There is not a verse in the scriptures that says Cornelius, how did you put it, "was one of God's elect from the foundation of the world" and there is not a verse in the Scriptures that says you are one of God's pre-screened elect. That is just a fact. Your election is on the basis of presumption and you are presuming that Cornelius was also.
"Keep back thy servant also from presumptous sins, let not them have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.", says David in Ps 19.
If the scripture does not say it and you teach it anyway, then you are being presumptous.
But that you might know that in every place the scriptures addresses this issue it is the same as it is here. The Spirit is received through faith.
Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Ga 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Peter will tell you words wherby you and your house shall be saved.
The Scriptures in the KJV are written on a 5th grade level but your understanding is on a 1st grade level.
The fact is that the TULIP is devastated by this story and you are like General Custer. You will be the last man standing with hope of only looking foolish, which you are succeeding in doing right well. The only redeeming quality about you now is that you have not attempted to explain how your theology applies to the text. That would be a real hoot.
However, if you think the giving of the Holy Spirit is a two-stage proposition, there must be somewhere in the Scripture it is taught and\or illustrated. Take me there please.
Now I am offended that you are trying to redefine calvinistic doctrines that we have been taught here for 5 tears by men that are much sharper than you. Where will it end?
Reading your stuff you are actually having to redefine the person of God in acts 10, it seems. If I caught your drift right, you think it is a false god that Cornelius was praying to and who sent his angel and told him to send for Peter who would tell him words BY WHICH HE AND HIS HOUSEHOLD would be SAVED.
14 Who shall tell thee WORDS, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved
Are you sure you want to build your reputation here in this story?
DJC49 wrote: Gentlemen, this *JD*/*Casob* character is a flat-out heretic of the Semi-Pelagian kind.
I say you had better hope so. So far though, this has been about JD and not about the text when you speak. If you reconcile your theology, that you have pumped to the unsuspecting for years, with the text under consideration, you will have some credibility. My contention has been that it can not be done.
Now, I will attempt to unscramble the egg. _ Cornelius DESIRED the quickening Spirit of God (this "desiring" is not found in the text). _
Maybe not. His prayer might have been general! _
The Cornelius story PROVES faith preceeds regeneration (totally unproved by the text) _
It is totally proven by the text and I have already pointed the proof out. _
God is NOT the "first cause" in a man's salvation _
We are talking about Cornelius in Acts 10 and his being saved. _
"Even as Peter spake Corneilus and house BELIEVED" (the text states no such thing) _ Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus _
God drew men to Jesus ONLY while He was on earth. [see Jn 6:44] _
The Father drew JEWS to Christ as Messiah, his Son See Jn 6:68-69
For those of you who do not recognize time elements in Scripture.
The incident with Cornelius took place some 10 years after the Holy Spirit was poured out on Israel. There was no preaching to the gentiles by Israel, including Peter, until this event. He thought we were unclean, but God sent a vision to let him know he wanted us saved.
It surprised the Jews who were with Peter that the Holy Ghost was poured out on the gentiles as he was on them in Acts 2. God sent them a sign so they would know it was true and of God.
Heretofore, they had not preached to any but Jews.
Ac 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
Now, this is the beginning of God's evangelization to the gentiles and if it was the beginning, he was not trying to save Cornelius before this event. This is a pivot point in God's unfolding drama of Redemption through Christ. The Holy Ghost had not been poured out on the gentiles UNTIL this event! There were gentiles that had been previously justified as well as all believers previous to Christ but salvation is through Christ and is receiving the GIFT of GOD, the Holy Spirit, who regenerates (quickens)us
So JD, do you deny that it was the inner working of the Holy Spirit in your heart to bring you to saving faith and belieing the gospel?
The only reason why Cornelius was able to seek after God in the way that he did was because of the inner working of God's grace to draw him.
We are not making this about me. You and your friends have presented a system of theology whose precepts are challenged by this text. It is incumbent upon you to explain how they can be reconciled with this text in the face of the text saying just the opposite of your theology.
If you cannot do it, then fine. Just say you can't and I will not trouble you anymore, but quit trying to take the converstaion down rabbit trails.
So far, all you have done is applied your prejudices to the text. Here is an example.
"The only reason why Cornelius was able to seek after God in the way that he did was because of the inner working of God's grace to draw him."
