Does repentance remit sins?

[Jack Terrence]

Originally Posted by The Boxer

No! Israel did not remit their sins. It was the priest who layed the sins of Israel upon the goat. So GOD laid our sins upon Christ. The priest sent their sins away. So GOD sent our sins away.

Read with comprehension please.

Ask Seek Knock replied:

Then you aren't speaking of remission of sins. For Jesus plainly says to repent for the remission of sins. Remission means dismissal, release, pass by, send away, and exemption from the consequences. This is the result of genuine repentance of sin.

Hold on there friend! Jesus did NOT say that repentance actually remits sins. He said to repent for, that is, because of the remission of sins. Repentance did NOT remit sins in the old testament. The priest himself remitted sins by laying his hand on the scapegoat and putting Israel's sin upon it and then sending it away.

So God layed our sin upon Christ and sent our sins away. You are commanded to repent because God did this. Your repentance does NOT actually accomplish remission of sins. The remission of sins is NOT the result of repentance.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Originally Posted by The Boxer

Ask Seek Knock replied:Hold on there friend! Jesus did NOT say that repentance actually remits sins. He said to repent for, that is, because of the remission of sins. Repentance did NOT remit sins in the old testament. The priest himself remitted sins by laying his hand on the scapegoat and putting Israel's sin upon it and then sending it away.

So God layed our sin upon Christ and sent our sins away. You are commanded to repent because God did this. Your repentance does NOT actually accomplish remission of sins. The remission of sins is NOT the result of repentance.

How is one able to repent of something which has been taken away? Besides, Jesus is never mentioned as a goat, it is always a lamb. And the scapegoat did not die, as Jesus did. And only God can forgive sins, not a priest.

 

[Jack Terrence]

How is one able to repent of something which has been taken away? Besides, Jesus is never mentioned as a goat, it is always a lamb. And the scapegoat did not die, as Jesus did. And only God can forgive sins, not a priest.

The repentance is defined as the accepting of the Messiah.

The expression, "Repent, for the remisssion of sins" does NOT teach that repentance remits sins, or that the remission of sins is the result of repentance. The word "for" means "because," or "because of."

Example: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." Matthew 3:2 NLT

Using your logic we must concude that the coming of the kingdom was the result of repentance. No! They were called to repentance because the kingdom of God had come. Jesus said that His works were the proof that the kingdom had come.

Likewise, we are called to repentance because our sins have been sent away by Christ. Therefore, the sins of those who die unrepentant were NEVER sent away.

Do you plan to address the fact that it was the priest who sent sins away? Or will you continue to dodge it?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The repentance is defined as the accepting of the Messiah.

The expression, "Repent, for the remisssion of sins" does NOT teach that repentance remits sins, or that the remission of sins is the result of repentance. The word "for" means "because," or "because of."

Example: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." Matthew 3:2 NLT

Using your logic we must concude that the coming of the kingdom was the result of repentance. No! They were called to repentance because the kingdom of God had come. Jesus said that His works were the proof that the kingdom had come.

Likewise, we are called to repentance because our sins have been sent away by Christ. Therefore, the sins of those who die unrepentant were NEVER sent away.

Do you plan to address the fact that it was the priest who sent sins away? Or will you continue to dodge it?

I like your definition of repentance! And we learn from Acts 10:43 that forgiveness of sins is through faith in Christ.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

 

[Jack Terrence]

I like your definition of repentance! And we learn from Acts 10:43 that forgiveness of sins is through faith in Christ.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

The word "receive" (lambano) means "to take hold of" and suggests that the person taking hold of the remission of sins had them remitted prior to the time he took hold of it. The context indicates that Cornelius had the remission of sins before he believed.

Paul told Timothy to "take hold of (epi + lambano) eternal life." So by your logic Timothy did not have eternal life prior to Paul's command to him to "take hold of" it.

Faith CANNOT remit sins. By faith we "take hold" of the remission of sins. Our faith indicates that our sins had ALREADY been sent away. Those who die in unbelief indicate that their sins had NEVER been taken away.

Jesus ALONE sent away our sins just as the oc priest ALONE sent them away. Trying to get you guys to talk about this is like pulling teeth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The word "receive" (lambano) means "to take hold of" and suggests that the person taking hold of the remission of sins had them remitted prior to the time he took hold of it. The context indicates that Cornelius had the remission of sins before he believed.

The context where? We know from Peter's later telling of the story indicated quite clearly that Cornelius would be saved by Peter's message (Acts 11:15).

Paul told Timothy to "take hold of (epi + lambano) eternal life." So by your logic Timothy did not have eternal life prior to Paul's command to him to "take hold of" it.

No, not by my logic. Paul had indicated when he first met Timothy that he was a believer and saved.

Faith CANNOT remit sins.

I gave you Acts 10:43. Please define "remit" then. We are forgiven by faith in Christ.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

By faith we "take hold" of the remission of sins.

Our "faith" can't take hold of anything. There is no power in our faith. All the power is in the object of our faith, that being Jesus Christ, who died for our sins.

Our faith indicates that our sins had ALREADY been sent away.

To be clear, our faith is in the fact that Christ took our sins away.

Those who die in unbelief indicate that their sins had NEVER been taken away.

I disagree from several verses. 1 Jn 2:2 clearly says that Christ propitiated the Father for the sins of the whole world. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

2 Cor 5:14,15 says that Christ died for all, and v.19 says that God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself.

Paying the penalty of sin isn't forgiveness. Forgiveness comes when one believes on Christ.

[QUTOE]Jesus ALONE sent away our sins just as the oc priest ALONE sent them away. Trying to get you guys to talk about this is like pulling teeth.[/QUOTE]
I agree that Jesus ALONE took our sins away. I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

The repentance is defined as the accepting of the Messiah.

Actually repentance is defined as 'changing one's mind and purpose, to regret'.

The expression, "Repent, for the remisssion of sins" does NOT teach that repentance remits sins, or that the remission of sins is the result of repentance. The word "for" means "because," or "because of."

I've been searching around and found NO reference that 'eis' means 'because of'.

Example: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." Matthew 3:2 NLT

Using your logic we must concude that the coming of the kingdom was the result of repentance. No! They were called to repentance because the kingdom of God had come. Jesus said that His works were the proof that the kingdom had come.

