CALVINISM: ITS DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION

Are persons who die in infancy saved? Holy Scriptures do not directly address this subject. But various indirect declarations give us every reason to rest assured that they are indeed saved.

The goodness of God suggests the salvation of those who die in infancy. We read in Job 38:41 that He provides food for newborn ravens when they cry unto Him. Surely He will not turn a deaf ear to the cries of infants and permit them to be cast from His presence! We read in Psalm 145:15f that He provides food for "every living thing," even the most loathsome of creatures. Surely He will provide salvation for those made in His own image who die in infancy!

In various passages, the number of the redeemed in glory is so large as to suggest the salvation of those persons who died in infancy. For example, they are described in Revelation 7:9 as "a great multitude which no man could number." It is thought by many theologians that the number of souls in glory will be greater than that of the souls in the regions of the damned on the grounds that Christ must have the preeminence. This certainly will be true if the number of the redeemed in glory will include all those who died in infancy and childhood, which was a vast part of humanity in former times when a great percentage of children did not live long enough to reach adulthood. This number would also include the untold millions who today are snatched from their mothers' wombs and sacrificed by abortionists.

In Ezekiel 16:21, God called the children sacrificed to heathen gods "My children": "you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire." God's children are received in glory, not consigned to hell.

In Jonah 4:11, we read that God had great pity on the citizens of Nineveh, especially upon its "more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left." Such pity suggests these infants would be received into glory if they died in infancy.

In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David expressed his own assurance that his own departed infant was received into heaven, and that he himself would later be forever reunited with him there: "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

The great question before us not is not whether persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory. Holy Scriptures would seem to assure us that they indeed are. Rather, the question before us should be whether the parents and loved ones of those who die in infancy will be reunited with them in glory.

Arminians err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved because of their supposed innocence. Arminians are driven to this view because of a fatal flaw in their scheme of salvation. Arminians believe that God has done all He can to save sinners, and that the success of His desire and endeavor rests solely upon those sinners exercising their supposed "free will" in making what they call a "decision for Christ." Arminians declare that if sinners do not make such a conscious and deliberate decision to let God save them, God cannot do so.

This Arminian heresy mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to infants who are in every way incapable of their own will to make a "decision for Christ." Arminians admit this fatal flaw to their scheme of salvation, but they are not willing to concede that persons dying in infancy are forever lost and damned. Arminians therefore must devise another scheme by which God saves infants, thereby averring that God saves adults in one way, and infants in another.

This Arminian dilemma is compounded for Campbellites, the disciples of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Campbellites are not only Arminian, but also among the most strident proponents of the heresy of baptismal regeneration. They emphatically deny that anyone can be saved apart from baptism. This Campbellite heresy also mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to unbaptized infants — unless another scheme of salvation can be devised for them.

Arminians generally believe the scheme for the salvation for infants involves their innocence and/or the fact that they have not reached the age of accountability – whatever that is!

This Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants contradicts Holy Scriptures in at least two ways. First, it denies that God has but one plan for salvation, and posits instead that He saves adults in one way and infants in another.

Second, this Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants denies the Biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of the whole human race, including infants.

Romans 5:12-19 teaches us that we all, infants included, sinned and died in the fall of Adam, the first man.

Job (14:4) declared the sinfulness of infants when he said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!"

The psalmist David declared the sinfulness of infants when he, speaking for us all, said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

And he poignantly declared the sinfulness of infants when he said in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

Solomon includes infants when he teaches us in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that "there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin."

And Jesus Christ includes infants when He teaches us in John 3:1-7 that "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and in need of being "born again" by the Holy Spirit if he or she is to see or enter God's kingdom.

Another flaw of the Arminian view is that it in reality denies infant salvation. There is no need of salvation for those who are innocent! "Infant salvation" is a misnomer for Arminians.

Roman Catholics err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved if they are baptized. One of the first great heresies to plague the church of Christ was the mistaken belief that salvation is obtained through baptism. Since those who embraced this heresy wished to prevent their children from dying unbaptized, and therefore unsaved, they baptized them as soon as they were born. Scriptures deny both the heresy of baptismal regeneration and of the baptism of infants.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that infants and young children dying unbaptized are forbidden to enter heaven. According to the article "Infants, Unbaptized" in A Catholic Dictionary, "The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven .... Heaven is a reward in no way due to their human nature as such."

Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages).

Calvinists believe persons dying in infancy are saved in this manner. Contrary to the slanders of Arminians and Romanists, Calvinists do not believe any persons dying in infancy are damned.

One of the most glorious aspects of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation is that it magnifies the goodness and grace of God in salvation and in no way contradicts Holy Scriptures. To the contrary, Arminianism denies the need of God's grace for the salvation of infants. And Romanism exalts the work of parents in having their infants baptized, and bars from heaven the departed infants of those parents who did not do so.

We Calvinists alone can rightly assure the parents and friends of departed infants that they are saved and received into glory.