You need to show how the text supports this. Moreover, you need to show why it doesn't since this is your claim. The inner working of God's grace (God's grace is salvation in the person of the Holy Spirit) was received later after he believed.
The Lone Wolf wrote: Is that the intent of your posting of the account of Cornelius to disprove that God is sovereign in the calling and salvation of sinners? All you are doing is the same as you accuse MurrayA of doing and that is discrediting the Word of God and elevating your secular humanistic philosophy.
Sir, don't you understand the gravity of the situation I am presenting you with? I am bringing this passage of Scripture to your attention to demonstrate that your interpretation of the counsel of God is exposed as error. It cannot apply in this scenario with Cornelius. The major points of your theological system breaks down when this passage is applied to it, or rather, when it is applied to this passage. It will not fit!
My purpose for commenting on it is to let you see that so you can adjust your thinking about God and his wonderful and free salvation. I am your friend. I am here to help you.
So, before Cornelius came to faith, was he being drawn by God when God was saying to send for Peter? Just a thought. ______
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Here is an example of ignoring the text in order to hold to one's theological system. Cornelius was an "unsaved" man at this time. The authority of Scripture attests to it.
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved
Calvinism says a spiritually dead man cannot "do" anything and yet God says Peter will tell you what thou "oughtest to do".
Calvinism says believing the gospel of Jesus Christ is a "work" and God says it is the means to receiving the Holy Ghost, the GIFT OF GOD
DJC49 is willing to misapply a single verse of Scripture, Ro 3:11 when God in his goodness has arranged society that men may seek after him. Acts 17:22-31. We know God's wisdom worked because we find the unsaved Cornelius seeking him in Acts 10, according to God
Listen, I have not forgotten what I have been told on this forum by calvinists that are a lot sharper than you. They say a man is dead in his trespasses and sins and cannot obey God and cannot respond to God. They often use corpse of Lazarus as a narrative of their doctrine.
But, here is a man in Acts 10 who is unsaved and we have the testimony of God and Peter on it. Yet he is praying to God and God is hearing him and answering his prayer without regenerating him.
You have said a dead man cannot do anything to please God yet we see God himself instructing an unsaved man to send for Peter and he would tell him what HE OUGHTEST TO DO TO BE SAVED! God is testifying against you here, friend!
Faith cometh by hearing, the scriptures say and Peter preached the gospel. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, It was not until after Peter preached the gospel that Cornelius and his house received the Holy Ghost. Believing is what God meant that he must do. No one can be r egenerated, born again, without believing the gospel.
You are trying everything you know to change the subject.
I submit to you that God can do anything he chooses to do as long as it does not violate his character or word. I cannot say with any certainty anything he will choose to do in the Millennial reign that he has not written down in his word. But I can say with certainty that he will accomplish those things he has told me about.
One of the things he has said is that there will be a temple rebuilt in Jerusalem that will be a focal point of the tribulation activities of the Man of Sin and the devil who indwells him.
While that is not the same temple that we find in the Millennium, why is it so hard for you to believe that both will be built? The Jews at this very moment desires it to happen and they have never accepted Christ and Christianity. They still await their Messiah. When the false Messiah comes on the scene, they will accept him. Jn 5:43. But that temple will not survive the great earthquake that will occur at the glorious appearing of that great God and savioue, Jesus Christ.
I have never said, and I do not know anywhere in scripture that we are told the OT system of law is going to be restored. When the NT was instituted, 9 of the 10 moral laws that were in the OT were incorporated into it. That did not not make the NT a revision of the OT. Your logic f
Eddy F and Lone Wolf have 8 days left to present a single verse in Scripture that says faith is the gift of God.
You would not be convinced away from your religion if God himself came down and wrote two chapters in the bible to illustrate that your religion does not and cannot survive the test of a practical application.
Oh, wait! He did come down and write two chapters that refutes your religion. The Holy Spirit inspired the word of God and he had Luke to write of the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11 and, zippo, you are not convinced.
After telling us dead men cannot do anything but be dead, you now say this:
"Unregenerate men do indeed seek spiritual things, seek salvation, seek "god;" but NOT the God of Scripture!"
Now, I would actually be embarrassed and ashamed to say that the God who sent an angel to answer Cornelius' prayer in Acts 10 was not Jehovah God.
I would be ashamed to suggest that I could not read 5th grade English and comprehend that God sent Peter to preach the gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so he could believe it, the lone condition, and be saved
This passage of Scripture is a firm and resounding death blow to the tulip and no one has tried to show how this passage confirms this doctrine.
