{"id":74570,"date":"2023-07-03T18:31:36","date_gmt":"2023-07-03T22:31:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=74570"},"modified":"2023-07-03T18:42:54","modified_gmt":"2023-07-03T22:42:54","slug":"dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Jim Anderson<\/a> appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic<\/a>. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page<\/a>, below a shared meme that I had posted, regarding Catholic liturgy. Jim\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. This is a continuation of the exchange: Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel<\/a> (6-30-23).<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

\n
Dave, speaking to yourself is not a good sign. Please lose the extreme arrogance, and note that I said that I don\u2019t hang around on Facebook waiting for people to comment, but have other priorities.<\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Dave, you spent a lot of time throwing\u00a0out a lot of comments, and links, likely none of which I will go to, since I have read practically every argument that official or unofficial Catholicism makes, but since you seem so focused on selling everything (per Matthew 10), we can remain there if you prefer. You said that it doesn\u2019t apply to you (a \u201cspecial situation\u201d) and you haven\u2019t sold everything.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
You\u2019re not the only one I\u2019m writing to. I take the opportunity to educate the public about these matters. Others may choose to read what you ignore, since you [choke] already know everything about Catholicism and all of the arguments that her defenders make. That being the case, why is it I have to ask you three times to answer simple questions about one Bible scene?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

