Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Ach and Matthew 19

Spoof account or not, (I do not know) Mr Ach certainly provides good fodder for this Calvinist blog. What happened in Matthew 19:18-22?
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (AV)
Where does the Bible say that this young man was non elect? Answer: it doesn't. Why should anyone ever think him "non elect"? Because he went away sorrowful? Does someone have to get saved the first time he is confronted with the claims of Christ to be saved? If so, there would be very few saved. I certainly did not get converted the first time I heard the gospel. Neither did Saul of Tarsus. And I suspect, neither did many of the readers of this article.

No wonder Calvinism is safe when this kind of attack is made upon it. I don't know what kind of "Calvinism" Ack embraced for 15 years, but if he swapped it for this kind of exegesis, then it mustn't have much to start with.

BTW: Sinners are commanded in the gospel for a number of reasons, not least:

[i] They are reminded of their responsibility before God. Man cannot sin himself out of his responsibility before God.

[ii] Often with the command, comes the ability to perform it. Why did Christ command a dead corpse to come forth out of the grave in John 11? Because the power to do so accompanied the command. 

There does not appear to be any specific reference to this young man again. His parting from Christ in Matthew 19 is not very encouraging at all, but we are certainly in no position to blandly pontificate, as Ach does, that he was non elect. Yes, Calvinism is safe with critics like this around. No wonder, I perpetuate their attacks on this blog. #FluffStuff


No one is claiming that the Rich Young Ruler ever got saved. We are not told in Scripture as to his later life and simply therefore we do not know. We do know that he didn't get saved at the meeting with Christ in Matthew 19 and would never be saved as long as he held on to the position that he occupied at that time. I repeat again, that very few of the elect come to Christ on the first hearing of the gospel and therefore to blandly say that this man was not elect because on one occasion he rejected the gospel is to play fast and loose with the word of God. Election is God's prerogative. It is entirely sovereign and for any to come along and pontificate whether someone still in this life is not elect is to try and seize the steering wheel from the hand of God. From such, may the good Lord deliver us.

Yes, this young man rejected Christ at that time. Of course, sinners can reject the gospel. I am always amazed at how some anti Calvinists put this forth as if it were an argument against Calvinism. I suggest before they quote verses John 5:40 and Acts 7:51 etc., that they do some very simple homework first i.e. look up the key Calvinist commentators, Calvin, Poole, Henry, Barnes, Jamison, Fausset and Brown etc., and read their comments. The simple homework is done here. That way, they have a better chance of being taken seriously.



  1. I had an online discussion with a rabid anti-Calvinist fellow (who shall remain nameless) but you might recognize his arguments at my blog here -

  2. I am always amazed at how some folk can say that they were once Calvinists and then (having left) accuse of what they do. Something just doesn't add up. As for all his IFB connection and having nothing to do with Rome (as he calls it)...

    Thanks for dropping by.

  3. Also, their theology is always so horizontal. They use their human wisdom and try to think from a human perspective why this man didn't follow Christ. But what if we started with God like the Bible does? (see Genesis 1:1) Why would God have some to hear and not respond (assuming the young ruler heard and never responded). God does everything for HIs own glory, not for man's. Man's happiness is not God's first priority. This comes as a shock to modern man and he almost cannot put his head around it. God is glorified in the gospel and calling men to repent and believe, regardless of their response. God is glorified and ever will be glorified. He is glorified in His grace and mercy and He is glorified in His justice and condemnation of sinners. Either way, God's ultimate goal is accomplished because God cannot fail. Men today, even the religious, often will not, they perhaps cannot think in these terms; they have created a god in their own image who thinks like they do.

  4. I agree. Your words remind me of Tozer rejecting the teddy bear gods of modern evangelism:


All are welcome to comment here provided that the usual principles of Christian comment e.g. politeness etc. are observed.