The word 'for' in Matthew 3:2 is 'gar', while the word 'for' in Mark 1:4 is 'eis'. You are substituting apples for oranges.

Likewise, we are called to repentance because our sins have been sent away by Christ. Therefore, the sins of those who die unrepentant were NEVER sent away.

I'm afraid you have a problem on your hands with this interpretation. You say the sins of those who die 'unrepentant' were never sent away. But you have sins sent away before repentance. If sins are sent away before repentance, how do we know if they will repent afterwards? Does the goat return and give them back their sins if they do not repent?

Do you plan to address the fact that it was the priest who sent sins away? Or will you continue to dodge it?

Okay, make up your mind, did the priest put the sins upon the goat, or did the priest put the sins upon himself?

 

[Jack Terrence]

The context where? We know from Peter's later telling of the story indicated quite clearly that Cornelius would be saved by Peter's message (Acts 11:15).

Verses 1-2 my man!

"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Acts 10:1-2

Are you going to tell us that Cornelius was not saved before he met Peter? Do you want us to believe that the things said of Cornelius in verses 1-2 may be said of an unregenerate man? God did NOT send Peter to Cornelius to lead him to salvation. God had already told Peter in a vision that Cornelius was already clean.

"What God has CLEANSED you must not call uncommon" (10:15).

God told Peter this THREE times.

Then God sent Peter to Cornelius but NOT to save him. God had already cleansed Cornelius. His sins had already been remitted. God sent Peter to Cornelius to lead him out of ignorance by showing him the way of God more perfectly. Though his sins had already been remitted, he had yet to "lay hold" of the remission of sins.

When Was Cornelius Saved?

You deny that you subscribe to any traditions. Yet you regurgitate traditional interpretations all the time.

No, not by my logic. Paul had indicated when he first met Timothy that he was a believer and saved.

Yes by your logic. The Greek word "lambano" means "to take hold."

To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will take hold of the remission of sins.” Acts 10:43

Cornelius's sins had ALREADY been remitted (sent away). The actual remission of sins is totally apart from faith. Faith and repentance CANNOT remit sins. Only Christ can send our sins away. Believing on Christ is how we "lay hold" of it and are instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord.

We are forgiven by faith in Christ.

No! Paul said that Christ has forgiven us by "wiping out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (Colossians 2:14). We are NOT forgiven through faith. We are forgiven by the merits of Christ ALONE! We "take hold" of forgiveness through faith.

Our "faith" can't take hold of anything. There is no power in our faith.

These two sentences are a contradiction. You said that we are forgiven through faith. Then you flip flop and say that there is no power in faith.

Flip flop flip flop.

To be clear, our faith is in the fact that Christ took our sins away.

So the man who dies in unbelief has his sins called back. Christ sent his sins away. But if he does not believe his sins are called back. This is confusion. Your confusion is the result of your anthropocentric and synergistic view of salvation, and your misapprehension of words like "lambano."

You cannot coherently maintain that Christ remitted the sins of all men if their faith is the contingency by which their sins are remitted. For their sins are called back if they do not believe.

"If you do not believe that I am you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Were their sins ever remitted (sent away)? If so, then their sins were called back. Confusion!!

Faith is NOT the contingency by which sins are remitted. Christ ALONE remits sins. Faith is the contingency by which men "take hold" of that reality.

I disagree from several verses. 1 Jn 2:2 clearly says that Christ propitiated the Father for the sins of the whole world. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

The whole world means Jews and Gentiles alike and not every individual indiscriminately. To "propitiate" means "to turn away." If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world in the sense you define the whole world, then NOBODY could be damned. How can God express His displeasure towards someone for whom Christ turned away God's displeasure?

2 Cor 5:14,15 says that Christ died for all, and v.19 says that God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself.

This proves the Calvinst definition of the term "world."

Paying the penalty of sin isn't forgiveness. Forgiveness comes when one believes on Christ.

Paul said that forgiveness came by Christ's "wiping out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (Colossians 2:14).

I said:

Jesus ALONE sent away our sins just as the oc priest ALONE sent them away. Trying to get you guys to talk about this is like pulling teeth.

You replied:

I agree that Jesus ALONE took our sins away. I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

But you now say:

Paying the penalty of sin isn't forgiveness. Forgiveness comes when one believes on Christ

You say you agree that Christ ALONE took away our sins. But then you flip flop again saying that His having paid the penalty isn't forgiveness, and that forgiveness comes through our faith. Confusion!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Verses 1-2 my man!

"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Acts 10:1-2

Are you going to tell us that Cornelius was not saved before he met Peter?

It's not my opinion. It is straight from the angel of God, who appeared before Cornelius. Didn't you look up Acts 11:13-14, which I cited? You should have.

13“And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

Maybe you don't understand what "by which you WILL BE SAVED" means, but I do. It means that Cornelius WILL BE SAVED by believing Peter's message. How can you disagree with what the angel of God said to Cornelius? I do not understand that at all.

Do you want us to believe that the things said of Cornelius in verses 1-2 may be said of an unregenerate man? God did NOT send Peter to Cornelius to lead him to salvation. God had already told Peter in a vision that Cornelius was already clean.

Well, apparently you fail to understand that whole vision thing. Or did you not read any of it? Peter, being a devout Jew, kept strict dietary laws, meaning certain foods were off limits, just like those same devout Jews wouldn't associate with Gentiles, also considered "off limits", which is why Peter got a grilling when he returned to Jerusalem. Acts 11:2-3 for proof.

The vision taught Peter that "no man is unclean" in the sense of how devout Jews treated non-Jews, and that he should go with the men. Otherwise, Peter would have refused to go with them. Acts 10:15 and 28-29 for proof.

"What God has CLEANSED you must not call uncommon" (10:15).

God told Peter this THREE times.

Check out the verses I just cited. God was not talking about saving everyone, but because Christ died for everyone, God has pronounced that all men have been cleansed in the sense of their sins being paid for. I had never thought of this chapter also supporting unlimited atonement, but your line of thought brought that to light. Thanks.

Then God sent Peter to Cornelius but NOT to save him.

Well, not according to what the angel of God told Cornelius, and Peter repeated to the brethren back in Jerusalem. But you are free to believe what you want to believe. But I choose to believe an angel of God, as reported by Peter.