*
\nDave, do you think that Jesus was using the \u201csell everything\u201d as a general requirement for salvation, or a specific test of the young rule? If the former, you are doomed, by your own admission, since you haven\u2019t sold everything. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
I already answered that above (twice):<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
1) \u201cI never asserted that selling all of one\u2019s possessions is required of *everyone*. You have simply erroneously projected that onto me and (possibly) the Catholic position. The parable of the talents and many other passages contradict such an assertion. So, nice try. Jesus told this one person that a work was required for his salvation. How can this be? How does it square with your unbiblical, extreme \u2018absolutely no works or merit\u2019 position?\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
2) \u201cNote that this isn\u2019t required of every man to do. It\u2019s not a general rule of Christianity. But for the rich young ruler, it was an absolute necessity. Most commentators think that it was because the ruler had made money his idol, putting it above God in his allegiance. That\u2019s why he had to part with it; so that God would occupy the highest place in his life. In any event, it is a requirement for his salvation. Once again, it is a good work that is made central.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Already answered that, too, twice:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
1) \u201cIf you say, then, that this passage is irrelevant for all people, since it was a unique situation, then I counter with Matthew 25 (already presented) which has to do with all<\/em><\/strong> of us at the Judgment, and with 48 other passages regarding works and their relation to salvation.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
[Note: I highlighted and cited at length Matthew 25 in particular and several others from my list of 50]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
2) \u201cThis is also notable in illustrating that salvation is not a cookie-cutter matter. What is required for one person (in terms of works that exhibit faith) may not be for the next.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nThe fact that you weren\u2019t aware that I had answered these questions, proves that you\u2019re not even reading my comments. This is a constant annoyance in \u201cdialogues\u201d with anti-Catholics as well. One gives a reply and it\u2019s like it doesn\u2019t even register and one is forced to repeat what was already stated: making for tedium for poor, unfortunate readers. The other tactic is attempting to switch the topic, in order to evade difficult topics.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said. And, do you notice the \u201cfollow me\u201d at the end of all that?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span>
\nThere is indeed a consistent message of salvation that Jesus taught. He is God. He came down from heaven. He is the Messiah, prophesied in the writings of old, the word of God, throughout history. And He emphasized, over and over and over, that one must believe in Him to be saved. Belief. True, sincere, total belief. That\u2019s more than the demons, who only believed that He was God. One must believe that He is the Heir of all things, the One through Whom the world was created, the Exact imprint of God\u2019s nature, the perfect High Priest, the Messiah, the only One who can forgive sins, by His perfect sacrifice on the cross, accomplished in history (\u201conce for all\u201d). Completely done, and wholly sufficient. <\/span>You said you have questions. They tend to get buried in your many posts, so please kindly ask them again, numbering them, and not posting dozens of unrelated or repetitive comments that get things lost. Thanks.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
What are your questions? Number them. I am happy to continue on the topics you present, which are contradictory in your own opinion, but you seem insistent on the questions you have, so please present them clearly, numbered.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
For the fourth time:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
When Jesus said, and advised, \u201cYou lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me\u201d (Mk 10:21), was that 1) salvific, and 2) a [good] work, and 3) a meritorious work? Do you need it in all caps? What is this, The Twilight Zone<\/em>?
\n*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Dave, thanks for clearly asking the questions so it is clear. I will bypass the snark, because that\u2019s just how Catholics are. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
What you see as \u201csnark\u201d<\/span> is a semi-humorous barb on my part due to the frustration of having to repeat something four times<\/em>, that was perfectly clear the first<\/em> time. It\u2019s\u00a0absurd. Once should be enough. You clearly attempted to avoid the questions, so I kept asking until you answered, because I don\u2019t play games in discussions. If you want to have a serious discussion, great; then respond to provocative questions coming from your dialogical opponent (just as I have to yours: at great length), rather than seek to evade, change the subject, and insult: all of which you have tried without success, because none of that works with me.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Of course, I recognize that you ask them not because you actually want to know the answers, but to take whatever I say, disagree with it, and make some sort of Catholic point. So, just be up front and make that point now, if you would be so kind.