preach exactly the same message today, and suppose some earnest inquirer, in hearing that he must forsake all, take up the cross, and follow Christ, were to go away sorrowful, unwilling to submit to such conditions, all the preachers of the antinomian gospel would immediately call him back, and earnestly inform him that no such things are required of him, that the evangelist who preached such a message is dark and legal and popish, knowing nothing of the gospel of the grace of God. This, I say, all the preachers of easy salvation would do, and this they would do though the preacher were Richard Baxter, or George Whitefield, or C. H. Spurgeon, or an angel from heaven. Thus do the modern preachers condemn the Lord’s message, his preaching, and his dealing with souls, in order to maintain notions of grace which are fundamentally false.

But all the advocates of easy salvation will say that the Lord only preached the law to the rich young ruler, to convict him of his lost condition, and failing to convict him by that means, he let him go his way, as a man unprepared for the truth of the gospel. And this we would readily grant, if the Lord had merely preached the commandments to him, and left him justifying himself on that ground, saying, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” But the account does not end there. Failing to convict him on the ground of such commandments as he quoted to him, the Lord preaches discipleship to him, and under this preaching the man does not remain unconvicted. He does not any more justify himself. Just the reverse. He goes away sorrowful—-”very sorrowful.” And why sorrowful? Precisely because he believed in the validity of the terms which the Lord required of him, knew very well that he had not kept them, and was unwilling to do so. Therefore he “went away sorrowful,” believing that these were the true terms of eternal life, and that those terms were too hard for him—-such terms as he was not willing to comply with. This much is perfectly plain on the face of the passage, and they are really grasping at straws who pretend the man went away unconvinced, still justifying himself on the ground of the law. He certainly believed that the terms which the Lord preached to him were the actual conditions of eternal life, and if he was mistaken in believing this, the Lord was inexcusable not to correct him.

And beside all this, there immediately follows a conversation between Christ and his disciples, in which the same terms which the Lord preached to the young ruler are solemnly and repeatedly set forth as the conditions of eternal life. In the first place, “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.” There is not the slightest doubt, then, that the Lord meant these conditions to be the actual conditions of salvation, for default of which this young man, along with the rich in general, are excluded from entering the kingdom of God. Though the door of heaven is open wide for all who will enter in, yet they must forsake all and take up the cross in order to do so, and the rich so love their riches that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved.

The people who heard him obviously so understood it also, for “they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?” His own disciples also certainly understood him to be setting forth the true terms of salvation, for another gospel records, “When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?”

The rich young ruler, then, went away “very sorrowful,” believing that on no other terms could he be saved, and yet for love of his riches being unwilling to comply with those terms. The people believed that Christ was thus setting forth the actual terms of salvation, but supposed them so strict that they exclaimed, “Who then can be saved?” The disciples quite agree, never doubting that the Lord’s conditions were the true terms of salvation, but being exceedingly amazed at conditions so hard, and exclaim with the rest of the people, “Who then can be saved?”

And does the Lord speak one word to correct them? Does he give one hint to correct what our modern preachers must suppose to be the universal misunderstanding of his words? Does he tell the people they have mistaken him, in thinking these terms to be the true conditions of salvation? Not a word of it. He only tells them that though it is impossible with men, it is possible with God. This, of course, speaking of the salvation of a rich man, for it is of the rich only that the Lord speaks when he says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Yet observe, we are not to think for a moment that there are any softer terms for a poor man. The terms are just the same, for rich or poor, high or low, bond or free, king or beggar. Yet it is a good deal easier for the poor to comply with such terms. It is for this reason precisely that Paul is obliged to write, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” The poor and the base and the despised have the advantage every way in the matter of salvation, though the terms are just the same for them as for the rich and noble. They have little to forsake, and are usually not so much attached to it, for it is a plain fact that where a man’s treasure is, there his heart will be also.

Thus much we speak only to guard against the misuse of the Lord’s words, as though it were impossible for any man to be saved, or easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for any sinner to be saved. Calvinism and other errors may so misuse the text, though it is perfectly obvious that it speaks only of the salvation of the rich. And thus far it is perfectly plain also that the Lord, the people, the disciples, and the young ruler all understood the terms of discipleship to be the terms of eternal life.