But we also exhort these same parents and friends to trust in Jesus Christ for their own salvation. None but such persons can say with assurance the words of David regarding his own departed infant, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Most Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm that all persons dying in infancy are saved, even though they acknowledge the Bible has no definitive doctrine on this subject. Some Calvinists will go only so far as to acknowledge that the Bible definitely teaches that at least some persons dying in infancy are saved. But no representative Calvinist theologian declares that any person dying in infancy is damned. (See the preceding message, #171.)

Arminians nevertheless deliberately misrepresent Calvinists as believing persons dying in infancy are damned. Let the following quotations from some of the most renown Calvinists suffice to show that the Arminian accusation is false.

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)

John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)

Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).

Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."

B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:

"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Whom will you believe: Calvinists speaking for themselves? or Arminians deliberately misrepresenting them?

That verse, being translated into English says "Therefore faith by hearing and hearing by God's spoken word." Sure, hearing may precede faith, but regeneration precedes hearing. It is the word of God that regenerates the spiritually dead and gives them ears to hear.

Hmmmm... you agree that hearing precedes faith (I assume by 'may' you meant faith 'may' happen but is not guaranteed). So, if hearing precedes faith, and faith comes from regeneration, and regeneration precedes hearing, and the word of God regenerates the spiritually dead such that they get ears to hear, with what are the spiritually dead supposed to hear the word which instills faith to begin with?

You have postulated a circular non-sequiter wherein having ears to hear (via the regenerating word of God) are the prerequisite to get ears to hear (to hear the regenerating word of God). Likewise see connectthedots post #251.

See Ezekiel 37 4-14

I think Corin Storhands and P-Marlowe pretty well covered it's inapplicability to individual salvation (see posts #249, #250, #257, and #262).

Starwind post #246: "Eph 1:13 further states belief and being sealed in the Holy Spirit follows hearing the word. "
Wrong. If you would have taken the time to look at that passage in the Greek, you would realized that the the word "after" is not in the original text.
The verse, when correctly translated states "In whom you also heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: In whom also ye believed, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise."

Well, you didn't cite what translation you are referencing, your exact phrasing didn't match the texts I did compare against (I suspect you inadvertently - and carelessly - substituted a 'ye' or a 'you' somewhere), and so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to simply accept your personal translation.

That said, here are the major literal and near literal translations of Eph 1:13, followed by yours:

NASB: In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
YLT: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth -- the good news of your salvation -- in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
NIV: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
KJV: In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
NKJV: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
gpf: In whom you also heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: In whom also ye believed, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise

Note that all translations (except yours, oddly) treat the tense, voice and mood of both the Greek akousanteV (Strong's 191 - "hear") and the Greek pisteusanteV (Strong's 4100 - "believe") similarly - as aorist tense, active voice, and participle mood, if I have that correct.

The NASB translators, striving to accurately convey the Greek meaning, chose two English words - English lacking a single word with the same Greek meaning:

"after" and listen with 'ing' suffixed (to accurately reflect the Greek akousanteV - aorist tense, active voice, participle mood)
"having" and believe with "ed" suffixed (to accurately reflect the Greek pisteusanteV - aorist tense, active voice, participle mood)

So, "after" was not an arbitrary insertion designed to thwart a Calvinist interpretation.

On the other hand, your personal translation seems to have arbitrarily removed translation of the tense, voice and mood, perhaps to suit your Calvinist interpretation? No? Then maybe you should report the translation errors (and your correction) to their respective publishers.

Starwind post #246: "both regenerated and unregenerate alike can believe spiritual truths (ex. man is not God, murder is wrong);"
Wrong. [1Co 2:14 KJV] Because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe when Paul wrote things of the Spirit of God ... they are spiritually discerned he meant things like gifts of the Spirit, fruit of the Spirit, as well as "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." - things of the kingdom of heaven.

I agree the unregenerate would view gifts and fruit of the Spirit as foolishness. But when you construe 'things which natural man cannot receive' to mean the gospel then no one could ever receive the gospel. Further, as my entire post #246 endeavored to point out, "belief" is not a spiritually discerned ability in and of itself. God instilled in all men the intellectual ability to think about and evaluate their knowledge and then commensurately to believe or disbelieve based on knowledge or evidence received. Believing the gospel is not predicated on being regenerated.

No where does Jesus or Paul or anyone teach that one must be regenerated (saved and sealed) first in order to then believe the gospel (man's need to be regenerated), i.e., no where does the bible teach that regeneration is a prerequisite to believe the need for regeneration.

Further, there are many unregenerate (unsaved and unsealed) people who do sincerely believe spiritual truths such as 'man is not God' and 'it is wrong to murder'. These are the same people who likewise will mistakenly tell you they are basically good people to whom God would not deny heaven, but that does not detract from the fundamental fact that there are some spiritual truths they can receive and believe, and the gospel is one of them.

Starwind post #246: regeneration can be sufficient to believe for a while but insufficient to establish "firm root";
Wrong. Those that received the seed upon the rock were never regenerated.

We agree. I was postulating what I presumed to be OP's view that only the regenerated could believe the word, even for a while, and Jesus says they did receive and believe it. So, how do suppose they received and believed, even for just a while, if they were unregenerate and 'cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God'? How did they believe?