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism and have undergone several other major conversions in my life. I am always open to being convinced and to changing my mind. What I asked were socratic questions (something Jesus often did, too<\/a>), that flowed from your denial that this passage teaches Catholic soteriology. If you want to take a position I consider unwarranted, and discuss it with me, then expect to be grilled and questioned. I\u2019m an apologist. You\u2019ll have to defend it. If that\u2019s not to your liking, just say so and we\u2019re done. \u201cIf you can\u2019t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.\u201d You came on like gangbusters at the beginning, so I figured that you could take it.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Here are the answers for your questions.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\u201cWhen Jesus said, and advised, \u201cYou lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me\u201d (Mt 10:21), was that 1) salvific?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
No, of course not. Man cannot absolve the debt of sin that he was born with my simply selling material things. Jesus in this passage was testing the man\u2019s belief, his commitment. You yourself said that this wasn\u2019t salvific. There aren\u2019t 100 different gospels, different paths to salvation. There is but one, so Jesus did not teach that this work saves this person, but not others.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
It was certainly, undeniably<\/em> salvific. Remember, the exchange started with the man asking Jesus: \u201cGood Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?\u201d (Mk 10:17). That\u2019s what it\u2019s all about. Since that \u201csets the scene,\u201d therefore, how Jesus answers must<\/em><\/strong> necessarily have to do with what we do that merits eternal life and eschatological salvation.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
You say that Jesus \u201cwas testing the man\u2019s belief, his commitment.\u201d Yes, of course He was. He said that he had to give away all that he owned in order to be saved. That was the test, and the answer to his question. It\u2019s clear that grace enabled him to keep the commandments (as Jesus inquired about). It\u2019s equally clear that the man had faith, since he had observed all the commandments since his youth. He was following God and His commandments.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nWhat remained was his idolatry to money: the besetting sin of rich and wealthy people. He couldn\u2019t be saved and still have something in his heart that he placed above allegiance to God. And how would he rectify that? It wasn\u2019t by kneeling and saying the sinner\u2019s prayer, and telling Jesus how great and wonderful He was.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nThat didn\u2019t cut it, since Jesus said, \u201cWhy do you call me `Lord, Lord,\u2019 and not do what I tell you?\u201d (Lk 6:46). So this was an instance of Jesus telling a person to do<\/em> <\/strong>something, and to do a thing that would be a requirement<\/em> for him to be saved<\/em>. If he does the good work, he\u2019ll be saved, because Jesus said the result of doing so was that he \u201cwill have treasure in heaven.\u201d This was the one thing he lacked, according to Jesus; so he had to do it. Therefore, it was a required good work<\/em>, without which he could not and would not be saved or enter heaven.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\u201cand 2) a [good] work?\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
It depends on your definition of \u201cgood\u201d and that\u2019s not hedging, it\u2019s acknowledging that what God defines as \u201cgood\u201d may be different than how men define it. You know this, so hopefully there is no controversy here. Giving help to the poor is a good thing.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Well, that is easily answered in this instance because Jesus defined the thing as the work or action that would allow this man to go to heaven and be saved. Therefore, it must<\/em><\/strong> be \u201cgood\u201d because certainly a bad work or action (a sin) could not fill that function. So this is a no-brainer. Of course<\/strong><\/em> it is a good work, according to God the Son.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Your problem and dilemma is that you maintain the standard Calvinist- or Baptist- or evangelical-type position that works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible and Jesus assert that they have a necessary connection, alongside (always) faith and grace. They can\u2019t be removed from the equation. I have collected 50 passages that prove this undeniable connection with regard to going to heaven, and fifty more from Paul alone that teach the intrinsic harmony and togetherness of faith, grace, and works. You can try to ignore and dismiss and rationalize all that away but it\u2019s just not possible.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\u201cand 3) a meritorious work?\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
Not for salvation, no. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It\u2019s impossible<\/em> to assert that because it is directly contrary to what Jesus<\/strong> taught<\/em>: that this work would be what allowed the man to be saved, alongside his faith and God\u2019s enabling grace that lies behind any and every good thing we do.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
But, whether for the saved believer, or the unsaved and condemned person, works are \u201crewarded\u201d. The saved believer receives crowns in heaven based on his or her works, but that is after<\/em><\/strong> they are saved.<\/span><\/div>\n
