What Do Calvinists have to Say about Cornelius?

[skypair]

The very passage that you reference shows there are NONE that do good, NO, NOT ONE...

The passage you cite blows a hole in your theology. There are not any people born on this Earth that do good in God's sight. God works in their hearts to bring them to Jesus, drawing them by His Holy Spirit, and making them into a new creation.

There are other things that are inconsistent in what you say you believe. They have been pointed out at length in earlier posts, and may be shown again, as the LORD leads.

Pls read my response to MM. If "no one" is meant, then not even believers seek God or understands or… Paul is still making his argument from 1:18-20 that all are without excuse.

skypair

 

[Metal Minister]

Pls read my response to MM. If "no one" is meant, then not even believers seek God or understands or… Paul is still making his argument from 1:18-20 that all are without excuse.

skypair

That's the point. Until God changes our heart of stone to a heart of flesh, we will not seek him. John 6:65: He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

 

[twin1954]

The first mistake that the Op makes is in thinking that outward religious works of righteousness is actual righteousness. Paul makes it very clear that this isn't the case. Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He could never be accused of outward sin because he was, as was all the Pharisees, outwardly strict and kept the letter of the Law along with all the traditions that they had added. Phil. 3:4-9

What man calls righteousness and what God calls righteousness are not the same thing.

Cornelius was obviously a proselyte to the Jewish belief. But that in no way made his works righteous. He was a just man, that is he was honest in all his dealings and did works that showed his moral character but that didn't make him righteous.

 

[Skala]

So many errors on your part, skypair.

First of all, you confuse justification with the broader term "salvation". The two are not synonymous. You argued:

Cornelius was not saved until he heard the gospel from Peter and believed on Jesus, but he was able to do good works that God recognized as works of "righteousness" for years before he was saved.

Here, you use the word "saved" to refer to "justification". This is why your argument is wrong. In Acts 11:14, when it says "and you shall be saved", you are assuming that Peter means "and you shall be justified". The two ideas are not synonymous. We will be saved at the final judgement. That is salvation.

But we are justified during our lives. Justification refers to our legal standing before God, counted as guiltless. But we "will be saved" in the future when we are spared from God's wrath at the final judgement.

You mistakenly interchange these concepts because of a shallow and ignorant understanding of how the Bible authors use the word "salvation/saved" and you think that every instance of the word "saved" in the Bible means the same thing. News flash: it doesn't.

Thus, you mistakenly think that Cornelius wasn't justified until he heard the gospel. Even Abraham was justified in God's sight, and Abraham never heard the gospel of Jesus. (And he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6) In fact, Hebrews 11 lists many people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus who were in fact justified, and they were championed by the author of Hebrews because of their great faith.

The second problem with your argument is again, based on ignorance. You say:

But we also see that Cornelius was ABLE to believe BEFORE he received the Holy Spirit

Here, you confuse regeneration (which existed even in the Old Testament) with the NT promise that the Holy Spirit would live inside believers. Regeneration has always existed, but the Holy Spirit living inside believers is a "new" gift from God that only pertains to New Testament Christians.

Your mistake is that you confuse the two things and think they are one and the same. Thus, you mistakenly believe that Cornelius wasn't regenerated until the Holy Spirit came to live inside him.

Your third mistake is that you think Calvinists don't believe in free will. Calvinists affirm free will. What they deny is libertarian free will, which is the idea that man is not influenced or enslaved by his fallen, unregenerate nature, when the Bible clearly teaches that he is.

Jesus taught that the type of tree determined the type of fruit it would bear. If Cornelius produced fruit that was pleasing to God...conclusion? What kind of tree was Cornelius?

Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.

 

[Avid]

It seems you are confusing that "no one" doesn't mean, "no one EVER," so you gladly extrapolate that to include, "...if that ain't so, then it ain't so for babies, and Cornelius and Job, etc." This is gross error.

People born from the lineage of Adam the First, have a fallen human nature. The scriptures use the terms, FLESH, CARNAL, SELF, etc., to cover the use God puts in the word. When God takes upon Himself to change a person, he does a thorough, complete and perfect job of it.