God had already cleansed Cornelius.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but your line of "logic" then means that God has cleansed everyone, because of Acts 10:15, 28-29.

15Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”
28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. 29“That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.”

Did you notice what Peter said in v.28? Again, "I should not call ANY MAN unholy or unclean". Nothing about Cornelius alone being clean, but that Peter shouldn't call ANY MAN unclean. It's all very clear.

His sins had already been remitted.

You don't have any verse that says so.

God sent Peter to Cornelius to lead him out of ignorance by showing him the way of God more perfectly. Though his sins had already been remitted, he had yet to "lay hold" of the remission of sins.

You are making this all up. I've shown you actual verses that tell us the truth.

[QUTOE]To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will take hold of the remission of sins.” Acts 10:43

Cornelius's sins had ALREADY been remitted (sent away).[/QUOTE]
Yes, Christ had already died for him, along with everyone else. But that didn't save him. And you are on the wrong side of what an angel of God told Cornelius per Acts 11:14.

The actual remission of sins is totally apart from faith. Faith and repentance CANNOT remit sins. Only Christ can send our sins away. Believing on Christ is how we "lay hold" of it and are instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord.

There seems to be a problem with meaning of words. I agree that Christ's death for the sins of mankind is not related to faith or repentance. But forgiveness is.

No! Paul said that Christ has forgiven us by "wiping out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (Colossians 2:14).

Since he was addressing believers, he was correct. He would never have said that to a crowd of unbelievers. What he told unbelievers in his preaching can be found in 1 Cor 15:1-11. "Christ died for OUR sins".

We are NOT forgiven through faith. We are forgiven by the merits of Christ ALONE! We "take hold" of forgiveness through faith.

Sorry, but Scripture is very clear that Christ died for everyone, so if that is true, then you are preaching universalism. Simple as that.

These two sentences are a contradiction. You said that we are forgiven through faith. Then you flip flop and say that there is no power in faith.

Because you misunderstand me. They are NOT a contradiction. God does the forgiving, because God has all power. My faith does nothing. God's action of forgiveness, salvation, etc is based on one's believing Him.

So the man who dies in unbelief has his sins called back. Christ sent his sins away. But if he does not believe his sins are called back. This is confusion.

I agree and have no idea what you are saying. Where do you get this "sins called back"? Once sins are paid for, that's it. The debt has been paid. For everyone.

[QUTOE] Your confusion is the result of your anthropocentric and synergistic view of salvation, and your misapprehension of words like "lambano."

I'm not confused. You obviously do not understand much of what I say, though I've been very clear.

You cannot coherently maintain that Christ remitted the sins of all men if their faith is the contingency by which their sins are remitted. For their sins are called back if they do not believe.

You need to show me any verse that teaches that one's sins are "called back".

]QUOTE]"If you do not believe that I am you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Jesus meant they would die unforgiven. Very simple.

Were their sins ever remitted (sent away)? If so, then their sins were called back. Confusion!!

Yeah, I'd say you were confused. Quite. Their sins were paid for, but that isn't forgiveness. They are not the same thing.

Faith is NOT the contingency by which sins are remitted. Christ ALONE remits sins.

Well, Acts 10:43 refutes your claim here. To remit means to forgive.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

How is this verse not clear to you?

Here's from Strong's:
aphesis
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty.

Faith is the contingency by which men "take hold" of that reality.

Acts 10:43 SAYS we are forgiven through believing.

The whole world means Jews and Gentiles alike and not every individual indiscriminately.

Depends on context. Always.

To "propitiate" means "to turn away."

This is from Strong's:
hilasmos
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

This means that Christ's death for all of mankind appeased the Father by paying the sin debt of mankind. And that frees the justice of God, which must be satisfied, so that God will save those who believe. If Christ hadn't died for man, even faith would not result in God saving him.

If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world in the sense you define the whole world, then NOBODY could be damned.

No, it means that Christ removed the sin debt, which is very good news, but one must receive God's free gift by faith in order to live with God eternally.

How can God express His displeasure towards someone for whom Christ turned away God's displeasure?

Heb 11:6 says that without faith no one can please God.

And what "well pleases God"? 1 Cor 1:21 says it clearly -
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Note the bolded portions.

[QJUTOE]I said:
You replied:But you now say:You say you agree that Christ ALONE took away our sins. But then you flip flop again saying that His having paid the penalty isn't forgiveness, and that forgiveness comes through our faith. Confusion![/QUOTE]
There is no "flip flop", but there is a lot of confusion on your part, so that you think there is flip flop. I'm sorry that you do not understand what I say.

 

[Jack Terrence]

It's not my opinion. It is straight from the angel of God, who appeared before Cornelius. Didn't you look up Acts 11:13-14, which I cited? You should have.

How would this disprove my contention that Cornelius's sins had not been remitted already? How does this prove your contention that his sins were remitted upon his believing?

Chapter 10:1-2 clearly suggests that he had already been regenerated. How could the things spoken of Cornelius be true of an unregenerate man?God told Peter that he had CLEANSED Cornelius. How did that happen? How did God CLEANSE Cornelius? Answer: He cleansed Cornelius in the same way Jesus cleansed His disciples which was by His word.

"You are already clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3).

The disciples had already been cleansed by the word of Christ. Likewise, Cornelius had been cleansed by a word from God BEFORE He heard the word of Peter which 'saved' (converted) him. Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE he was converted.

Maybe you don't understand what "by which you WILL BE SAVED" means, but I do.

It is YOU who does NOT understand. The word 'saved' in 11:13-14 means converted. Cornelius was 'saved' in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he even met Peter.

You need to do a more thorough study of the word "sozo." It usually refers to a particular aspect of salvation depending upon the context.

It means that Cornelius WILL BE SAVED by believing Peter's message. How can you disagree with what the angel of God said to Cornelius? I do not understand that at all.

And how can you disagree with Luke who said that Cornelius had a relationship with God PRIOR to the word which Peter spoke to him. And how can you disagree with God Himself who told Peter that He had CLEANSED Cornelius? God cleanses through a word.

It means that Cornelius WILL BE SAVED in the sense of converted. Cornelius was CLEARLY saved in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he believed the words of Peter. Therefore, the word "saved" in 11:13-14 means "converted." Yet your synergistic doctrine will not allow for this. You guys think that God does everything simultaneously all at once. Well, you're wrong!