Starwind post #246: unregenerate demons can believe in God;
So what, they are damned. There is no hope for them.

Agreed. They are damned. But none the less they believe in God. Is this another of those 'things of the Spirit of God' that demons can believe while natural man cannot? How do unregenerate demons believe what you argue natural man cannot believe?

How do you know Thomas was regenerate before Jesus spoke belief unto him? That is an assumption on your part.

Honestly, I don't. I was again postulating what I presumed to be OP's view that only the regenerated could acknowledge Jesus as Lord and want to follow Him, as I cited Thomas did (in my post #246 to which you have responded):

Joh 14:5 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

I presume you would agree that Thomas was regenerated (saved and sealed) else how could Thomas, an otherwise natural man, receive the things of the Spirit of God such as Jesus is Lord. OTOH, if on the off chance you dispute that Thomas was regenerated, then why was Thomas a disciple and calling Jesus Lord? How could an unregenerate Thomas perceive any value in following Jesus and His teachings?

Perhaps rather than focusing on “believing” it is best to focus on the definition of regeneration. I think the term “believing” here is being misconstrued. Your scriptures are all over the board talking about different points in times in salvation (not necessarily regeneration as I would define it).

It was my intention to focus on both the definitions of believing as well as that of regeneration. Such was necessitated by OrthodoxPresbyterian's repeated false premise that given that it is impossible that a man should believe and trust the Gospel while he is Unregenerate.

Someone had to do the heavy lifting and define the terms being bandied about. And of course the scriptures are all over the board. Many things in scripture are believed by unregenerate and regenerate man alike. My point was not about salvation specifically or even regeneration. My point with all those cites was to show God created in man the ability to believe, and moreso to believe the gospel after hearing the gospel, and such belief in the gospel is not predicated on first being regenerated.

”The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14
It says in the above passage that man alone cannot accept this illumination nor can he understands the things from God without the Spirit.

I copied you on my prior post to grace_precedes_faith on this very issue.

This contradicts what you are saying that man, who in his sinful state and is at war with God can make some type of intellectual decision to come to know God. The scriptures doesn’t say that.

I didn't say that, I believe you know that, but are just not putting enough effort into treating my argument with more precision. As P-Marlowe points out it is a straw man; the classic Calvinist (whatever that means) accusation thrown up anytime man's ability (or willingness) to believe the gospel is discussed; the argument you'd perhaps like to have, but isn't the one I made, now is it?

And the straw men are not needed. God is Sovereign regardless of what individual decision making responsibility God delegates to His creation, and God retains all Glory regardless of which of God's laws and precepts man obeys.

Obeying God or receiving God's offered gift does not deny God any Glory. Weighing the evidence presented by God and believing the truth and obeying God does not deny God any Sovereignty.

God is Sovereign and receives all Glory while man has the God-assigned individual responsibility to believe the gospel or face the consequences.

I apologize for drifting on and off. I’m stamping out lots of fires these days and haven’t had time to devote much attention to this. Please do not consider my lack of silence as agreement in your interpretation or inability to provide an adequate defense.

Wrong. [1Co 2:14 KJV] Because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe when Paul wrote things of the Spirit of God ... they are spiritually discerned he meant things like gifts of the Spirit, fruit of the Spirit, as well as "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." - things of the kingdom of heaven.

That’s not what the verse says.

As always, God gives us examples in scriptures of His mighty works and this is no exception. There is a case in scriptures which illustrates the illumination and redemptive act of God. The scriptures says that Cornelius was a man who feared God (Acts 10:2). A vision of an angel came to Cornelius who told him that “his prayers and alms have ascended to God” and to send for Peter. (Acts 10:3-7). The question is, at this point in time do you think Cornelius was saved? If a brick would have fallen on Cornelius’ head while walking by the temple, would he have gone to heaven? He hadn’t heard the message yet but his prayers and alms had reached God. Do you think God would have allowed anything to happen to Cornelius until he heard from Peter?

It wasn’t until four or five days later that Peter showed up after being told by God to go and being asked by Cornelius servants. Peter wasn’t in any hurry to rush to Cornelius side so that he could hear the word. Peter told Cornelius’ servants to spend the night and they would head out the next day. (Acts 10:23). Peter was afforded the opportunity to present the gospel to Cornelius (to teach Peter something as well I might add) and Peter no sooner got the words out of his mouth then the Holy Spirit "fell" upon Cornelius and company outwardly so that visible proof could be shown to the Jews (before they were baptized-but that's another topic).

There is no indication Cornelius made an intellectual decision. Besides, if Cornelius would have made some type of decision given his circumstances what do you think he would have decided? DUH!

I believe your case of “faith comes from hearing the word of God” falls apart under the example of Cornelius in scriptures. Your error is in boiling down the gospel to just simply speaking, hearing and making some type of “intellectual” choice. There is no room in your interpretation for the working of the Holy Spirit. In fact, I haven’t seen that mentioned very much at all. Cornelius was chosen by God prior to his hearing the word as verse 3-7 says. And please, don’t tell me Cornelius is unique.