The people you think are in innocence, God says have no righteousness. They are not looking to God or Christ for justification, only to what they do, and God compares their best works to filthy (leprous) rags. God changes the people He would save, and makes them new creatures that are able to do righteousness from a pure heart, because He had changed them.

These people no longer have the affections and lusts they were born with. God has changed their affections, and they now desire things of God, and not so much, the things of this world. God warns them not to love the world, or the things of the world, and they (by the Holy Spirit of God,) nail those affections, lusts, and the very nature that holds to them, to the cross, and they are dealt with DAILY in such a manner!

Jesus said:

Luke 7
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
​

God was upon John with His Holy Spirit. God lives in the New Testament believer as the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit of God is Guide and Comforter to the person in whom He dwells. If there is a temptation, the Holy Spirit gives the grace of God, and peace of God, in the heart of the believer, and he is not taken at the will of the deceiver.
.

 

[Avid]

...Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.

Thanks for this expose' of the truth.

BTW, I like th following quote, and remember a good sermon I heard 30 years ago on the very subject:

"Do not think Christians are made by education—they are made by creation. You may wash a corpse as long as ever you please, but you cannot wash life into it. You may deck it in flowers and robe it in scarlet and fine linen, but you cannot make it live—the vital spark must come from above." - Charles Spurgeon
​

The LORD bless you always...
.

 

[Metal Minister]

So many errors on your part, skypair.

First of all, you confuse justification with the broader term "salvation". The two are not synonymous. You argued:

Here, you use the word "saved" to refer to "justification". This is why your argument is wrong. In Acts 11:14, when it says "and you shall be saved", you are assuming that Peter means "and you shall be justified". The two ideas are not synonymous. We will be saved at the final judgement. That is salvation.

But we are justified during our lives. Justification refers to our legal standing before God, counted as guiltless. But we "will be saved" in the future when we are spared from God's wrath at the final judgement.

You mistakenly interchange these concepts because of a shallow and ignorant understanding of how the Bible authors use the word "salvation/saved" and you think that every instance of the word "saved" in the Bible means the same thing. News flash: it doesn't.

Thus, you mistakenly think that Cornelius wasn't justified until he heard the gospel. Even Abraham was justified in God's sight, and Abraham never heard the gospel of Jesus. (And he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6) In fact, Hebrews 11 lists many people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus who were in fact justified, and they were championed by the author of Hebrews because of their great faith.

The second problem with your argument is again, based on ignorance. You say:

Here, you confuse regeneration (which existed even in the Old Testament) with the NT promise that the Holy Spirit would live inside believers. Regeneration has always existed, but the Holy Spirit living inside believers is a "new" gift from God that only pertains to New Testament Christians.

Your mistake is that you confuse the two things and think they are one and the same. Thus, you mistakenly believe that Cornelius wasn't regenerated until the Holy Spirit came to live inside him.

Your third mistake is that you think Calvinists don't believe in free will. Calvinists affirm free will. What they deny is libertarian free will, which is the idea that man is not influenced or enslaved by his fallen, unregenerate nature, when the Bible clearly teaches that he is.

Jesus taught that the type of tree determined the type of fruit it would bear. If Cornelius produced fruit that was pleasing to God...conclusion? What kind of tree was Cornelius?

Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.

QFT!

 

[skypair]

That's the point. Until God changes our heart of stone to a heart of flesh, we will not seek him. John 6:65: He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

That quotation of changing the heart of stone is for the OT saints in the resurrection of their bodies. It only, therefore, applies to those who are justified before God already — the saved.

I know what Calvinists think though, because I thought it myself. When I first heard the preaching of the gospel .. that a) the Bible was God speaking to us and b) that salvation meant trusting in Christ as Savior and Lord, I felt like God had done something to my heart/will, too. Of course, what He had done was "open my heart" — convicted and convinced my heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But before He would regenerate me, I was further taught, I had to repent to Him turning from sin to trusting God with my life. It is a prayer of commitment, MM — just as a marriage vow is. He made vows on His side — we make vows on our side — we are reconciled and then born again.