Well, apparently you fail to understand that whole vision thing. Or did you not read any of it? Peter, being a devout Jew, kept strict dietary laws, meaning certain foods were off limits, just like those same devout Jews wouldn't associate with Gentiles, also considered "off limits", which is why Peter got a grilling when he returned to Jerusalem. Acts 11:2-3 for proof.

The vision taught Peter that "no man is unclean" in the sense of how devout Jews treated non-Jews, and that he should go with the men. Otherwise, Peter would have refused to go with them. Acts 10:15 and 28-29 for proof.

How did God CLEANSE men? Answer: Through a word! No man is clean who has not accepted a word that God gave to him.

Check out the verses I just cited. God was not talking about saving everyone, but because Christ died for everyone, God has pronounced that all men have been cleansed in the sense of their sins being paid for. I had never thought of this chapter also supporting unlimited atonement, but your line of thought brought that to light. Thanks.

The chapter does NOT support unlimited atonement. The unbelieving remain "unclean." You are suggesting that God sends clean persons to eternal damnation.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but your line of "logic" then means that God has cleansed everyone, because of Acts 10:15, 28-29.
15Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”
28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. 29“That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.”

Peter should not have called any man unclean who believes. Again I say that you are suggesting that God sends clean persons to eternal damnation. Come on!

Paul said that God gave some people over to "uncleanness" (Romans 1:24). Does God give clean people over to uncleanness? Paul told the Corinthians to "come out from among the them" and then identified "them" as the "UNCLEAN" (2 Corinthians 6:17).

Why does Paul still refer to some persons as "unclean" AFTER Peter's vision if your understanding the vision is correct? The vision of Peter does NOT prove that Christ died for everyone. No way!!

Did you notice what Peter said in v.28? Again, "I should not call ANY MAN unholy or unclean". Nothing about Cornelius alone being clean, but that Peter shouldn't call ANY MAN unclean. It's all very clear.

Again I say that a Jew was not to say that any [believing] man was unclean. If you are right in saying that ALL men inclusively are now clean, then Paul CLEARLY trespasses when he says that some men [unbelievers] are unclean (2 Corinthains 6:17). If you are right, then God sends clean men to eternal damnation. Your theology is ABSURD!

Sorry, but Scripture is very clear that Christ died for everyone, so if that is true, then you are preaching universalism. Simple as that.

If you are right, then God sends some people to eternal damnation for whom Christ died. You should be a Universalist.

The Revelation says that "every creature in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and in the sea" worships the Lamb (Revelation 5:13-14). Are you willing to treat this the same way you treat other scriptures you invoke for universal atonement? If not, then why not? If you would be consistent, then you MUST accept that "every creature in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and in the sea" worships the Lamb. You must say that ALL MEN worship the Lamb. Your theology doesn't work!!!

Jesus meant they would die unforgiven. Very simple.

You are being evasive. How can they die IN their sins if their sins were remitted (sent away)? The only answer is that their sins were CALLED BACK. Very simple!

Yeah, I'd say you were confused. Quite. Their sins were paid for, but that isn't forgiveness. They are not the same thing.

LOL! If their sins were paid for, then they would no longer be under the dominion of sin. You make no sense.

Well, Acts 10:43 refutes your claim here. To remit means to forgive.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

How is this verse not clear to you?

Here's from Strong's:
aphesis
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty.

This totally wrong! To remit sins is to send them away. Forgiveness is the result. The oc priest put his hand on the goat laying the sins of Israel upon it. Then he sent the goat away carrying their sins. Christ was the Lamb slain OUTSIDE the camp. This IS the remission of sins!

This is from Strong's:
hilasmos
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

This means that Christ's death for all of mankind appeased the Father by paying the sin debt of mankind. And that frees the justice of God, which must be satisfied, so that God will save those who believe. If Christ hadn't died for man, even faith would not result in God saving him.

Yet you believe that God sends some of them to eternal damnation. That's NOT "appeasement" my friend!!

No, it means that Christ removed the sin debt, which is very good news, but one must receive God's free gift by faith in order to live with God eternally.

No! One must "lay hold" by faith.

Please note that the Galatian Christians were child-heirs of salvation BEFORE they came to faith in Christ. By faith they became mature sons and came to possess their inheritance (Galatians 4:1-6). This proves that "to receive" means "to take hold."

 

[FreeGrace2]

How would this disprove my contention that Cornelius's sins had not been remitted already? How does this prove your contention that his sins were remitted upon his believing?

To "remit" means to "forgive", and that occurs only through faith in Christ. As well, salvation occurs only through faith in Christ. And the angel of God was very clear that Cornelius would be (future) saved by Peter's message. So, no Cornelius had not been forgiven of his sins yet.

Chapter 10:1-2 clearly suggests that he had already been regenerated. How could the things spoken of Cornelius be true of an unregenerate man?God told Peter that he had CLEANSED Cornelius.

First, there is NO evidence at all that Cornelius had been regenerated. He was merely a religious man who recognized the existence of God and was thankful, demonstrating the principle found in Rom 1:19-21.
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Cornelius DID know that God existed, and He DID honor Him as God. But he was not saved, according to the angel of God. Your disagreement is with that angel, not me.

How did that happen? How did God CLEANSE Cornelius?

There is NOTHING in the text that SAYS that God cleansed Cornelius. I already showed you the words. Review Acts 10:28 where Peter tells Cornelius that "God has shown me that I should not call ANY MAN impure or unclean". That's not specific to Cornelius, but to ALL Gentiles, whom ALL Jews treated as unclean. Which is why they were forbidden to visit them, and why Peter was taken to task by the believers back in Jerusalem after his visit to Cornelius.

Answer: He cleansed Cornelius in the same way Jesus cleansed His disciples which was by His word.

"You are already clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3).

Nope. The issue of "cleansing" refers to everyone, not Cornelius as a regenerate man. And Jn 15:3 is NOT related at all to Acts 10.

It is YOU who does NOT understand. The word 'saved' in 11:13-14 means converted. Cornelius was 'saved' in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he even met Peter.

Your statement here is totally internally contradicted. The biblical word for receiving eternal life is to be 'saved'. And Cornelius was NOT saved before Peter visited. Period. Take it up with God's angel. And please invite me to that conversation. It'll be very interesting!