*
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
The unsaved, condemned person gets their \u201creward\u201d that all deserve at birth: an eternity in hell, regardless of whether they give to the poor all their lives. Good works, the ones that are worthy and obedient to God, are those that are done by the saved believer. Ephesians 2:10, but there are lots of teachings on this. <\/span><\/span>This answers your questions fully, and completely.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
We do indeed receive differential rewards in heaven. Both sides agree about that. But that\u2019s not what is in play here. The question was how a man can attain heaven, not just rewards in heaven. Jesus\u2019 answer proved that the man would be in heaven if he did the required work. It\u2019s a compelling proof of Catholic soteriology and an unanswerable disproof of Protestant soteriology.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Jesus didn\u2019t say<\/strong><\/em> that the ruler was already saved and that he\u2019d get more crowns in heaven by giving away his riches. He said that doing so would be the immediate or last thing that saved<\/em> him, per the original inquiry of how to be saved. You\u2019re simply projecting Protestant traditions of men onto the passage when they aren\u2019t there at all. That\u2019s eisegesis, not exegesis.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
How would a Catholic properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of certain evangelical Protestants, like Presbyterian Matt Slick, who runs the CARM website? He asked me: \u201cIf you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.\u201d<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
He\u2019s completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
1) I am characterized by righteousness.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2) I have integrity.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3) I\u2019m not wicked.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
4) I\u2019m upright in heart.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
5) I\u2019ve done good deeds.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
6) I have good ways.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
7) I\u2019m not committing abominations.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
8 ) I have good conduct.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
9) I\u2019m not angry with my brother.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
10) I\u2019m not insulting my brother.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
11) I\u2019m not calling someone a fool.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
12) I have good fruits.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
13) I do the will of God.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
14) I hear Jesus\u2019 words and do them.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
15) I endured to the end.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
16) I fed the hungry.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
18) I clothed the naked.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
19) I welcomed strangers.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
20) I visited the sick.<\/div>\n
\n
\n
21) I visited prisoners.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
23) I\u2019m not weighed down with dissipation.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
24) I\u2019m not weighed down with drunkenness.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
25) I\u2019m not weighed down with the cares of this life.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
26) I\u2019m not ungodly.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
27) I don\u2019t suppress the truth.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
28) I\u2019ve done good works.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
29) I obeyed the truth.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
30) I\u2019m not doing evil.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
31) I have been a \u201cdoer of the law.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
32) I\u2019ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
33) I\u2019m unblameable in holiness.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
34) I\u2019ve been wholly sanctified.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
36) I know God.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
37) I\u2019ve obeyed the gospel.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
38) I\u2019ve shared Christ\u2019s sufferings.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
39) I\u2019m without spot or blemish.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
40) I\u2019ve repented.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
41) I\u2019m not a coward.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
42) I\u2019m not faithless.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
43) I\u2019m not polluted.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
44) I\u2019m not a murderer.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
45) I\u2019m not a fornicator.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
46) I\u2019m not a sorcerer.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
47) I\u2019m not an idolater.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
48) I\u2019m not a liar.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
49) I invited the lame to my feast.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
50) I invited the blind to my feast.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/p>\n