That first understanding of salvation is NOT regeneration .. it is enlightenment of the Spirit, Jn 16:8-10.

skypair

 

[skypair]

The first mistake that the Op makes is in thinking that outward religious works of righteousness is actual righteousness.

Read a little closer — it was God told Peter that they WERE.

What man calls righteousness and what God calls righteousness are not the same thing.

Correct, but what God calls righteous, let no man call unrighteous, right? God accepted Cornelius prayers and alms as righteous because Cornelius was still "justified" with God though not yet saved.

Think about this: Did God hear your prayers and call righteous your singing of hymns glorifying Him when you were still a child (before the age of accountability)? Yes! And your "angel did always behold the face of God!" You, like Cornelius, were still "just" in God's eyes and in His court.

Cornelius was obviously a proselyte to the Jewish belief.

Cornelius was a proselyte of "the everlasting gospel" which says that if a man acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him (Acts 1:21, Rev 14:6, Ro 7:9), that man stands just before God until he realizes his sin against God. Being the son of a Pharisee, Paul would have been in this state from birth until "the commandment came in, sin revived, and I died."

Do you have kids, twin? Where do you think they would have gone for eternity if they had died as infants or youths?

skypair

 

[skypair]

First of all, you confuse justification with the broader term "salvation". The two are not synonymous. You argued:

Justification can be on 2 levels: 1) Innocence — in which the person has not knowingly sinned and, therefore, is still "alive" (Ro 7:9) to God BUT DOES NOT HAVE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. God does not condemn the innocent! 2) Judicially declared not guilty — we call this saved because we will be eternally in this state. If calls upon those who know God and know that they have sinned against God willfully to repent turning to Him for forgiveness and salvation.

In Acts 11:14, when it says "and you shall be saved", you are assuming that Peter means "and you shall be justified". The two ideas are not synonymous. We will be saved at the final judgement. That is salvation.

No sir! We will be rewarded in the final judgment. In fact, some will be saved "so as by fire" — have lost all reward because they did not live trusting God though they committed their justification to Christ. Furthermore, in this era of knowledge of the gospel, what saves us if justification with God — not sanctification, which is what you are trusting in if you say that salvation awaits the judgment.

Do you not realize that, when we repent of our sins calling on the name of Christ, we are judged right then and there as if we ARE Christ and are forgiven and given eternal life? That IS the "judgment seat" for us!

But we are justified during our lives. Justification refers to our legal standing before God, counted as guiltless. But we "will be saved" in the future when we are spared from God's wrath at the final judgement.

You are confusing salvation with "redemption of the purchased possession" which IS future.

You mistakenly interchange these concepts because of a shallow and ignorant understanding of how the Bible authors use the word "salvation/saved" and you think that every instance of the word "saved" in the Bible means the same thing. News flash: it doesn't.

I agree. There is saved spiritually (eternal life) and there is saved while we live the life of Christ here on this earth (temporal life — Ro 5:10, Jn 10:10, etc.). You are counting on salvation of the temporal life for your justification.

Thus, you mistakenly think that Cornelius wasn't justified until he heard the gospel. Even Abraham was justified in God's sight, and Abraham never heard the gospel of Jesus. (And he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6) In fact, Hebrews 11 lists many people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus who were in fact justified, and they were championed by the author of Hebrews because of their great faith.

So you would be saying that God kept them from being saved because He didn't tell them the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you not know that there is 1) the everlasting gospel and 2) the gospel of the kingdom that applied to them? Yeah, the latter was repent to God and one's sins would be taken away when Messiah comes. Then, when they would be resurrected into His kingdom (Job 19:25-28), they would believe on Him and be regenerated like we are.

At this point, you'd do well to ask questions rather than tell me how defective my theology is, skala.

Here, you confuse regeneration (which existed even in the Old Testament)…

Actually, it didn't. For the OT saints to be regenerated, they had to die literally and be resurrected by the Spirit literally to earth because Jesus, Himself, had not been resurrected and the sacrifice for sin made for those who died already.