And how can you disagree with Luke who said that Cornelius had a relationship with God PRIOR to the word which Peter spoke to him.

No. Luke NEVER said anything about Cornelius having a "relationship" with God. He noted that Cornelius was "devout and God fearing". That means he recognized that God existed and he honored Him as God. Nothing more. You are reading WAY more into the text than is there.

And how can you disagree with God Himself who told Peter that He had CLEANSED Cornelius? God cleanses through a word.

I will tell you AGAIN that nothing of the sort occurred. God told Peter "not to call ANY MAN unclean". If Luke had recorded "Cornelius" instead of "any man", then you'd have a point. But you don't have a point. You are in error.

It means that Cornelius WILL BE SAVED in the sense of converted. Cornelius was CLEARLY saved in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he believed the words of Peter. Therefore, the word "saved" in 11:13-14 means "converted." Yet your synergistic doctrine will not allow for this. You guys think that God does everything simultaneously all at once. Well, you're wrong!

You are playing word games only. Where in the Bible do you find the word "converted" and how is it different from being "saved"?

The chapter does NOT support unlimited atonement. The unbelieving remain "unclean." You are suggesting that God sends clean persons to eternal damnation.

Uh, clean in the sense of having their sin debt fully paid by Christ. But until they believe the gospel, they are UNforgiven. Acts 10:43

[QUTOE]Peter should not have called any man unclean who believes. [/QUOTE]
This is nothing more than eisegesis at its WORST. There is no "who believes". That is just your insertion where it doesn't exist.

Why does Paul still refer to some persons as "unclean" AFTER Peter's vision if your understanding the vision is correct? The vision of Peter does NOT prove that Christ died for everyone. No way!!

That's certainly NOT the only passage, for sure. But never mind, it's clear that Calvinists won't ever accept unlimited atonement. It would undo their theology.

Again I say that a Jew was not to say that any [believing] man was unclean.

There isn't anything there about either "believer" or "unbeliever". We don't find the word "believes" until 10:43. You have no point at all.

If you are right in saying that ALL men inclusively are now clean, then Paul CLEARLY trespasses when he says that some men [unbelievers] are unclean (2 Corinthains 6:17). If you are right, then God sends clean men to eternal damnation. Your theology is ABSURD!

There ARE different senses in which the word "unclean" and "clean" refer to.

If you are right, then God sends some people to eternal damnation for whom Christ died. You should be a Universalist.

You only say that because you believe that all for whom Christ died WILL go to heaven. That's from your limited view of the atonement and election. But Christ's death for everyone cleared the sin debt AND purchased the free gift eternal life for everyone. But in order to go to heaven, one must have that free gift, in order to possess the life that God has. Eternal life.
1 Jn 1:2
and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

[/QUOTE]The Revelation says that "every creature in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and in the sea" worships the Lamb (Revelation 5:13-14). Are you willing to treat this the same way you treat other scriptures you invoke for universal atonement?[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of the verses that say that "every knee shall bow down"?
Isa 45:23 and quoted in Rom 14:11 and Phil 2:10.

You are being evasive. How can they die IN their sins if their sins were remitted (sent away)? The only answer is that their sins were CALLED BACK. Very simple!

First, you have zero support from Scripture on any sins being "called back", which is a claim you have repeatedly made.

Second, to "die in your sins" means to die unforgiven. Because they didn't believe.

Seens you haven't discerned the difference between paying a sin debt and forgiving sins. They are not the same. Seems you think so.

LOL! If their sins were paid for, then they would no longer be under the dominion of sin. You make no sense.

I think you make no sense. Even Paul acknowledged that he and all believers still can be under the dominion of sin. Just read Rom 6.

This totally wrong! To remit sins is to send them away.

My dictionary means to "forgive". I'm sticking with that. Who knows what "send them away" even means. Too vague.

Please note that the Galatian Christians were child-heirs of salvation BEFORE they came to faith in Christ.

You make no sense here. What in the world does "child-hears of salvation" mean?? I've never heard that term, and it certainly isn't in the Bible.

And NO ONE can be a child of God apart from faith in Christ.
Jn 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name

Gal 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Chapter 10:1-2 clearly suggests that he had already been regenerated. How could the things spoken of Cornelius be true of an unregenerate man?God told Peter that he had CLEANSED Cornelius. How did that happen? How did God CLEANSE Cornelius? Answer: He cleansed Cornelius in the same way Jesus cleansed His disciples which was by His word.

I'm afraid it wasn't Cornelius of whom He cleaned, but the group of unclean animals, not a particular animal. This is clearly a reference to Gentiles as a whole, of which Cornelius was a part.

By your definition, all Gentiles, or unclean animals, were regenerated. If Cornelius was cleansed, it was because of his actions (Acts 10:2 - a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always). Peter confirms it was because of Cornelius' actions that God accepted him (Acts10:35 - But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him).

"You are already clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3).

Cornelius did not have the spoken word of Jesus, so how could he be cleansed through the word? It wasn't until Peter arrived that Cornelius had this word.

We also see that is is just not hearing Jesus' words that a man is cleansed. Many Pharisees and Sadducees heard Jesus' words, but that did not clean them. Judas heard Jesus' words for years, but that did not clean him.

Those cleansed by His words were those who heeded and obeyed His words. Or as Peter says, 'those who fear God and work righteousness are accepted by God'.

The disciples had already been cleansed by the word of Christ. Likewise, Cornelius had been cleansed by a word from God BEFORE He heard the word of Peter which 'saved' (converted) him. Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE he was converted.

What word from God do you believe Cornelius heard before Peter arrived? Without the living word, no one is regenerated (1 Peter 1:23).

 

[Jack Terrence]

First, there is NO evidence at all that Cornelius had been regenerated. He was merely a religious man who recognized the existence of God and was thankful, demonstrating the principle found in Rom 1:19-21.

The posts are starting to get too long so I am going to focus on Cornelius for now. That you would say that Cornelius was not regenerated before he was converted shows that you will not give up your traditions. Your assertion is so easy to disprove.

Let's take a good look at Hebrews 11:6 which you have prevoiusly invoked. You correctly pointed out that without faith it is impossible to please God. Now note what the verse says in full.

