Jerry, HP and others on this forum actually believe that all men can POTENTIALLY obtain eternal life by keeping the Law. They use the Lawyer and rich young ruler examples to prove this is a POTENTIAL possibility even though they claim this potential is THEORETICALLY possible but never actually possible. However, this theory is not only actually impossible (as they admit) but it is also potentially impossible (which they do not admit). 1. In both contexts there is no recognition of sinfulness by either party. 2. In both contexts there is no recognition of Christ as Savior 3. In both contexts there is no recognition of any need to be saved. 4. In both contexts they presume they can keep the law for eternal life These four factors characterize every single example they use to prove THEORETICAL sinlessness = justification of eternal life by law keeping. So, how do you deal with people who do not acknowledge they are sinners, they do not acknowledge Christ as Savior or any need to be saved but presume they can keep the law for eternal life? You send them to the Law to teach them what they are completely ignorant and deceived about - the knowledge of sin and their own sinfulness! You let them beat their head upon that inpentrable wall of sinless perfection. How the Lord dealt with the rich young ruler PROVES that Christ did not bellieve in THEORETICAL justification under the law. A. The PRESUMPTION OF INHERENT GOODNESS AND ABILITY TO KEEP THE LAW BY THE RICH YOUNG RULER: Mt. 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Mt. 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 1. He claimed to be EQUALLY inheritantly good as Christ - "good Master....good thing shall I do" 2. He claimed ability to "do" what is sufficiently "good" to obtain eternal life. 3. He claimed goodness equal to all the laws demands from his youth up "all these things have I done" 4. He never acknowledged sinfulness 5. He never acknowledge Christ as Savor 6. He never acknowledge any need to be saved. B. CHRIST'S RESPONSE: Mt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: Mt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, 1. Christ denies there is anyone inherently "good" but God - hence, there are none who can THEORETICALLY be justified by law because first one must be POTENTIALLY or THEORETICALLY good to be THEORETICALLY justified by the law as good. 2. Christ understood His assertion to have kept "all" the law as the claim to be "perfect" in his own eyes and therefore put his self-perception to the test by demanding he sell all that he has and give to the poor and follow Christ to demonstrate his claim of sinless perfection of law keeping! 3. Christ denies there is anyone inherently good but ONE - hence, infants are not born inherently good by nature. There is only one possible way to deal with any human being who: 1. Acknowledges no recognition of sinfulness. 2. Acknowledges no recognition of Christ as Savior 3. Acknowledges no recognition of any need to be saved. 4. Presumes they are inherently and sufficiently good 5. Presumes they have and can keep the Law good enough to inherit eteral life 6. Rejects Christ's claim that there is NONE good but ONE - God You direct them to the Law and tell them this is what is required to do what you presume you can do and are asking to do. The scriptures clearly teach there is no theoretical possibility to obtain eternal life by law keeping EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF A LOST SELF-RIGHTEOUS HERETIC! ".....for IF there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." - Gal. 3:21 The Apostles "if" denies potentiallity!