So, I'm going to address two issues mainly in this post:

1) The use of 1Co 2:14 as mistaken proof that the unregenerate can not believe the gospel.
2) The use of Acts 10 as mistaken proof that the unregenerate can not believe the gospel.

It will be shown both turn out to actually be arguments from silence.

(All cites are NASB)

1) The use of 1Co 2:14 as mistaken proof that the unregenerate can not believe the gospel.

Starwind post #265:

1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
I believe when Paul wrote things of the Spirit of God ... they are spiritually discerned he meant things like gifts of the Spirit, fruit of the Spirit, as well as "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." - things of the kingdom of heaven.

That’s not what the verse says.

Alrightythen. From the top, here is the context of what 1Co 2:14 is about, and to what 'things of the Spirit of God that natural man can not understand' Paul refers.

Divisions had arisen in the church at Corinth and Paul was correcting them in 1Co 1:10-4:21
Paul steps through the causes of those divisions in 1Co 1:10-2:16
Paul specifically addresses misunderstanding of the Spirit's ministry of revealing in 1Co 2:6-16
Paul further addresses the consequences of those divisions in 1Co 3:1-4:5

Picking up now with Paul addressing the misunderstanding of the Spirit's ministry of revealing in 1Co 2:6-16:

1Co 2:6-9 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

Paul begins addressing their misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit by pointing out that hidden wisdom predestined by God which no rulers of the age understood is spoken to those who are mature.

1Co 2:10-13 For to us God revealed them [wisdom, things] through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

Paul continues in 1Co 2:10-13 connecting his terminology from 'hidden wisdom' to 'things of the Spirit'; teaching how these 'things of the Spirit' were revealed by God to "us" (meaning Paul and those who are mature and presumably including the Apostles); things spoken of using spiritual words combined with spiritual thoughts.

1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

And we have arrived at 1Co 2:14 but now within the context that the "things of the Spirit of God... spiritually appraised" is the aforementioned 'hidden wisdom spoken to the mature'.
Paul is teaching that the 'hidden wisdom - things of the Spirit of God' spoken of with spiritual thoughts and words, are 'spiritually appraised', and 'not understood by natural man'.

1Co 3:1-3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

In 1Co 3:1-3 Paul, refering back to his initial teaching at Corinth (on his 2nd journey), describes their need as unspiritual men for "milk" - the gospel, rather than the "solid food" suitable for spiritual men.
Paul says that the 'hidden wisdom things of the Spirit of God' that are 'spiritually appraised' are "solid food" and *could not* be spoken to those at Corinth because they were (and still are) fleshly and instead needed to hear "milk". What, if not the gospel, would Paul have given the unregenerate at Corinth as milk? Paul makes clear that the "solid food" of things of the Spirit can not be given to men of flesh but instead they need "milk"

1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.

Paul "planted". What would Paul plant other than the seed of the gospel? The gospel is not what Paul meant in 1Co 2:14 as "things of the Spirit" or in 1Co 3:2 as "solid food". The gospel is the seed Paul planted; the "milk" needed by unregenerate fleshly men to become infants in Christ.

So Paul makes a distinction that the things of the Spirit of God of 1Co 2:14 are the "solid food" intended for mature spiritual men, whereas the gospel is the "milk" (not mentioned in 1Co 2:14) as suitable for fleshly men and infants in Christ.

And so to argue that 1Co 2:14 teaches that the unregenerate can not believe the gospel ("spiritual milk") if and when heard is to argue from silence, because 1Co 2:14 was:

not addressed to the unregenerate needing "milk" (the gospel), but rather was;
addressed only to the mature needing "solid food" (hidden wisdom things of the Spirit of 1Co 2:6-9 spoken to the mature).

2) The use of Acts 10 as mistaken proof that the unregenerate can not believe the gospel.

I believe your case of “faith comes from hearing the word of God” falls apart under the example of Cornelius in scriptures.

You'd best take this up with Paul then (Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ).
Your quarrel is really with him, as I merely relied on his statements. Charitably, how could you post near verbatim scripture and say it falls apart under some other scripture? Is not all scripture inerrant and self-consistent?
So, what does Acts 10 record, actually? I won't repeat it all, but here are the pertinent highlights:

Act 10:2 [Cornelius - a gentile] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Act 10:3-5 was visited by an angel who said Cornelius' "prayers had ascended as a memorial to God" and verbally directed Cornelius to send for Peter.
Act 10:9-20 God gives Peter a vision that (ostensibly what Gentiles eat) is not to be considered unholy but cleansed, and that Cornelius has sent for him.
Act 10:22 Cornelius is described as a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews.
Act 10:28 Peter says God has shown him (Peter) to call no man (ostensibly Gentiles) unholy or unclean.
Act 10:33 Cornelius and his household are assembled to hear what Peter says.
Act 10:37-38 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
Act 10:44-45 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

