Replies

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.

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:

The point of the angel's visit and the need to send for Peter was simply, for Peter to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius, his household, and others assembled there.
It seems your doctrine (and terminology) is informing scripture, rather than allowing scripture to inform your doctrine.