I am not going to allow the discussion on Acts 10 and 11 to lead into an argument on dispensational theology. The story of Cornelius unfolds in an historical continuum. That fact remains true no matter what ones theology system is. That story stands in scripture and we are urged to derive our theology from it, not apply our prejudices to it. If we attempt to apply a false theology to it, we will be rebuked by the truth that is in the texts, as you have been.
That would leave us with only two options; 1) We could abandon our false premises and believe the truth or 2) we could launch some red herrons and post links and try to steer the conversation away from the devastating rebuke of the text while not showing how ones theology is confirmed by the story.
Now, let's see, what option have these fellows chosen?
All except Faithful Remnant have chosen option 2. FR has said we should allow the text to say what it says. I say "amen"!
And why is everyone suddenly trying to change the subject away from Acts 10 and 11 and points I have made?
Okay. here is the deal.
I agree that I will not mention dispensationalism any more often than I have already mentioned it while I am talking about this story of Cornelius.
How does an unsaved man like Cornelius wind up praying to God and giving alms and having God hear him and God sending his angel to instruct him in what he oughtest to do to be saved, i.e. to receive the Spirit of God? And how does the unsaved Cornelius obey God when we are told that an unsaved man is dead in trespasses and sins and is totally depraved and cannot do these things? And why does God tell him there is something to do to be saved? And why have none of you men attempted to systematically expounded the points of your theology from this text and shown how tulip works in a practical application?
And why have every one of you tried to change the subject?
And how, pray tell, can God draw a corpse and persuade him to come to him?
Who would have thought one would have been debating a point of such great importance who had not read the whole context? Why not learn first?
I take your comments with a grain of salt. So far the only scriptures you have told me you take literally is He 8-10.
But there is a survey about dispensationalism and such. This one is about the love of God so we will not make this about me.
The fact is that I have shown over several posts that salvation from sin, the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and regeneration are synonyms. I have shown that the Cornelius story is a pivot point in God's unfolding drama of redemption when he poured out his Spirit in great abundance upon the gentiles insomuch that Peter was compelled, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to say it was a fulfillment of the prophecy of John the Baptist, to wit, that the gentiles had now been baptized by the Holy Ghost. That means more than sprinkled, friend, that means they were immersed by him. This is that Spirit of life who is available now to any and all that will believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and this is who Cornelius and his household received and how they were saved. It was God who gave his Spirit and in his own time. This is what this story is about!
Lurker wrote: When you dogmatically state that the King of kings and Lord of lords is not sovereign and play around with passages stating that they are proof positive that man makes the first move toward God (in your words "first cause"); it is time for sensible God fearing Christians to shun you until you come back to your senses.
You did not read my argument very well Lurker, which is typical of you. The comparison was the Father drawing the Jews in Jn 6 to the inclusion of the gentiles, through the incident with Corneilus in Acts 10 and 11. There is no comparison. There is a whole different dynamic going on in the two passages.
Cornelius was seeking after God. He prayed to Jehovah God and gave alms. This is how the story in Acts 10 begins. He is an unsaved man. The story does not say he is a regenerated man. There is not even a hint of that and DJC49 said his theology made regeneration and the gift of faith so close together that it nearly made the separation a non issue (snicker).
Now, here is a dead man, totally unable, speaking with God and getting instructions from him and obeying him. This is not congruent with the tulip as we have had it explained to us.
How can God draw a dead man if he is a corpse like entity?
Alan H wrote: JD, PLEASE! I haven't seen anyone of late mentioning any of those five points in this particular discussion.
JD, being a hyper-dispensationalist would probably say that the first disciples were unsaved prior to that Pentecostal experience which they had, and he seems to also think that Cornelius was saved by this particular event; I personally disagree with that position.
A little hypocrisy comes through. I have not mentioned dispensationalism. And you need to go learn what a hyper-dispensationalist is before you go throwing around accusations. Very few people have called me a hyper here and then only the ignorant.
If you believe this is not about Cornelius getting saved then I do not know how I can converse with you anymore. It is just a futile exercise.
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
If you see the need to deny plain words or to change their meaning, then please do not post to me again on this subject, Alan H. I do not desire to just waste time.
DJC49 wrote: Cornelius was indeed drawn by God FIRST even though a superficial reading of the Scripture might look as if he is "seeking God" on his own steam.