So, Cornelius (a Gentile) knew before Peter's visit (and before the Holy Spirit fell) of Jesus ministry, miracles, and possibly teachings, and Cornelius had been a devout God-fearing man whose prayers were a memorial to God. Further, God considered Cornelius worthy of an angelic visitation with a verbal command that was to initiate, via Peter, the Gospel coming to the Gentiles.
Clearly, Cornelius believed in God and knew of Jesus' ministry long before Peter showed up. Cornelius already believed; believed in what precisely we don't entirely know, but it is entirely reasonable for us to understand from Act 10:38 that Cornelius minimally knew of and believed that Jesus was the anointed Son of God and Messiah. What else Cornelius first heard from Peter about Jesus' teachings is not clear. What is clear is that Cornelius previously 'heard' of and 'knew' (believed?) Jesus was the Son of God. After Peter taught further, then the Holy Spirit fell on all of them assembled, not just Cornelius.
There is nothing in Acts 10 that demonstrates Cornelius' regeneration (salvation and sealing) prior to belief and belief prior to hearing.
One must argue from silence and assume (in support of ones doctrine) that Cornelius was first regenerated and then believed and then heard - and that at this point Acts 10:1 picks up the story. In fact, arguably, regeneration, renewing and sealing occurred when the Holy Spirit fell - if one were to overreach.
But again, my simple point is that nothing in scripture supports OP's contention that (in OP's words):

it is impossible that a man should believe and trust the Gospel while he is Unregenerate, then -- In order to believe and trust the Gospel, is it necessary that an unsaved man must first be Regenerated by the Holy Spirit

Consequently, there is nothing about Cornelius (Peter, yes) in Acts 10 that demonstrates:

1Co 2:14: But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised

Again, Paul in 1Co 2:14 is referring to spiritual "solid food", not the "milk" suitable to men of flesh - infants in Christ.

Cornelius, prior to Peter's arrival, was already a devout God-fearing prayerful man who knew of and seemingly believed Jesus was the anointed Son of God. Cornelius knew these things by report; he had heard about them, perhaps had even read OT scripture, and he believed what he'd heard. What Cornelius heard and believed was not "solid food"; were not "things of the Spirit of God" of which Paul was teaching that could only be "spiritually appraised".
No, Cornelius had heard and believed "milk"; about the Israelite God and Jesus' miracles - things that would comprise the news headlines and watercooler discussions of the day, and Cornelius believed based on what he knew and the evidence heard, that the Israelite God existed and Jesus was His miracle-performing Son. That is not an insurmountable spiritual leap. That is simply believing what the evidence shows.
Acts 10 demonstrates spiritual "milk" had been consumed by Cornelius - an infant in Christ if not a fleshly man.
To otherwise argue that Cornelius was spiritually mature (in the sense conveyed by 1Cor 2) and that his fearing God and believeing Jesus ministry constitutes spiritual "solid food" is to argue from silence again, as Acts 10:37-38 bareley describes the gospel ("milk") let alone the hidden wisdom spiritual things of 1Co 2. Further, Paul's "solid food" teachings are considerably deeper than fearing God and believing Jesus.

Note carefully that I'm not changing my argument that the spiritual things of 1Co 2:14 are "solid food", whereas what Cornelius heard and believed about Jesus is what Paul termed "milk" suitable for men of flesh who could not be spoken to as spiritual men. (1Co 3:1).

Keep in mind your two arguments with 1Co 2:14 and Acts 10 were arguments from silence.

Addressing now some of your closing comments:

Your error is in boiling down the gospel to just simply speaking, hearing and making some type of “intellectual” choice. There is no room in your interpretation for the working of the Holy Spirit. In fact, I haven’t seen that mentioned very much at all.

Again you are trying to recast my argument that many passages of scripture show, simply, that belief in the gospel follows hearing the gospel and precedes regeneration (saved and sealed). No more, no less. But that is an argument (and its accompanying scripture) you keep deflecting to some other argument you'd rather have. I dwelt primarily on scripture showing man's ability to believe or disbelieve the gospel after hearing it. The listening (or not) and believing (or not) are done by man - not the Holy Spirit.

You seemingly want to see an argument wherein the Holy Spirit first does the regenerating and then does the believing on behalf of the "listener" and only then they listen to the gospel. So, no, I didn't mention the Holy Spirit in that capacity as I don't find it supported in scripture. But I did point out the Holy Spirit does the regenerating and sealing. Nor did I mention Moses, nor the Trinity, nor the crucifixion, nor the rapture, nor ... well if you expected a condensed bible in one post, I'm sorry to have disappointed you.

I stated quite clearly what my focus was (that belief in the gospel follows hearing the gospel and precedes regeneration), and I gather I was successful as your argument seems to be mainly with what you wanted me to say rather than what I did say.

Starwind post #272 :"Clearly, Cornelius believed in God and knew of Jesus' ministry long before Peter showed up."
Well, it appears you have a different translation than mine if that’s clear.

Hmmmm... well mine says:

Act 10:1-2 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Act 10:37-38 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Cornelius feared, prayed, and knew (all past tense) before Peter's visit. What does your translation say?

