Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
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.
How are persons who die in infancy saved?
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?
I should expand on this a bit. Since our last discussion I have been going through a number of articles on the “regeneration” process to lay out a concise scriptural picture of what occurs when. Quite frankly, theologians are extremely unclear and are all over the board for my analytical thinking. I must say that my way of thinking was a bit muddled as well. But I think the case of Cornelius highlights this salvation experience in “slow motion”.
As I’ve stated earlier I believe the term “regeneration” is poor and I think that now more than ever. Different people have different interpretation for “regeneration”. From my understanding “regeneration” is not a single event but a series of events which takes place in a believers’ life. I would lay regeneration out as the following events: 1) predestined, 2) the calling (illumination and confession), 3) justification; 4) glorification (Rom 8:30). As you’ve stated, Cornelius was “predestined” by God in Acts 10:1-2. We saw the illumination in Acts 10:3-7 and there indeed was a confession from Cornelius as reported in by Peter in Acts 11:14. Cornelius was justified when the Holy Spirit fell upon them and, of course glorified upon his death and resurrection.
According to this timeline, in Cornelius case you drop off how Cornelius was “predestined” and the “illumination” experiences. I don’t believe God would have allowed anything to happen to Cornelius prior to his justification. Cornelius gave signs of being “born again” during the predestinated phase (e.g. being devout, giving alms). But it wasn’t until Peter baptized him in which he was truly saved. It is a two step process where God initiates the salvation experience by predestining us and calling us.
Starwind post #278:
"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.You've have stated EXACTLY what we have been saying. Salvation is a two step process-regeneration and conversion. In Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius shows signs of the regeneration process.
I think you may have misread my post. I said Cornelius believed prior to illumination - prior to the angels visit. That man believes after hearing and not that God 'illumines' (or regnerates) him first so that man can hear and then believe, has been my point.
Whereas you seem to imply now that the regeneration process has extended back earlier into Acts 10:1-2 when Cornelius "believed", but that is before the angelic visit, before the start of lllumination (the entire process).
I presume you would agree that for the angel to have declared Cornelius' earlier prayers to have been a memorial to God indicates Cornelius belived in Him to whom he prayed, and I further presume you maintain that 'illumination' (the very first step in the entire regeneration/conversion process) began with the angels visit.
Cornelius' belief preceded the angels visit, preceded 'illumination' or regeneration. No?
And therein lies the bulk of their problems. Language can be precise when so employed. Imprecise language leads to imprecise thinking. Imprecise thinking leads to false understanding. Scripture is what it is and when theologians "help" God with better terminology, they essentially, IMO, erect a tower of Babel.
Scripture defines regeneration, and God had a purpose in its definition being what it is. To substitute a definition more to our liking is to substitute God's purpose.
As I've stated earlier I believe the term "regeneration" is poor and I think that now more than ever. Different people have different interpretation for "regeneration". From my understanding "regeneration" is not a single event but a series of events which takes place in a believers' life. I would lay regeneration out as the following events: 1) predestined, 2) the calling (illumination and confession), 3) justification; 4) glorification (Rom 8:30).
If your goal is to support a doctrine wherein 'regeneration' now includes calling (drawing) so as to support the argument that regneration precedes belief, then yes you will need a 'better' definition for regeneration.
Think carefully about how your desired finding is shaping your data.
My goal is to understand the scriptures-not to support a doctrine. I would include "drawing" as part of 1) illumination and 2) confession. As with Cornelius God illumination lead to Cornelius confession.
That is how the scriptures define drawing. Not as man making an intellectual choice. There is no scriptural support for that interpretation.
(gently)
You have now introduced Cornelius' "confession" into your interpretation, and with nary a cite or definition in support of it. And I'm sure you know the concept of a "confession" made by Cornelius does not appear in scripture.
Scripture is silent on when Cornelius made a "confession" whatever that might have been. You are arguing from silence again.
So for your position to now include God's "drawing" as part of "confession and illumination", all three of which followed Cornelius' belief (in your interpretation), implies therefore his belief still preceded everything, including now God's drawing!
I would disagree. God's drawing preceded Cornelius belief and is not part of scriptural regneration.
Unless of course you wish to argue his belief was a false belief, in which case why were his prayers a memorial to God and was his confession based on a false belief?
Rather than simply accept that scripture records that Cornelius first believed what he'd heard about the God of the Israelites and Jesus, and later the angel visited, and later still the Holy Spirit fell, you have constructed a house of terminological cards, adding one after the other not even consistently, to support your doctrine that man can't make an intellectual choice to believe unless the Holy Spirit first regenerates that man and enables the ability to believe.
Can you not see how you stand scripture and English on their heads to achieve this?