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He IS, and that He is a REWARDER of those who diligently seek Him.

The verse says that faith is the requisite for pleasing God. Then it identifies the two traits of faith:

1. Faith believes that God IS
2. Faith believes that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him

Cornelius had the two traits of faith BEFORE he was converted to Christ. He believed that God IS, and he believed that God would REWARD Him.

Cornelius believed that God IS:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. Acts 10:1-2

Cornelius believed that God would REWARD Him:

30 So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.’

Observations:

1. Cornelius fasted and prayed to God expecting an answer
2. God heard his prayer AND remembered his alms
3. The angel instructed Cornelius to send for Peter that salvation may come to his house, and Cornelius obeyed expecting reward (cf with Acts 11:13).

Are you seriously going to tell us that Cornelius did not have any faith before he was converted to Christ? Are you going to now bury your head in the sand and deny that his faith had the two criteria listed in Hebrews 11:6, namely, that he believed that God IS and that He is a REWARDER of them that diligenly seek Him?

Do you expect us to believe your Semi-Pelagian notion that Cornelius was no more than a faithless "religious" man without a vital relationship with God at all?

If Cornelius was totally destitute of a vital relationship with God, and if he did not believe that God IS, then why did he seek God so intensly? And why did God "hear" him and "remember" his deeds? If Cornelius was a faithless man, then why was God PLEASED with him?

If Cornelius was not already 'saved' in the sense of regenerated, and if he was totally destitute of all faith, then how did he obey the word of the angel expecting that God indeed REWARDS them that diligently seek Him?

Cornelius was obviously regenerated before he was converted. He indeed had the seed of faith in his soul. Therefore, he had the seed of salvation prior to meeting Peter. But he needed to be instructed in the way of God more perfectly. He needed to be 'saved' in the sense of converted and to come to "take hold" of the remission of sins.

Regeneration PRECEDES conversion! Cornelius had salvation in the sense of regeneration and faith BEFORE he met Peter. It's CLEAR!! Yet you say that he was no more than a faithless "religious" man.


You believe that God cleansed all men and then sends some of them to eternal damnation! You believe that sins are remitted by Christ apart from faith, but are then called back by unbelief. You believe that God was appeased by the propitiation of Christ concerning all men, but then say that God will damn some of them. And you probably think that the Calvinist's God is unjust.

You need to wake up!

For the sake of brevity please restrict your next reply to Cornelius.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The posts are starting to get too long so I am going to focus on Cornelius for now. That you would say that Cornelius was not regenerated before he was converted shows that you will not give up your traditions.

My view comes straight out of the Bible. You can forget any "traditions".

And my argument is that Cornelius was NOT saved before he believed the message that Peter brought. If you want to argue about the order of regeneration, all you have to do is show me any passage that clearly SAYS that regeneration precedes faith or salvation.

Your assertion is so easy to disprove.

Please, be my guest. I'd love to see your evidence.

Let's take a good look at Hebrews 11:6 which you have prevoiusly invoked.

First, I don't "call on" any verse. I quote verses. Big difference. And I NEVER summon evil spirits, so you need to use better words. I quote or cite verses, but I never "invoke" verses or spirits.

You correctly pointed out that without faith it is impossible to please God. Now note what the verse says in full.

Yes, of course I correctly pointed it out. It is quite clear in its statement.

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He IS, and that He is a REWARDER of those who diligently seek Him.

The verse says that faith is the requisite for pleasing God. Then it identifies the two traits of faith:

1. Faith believes that God IS
2. Faith believes that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him

So far, you're doing very good.

Cornelius had the two traits of faith BEFORE he was converted to Christ. He believed that God IS, and he believed that God would REWARD Him.

To be clear, there is nothing in the text to conclude that Cornelius believed that God would reward him. Yes, God did, by answering his request. But believing that God IS isn't being saved, nor is it evidence of being regenerated.

How do I know. Let's look at another passage that will explain it: Rom 1:19-25
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Here, we see clearly that God's existence HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN to those (v.19-20) who, in spite of that, "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man, birds, animals, and creatures" (v.23). Even the ones here in Rom 1 were aware of God's existence. But, unlike Cornelius, who also did, they did not "honor Him as God, nor were thankful" (v.21). There is nothing here in Romans 1 about getting saved, or getting regenerated. It is about the fact that God has revealed Himself to everyone, so that no one has any excuse for NOT honoring Him and being thankful to Him. (v.21)

Cornelius believed that God IS:

You haven't proven anything by that. I just showed you that God has revealed Himself to everyone, so that no one has any excuse.

Cornelius believed that God would REWARD Him:

You have no support for that at all.

30 So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.’

This passage shows that God DID respond to his alms and prayers, but it doesn't support your claim that he believed that God would reward him.

Observations:

1. Cornelius fasted and prayed to God expecting an answer

No evidence at all for "expecting an answer".

2. God heard his prayer AND remembered his alms
3. The angel instructed Cornelius to send for Peter that salvation may come to his house, and Cornelius obeyed expecting reward (cf with Acts 11:13).

How does this help your cause? Yes, God did answer him. That's all.

Are you seriously going to tell us that Cornelius did not have any faith before he was converted to Christ?

Seriously, he believed that God existed, and he honored Him as God. But that is neither salvation nor regeneration.

Are you going to now bury your head in the sand and deny that his faith had the two criteria listed in Hebrews 11:6, namely, that he believed that God IS and that He is a REWARDER of them that diligenly seek Him?

Your claim is what I deny, with the proof that you can't find anything in Acts 10 about Cornelius expecting God to reward him for his prayers and alms. You just made that all up. There is no way of knowing what he was thinking.

Do you expect us to believe your Semi-Pelagian notion that Cornelius was no more than a faithless "religious" man without a vital relationship with God at all?

I will repeat that name calling is childish and very immature and MUST STOP. I've proven that I'm NONE of the labels you guys keep throwing at me, and to do so violates the forum rules. It is harrassment and you need to QUIT.

Leave labels out of this. You are free to take issues with what I believe, but there is NO NEED to keep throwing labels, esp after I've proven that my view isn't ANY of those labels. You guys just don't seem to get it.

If Cornelius was totally destitute of a vital relationship with God, and if he did not believe that God IS, then why did he seek God so intensly?