But there is more. Hearing that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved on such terms, Peter affirms “Behold, we”—-and the pronoun is emphatic in the Greek in all three Gospels—-”we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” And the Lord tells him that “therefore” he shall have a hundredfold in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. They who have complied with those terms which the Lord preached to the rich young ruler shall have that eternal life which the Lord conditioned upon those terms. Can anything be plainer than this? Read the text. “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.” Recall now, these words were spoken in response to Peter’s assertion, “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee,” and the question which he bases upon that fact, “What shall we have therefore?” Is the Lord trifling with the souls of men here, deceiving men instead of enlightening them, or preaching the plain truth of the gospel?

But with the text I have done. I turn to offer a few words of exhortation to the dear brethren of my beloved Fundamentalism—-my first love, for which my tears yet fall, and my prayers ascend. I know all the arguments for cheap grace and easy salvation. I graduated from the Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music. I was thoroughly enamored with the writings of Lewis Sperry Chafer. A third of a century ago I preached all those antinomian doctrines myself—-preached that we must forsake all to be a disciple, but forsake nothing to be saved—-preached that since salvation is a free gift we can do nothing to obtain it—-preached that we have nothing to do but believe, and that even that should not be preached to sinners, lest they make a work of it. But the more I entered into the word of God, the more uncomfortable I became with those doctrines. All those scriptures which assert the responsibility of man were commonly ignored in the instruction which I had received, but I was a serious student of the Bible, and I could not be content to ignore them. If my instructors touched those unpleasant scriptures at all, it was only to wrest and make them void. My gospel compelled me to wrest the Scriptures—-compelled me to employ all those miserable shifts by which the plainest statements of the Bible are emptied of their meaning—-and for this my conscience condemned me. Yet so subject was my mind to all the fallacies and false premises by which those doctrines are supported, that it required five years of wrestling with the subject ere I had any clear understanding of it. My enlightenment, however, came about by a very simple process. I trusted the Bible. I ceased to employ those miserable shifts by which it is commonly made void. I let it speak. I took it at its face value, precisely as a man would his father’s will, or a letter from a friend. I trusted that it was written to enlighten us, not to mislead us—-that its truths are revealed to babes, not to philosophers—-and that therefore all those subtleties, technicalities, and plain tom-fooleries by means of which it is commonly interpreted are not only highly impertinent and unnecessary, but altogether ruinous, and absolutely fatal to a sound understanding of the Book.

Since that time I have learned that all the great preachers of the past have held that repentance, righteousness, holiness, and discipleship are the necessary terms of salvation, but I did not learn these things from the great men of past, but from the Bible alone, taken at face value, and implicitly trusted. I learned these doctrines, not from the men of the past, but from the same Book from which they learned them. The preachers of the present day may do the same, if they will but deal honestly and fairly with the Book in their hands. I endeavor to put these truths beyond cavil, one facet at a time, in the pages of this magazine, but no arguments will avail where prejudice reigns, where men will not think, or where they are determined to maintain their system, maugre all Scripture. Alas, no other book on earth is treated with the unrestrained licentiousness with which most Fundamentalists interpret the Bible. The most wanton construction which the political liberals put upon the Constitution of the United States is scarcely so far astray as what Fundamentalists make of the Bible.

And how can it be otherwise? They have a system of doctrine which is directly opposed to every page of the Bible, and yet think to use the Bible for its support. A quarter of a century ago, I had a lengthy conversation with an elder in a certain church, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. We spoke for about two hours of the terms of salvation. I did no more than enforce at their obvious face value a number of those texts which Fundamentalists commonly ignore or explain away. At the end of two hours this man put up his hands, and said, “You have knocked the theological foundations out from under me. I don’t know what I believe, or how to find out.” This he said very earnestly, with evident sincerity. And yet all I had done was to point out to him the perfectly obvious meaning, such as he could not deny, of the plain texts of the New Testament. Such I have endeavored to do with one plain text in the present article.

Glenn Conjurske