Are you saying Cornelius was regenerated, believed and heard and then was re-regenerated?

No, I didn't say that.

I did say Acts 10 is silent on when Cornelius was regenerated (possibly when the Holy Spirit fell, but that would be overreaching) and you are assuming it was, well, when precisely? You tell me (and post your scriptural proof - along with your scriptural definition of regeneration).

I did say Cornelius heard and believed before Peter's visit (as Peter's declaration in Acts 10:37-38 of what they all "knew" - past tense - makes clear), but that we don't know precisely what Cornelius believed other than he was a devout God-fearing prayerful man who apparently knew of and believed what he'd heard about Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus' ministry. Where in any of that does scripture declare Cornelius to be regenerated, sealed and saved - prior to his having heard and believed? That sequence again is the argument, if you recall.

I also said 1Co 2:14 did not apply to Cornelius since 1Co 2:14 refers to "solid food" for the spiritually mature, whereas it seemed Cornelius was an infant in Christ at most and needing the spiritual "milk" of the gospel, which milk Peter was teaching to the Gentiles (beginning with Cornelius) for the first time.

You are the one that seems to think scripture says Cornelius was regenerated, so why not help me out here and post it and highlight it?

Or perhaps Cornelius wasn’t regenerated at the time of the angel and if a brick would have fallen on his head God would have said, “Shucks, there’s one that got away.

I don't know. And I daresay neither do you. Or are angelic visits your proof of regeneration? In which case you still have not proved Cornelius was regenerated before he became God-fearing prayerful and knew about Jesus ministry, now have you? And if someone has not received an angelic visit then are they unregenerate? Have you received any angelic visits lately with audible commands?

I defined regeneration in term of "illumination" but this is something that must be difficult to understand.

Illumination arguably may be a consequence following regeneration, but "illumination" per se is not regeneration nor does it define regeneration however much you might wish it. Your link to Packer's definition of regeneration fails to define regeneration in terms of illumination, as does your link to Packer's Illumination likewise fail to even reference the two passages in which regeneration appears in scripture. So, yes, without any other scriptural basis, it is difficult for me to understand your redefinition in lieu of what scripture says.

The Holy Spirit draws us to God leading us to all truths just as He did with Cornelius.

Fine. Agreed. Now, if you can cite scripture showing precisely when Cornelius was so drawn but was also regenerated (saved and sealed) prior to his having heard or believed, you will no longer be arguing from silence, now will you?

From your comments the Holy Spirit doesn’t pop up until after we’re regenerated (whatever that is).

That you choose to ignore the cites I did make of when the Holy Spirit is involved in regeneration and sealing and that you choose to remain ignorant of the definition of regeneration (the same as Packer's I might add) previously posted, only highlights your unwillingness to address the scripture cites already posted. Yet, you persist in wishing to refute what I haven't posted.

You haven’t defined how the Holy Spirit works in the salvation experience or defined and explained regeneration in a comprehensible manner.

No I didn't nor did I say I had either, did I? In fact, what I said was I addressed only that belief follows hearing and precedes regeneration, didn't I? No where did I say the Holy Spirit plays no role in drawing men, did I? My focus has been only on the sequence of "believing follows hearing and precedes regeneration" (as previously supported with scripture cites and unrefuted by you).

Feel free to define the "salvation experience" yourself if you think that will aid your refutation of "believing follows hearing and precedes regeneration". As I previously pointed out, I didn't try to deliver a condensed bible in one post.

You’ve just taken potshots at various passages without a careful exercise of scripture or a systematic theology.

Frustratingly accurate potshots, I gather, given the lack of refutation. Your real complaint is you'd like to expand my argument into a general discussion of all scripture and systematic theology and shift the focus away from the scripture proof offered that "believing follows hearing and precedes regeneration".

If you think a "careful exercise of scripture or a systematic theology" would refute my points, then by all means make it. If I thought such a broad generalization was necessary to support the scripture I've cited, I would have done it. But as I said, I don't find such a need supported in scripture. Perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong, but it is silly for you to demand that I make an argument I don't think is needed or supportable. If you think otherwise, you're in the better position to make it, now aren't you?

If this is how you interpret scripture then there is no need for further discussions. It is apparent you'll cast scripture however it suits you regardless if the scriptures says it or not, assuming and reading things in that are not there.

Clearly you are frustrated. If anybody on this thread has provided supporting scripture and a consistent argument without recourse to any particular school of theology or doctrine, it has been me. I have not relied on assumptions and I have in fact railed against assumptions of what is not in scripture - the argument from silence.

I can't do more than post what I believe to be the most accurate precise scriptural argument I know. I have done that honestly and without cheap shots and invective.

You have not argued my interpretation of my cites. You have complained that I'm not arguing what you believe my argument should be. Well I'm the world's foremost expert on what I think my argument should be, as you are to yours. Pehaps if you spent more keystrokes making your argument and fewer trying to recast mine, you might actually persuade us that yours is the correct argument.

But I haven't seen much of your argument, aside from you don't like mine.