Perhaps this would a good point to review the scriptural cites (in my earlier post #246) of precisely man believing (intellectual choosing) after hearing the word and prior to being regenerated, all straight forward English without need to introduce new doctrinal terminology.
"…Well then God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."
It doesn’t says Cornelius “confess” only that God has granted repentance. I assumed that Cornelius repented since God granted it. I’m not sure that’s correct. I would say Step 2 is illumination and repentence (not confession).
------------------------
Quite frankly, I don’t believe I’m standing anything on “its head”. I’m reading simply the events as they occurred. If Cornelius “believes” as you have asserted before Peter came, what was the point of the point of the angel’s visit and the need to send for Peter? And if faith comes from hearing who preached to Cornelius who didn’t know what he had to do to be saved? The problem is the difficulties present in your interpretation. (We could discuss the similar timeline of Abraham but that’s on another thread.)
I have constructed my analysis of these events in relationship to salvation so I would be interested in hearing your interpretation. Please be precise.
Simply, for Peter to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius, his household, and others assembled there, so that Peter might then feed them the "milk" of the gospel (not the "solid food" for the spiritually mature of 1 Co 2:14), all as scripture plainly records.
It served God's purpose for Cornelius to request that Peter come and speak. God sent an angel to Cornelius to send for Peter, and Cornelius obeyed, as did Peter (upon God revealing to Peter the Gentiles were no longer to be consider unholy but now cleansed).
The angelic visit was not about Cornelius' salvation or regeneration, but about bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, by Peter and beginning with Cornelius.
And if faith comes from hearing who preached to Cornelius who didn't know what he had to do to be saved?
Scripture again is silent that anyone specifically "preached" the gospel to Cornelius or that he knew what he "had to do to be saved" prior to Acts 10:1. Scripture only tells us he knew about God, he feared God, prayed to God and was devout. Peter confirms Cornelius knew about Jesus and Jesus ministry. No more, no less. We don't even know what precisely Cornelius believed (as I said before in my post #272).
For me to argue (which I have not) that the the requirements for salvation had been preached to Cornelius prior to Acts 10:1-2 would be for me to argue from silence. I won't. While I think Cornelius might have been aware of Jesus offering the gift of salvation to those who believed in Him, scripture is silent on that.
So, while scripture is silent on whether Cornelius had been preached the gospel specifically, scripture is not silent on Cornelius being prayerful, devout, and God-fearing; whose prayers were a memorial to God; from which it is not unreasonable to infer that Cornelius believed in God and held such beliefs prior to the angelic visit, prior to any regeneration or illumination.
Hence Cornelius demonstrates that belief in God based on something heard is possible prior to regeneration, in contrast to your and OP's position that regeneration (or illumination) must precede belief.
If OTOH, you doubt Cornelius believed, then what does that say about the quality of Cornelius' prayers that God deemed to be a memorial to God? Is God memorialized by the prayers of unbelievers?
Quite frankly, I don't believe I'm standing anything on "its head".... I have constructed my analysis of these events in relationship to salvation so I would be interested in hearing your interpretation. Please be precise.
Let me begin by repeating your exact words:
I have constructed my analysis of these events in relationship to salvation
Your wording conveys to me that your doctrine is informing scripture, rather than allowing scripture to inform your doctrine, to wit:
You stand scripture on its head, in this instance, beginning with imposing on Acts 10:3-6 a context of salvation and Cornelius' regeneration (or illumination); an angelic visit in which the angel simply appeared, praised Cornelius' prayers, and said to send for and then listen to Peter. No where in that snippet of scripture does anything infer individual regeneration (as per Titus 3:5-7) or sealing with the Holy Spirit, from an angel no less. No where in Acts 10:3-6 is Cornelius declared saved or unsaved or in any relationship to Jesus whatsoever. Scripture is silent on that.
Scripture has been stood on its head.
The context of Acts 10 is God bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, and the context of Acts 10:3-6 specifically is God starts with Cornelius sending for Peter.
The true context for Cornelius salvation is probably when Peter was preaching and the Holy Spirit fell. That is the "milk" of the gospel Cornelius and his household needed, prior to which Cornelius believed whatever he'd heard about God and Jesus ministry. But that defeats the doctrinal argument that regeneration must precede belief.
You stand English on its head, in this instance, begining with defining illumination - which term perhaps isn't needed - would not revelation, quickening, or drawing, etc have sufficed in their proper respective contexts? Or is the context of Cornelius actually unique that a new term is needed? God-revealing himself is your definition of illumination, the very first step of the entire regeneration process, yet you've moved that beginning moment from Acts 10:3-6 wherein arguably an angel did reveal God, earlier to Acts 10:1-2 saying In Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius shows signs of the regeneration process, but only Cornelius' background is introduced and no evidence of God revealing himself to Cornelius nor actual signs of regeneration as used by Titus 3:5-7.