Now you are just making up things as you go along. What do you mean by "vital relationship"? I know that he knew that God existed. Is that all you mean, or are you trying to insinuate that his believing that God existed proves he was regenerated? You cannot prove that. And of course He believed that God IS. I haven't denied that. But Rom 1 SAYS that God has revealed Himself to everyone, so that no one has any excuse. That sure doesn't mean or equal that His revelation of Himself causes a "vital relationship" or regeneration.

And why did God "hear" him and "remember" his deeds? If Cornelius was a faithless man, then why was God PLEASED with him?

Who said Cornelius was "faithless"? You are just making up false charges, and a lot of smokescreen. Please stick with the script here, ok?

Cornelius knew that God existed, for the very proof is in Rom 1, that God revealed Himself to everyone. But unlike those in Romans 1, who exchanged the "glory of God for corruptible idols", he didn't.

If Cornelius was not already 'saved' in the sense of regenerated, and if he was totally destitute of all faith, then how did he obey the word of the angel expecting that God indeed REWARDS them that diligently seek Him?

I never said anything about him being "totally destitute of all faith". Why do you use such grandiose hyperbole? Please get serious and quit making stuff up.

Cornelius was obviously regenerated before he was converted.

That is only your opinion, and you haven't proven anything.

He indeed had the seed of faith in his soul.

Where did you read that? I mean, what verses?

Therefore, he had the seed of salvation prior to meeting Peter.

Where did you learn about this so-called "seed of salvation"? Just more made up words that have no meaning, and certainly no Scriptural backing.

But he needed to be instructed in the way of God more perfectly. He needed to be 'saved' in the sense of converted and to come to "take hold" of the remission of sins.[/COLOR]

Why do you think that "saved" is different than "converted"? Where did you read that in Scripture? Further, where do you see "converted" in Acts 10?

I'll give you a hint about "converted". It's what happens when an unregenerate becomes regenerate. They have converted from their former state of being unregenerate to their new state of being regenerate. So, that should prove to you that your view is wrong. He WAS saved and converted AFTER Peter began preaching. Case closed.

Regeneration PRECEDES conversion!

Claims, claims, claims. Please quote a verse or two before I can ever believe that. I've never seen anything close to your claim in Scripture.

Cornelius had salvation in the sense of regeneration and faith BEFORE he met Peter. It's CLEAR!! Yet you say that he was no more than a faithless "religious" man.

Again, you have misrepresented my view, since I NEVER said anything about Cornelius being "faithless". You just like to make up words to support your own view, which is wrong, btw.

You believe that God cleansed all men and then sends some of them to eternal damnation!

I explained the vision God gave to Peter. He was telling Peter that the Gentiles are NOT to be considered "unclean" as he had been trained to think, and to go with the Gentiles when they arrived.

You believe that sins are remitted by Christ apart from faith

That is another GROSS misrepresentation of my view. Sins are forgiven by Christ BY faith, NOT apart from faith.

QUIT MAKING UP FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE. I'm getting mightly tired of it.

Maybe you just don't understand what I say. If that is so, then QUIT posting until you can finally figure it out. All you're doing is misrepresenting my view and you have NO EXCUSE for doing so. QUIT!!

but are then called back by unbelief. You believe that God was appeased by the propitiation of Christ concerning all men, but then say that God will damn some of them.

Clearly you do not understand what I say. Propitation is directed TOWARD God, not toward man. Forgiveness and salvation are directed TOWARD man. Until you figure out what that means, please don't post.

And you probably think that the Calvinist's God is unjust.

Why shouldn't I? Your theology is all about random unilateral choice by God that you cannot explain the WHY of His choice.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I will reply to Freegrace2 tomorrow. I include the article below for everyone's consideration until then.



Was Cornelius Regenerate Prior to Peter’s Preaching Christ to Him?

Nicholas T. Batzig · August 7th, 2010 ·
The thorny question of whether or not Cornelius–the Italian centurion officer to whom God appeared in a vision–was a regenerate believer prior to Peter’s preaching Jesus to him has proven to be quite challenging for me as I prepare to preach the second part of the narrative (Acts 10:23-11:19). In the opening verses of chapter 10 we are told that Cornelius was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.” We are then told that his “prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God.” Some have mistakenly taught that Cornelius was a Heathen who was saved without Christ. Others suggest that Cornelius was given some kind of prevenient (preperatory) grace. Still others say that he was unconverted, but that God simply takes account of good works as acceptable. When we come to consider this question, we enter into the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and Reformed soteriology debate.

John Calvin, first concluding that Cornelius must have already been regenerate because “he could obtain nothing by prayer unless faith went before, which only opens the gate for us to pray,” explained that Cornelius must have trusted Christ for salvation prior to Peter’s preaching (although he still needed to receive the fuller light of the New Covenant revelation about Jesus). He tied what the text said about his prayers being remembered with the role of faith in prayer and the nature of faith and regeneration.

He wrote:
Yet here may a question be asked, Whether faith require the knowledge of Christ, or it be content with the simple persuasion of the mercy of God? For Cornelius seems to have known nothing at all concerning Christ. But it may be proved by sound proofs that faith cannot be separated from Christ; for if we lay hold upon the bare majesty of God, we are rather confounded with his glory, than that we feel any taste of his goodness. Therefore, Christ must come between, that the mind of man may conceive that God is merciful. And it is not without cause that he is called the image of the invisible God, (Colossians 1:15) because the Father offers Himself to be holden in his face alone. Moreover, seeing that he is the way, the truth, and the life, (John 14:6) wherever you go without him, you will be surrounded on every side by errors, and death shall meet you on every side. We may easily answer concerning Cornelius. All spiritual gifts are offered unto us in Christ; and especially from Him comes regeneration, save only because we are ingrafted into the death of Christ, our old man is crucified? (Romans, 6:5, 6.) And if Cornelius were made partaker of the Spirit of Christ, there is no cause why we should think that he was altogether void of his faith; neither had he so embraced the worship of the true God, (whom the Jews alone did worship,) but that he had also heard, without having at the same time heard, somewhat of the promised Mediator; though the knowledge of him were obscure and entangled, yet was it some. Whosoever came at that time into Judea he was enforced to hear somewhat of the Messiah, yea, there was some fame of him spread through countries which were far off. Wherefore, Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the old fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed.