Ok, so help me out with some details so I understand precisely what your interpretation is:

Aside from Peter, is Cornelius the only person in Acts 10 to be "illumined"?

Nope! Acts 10:22 say, “They said [to Peter], “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”

Is Cornelius' angelic vision the evidence of prior "illumination" or is it the beginning of "illumination"?

I’m not sure what you mean. God revealed himself to Cornelius through His angel. This is what I would term illumination-the point when God reveals Himself to us. This was the first time God revealed Himself to Cornelius.

Does "illumination" precede, follow, or coincide with regeneration?

I would say illumination was the first step in the entire process. I’m not too crazy about the term “regeneration” since it means different things to different people. There is a post on how “regeneration” precedes conversion which I happen to agree with if we define “regeneration” as being “born of the Spirit”. But it’s a little confusing. In the case of Cornelius, God’s angel came to Cornelius first who spoke to Cornelius.

Is "illumination" an event or a process, and if a process what demarcates the beginning, does it have an end-point, and if so what demarcates the end-point?

As stated above I see illumination as the first step of an entire regeneration/conversion process. The other article mentions Lydia, “A woman named Lydia …was listening and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” (Acts 16:14) Same situation although no angel appeared to Lydia. The illumination process is the first step in which the Lord opening up Lydia’s heart to His word just like Cornelius.

I'm trying to relate your concept of "illumination" to regeneration, and regeneration is a re-birth, born-again experience, and normally we think such spiritual re-birth as a moment or event which begins an on-going process of sanctification, ending with glorification (you might quibble with my use of these terms, but all I'm trying to do is illustrate the diveristy of concepts into which I'm trying to fit "illumination" - as you interpret it.)

There is a regeneration/conversion article that I need to study and understand better about being born-again and conversion. However, I do understand illumination which, I would argue there is ample evidence, is the very first step in this entire process. I would say that Cornelius was born again prior to Peter coming and visiting but that he wasn’t converted until after Peter arrived. I would have to study the issues more.

Cornelius had to send for Peter which took four to five days. The Lord opened up Lydia’s heart to hear the message in one evening. It can take some time for the Spirit to illuminate God’s truth or it can appear to be instant. Once the Holy Spirit illuminates the scriptures, it becomes irresistible and you want to respond and you desire the things from above. At that precise point in time when you do wish to respond it isn’t because you made a choice no more than Cornelius made a choice. It’s because God has already made you a new creature and you desire the things from above.

Before I understood this concept I was always baffled why some truly respond to the same message and others don’t. (I’m not talking about those who pretend to respond.) It’s simply because the Holy Spirit has opened up those particular hearts like He did with Cornelius and Lydia.

Please, just be as specific and precise as you can, avoiding as much ambiguity is is possible.

Illumination (as you have explained it so far) is:

I would say illumination was the first step in the entire process. ... As stated above I see illumination as the first step of an entire regeneration/conversion process. ...
God revealed himself to Cornelius through His angel. This is what I would term illumination-the point when God reveals Himself to us. This was the first time God revealed Himself to Cornelius.
However, I do understand illumination which, I would argue there is ample evidence, is the very first step in this entire process.

And now composing your descriptions into a concise definition which (I hope) retains your meaning and terminology:

"Illumination" is the very first step of the entire regeneration/conversion process and is [demarcated] when God reveals Himself to us.

And that Cornelius' "illumination" occured when God's angel visited:

God revealed himself to Cornelius through His angel. This is what I would term illumination-the point when God reveals Himself to us. This was the first time God revealed Himself to Cornelius.

I conclude therefrom that Cornelius' very first step of the entire regeneration/conversion process was his "illumination" when God first revealed Himself through the angelic visit.

Accepting that at face value and now seeing how it lines up with scripture in Acts 10:

Act 10:1-2 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Act 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!" [illumination vv 3-6]
Act 10:4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
Act 10:37-38 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him

Cornelius' "illumination" (very first step of the entire regeneration/conversion process) occurred in Acts 10:3-6, with the angelic visitation. However Acts 10:1-2 and 4 record that prior to this very first step of the entire regeneration/conversion process (illumination), Cornelius had already believed in God, feared God, prayed to God. Further, Peter (in Acts 10:37-38) declares that Cornelius had also heared about God and Jesus ministry and miracles before Cornelius was illumined, before the very first step of the regeneration/conversion process.

So Cornelius heard and believed in God before he was illumined by God; heard and believed in God before the very first step of the entire regneration/conversion process. It would seem that "illumination" has not changed the sequence that Cornelius first heard about God and Jesus and then believed, and that "illumination" followed belief.

So, the scripturally supported sequence remains, believing follows hearing and precedes regeneration (or illumination now).