And you stretched the context of what illumination encompasses so you can argue regeneration accompanied what Cornelius earlier believed in Acts 10:1-2, but then you argue salvation was the point of the angels visit (when clearly angels don't save and Acts 10:3-6 makes no mention of any confession or receiving Christ by Cornelius or his being sealed) - all the while not showing where in your definitions the actual falling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44-45 fits - arguably the moment of sealing with Holy Spirit and regeneration (at least from a scriptural definition as per Tit 3:5-7).
And so the conflicting and shifting meaning of words and their applicability stands English on its head.
Let me close with:
Thank you. I thought as much. I could never explain this either from your position.
So, I've been pondering if you're serious or sarcastic and what you meant.
Would you kindly explain to what exactly you refer by "this" and what exactly do you think my "position" is? In plain English, with cites please if applicable.
this = Conelius' conversion experience
It does not fit the model of "faith comes from hearing...".
Perhaps I can clarify it for you then:
Acts 10:3-6 is not Cornelius' conversion experience. It was only an angelic visit. Your persistence in arguing it was a "conversion experience" is a false premise. Scripture records many angelic visitations, none of them (IIRC) were conversion experiences either as angels are "messengers" (that's what angel means). So in absence of any regeneration or falling/filling or sealing of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:3-6, there was no conversion of Cornelius in that passage.
As there was no conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10:3-6, it doesn't matter much from what 'position' an explantion is attempted (yours or mine). Explaining a false premise will always result in a false explanation.
But then I said previously, multiple times, my purpose was merely to refute your mis-application of Acts 10:2-7 as an example of 1Co 2:14 (see your post #271):
Starwind post # 265:
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.
HarleyD response:
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?
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.
You ask the rhetorical question is Cornelius' saved as of Acts 10:3-7 (the angelic visit) prior to his hearing Peter's message. This is your bias operating again. You ignore that Cornelius had believed in God and knew of Jesus ministry prior to the angelic vist and prior to Peter's message. Nothing indicates Cornelius' was saved in Acts 10:3-7. Scripture is silent on when Cornelius was regenerated aside from the falling of the Holy Spirit when Peter spoke of believing Jesus.
But Cornelius, an unregenerated man, believed in God based on what he had heard prior to the angelic visit and prior to the Holy Spirit falling. Cornelius further believed in Jesus when preached by Peter, also prior to the Holy Spirit falling.
You perist in arguing that Cornelius made no intellectual decision, ignoring:
I further responded in my post #272:
I have pointed out (repeatedly, ad nauseum) that Cornelius' believed in God and knew of Jesus' ministry long before Peter showed up - no more, no less - while you argue from silence that Cornelius must have been regenerated in Acts 10:3-7 when he was visited by an angel.
You have not proven where in Acts 10 Cornelius was regenerated prior to hearing the gospel, hence you have not proven that Acts 10 is an example of 1Co 2:14, nor have you proven that 1 Co 2:14 applies to the gospel not being believable by unregenerates.
You've proven nothing in your case.
Here in your own words is your "explanation" of Cornelius' conversion experience:
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.
Salvation is a two step process-regeneration and conversion. In Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius shows signs of the regeneration process. Then God came to him (illumination-v3) and had Cornelius send to fetch Peter so that Peter could baptize him (conversion).
As I’ve stated earlier I believe the term “regeneration” is poor and I think that now more than ever. Different people have different interpretation for “regeneration”. From my understanding “regeneration” is not a single event but a series of events which takes place in a believers’ life. I would lay regeneration out as the following events: 1) predestined, 2) the calling (illumination and confession), 3) justification; 4) glorification (Rom 8:30). As you’ve stated, Cornelius was “predestined” by God in Acts 10:1-2. We saw the illumination in Acts 10:3-7 and there indeed was a confession from Cornelius as reported in by Peter in Acts 11:14. Cornelius was justified when the Holy Spirit fell upon them and, of course glorified upon his death and resurrection.
According to this timeline, in Cornelius case you drop off how Cornelius was “predestined” and the “illumination” experiences. I don’t believe God would have allowed anything to happen to Cornelius prior to his justification. Cornelius gave signs of being “born again” during the predestinated phase (e.g. being devout, giving alms). But it wasn’t until Peter baptized him in which he was truly saved. It is a two step process where God initiates the salvation experience by predestining us and calling us.
There is no way that word-salad could explain anything, regardless of the 'position' one ostensibly held. I have attempted to organize the steps (as you describe them in your words above) of the "illumination", "salvation", "regeneration", "predestination", etc. processes:
1) Illumination - Acts 10:3-7 very first step in entire process
2) Salvation is a two step process-regeneration and conversion - God initiates the salvation experience by predestining us and calling us.
