Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
”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. “
Starwind’s Interpretation - “And so in Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius was unsaved and unregenerate at the time he was giving alms, a good work perhaps even prepared by God, but nonetheless Cornelius was unregenerate when he did those good works, and Cornelius did it of his own free will and choosing.”
”Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. “
Rom 3:12 “ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." “
If Cornelius was just like everyone else he could not have pleased God because he was still in the flesh. Yet we see his alms ascended to heaven as a “memorial” before God. There is nothing “good” we can do to earn our salvation.
Step 2 - an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter;
Starwind’s Statement – “I didn't ignore these "steps" either. I've addressed their passages many times. I disagreed previously with your "terminology", which ill-defined terminology is still irrelevant to my argument, oft repeated lo these many posts, that believing follows hearing and preceeds regeneration or being sealed with the Holy Spirit.”
Not addressed. (Comment-You say this is addressed but I don’t see where. Please just cut and paste your answer to why God sent His angel to Cornelius instead of cutting and pasting statements telling me you’ve addressed this. Did God send His angel because of Cornelius good works? Did Cornelius have an opportunity to reject God’s angel? Please remember this encounter before answering:
Luk 1:19-20 The angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time."
People don’t reject angels’ commands from God.)
Step 3 - Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men;
Not addressed.
In the final analysis all you’ve done in your lengthy post is talk about Step 1. As noted above this puts you in the difficult position of relating Cornelius salvation to his “good works”. I can see from your statement, “a good work perhaps even prepared by God” you are hedging on whether these good works came from God or from Cornelius. Either God was the author of these good works or Cornelius was the author. If God was the author then Cornelius had to be regenerated for God to use him for no one can please God while in the flesh as Paul says in Romans. If Cornelius is the author you are contradicting Romans and saying people are saved by their merit.
So what is it? Was Cornelius saved by his good works or were these good works generated by God through Cornelius before he believed?
Yet another misapplication of scripture. Rom 8:6-8 is about the mind set on the flesh being hostile to God and cannot please God. Cornelius' mind was set on God. He feared God, was devout, and prayed. I didn't say his works pleased God or that he earned his salvation (that's your dishonest spin). I said his "work" was merely good (as did you), but not good enough to save him.
Not addressed. (Comment-You say this is addressed but I don't see where. Please just cut and paste your answer to why God sent His angel to Cornelius instead of cutting and pasting statements telling me you've addressed this.
You didn't want to see this the first time either, and I'm sure you'll overlook it again or say it wasn't addressed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=287#287
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?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.
[3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men] Not addressed.
Harley, there is not enough bandwidth to address every jot & tittle you toss out. If you'd put half the thought into making them that you expect from others in addressing them, you'd see they were not worth making in the first place. You're just flailing away now.
Peter did not hestiate. In his vision he only said (Act 10:14) "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." and the vision perplexed him. He went to Cornelius house as instructed the next day and upon his arrival said (Act 10:29) "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me."
As I said stated before (knowing you won't be able to find this yourself, I'll just repeat it here):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=287#287
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.
Peter did not hesitate. Your so called "step 3" is (as I previously stated) mere front-loading of your trumped up processes all designed to get Cornelius regenerated before he believed anything so your doctrine won't look so foolish.
In the final analysis all you've done in your lengthy post is talk about Step 1.
lol - you clearly recognized I addressed a lot more than your step 1, you just didn't like the answer, and you are hiding from your really lame "logical redemption".
Your denial is most unbecoming, as well as time consuming, and now I am truly finished with this 'discussion'.
If Cornelius was just like everyone else he could not have pleased God because he was still in the flesh. Yet we see his alms ascended to heaven as a "memorial" before God. There is nothing "good" we can do to earn our salvation.Yet another misapplication of scripture. Rom 8:6-8 is about the mind set on the flesh being hostile to God and cannot please God. Cornelius' mind was set on God. He feared God, was devout, and prayed. I didn't say his works pleased God or that he earned his salvation (that's your dishonest spin). I said his "work" was merely good (as did you), but not good enough to save him.
I was a bit rushed this morning and neglected to make another point I had in mind, that being in your post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=312#312
Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God?You first characterized Cornelius giving alms as a "good work", not I, and yet you now argue against your own characterization of it being a "good work", merely because I tried to address your statement as you made it.
Regardless, I then responded (accepting your characterization of Cornelius giving alms as a "good work") with how God uses many things for good and prepares works that bless the receiver of the work, not necessarily the "worker" who was merely God's instrument. Many times God uses the unregenerate to achive something good (such as Josephs' brothers, intending evil, selling him into slavery yet God using it for good.
Further, Acts 10 records that Cornelius previously knew of and feared God, and knew about Jesus ministry. Cornelius may have heard (Mat 5:42) "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." was taught be Jesus (of whom Cornelius had heard) whom was anointed by and with God (whom Cornelius feared) and so when God put a needy person in Cornelius' path, Cornelius obeyed what he'd possibly heard Jesus teach, and he gave.