\n
I understand your position. You believe that Jesus gave perhaps many different paths to heaven, since when questioned, you acknowledged that you did not, in fact, sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. You think that that means to salvation was just for one man. So, since I have accurately answered your questions (you disagree, but that only makes it a disagreement), please answer an important one for me.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
So, since the entire bible is arguably contemporaneous, is there any message for the unsaved today that is the one gospel, the one path to salvation? And if so, what is it, in succinct terms?<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
The gospel:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Romans 1:16-17<\/strong> For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for\u00a0faith; as it is written, \u201cHe who through faith is righteous shall live.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4: \u201cBehold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.\u201d
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
So this is faith and works, that go hand in hand, as in 99 other passages I have documented. Paul happens not to mention grace here, but of course he often does; for example, here is Paul discussing both grace and faith for justification and salvation:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Romans 3:24-26<\/strong> they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God\u2019s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; [26] it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
But in the chapter before he also stressed works as part of the equation:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Romans 2:13<\/strong> For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith. All of his passages considered together undeniably teach this combination, not faith alone.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
And of course Jesus agrees with this. He talks about faith in Him, and also many times about works being required for salvation. He doesn\u2019t mention grace, but John 1:16-17 states: \u201cAnd from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.\u00a0For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.\u201d
\n*\n
\n
You said something very profound, perhaps unintentionally:<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Yes, salvation is by faith, belief, in Christ alone and His perfect sacrifice on the cross. That saving faith, which is given by God\u2019s grace and not merited, is manifested in the fruits of salvation, which is works. Thank you. You have now stated biblical doctrine on salvation, though you don\u2019t recognize the many texts that you are told mean that you can earn salvation, but are actually a description of the saved believer. The entire book of 1 John, for example, tells the saved believer of his or her assurance, and what they now have, but it also serves as a test for unbelievers.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
You still don\u2019t understand our view (or the biblical one). Don\u2019t feel bad. Many many Protestants do not, because they\u2019ve been taught so many caricatures and twisted versions of Catholic soteriology. It\u2019s grace + faith, and an intrinsic and inevitable part<\/em><\/strong> of genuine faith \u2014 without which it is \u201cdead\u201d \u2014 is works. In that<\/em><\/strong> specific sense, these good works proceeding from both grace and faith are meritorious and necessary in the overall scenario of how one is saved and goes to heaven.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I have not stated Protestant soteriological doctrine (that I used to believe as strongly as you do). You mistakenly think I stumbled into it because you don\u2019t grasp the Catholic position on these matters, and you think I don\u2019t understand yours. In fact I understand it way better than you do because I was an evangelical Protestant, too, was an apologist then as well, and have studied all sides of this issue for the past 32 years as a Catholic, and had innumerable debates and written books about it.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Protestants separate good works into a separate, optional category, under the name of \u201csanctification\u201d and claim that \u2014 while they are praiseworthy and important and ought to be present \u2014 they have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. And they claim that they are done in gratitude to God for a salvation already attained (faith alone \/ imputed \/ extrinsic justification). You know the playbook and the talking points well, and have stated them in a textbook manner. There was no need because I already know what Protestants teach about it.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nMy 100 passages, which you still blow over and don\u2019t seriously consider, are not saying that. They tie works directly in as one necessary cause of salvation, alongside grace and faith. They don\u2019t make works optional in the question of salvation. I showed, for example, that in the rich young ruler scene, the man\u2019s salvation was directly dependent on whether he gave up his riches, which is a good and meritorious work (all of which you have irrationally denied), not simply mental acceptance of a doctrine in his head. The NT isn\u2019t Protestant. Jesus and Paul would flunk out of Protestant seminaries.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The rich young ruler is a quintessential example of what I\u2019m talking about (that\u2019s why it\u2019s such a superb, unanswerable Catholic argument). He was saved by grace, through faith (he kept the commandments \u2014 works again \u2014 because he was faithful), and this faith would have also expressed its authenticity in an act of giving up his possessions (had he actually chosen that course), which would prove that he is no longer making riches his idol, and this<\/em><\/strong> would then allow him to go to heaven. It was the only thing he lacked, said Jesus.
\n*
\nAn \u201coptional\u201d thing is not described as a thing that one \u201clacks.\u201d If I had chocolate ice cream for lunch, Jesus wouldn\u2019t have told me, \u201cone thing you lack: you didn\u2019t have vanilla ice cream for lunch.\u201d That\u2019s absurd because one doesn\u2019t talk like that about optional choices.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In case anyone missed the point (and you did<\/em>), Jesus states again that the whole thing had to do with how one is saved and how one goes to heaven:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*
\nMark 10:23-25<\/strong> And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, \u201cHow hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!\u201d [24] And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, \u201cChildren, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! [25] 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.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In other words, He was expanding upon the meaning of what just happened. The rich young ruler asked how he could go to heaven. Jesus told him how (do a good work proving that he had forsaken idolatry) and the man refused. So Jesus commented how hard it was for rich people to go to heaven. This one declined his chance to do so by not following Jesus\u2019 advice.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Yet you sit there and pretend that it has nothing to do with his salvation; only his rewards in heaven. Those notions are not in the text<\/em> at all. If in fact they were<\/em>, Jesus would have said, instead, something like, \u201cHow hard it will be for those who have riches to receive great rewards in heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to receive great rewards in heaven.\u201d
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The entire scene would have read vastly differently if Jesus taught faith alone like Protestants do. He would have simply told the man to have faith in Him, and never would have mentioned the commandments or giving away his riches, just like you would likely never talk that way out on the street witnessing and sharing the gospel (as I have done hundreds of times).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nIt\u2019s extraordinarily clear what was going on there and what it means for soteriology. Only those who already irrationally, inconsistently hold to an unbiblical tradition of men fail to see it, because they refuse<\/em><\/strong> to see it. Jesus talked about this sort of thing:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
John 9:40-41<\/strong> Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, \u201cAre we also blind?\u201d [41] Jesus said to them, \u201cIf you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,\u2019 your guilt remains.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