2a - regeneration (Cornelius shows signs of regeneration in Act 10:1-2, then God came to him - illumination v3)
2a1 regeneration series of events 1) predestined Acts 10:1-2 (Cornelius gave signs of being “born again” during the predestinated phase)
2a2 regeneration series of events 2) the calling (illumination and confession)
2a3 regeneration series of events 3) justification (Acts 10:44 Cornelius was justified when the Holy Spirit fell)
2a4 regeneration series of events 4) glorification2b - conversion (when Peter could baptize Cornelius)
Harley, we do not serve a God of confusion.
I could never explain [Cornelius' conversion experience] either from your position of [faith comes from hearing].
Here is the simple plain biblical teaching from Peter himself explaining Cornelius' conversion experience (consistent with Paul's teaching in Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 of belief follows hearing and precedes sealing):
Act 11:17
"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
After believing in Jesus, the gift of salvation and the Holy Spirit was given by God - after believing. Belief in the word preached preceded the Holy Spirit's regeneration, renewing and sealing (Tit 3:5-7, 2Co 1:21-22, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30).
Someone rightfully corrected me on another thread on the similar event that transpired with Abraham. God does not veiw these events as temporal but logical progression. They are not in time. God view this whole process as the logical process of election, illumination, salvation, justification and glorification. Understanding that you can see how the whole episode of Cornelius in Acts 10 is all part and parcel of the same gig.
God would never have allowed Cornelius to die because HE sets the time of our deaths. Cornelius was regenerated but not saved until later. But God does not look at time and it is all one process to Him.
Scripture? or conjecture?
But God does not look at time and it is all one process to Him.
Scripture? or conjecture?
Please. More ill-considered word-salad.
All men really means "all the elect"; world really means "the elect in the world"; any really means "any elect"; and now, after believing really means "logically precedes believing".
And you wonder how it is you get accused of standing scripture and English on its head? For the sake of your doctrine?
No conjecture, just fact. Once again I've seen nothing offered by you, Starwind or anyone else that would explain my original question about Cornelius dying between the time of meeting with the angel and meeting with Peter. Would he be saved? Starwind says no even though it was God's desire to bring Cornelius to Himself. What do you say?
Starwind-It's convenient for you (as well as others) to offer no solutions to these events but a tad disingenious when I explain it in a consistent manner with the theological views presented in this article and then you chastise me for my "fruit salad" theology. You have no way of explaining these events because your theological perception is based upon a flawed premise as illustrated by your response. I'm confident you would also be unable to explain how God could have appeared to Abraham in Genesis Chapter 12 and Abraham be justified in Chapter 15. It's the same situation only in the Old Testament.
I at least know the ingredience of fruit salad.
One of the neat things about infants is their lack of understanding. We know that they don't understand because we know that they don't know very much at all.
How do we know this?
Because we ourselves know that even this past week, for example, we have learned some new thing. We know that knowledge is an accumulation. Likewise, we become aware that understanding derives from learning to balance knowledge.
Sometime in the past we were infants but now we are adults.
We cannot claim to be ignorant, for example, of the choices before us in this election. We are for the president or we are for his opponent or one of the others who have no hope of winning.
Harley, are you a Bush supporter?
The events you inquired about (what if Cornelius died before meeting with Peter) were hypothetical! They did not happen!
Explanations of events that did not happen are not explanations. I didn't offer explanations of why the bush didn't burn either, did I? Or why Lazarus didn't rise when Christ called him, did I? Is that how you form your doctrine? From the multitude of hypotheticals not recorded in scripture?
God obviously wanted Cornelius to meet with Peter and Cornelius did not die, did he? Cornelius was elect and ultimately saved, wasn't he? And he believed before being regenerated, didn't he?
And that, HarleyD, is your real complaint. That what did in fact happen is entirely consistent with what is in fact in scripture, as I have patiently explained, til now.
You're upset because I refuse to fabricate doctrine to support events that did not happen whereas that seems your primary approach, and then you get indignant when your fabrications and false premises are disproven.
And I said word-salad, not fruit salad. word-salad as in jumbled, disordered, without structure or logic.
Your views are not fruity (as in crazy or insane). They're just ill-considered and unsupported by scripture. But you already knew that or you wouldn't be standing scripture and English on their heads.
You'd simply quote the passages that show Cornelius being regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.
But there aren't any, are there?
Exactly.
Dancing Angels.
Pinhead.
Discuss.
I happen to know that everyone I've seen you ask is a Bush supporter.
But your asking that question of people now looks unseemly, like a loyalty oath, x, especially on the religion forum.
Good news bump.
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.