...with the NT promise that the Holy Spirit would live inside believers. Regeneration has always existed, but the Holy Spirit living inside believers is a "new" gift from God that only pertains to New Testament Christians.

This is just a terrible understanding of the issue. One is not regenerated and indwelt except the Spirit be IN you .. not WITH you. Jesus explains this to His discples in Jn 14:17 where He says the Spirit "dwells with you but shall be in you."

Your third mistake is that you think Calvinists don't believe in free will. Calvinists affirm free will. What they deny is libertarian free will, which is the idea that man is not influenced or enslaved by his fallen, unregenerate nature, when the Bible clearly teaches that he is.

We have just shown in Cornelius that none of what you say is true. First, there is no description of libertarian free will in scripture and free will is only discussed by example — like "choose you this day whom you will serve."

Second, man is not born in sin. Man is born quite innocent (Ezek 18:21). The problem is that man is also born ignorant of God and His salvation. But man is also born with the instinct to live — even to live eternally (Ecc 3:11), by which he is naturally drawn to the God of life!

Jesus taught that the type of tree determined the type of fruit it would bear. If Cornelius produced fruit that was pleasing to God...conclusion? What kind of tree was Cornelius?

His angel, his spirit, did still "always behold the face of God." He was as a child still. Did you go to church as a child, skala? Did you believe that you were a sinner then? Cause as soon as you believe that, you need a Savior. But if not .. God receives your prayers and praises and thanks just like He did Cornelius'.

Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.

Nice try .. but no.

skypair

 

[skypair]

It seems you are confusing that "no one" doesn't mean, "no one EVER," so you gladly extrapolate that to include, "...if that ain't so, then it ain't so for babies, and Cornelius and Job, etc." This is gross error.

No, not at all. The error is in you believing that men are born sinners. Ezek 18:20 shows they are not. Thus, according to Calvinism, all infants who died are in hell this very moment. Shame on you!

People born from the lineage of Adam the First, have a fallen human nature.

I'm glad you call is "human nature," because that is what it is. The human nature is "programmed," not with sins, but with "instincts" .. one of which is to live — to life. There is NOTHING sinful about instincts as we know from studying the animal world. And in humans, the instinct to life draws us to God naturally. Our main problems at birth are 1) we are born into a corrupt world and 2) ignorant of God. This latter is what God resolved in Job and Cornelius such that they already had a relationship with God before salvation.

When God takes upon Himself to change a person, he does a thorough, complete and perfect job of it.

But not irresistibly and not unconditionally. That is "pie in the sky madness!" It is saying that He didn't have to send His Son to die and to be believed upon for salvation!

The people you think are in innocence, God says have no righteousness.

Right, there is no inherent "righteousness of God" in man. They are, rather, innocent.

They are not looking to God or Christ for justification,…

So let me ask you — was that YOUR experience? Or did you go to church through your childhood seeking the love of God? desiring to have eternal life and go to heaven? If not, you are in a minority of folks who grew up in the last generation. But if so, how can you throw around these "no one" statements of the total depravity of man when you, yourself, did what "no one" could do.

God changes the people He would save, and makes them new creatures that are able to do righteousness from a pure heart, because He had changed them.

Got to love a God like that, don't ya! God chose you in spite of your sin — even in spite of the sins you are going to commit. In fact, now you can commit them "in His name," right? Because your life now is all His doing, isn't it.

The Holy Spirit of God is Guide and Comforter to the person in whom He dwells. If there is a temptation, the Holy Spirit gives the grace of God, and peace of God, in the heart of the believer, and he is not taken at the will of the deceiver.

Those are pretty words, avid. I am sure you don't know how that works though. Remember when you were unsaved? What told you to do something or not to do something? It was your conscience, right? That's your soul that Ezek 18:20 says dies when you sin — rejects most input from God.