*<\/p>\n

\n
Concerning your list, all of which are things that were contemporaneous to Jesus\u2019 teaching, and while I believe that the bible is meant to everyone today, your hermeneutic may dispute that.<\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Dave, this is not a snark, or humorous in any way, but your list uses the word \u201cI\u201d in each and every reason that you provide. According to you, your salvation is earned, merited by you. I would humbly submit that your works cannot erase the sin debt that you were born with, and which you earn every day. God is holy. You are not, and thus deserving of an eternity in hell as punishment\u2026.just like each and every created human who ever lived, myself included.<\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
There is a consistent teaching by Jesus Christ that tells us how we can be reconciled with God, and avoid the eternity of excruciating punishment in hell that we deserve. It is not clear that you know it. It is belief in Him alone, and in His \u201conce for all\u201d perfect sacrifice on the cross.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span>
\n2 Cor 5:21<\/span><\/div>\n
John 6:37-44 (all of John 6, actually)<\/span><\/div>\n
Romans 5:1-3<\/span><\/div>\n
Ephesians 2:1-10<\/span><\/div>\n
Titus 3:3-7<\/span><\/div>\n
1 John 5:13<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
Once again, you miss the context and the point I was making by ignoring crucial points and distinctions, in your rush to \u201cprove\u201d that I and Catholics supposedly believe in a works salvation, that we deny. This is always how anti-Catholics argue, because they are ignorant regarding this matter and blissfully unaware of it.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I was initially responding to the classic Protestant evangelistic query (often expressed to Catholics). In this case, I cited the actual words to me, of Presbyterian anti-Catholic apologist Matt Slick of CARM: \u201cIf you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.\u201d<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
This<\/em> is why all my answers begin with \u201cI\u201d. I just didn\u2019t say \u201cbecause\u201d in every one. In other words, instead of answering \u201cBecause<\/em> I did work x<\/em> and work y<\/em>,\u201d etc. I just said, \u201cI<\/em> did x<\/em>,\u201d \u201cI<\/em> did y<\/em>,\u201d etc. In doing so I was citing Scripture directly<\/strong><\/em> in every case (50 of \u2019em), in order to illustrate how the Bible <\/strong><\/em>actually answers this question. It turned out to be quite differently from what Slick and Protestants would have predicted.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
But Catholics don\u2019t believe in salvation by works alone. We believe in the combination of grace-faith-meritorious works that always proceed from grace and genuine faith, as I have explained, and will not bother doing so again. That is not Pelagianism<\/strong><\/em>. And if you can\u2019t figure out what the difference is, that fault lies with you<\/em>, not with us. You\u2019re blinded by your false and unbiblical \u201ceither\/or\u201d premises. We explain it till we\u2019re blue in the face. I have at least forty articles just on this point alone, if you want to get up to speed.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
But you have already said you won\u2019t read my links, because you know everything about us, so . . . \u201cYou can lead the horse to water, but you can\u2019t make it drink.\u201d
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
You do not <\/em><\/strong>understand our teaching. I\u2019ve never once met an anti-Catholic in 32 years who did<\/em>. You are woefully in error about what we actually teach.<\/div>\n
*
\nIf anyone wants to understand Catholic soteriology, I have made it easy for you:<\/div>\n
*
\nCouncil of Trent: Canons on Justification<\/a>\u00a0(with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology)<\/a>[12-29-03]
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
I trust, if you are hermeneutically consistent, that you have sold all your possessions.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I\u2019ve never been wealthy, and never will<\/em> be (as first a Protestant evangelist and a full-time Catholic apologist since 2001). Therefore, riches have never been my idol, so I don\u2019t have to get rid of everything I own in order to get my priorities straight. I have many other sins God is working on, but temptation to great riches and making them my idol has never been a problem. If it were, God would require that of me, too, since Jesus said idolaters would not go to heaven (Rev 22:15; cf. 21:8).
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
And Jesus taught (see John 6) that it is belief in Him alone that saves. \u201cRepent and believe\u201d is the gospel message. What is the will of the Father? John 6:40. Who is saved? John 6:37-39. Can there is assurance of salvation? Same verses.<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Jesus taught that belief in Him saved, if it is coupled with good works (which He referred to, I believe, more times than to faith). Both are the products of God\u2019s grace. You keep bringing up John 6. I don\u2019t know why. It teaches that reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) in the Holy Eucharist will save one:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
John 6:51<\/strong> I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
John 6:53-58<\/strong> So Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nBecause \u201cMany of his disciples\u201d thought that this was \u201ca hard saying\u201d(6:60), they \u201cdrew back and no longer went about with him\u201d (6:66: quite appropriately). It\u2019s the only time in the NT besides Judas that a disciple was said to forsake Him, and it was because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: and so many folks today disbelieve in this express teaching, and thus possibly endanger their salvation. You\u2019ll say it\u2019s all merely symbolic talk. Nonsense. See my articles:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue) [8-16-09]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples [2-14-11]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether [3-2-16]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Vs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism? [9-20-19]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Apostasy of Disciples (Jn 6:66) & Protestant Commentaries [1-28-21]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Was Jesus Unclear in John 6 (Eucharist)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [11-16-21]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
These are all listed on My Eucharist web page<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
You\u2019re not grappling with the many relevant Bible passages I brought up, which has universally been the case with any Protestant who interacts at all with this reasoning, for fifteen years now, so we\u2019re done here.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Dialogue isn\u2019t just one person presenting their view, and the other presenting theirs, and never the twain shall meet, and ships passing in the night. No; it\u2019s interacting directly with the opponent\u2019s arguments and arguing for another position that is sincerely believed to be superior. I don\u2019t do a one-way \/ double standard routine, where I interact with all of my opponent\u2019s arguments, but they ultimately ignore mine (or give one answer and refuse to address my counter-replies, as you did). I don\u2019t have time for much of that. But I\u2019ll do it for a short time, for teaching purposes.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
You refuse to do a true dialogue, so I have invested enough energy into this, and it\u2019s time to move on. It did at least result in two helpful educational dialogues for my blog. I heartily thank you for that. I\u2019ve come up with some new fresh biblical and logical arguments, too, which is a good thing, and they came about as a result of your intransigence and profound lack of understanding of Catholicism.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
God bless you.
\n*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Last thing:
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
You seem tied up in wealth as preventing salvation.\u00a0God never once teaches that the wealthy cannot enter heaven.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
1. I\u2019m \u201ctied up\u201d<\/span> with it in exactly the same sense that Jesus<\/em> was: it\u2019s evil and will lead to hell if<\/em><\/strong> it becomes an idol<\/em><\/strong>.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
2. I never said that no rich man can enter heaven. I have made the previous point, and say that it is \u201cdifficult\u201d for that to happen, precisely as Jesus stated.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
I wrote on July 1, 2014 in the first comment under my own Facebook post<\/a>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Wealth is not bad in and of itself. Abraham and Solomon were wealthy; Jesus was buried in a rich man\u2019s tomb. Greed, materialism, using and abusing the poor because of great wealth, and idolatry of money are bad.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