This, it seems to me, is the right way to understand how it can be said that Cornelius’ prayers and alms came up as a memorial before God, and yet Cornelius needed Peter to come and preach Christ to him and his household. Note also that Cornelius stands at the head of the transition from the Jewish church to the Gentile church. He, and the church in his house, experience a Pentecost. It is (if I can put it this way) the Gentile Pentecost. This is the age of the outpouring of the Spirit. The things that happened during this inter-testamental, foundational period were temporary and exceptional. The disciples were certainly true believers before they experienced the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Cornelius, like Simeon and Anna before him, was a regenerate man who experiences the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit at the Gentile Pentecost.

Was Cornelius Regenerate Prior to Peter’s Preaching Christ to Him? - Feeding on Christ

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I will reply to Freegrace2 tomorrow. I include the article below for everyone's consideration until then.

Are you going to reply to posts 7 and 12?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I will reply to Freegrace2 tomorrow. I include the article below for everyone's consideration until then.



Was Cornelius Regenerate Prior to Peter’s Preaching Christ to Him?

Nicholas T. Batzig · August 7th, 2010 ·
The thorny question of whether or not Cornelius–the Italian centurion officer to whom God appeared in a vision–was a regenerate believer prior to Peter’s preaching Jesus to him has proven to be quite challenging for me as I prepare to preach the second part of the narrative (Acts 10:23-11:19). In the opening verses of chapter 10 we are told that Cornelius was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.” We are then told that his “prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God.” Some have mistakenly taught that Cornelius was a Heathen who was saved without Christ. Others suggest that Cornelius was given some kind of prevenient (preperatory) grace. Still others say that he was unconverted, but that God simply takes account of good works as acceptable. When we come to consider this question, we enter into the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and Reformed soteriology debate.

Well, why should anyone take Batzig seriously. He claimed that God appeared to Cornelius in a vision! The Bible SAYS that an angel of God appeared before Cornelius. So, right out of the box he can't even get any of the narrative right.

John Calvin, first concluding that Cornelius must have already been regenerate because “he could obtain nothing by prayer unless faith went before, which only opens the gate for us to pray,” explained that Cornelius must have trusted Christ for salvation prior to Peter’s preaching (although he still needed to receive the fuller light of the New Covenant revelation about Jesus). He tied what the text said about his prayers being remembered with the role of faith in prayer and the nature of faith and regeneration.

And, so what. What does Calvin's opinion matter in considering what the Bible clearly SAYS. And Acts 11:14 is clear enough; Cornelius would be saved when Peter came preaching. Just goes to show how little understanding Calvin had of the text.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Are you going to reply to posts 7 and 12?

No! I do NOT consider you a worthy opponent.

 

[Jack Terrence]

My view comes straight out of the Bible. You can forget any "traditions".

This is an arrogant thing to say. No one is unaffected by a tradition you included. You are NOT a father of any body of doctrine.

And my argument is that Cornelius was NOT saved before he believed the message that Peter brought.

Cornelius was indeed saved in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he even met Peter. But he was not yet 'saved' in the sense of converted.

You ignore that salvation is multi-faceted. Jesus said to His disciples, "He that endures to the end shall be saved." The same verb is used in Acts 10:43 when the angel instructed Cornelius that he "shall be saved." Did Jesus' words imply that the disciples had no salvation at all until the end? Of course not! Therefore, the angel's words did NOT imply that Cornelius had no salvation until the word of Peter. He had a faith in God which caused God to listen and to answer! Therefore, Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE he met Peter.

How could Cornelius have even cared about salvation if he was an unregenerate man? If he was not regenerated he would NOT have acted upn the word of hte angel. Cornelius wanted salvation. This in itself PROVES that he was regenerated BEFORE he met Peter.

Peter told the first Christians that they were looking forward to receiving the end of their faith which is the "salvation of their souls." Did Peter imply that htey had no salvation at all? Absolutely not! Shed your Semi-Pelagian tradition so you can see the truth.

When Cornelius believed on Christ as He was more fully expounded by Peter he became 'saved' in the sense of converted.

If you want to argue about the order of regeneration, all you have to do is show me any passage that clearly SAYS that regeneration precedes faith or salvation.

You will not accpet the words of life. But here it is anyway.

Note the order listed in Jeremiah:

“I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself:
‘You have chastised me, and I was chastised,
Like an untrained bull;
Restore me, and I will return,
For You are the Lord my God.
19 Surely, after my turning, I repented;
And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh;
I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated,
Because I bore the reproach of my youth.’ Jeremiah 31:18-19

The order:

1. God regenerated Ephraim
2. After that Ephraim was converted
3. After that Ephrain repented
4. After that Ephraim was instructed

Now note this: The context indicates that God's dealings with Ephraim was a token of the way He deals with men under the new covenant.

To be clear, there is nothing in the text to conclude that Cornelius believed that God would reward him. Yes, God did, by answering his request. But believing that God IS isn't being saved, nor is it evidence of being regenerated.

So you are saying that Cornelius was a faithless man. Why would God hear his prayer and reward him if he prayed in unbelief? You are making no sense at all. You are choking my friend.

Cornelius prayed IN FAITH which proves beyond all doubt that he was regenerated prior to his meeting Peter.. But you MUST deny that his faith had both characteristics (believing that God IS, and believing that He is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him).

Furthermore, take a look at the "faith hall of fame" characters in Hebrews 11. Are you going to tell us that they were not regenerated because they had not yet received salvation? It says that "they ALL died IN FAITH having NOT received the promise" (salvation).

Go ahead and say it. Say it out right. Tell us that they were not regenerated. It says that they "ALL died IN FAITH having NOT received the promise" (salvation). Using your logic they were NOT regenerated. By your logic unregenerate men went around doing mighty things for God.

The scripture says that they could not be made perfect (receive salvation) without us. Yet they were regenerated men. By faith they subuued kingdoms and stopped the mouths of loins. But they were not yet 'saved.'

Finally, Isaac was born of the Spirit from Sarah's womb (Galatians 4:21-31). And John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. I dare you to say that Isaac was not regenerated at birth and that the Baptist was not regenerated in the womb.

Deny it. Go ahead, make my day.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

No! I do NOT consider you a worthy opponent.

So, do you think you are better than others?

Or, is it that you can't refute it?