The "good" was not in the worker in this case, but the work may have been for the good of the receiver and, regardless, giving when asked itself is clearly in accord with Christ's teaching and Cornelius was unregenerate when he gave, and works do not save.
If you think it was a "good work" in the context of Rom 8:8 & 3:12, then you prove that the work was "good" scripturally.
”You first characterized Cornelius giving alms as a "good work", not I”
”Many times God uses the unregenerate to achive something good”
”God put a needy person in Cornelius' path, Cornelius obeyed what he'd possibly heard Jesus teach”
Thanks for the doctrinal “clarification”.
”You first characterized Cornelius giving alms as a "good work", not I”
”Many times God uses the unregenerate to achive something good”
”God put a needy person in Cornelius' path, Cornelius obeyed what he'd possibly heard Jesus teach”
Thanks for the doctrinal “clarification”.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it thus;
Elect Infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the Ministry of the Word.
appears as though not ALL infants are Elect, and we have no way of knowing which infants ARE Elect.
Consider: do abortionists save more souls than mainline evangelical churches?
I'm only through the fisrt 100 posts. If it's been mentioned already, I'll get to it...
I don't believe there is a need to be saved, I believe we are as God intended...good or bad or in-between.
I believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession to be correct. The real issue is that no one knows who the elect are including infants. Hence the confession rightly skirts the issue with its quantified answer. It may be all infants are elected. But it up to God in His wisdom, mercy and justice to decide. Not us.
***The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it thus;
Elect Infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the Ministry of the Word.
appears as though not ALL infants are Elect, and we have no way of knowing which infants ARE Elect.
Consider: do abortionists save more souls than mainline evangelical churches?***
I pointed out something of this privately to Diamond. I believe that the Bible teaches that infants are saved in the same way that we adults are saved: It is by grace are you saved, through faith. And, I believe that the Bible provides comfort and assurance to his children who have babies that die.
But, I see no reason that the Bible would provide any assurance of any kind to people who are not saved. It makes not sense. The only assurance that they should have is of certain destruction unless they repent and turn to the Lord. Why would God provide any assurance to them about the eternal state of their children who die?
This doesn't mean that the Lord doesn't save them. It only means that the Lord is silent. There is no assurance given to them concerning their children.
I also agree with you concerning the abortionists. If we presume that a person will be saved for no other reason than they died as infants, then we should declare the abortionists the greatest evangelists in the world.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
one of us is, the other is not...
Some of us haven't learned that lesson, yet. Thanks;
Talk of heresy without knowledge is ignorance.
One would think the mainline churches that teach infant salvation should jump on the abortion bandwagon; for the good of the many, at the expense of the few.
The Puritan Thomas Taylor on that issue.
But it is objected, the child itself lacks faith.[1] It indeed lacks actual faith [i.e., faith actualized in outward acts, such as repenting or believing upon the word of the Gospel], which presupposes hearing and understanding. Nor could it be that if they had actual faith at that time, they could ever utterly lose it, but in point of fact it must be developed in them by instruction.
[2] Yet they do not lack all faith. Christ himself reckons them among believers (Matt 18:6); and in this respect circumcision, which was administered to infants, was called a seal of faith.
[3] Some divines think this faith of the child is not other than the faith of its parents; but the truth is that the faith of the parents is so far theirs that it gives them right to the covenant. The covenant is made to Abraham and to his seed, and to the faithful and their seed; and the believing parent also lays hold on the covenant for himself and his seed, thereby entitling the child to the right of the covenant as well as himself; even as in temporal things he can purchase land for himself and his heirs. This truth confirms that apostle's saying, "If the root be holy, so are the branches"; and if the parent believes, the children are holy.
[4] But this may seem not to be a proper faith, first because some children saved are not of believing parents, and second because "the just shall live by his own faith" (Hab. 2:4); and therefore it is very probable that elected infants have a spirit of faith, that is, the Spirit of God working inwardly and secretly, but diversely in infants dying before the age of discretion and in those which survive. To the former God gives his Spirit which works either faith or something proportionate for their justification and salvation; and in the latter he works the seed or inclination of faith, which in due time shall bear fruit unto eternal life. And in this regard the Scriptures show how, after a marvelous and secret manner, the Lord can and has effectually wrought in infants, even in the womb, as Jacob, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and others.
Nor does it hinder that infants have no sense of any such thing, no more than it proves them not to live, because they do not know that they do so. But though we may not understand the manner of this secret working in infants, we know that Adam's corruption is not more effectual to pollute the infants of believing parents than Christ's blood and innocence is to sanctify them; and being so, his wisdom does not lack means to apply it unto them, even in their infancy, yea in the womb, to make it their own, although we cannot reach unto them. So much for the faith of infants.
Quite possibly so.
Let me know what Ecumenical Council enshrined predestination and talks of elects and then I will withdraw my charge of heresy.
Exactly what does a charge of heresy mean? Is there punishment involved?
Heretical: Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards.
Aren't established beliefs or standards dependent upon the individuals' beliefs? Wouldn't what you consider heresy, be different from, say a Hindu?
What really does it matter if someone is deemed to be heretical, anyway?
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.