So where do you suppose that the Spirit resides in order to guide you? Yup, your conscience or soul where He revives/REgenerates your conscience to communication with God and from God to you. But He still does not control you because you have your own spirit still — and the "warfare" with sin is with the Spirit on one side and the flesh on the other. Guess what. You CAN reject the Spirit — grieve, quench, or ignore Him and be your "same OLD sinful self." The Spirit is NOT EVER taken — but you are. Your character suffers — your flesh suffers the consequences of sin.

Well, enough lesson for one day.

skypair

 

[Metal Minister]

No, not at all. The error is in you believing that men are born sinners.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinfulat birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This makes everything you post afterward incorrect.

 

[Skala]

This makes everything you post afterward incorrect.

True. His entire theological view is standing on a foundation that is incorrect. That makes the whole building incorrect.

 

[Skala]

Thus, according to Calvinism, all infants who died are in hell this very moment.

False. In Calvinism, infants are saved the same way adults are: by the free, unearned grace of God.

It's your view that gets close to heresy by saying since infants are sinless, they are saved due to their own righteousness.

There's a word for that: it's called works-based salvation.

Being a baptist, don't you reject works-salvation? It seems you haven't thought about the logical conclusion of your position very much.

You accept works-salvation for babies, but reject it for adults. Don't you see the inconsistency?

 

[DeaconDean]

False. In Calvinism, infants are saved the same way adults are: by the free, unearned grace of God.

It's your view that gets close to heresy by saying since infants are sinless, they are saved due to their own righteousness.

There's a word for that: it's called works-based salvation.

Being a baptist, don't you reject works-salvation? It seems you haven't thought about the logical conclusion of your position very much.

You accept works-salvation for babies, but reject it for adults. Don't you see the inconsistency?

If infants, upon death go to hell, as the argument goes, what sins have they committed other than being born with a sinful nature that comes to us from Adam?

What sins have they committed?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Skala]

If infants, upon death go to hell, as the argument goes, what sins have they committed other than being born with a sinful nature that comes to us from Adam?

What sins have they committed?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hi DeaconDean

I don't believe infants necessarily go to hell.

Is your question for skypair?

 

[skypair]

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinfulat birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This makes everything you post afterward incorrect.

It does .. unless you misinterpret it, right? Which you have. David was using poetic language to declare that his flesh was always sinful, was always going to be sinful .. there was never another way for the flesh in this life to be. Even someone who is saved still has sin in his flesh.

And before you bring it up, there's another one from Psalms .. says much the same thing.

Can you not read Ezek 18:20 with understanding?

skypair

 

[DeaconDean]

Hi DeaconDean

I don't believe infants necessarily go to hell.

Is your question for skypair?

Its more rhetorical than a question.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[skypair]

False. In Calvinism, infants are saved the same way adults are: by the free, unearned grace of God.

Really??? You mean by infant baptism? Do you mean all of them? So you would really be saying that YOU were saved as an infant, right? When you knew nothing of God or Christ.

This is sort of "Catholic to the core" because they believed they were saved ("regenerated" according to Augustine) by infant baptism.

It's your view that gets close to heresy by saying since infants are sinless, they are saved due to their own righteousness.

First, it is NOT my saying that they are "saved." They are NOT saved. Neither is it my saying that they are righteous at all — merely innocent and God does NOT condemn the innocent with the wicked or as if they are wicked!

There's a word for that: it's called works-based salvation.

Not at all. Ro 4:5 says that believing is NOT works. And what do you do with the scripture "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou SHALT be saved." (Acts 2:21, 16:31, etc.) Not ARE saved — SHALL be saved. The work of God in your heart is not even begun until you have believed on Him!

You accept works-salvation for babies, but reject it for adults. Don't you see the inconsistency?

No. Don't you see that you have completely mischaracterized what I believe? Baptism doesn't save in either case.

And please explain to me how infants are saved without any knowledge of Christ.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hi DeaconDean

I don't believe infants necessarily go to hell.

Which highlights the flaw in your sotierology, skala, and the error of your "doctrine of the nature of man."

Infant don't go to hell — none of them. They go to heaven where they and all the other "just" (OT saints) await the resurrection into the kingdom of Christ/Messiah where they will see Christ and either believe or reject Him just as we do today.

skypair