None of the statements concerning Corneilus supports the tulip. The fact is that this story is a serious rebuke to it and it exposes those who believe it as much less than honest, I say much less than honest if they try to make this story conform to those peculiar doctines like you are doing.
Now, you say this passage teaches that the Father is drawing Cornelius and I say the floor is open and you have it. Prove your case.
You continually quote this verse.
There is none that understandeth, there is NONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER GOD.
You have never quoted this verse as if it is not scripture.
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
I submit that you are putting a slant on seek the lord that God does not intend, but it fits your theology, so you do it.
The Scriptures do not teach an intermediate salvation before the full salvation which seems to be what we are getting with the "quickening" doctrine that is diffenent from being born again and passing from death unto life. This seems to be called regeneration and its seems to be an application of a systematic theology doctrine applied to the scriptures without any support. No one has said where this is taught.
I would ask my calvinist friends to reconsider teaching this doctrine simply because the "quickening" is the born again experience of the believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Surely no one would present a two stage application of the Spirit to our Lord at his resurrection.
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
This verse shows that the quickening is salvation and it is by grace and grace is a giving and what is given is God's Holy Spirit who actually does the quickening when we believe.
8 For by grace are ye saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
It does not take mental heavyweights to compare Acts 2 and Acts 8, acts 10, and Acts 19:1-7 to see that the doctrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit is a NT affair and that his being given was to the Jew first and then the gentile. Anyone could note that his ministry was a progessive ministry. In Acts 2:38 the Jews were required to repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and be baptized in water before the Holy Ghost was given to indwell them. Then the apostles would lay their hands on them and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is cllearly shown in Acts 8 with Phillip and the Samaritans.
However, when the gospel exceeded Jewish bounds and went to the gentiles through Corneilus,the requirement was only that they believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to receive the gift of God. All who believe will receive him.
The difference between Jn 6 and Acts 10 is God was drawing the Jews to the physical Jesus as the Messiah through OT types and prophecies in Jn 6. They crucified him because of this claim
In Acts 10, Peter preached to the gentiles without quoting a single OT passage but focused upon believing in the the name of Jesus Christ, his death, burial, and resurrection and that God would forgive anyone on that basis and give them his eternal Spiri
Both of us could be in error but both of us can not be right. The obvious fact is that your theology is not practical and that is why an actual application of God's plan of salvation in an actual event is a strong rebuke to it. You have no concept of the historical context of any scripture whatsoever and you will allow your misunderstanding of Jn 6 to cause you to deny the stucture of the narrative in Acts 10 & 11 concerning Corneilus.
Now, I am not elected to personal salvation before the foundation of the world and I do not want to be. I do not have a single verse in scripture that even hints that I am and someone else, perhaps in my immediate family, is not. And you cannot produce a verse or a promise to you, Alan H, that you are personally one of the elect.
Faith comes by hearing and believing the word of God and I am sorry to be so painfully honest but none of you men have believed the Scriptures without changing them. Now you are trying to modify Acts 10 to suit your preconceptions. Lovers of the word of God do not do that. Therefore, because of the attitude of the so called proud elect on here, I doubt your election. And do not tell me you are not proud. Most of you on here have bragged how humble you are because you are elect. I don't buy it!
DJC49 wrote: Your assertions that Cornelius was a seeker after God and was the first cause of his salvation is totally without merit and absolutely unbiblical in the highest degree.
It pains me to bring this uo, Dale, but Corneilus prayed and did alms, God heard him, and sent his angel to say somes things to him. I am sure you can pick out the initiator and the responder in this story. I know you can. You are sharp enough to do it.
Lets review the story together.
Corneilus was an unsaved man. Yes he was. Acts 11:13,14.
God did not just save him, he told him to send for Peter.
He obeyed God as an unsaved man.
God said, let me repeat that, God said Peter would tell him what he oughest TO DO to get saved. See Acts 11: 13,14.
What did Peter say he oughtest to do?
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him SHALL (future tense word) receive remission of sins.
Even as Peter spake Corneilus and house BELIEVED on him and received the Holy Ghost.
If the indwelling Holy Ghost is salvation, and I have proven that he is, then salvation occurs when he is received and the word and believing the word preceeds his indwelling.
14 Who shall tell thee words, WHEREBY thou and all thy h