*<\/p>\n

Jesus vs. \u201cFaith Alone\u201d (Rich Young Ruler)<\/a>\u00a0[10-12-15]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler & Good Works<\/a>\u00a0[10-14-15]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\u201cDoing Something\u201d for Salvation: Dialogue w Evangelical<\/a>\u00a0[1996]
\n*<\/div>\n
St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/div>\n

Paul vs. Calvin: \u201cDoers of the Law\u201d Will be Justified\u00a0<\/a>[2004]
\nCatholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works)<\/a>\u00a0[4-8-08]<\/p>\n

\u201cWorking Out\u201d Salvation & Protestant Soteriology<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Ken Temple)\u00a0[4-9-08]<\/p>\n

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone<\/a>:\u00a0Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept \u201cFaith Alone\u201d and\/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)?<\/a> [9-28-10]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/div>\n
Salvation: By Grace Alone,\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Faith Alone or Works<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone<\/a>\u00a0[5-4-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Debate with a Lutheran Pastor on Faith and Works\u00a0<\/a>[5-4-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus Associates Works, Merit, & Heroic Sacrifice w Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[11-10-18]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[8-1-19]
\n*<\/div>\n
\n
Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Banzoli\u2019s 45 \u201cFaith Alone\u201d Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs<\/a>\u00a0[6-16-22]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho)<\/a>\u00a0[6-22-22]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1)<\/a>\u00a0[+ Part 2<\/a>] [+ Part 3<\/a>] [7-19-22]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Biblical Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Round 3, Pt. 1)<\/a>\u00a0[10-20-22]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Sanctification: Part & Parcel of Salvation? (vs. Calvin #64)<\/a>\u00a0[3-9-23]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Justification:\u00a0Faith Apart From Works is Barren<\/em><\/a>[4-4-94; rev. 1996]
\n*<\/div>\n
Initial Justification & \u201cFaith Alone\u201d: Harmonious?<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-04]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Catholic Bible Verses\u00a0on Sanctification and Merit<\/a>\u00a0[12-20-07]
\n*<\/div>\n
Salvation is a Process & Not Instantaneously Assured<\/a>\u00a0[2009]
\n*<\/div>\n
Grace, Faith, Works,\u00a0& Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition<\/a>\u00a0[12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]<\/div>\n
\n

Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation<\/a>\u00a0(Always Enabled by God\u2019s Grace)<\/a>[1-3-10]<\/p>\n

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-10]<\/p>\n

Justification:\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0by Faith Alone, & Ongoing<\/a>\u00a0(Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham\u2019s Multiple Justifications)<\/a>\u00a0[10-15-11]<\/p>\n

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works<\/a>\u00a0[2012]<\/p>\n

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions<\/a>\u00a0[7-2-13]<\/p>\n

Dialogue on Faith and Works and the Relation of Each to the Final Judgment<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Bethany Kerr) [10-10-13]<\/p>\n

\u201cCatholic Justification\u201d in James & Romans<\/a>\u00a0[11-18-15]<\/p>\n

Philippians 2:12 & \u201cWork[ing] Out\u201d One\u2019s Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[1-26-16]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-three books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

***<\/p>\n

Photo credit:<\/strong> Christ and the Rich Young Ruler<\/em>\u00a0(1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911)<\/span>\u00a0[public domain \/\u00a0Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a shared meme that I had posted, regarding Catholic liturgy. Jim\u2019s words will be in blue. This is a continuation of the exchange: Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel (6-30-23). ***** Dave, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":74498,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,50],"tags":[1213,973,1210,17837,1116,2341],"class_list":["post-74570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-salvation-justification","tag-faith-works","tag-good-works","tag-merit","tag-meritorious-works-the-gospel","tag-rich-young-ruler","tag-salvation"],"yoast_head":"\nDialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-03T22:31:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-07-03T22:42:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/06\/RichYoungRuler.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"505\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-03T22:31:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-07-03T22:42:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation","description":"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation","og_description":"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2023-07-03T22:31:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-07-03T22:42:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":505,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/06\/RichYoungRuler.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html","name":"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-07-03T22:31:36+00:00","dateModified":"2023-07-03T22:42:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on\u00a0a public Facebook page, below a Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/07\/dialogue-rich-young-ruler-works-salvation.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74570\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74498"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}