A thought about arguing illumination for Abraham (and other penateuch-patriarchs and prophets:

They didn't have bibles (obviously), they didn't even have the OT (they wrote it, later), and they didn't have prophets (they were the prophets), so God only had one way of revealing Himself to them and that was directly - theophanies. Pretty much anything God wanted them to know or see, God had to directly reveal it as there was no human-level means of revelation. Nothing to read and no prophets or teachers to hear.
So while you might disagree, IMO the patriarchs & prophets are unique. One of their purposes of God seems to be God's intent to use them as revelatory instruments, and so one could reasonably argue they weren't "illumined" because that is how God reveals himself in the salvation process; no, God revealed Himself to them because God intended them to further reveal God to others.
Your strongest argument in this regard might be God illumined them so God could use them to illumine others, but then the illumination of others isn't direct from God (contradicts the Illumination definition) - so I don't know.

Some other inconsistencies in your interpretation regarding illumination that you may want to consider are:

1) Your two statements define illumination as a 'step in a process':

I would say illumination was the first step in the entire process.
As stated above I see illumination as the first step of an entire regeneration/conversion process.

whereas a later statement conflicts by defining illumination as a process - this seems perhaps a typo?

The illumination process is the first step in which the Lord opening up Lydia’s heart to His word just like Cornelius.

2) You define "illumination" as God revealing Himself to someone but extended the occurances of "illumination" beyond Cornelius to his entire household (apparently) by citing Acts 10:22 that Peter was to come to Cornelius' house:

Nope! [Cornelius is [not] the only person in Acts 10 to be "illumined"] Acts 10:22 say, “They said [to Peter], “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”

"house" could mean Cornelius' dwelling (where Peter was to go - as opposed to meeting Cornelius elsewhere), or it could mean his family (and servants). I presume you mean household, but scripture and the Greek seem a bit ambiguous and you might get an argument. You should clarify. Further, Illumination of Cornelius' household did not occur in Acts 10:22, but in Acts 10:44 when the Holy Spirit fell (assuming you'd agree the Holy Spirit falling is an instance of God revealing himself, or maybe not?). A further (minor) problem with this is that you'd need to argue that "illumination" occured not only for Cornelius' household but for all the other people assembled there as well.

A final thought:

Before I understood this concept I was always baffled why some truly respond to the same message and others don’t.

I think the plethora of imprecise theological terms that can't be validated against scripture (as we Bereans are wont) only serve to confuse the discussion and are seldom edifying as the debate shifts from scripture to doctrinal definitions.

The scriptural straightforward answer to your question (using simple English) is God looks the heart for sincerity in the belief or response to His drawing, and the hearts of each of us are, I daresay, as unique as our DNA. Each of us is to differing degrees hardened/softened, wounded/healed, defiant/broken, etc.:

Most won't respond at all, ever, because they are subbornly prideful and willful (stiff-necked to use an OT term). Yes, we have disagreed about whether man has a "free will", but set aside your disbelief momentarily.
The few who do respond (and I've come to increasingly appreciate how narrow the gate truly is and how very few find it) simply believe in a child-like way that what they heard/read about Jesus is true, and they begin then and there to repent, obey, and serve. Thankfully, at that moment of sincere belief, repentance and obedience, God merely wants child-like sincerity and trust. He doesn't want a passing grade on a 10,000 word theological essay on soteriology.

The many who disbelieve and die in their disbelief, like those who profess faith but fall away at some point never to return and never bearing any fruit - simply, in their hearts never believed.

Sincere belief is difficult to recognize in ourselves because our hearts are so deceitful. A useful "measuring stick" is to look back in our lives to moments when we finally broke free or began to make headway against some stronghold of sin or deception. After breaking vows and backsliding so many times, then finally a real change comes about - a mental and emotional change that we don't even have to focus on happens. No, we didn't do it oursleves. Jesus transformed us. But why then? Why not at one of those prior times when we were breaking our vow and backsliding and even 'crying out'?

At those prior times we weren't sincere in our heart to actually be rid of the sin. We had regret, yes, but we still wanted the sin as well. Oh we recognized it as sin and we confessed it, but we still desired it. The heart was insincere in its 'brokeness'. When we finally get to a point where we can't stand ourselves, where we are disgusted with our craveness, where we believe that every repetition added another jolt of pain to Jesus' torture 2000 years ago and we are hurting Him as well as ourselves - when you reach that bottom and you really, sincerely hate the sin in your life - then God says, "Yes, now you get it and now I'll transform you and set you free". Then we are set free - free indeed - from that particular sin or stronghold.

But the "measuring stick" is to think back and look for those times in your life when you were rock-bottom disgusted with yourself, and then a lasting change had come. That moment was heartfelt sincerity.

When someone likewise has such heartfelt sincerity that they regret what they have caused Jesus, want to make amends (as if that were possible), and trust whatever He has in mind, then God says "Yes, you do believe now, and truly adore and obey my Son" and that persons name will have been in the book of life.

Why God "elects" whom he "elects" and how the free will He gave us serves His purposes in election, I don't know. The first question I hope to ask is, Why me, Lord?

Until then, all I know is what scripture says. And as I've argued here and elsewhere, scripture says God is Sovereign, He gave Jesus for our sins, and He gave man free will and delegated the responsibility to believe the truth, and He gave us His word to hear and read on which to believe, and the Holy Spirit to draw any who would be drawn. If we merely believe the gospel, sincerely, then we will have eternal life.

</soapbox>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.