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.
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>