Does repentance remit sins?

[FreeGrace2]

This is an arrogant thing to say. No one is unaffected by a tradition you included. You are NOT a father of any body of doctrine.

I never said I was the father of anyone or anything. Your comment here is way out of line.

Cornelius was indeed saved in the sense of regenerated BEFORE he even met Peter. But he was not yet 'saved' in the sense of converted.

Well, I'm tired of your repeated opinion. You have failed to demonstrate how and when. Totally.

You ignore that salvation is multi-faceted. Jesus said to His disciples, "He that endures to the end shall be saved."

And I suppose you apply that to everyone who gets saved? Figures. Why don't you actually check out the context. You know, for, uh, context. Jesus was speaking about surviving the Tribulation. It's very obvious from the context. So don't apply that to getting eternal life, or you will be pushing a works salvation, which I reject.

The same verb is used in Acts 10:43 when the angel instructed Cornelius that he "shall be saved." Did Jesus' words imply that the disciples had no salvation at all until the end?

Seems you're mixing apples and grapefruit here. There is no link between the two passages. None at all. It should be obvious that the angel wasn't speaking of physical deliverance here, but rather, eternal deliverance. Please notice what the Jews back in Jersalem said after Peter explained his trip to them, in 11:17.

Of course not! Therefore, the angel's words did NOT imply that Cornelius had no salvation until the word of Peter. He had a faith in God which caused God to listen and to answer! Therefore, Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE he met Peter.

Where do you get the unbiblical idea that having "a faith" in God means regeneration? I think you're just making stuff up.

How could Cornelius have even cared about salvation if he was an unregenerate man?

Because he recognized and honored God as Creator (Rom 1:19-20) and was seeking Him (Acts 17:26-27). That's why.

If he was not regenerated he would NOT have acted upn the word of hte angel. Cornelius wanted salvation. This in itself PROVES that he was regenerated BEFORE he met Peter.

No, that is only your own opinion. You have nothing to back up what you claim.

Peter told the first Christians that they were looking forward to receiving the end of their faith which is the "salvation of their souls." Did Peter imply that htey had no salvation at all? Absolutely not!

I would hope that you have some sort of knowledge about the 3 tenses of salvation. Easily explained by that.

When Cornelius believed on Christ as He was more fully expounded by Peter he became 'saved' in the sense of converted.

You never explained the difference between getting saved and getting converted. Are you going to? I mean, from the Bible.

You will not accpet the words of life.

Who are you to judge what I accept or not? Sounds quite arrogant to say something like that. I don't recommend it.

Note the order listed in Jeremiah:

“I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself:
‘You have chastised me, and I was chastised,
Like an untrained bull;
Restore me, and I will return,
For You are the Lord my God.
19 Surely, after my turning, I repented;
And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh;
I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated,
Because I bore the reproach of my youth.’ Jeremiah 31:18-19

The order:

1. God regenerated Ephraim

Where in the world do you get that from??? From his "bemoaning" or from being chastized? Whatever. Neither means regeneration anyway.

So that kinda stifles the rest of what you wanted to say.

So you are saying that Cornelius was a faithless man.

So, NO I NEVER said anything about him being "a faithless man". Not even close. Apparently you don't bother reading my posts yet you fire from the hip.

I suggest you actually pay attention BEFORE you post to me.

Cornelius believed that God existed. That isn't salvation, regeneration or conversion.

Why would God hear his prayer and reward him if he prayed in unbelief?

If you HAD paid any attention, you would have known that I believe that he was seeking God; fulfilling Acts 17:26-27.

You are making no sense at all. You are choking my friend.

No, I'm not choking your friend. I don't know who or if you have any friends.

And as for not making any sense, I believe you get the blue ribbon on that.

Cornelius prayed IN FAITH which proves beyond all doubt that he was regenerated prior to his meeting Peter.

Not at all. He knew that God existed, and was honoring Him as God, just as Rom 1:19-20 points out.

But you MUST deny that his faith had both characteristics (believing that God IS, and believing that He is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him).

There isn't anything in Heb 11:6 that is speaking of saving faith. Sorry that you have been so confused by that verse.

Furthermore, take a look at the "faith hall of fame" characters in Hebrews 11. Are you going to tell us that they were not regenerated because they had not yet received salvation? It says that "they ALL died IN FAITH having NOT received the promise" (salvation).

It is very apparent that you have no discernment between believing that God exists and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. How sad for you.

Go ahead and say it. Say it out right. Tell us that they were not regenerated. It says that they "ALL died IN FAITH having NOT received the promise" (salvation). Using your logic they were NOT regenerated. By your logic unregenerate men went around doing mighty things for God.

Of course ch 11 is about believers. Obviously. But you have failed to prove your case that Cornelius was regenerated before he believed Peter's message.

The scripture says that they could not be made perfect (receive salvation) without us. Yet they were regenerated men. By faith they subuued kingdoms and stopped the mouths of loins. But they were not yet 'saved.'

Actually, the word "saved" in ch 11 was about deliverance from physical death. Some of them were delivered (saved) from physical death, but not all of them.

Again, you have no discernment as to how to understand the word "saved" or the concept of belief.

Finally, Isaac was born of the Spirit from Sarah's womb (Galatians 4:21-31). And John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. I dare you to say that Isaac was not regenerated at birth and that the Baptist was not regenerated in the womb.

Oh, this is really sad. You have grossly misunderstood the passage. There is NOTHING there about Isaac being born of the Spirit. Isaac was "born of the promise" (v.23). It is v.28 that you so misunderstand. The phrase "by the Spirit" refers to the One through whom the promise came. I suggest you read the account in Genesis before you keep embarrassing yourself.

If Isaac was born of the Spirit, as you claim, then he would have been equal to Jesus. Nonsense.

Deny it. Go ahead, make my day.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jack Terrence]

FG2,

After I read your post yesterday and replied to it I asked myself, "Why am I bothering with this guy?" You compared Cornelius to the faithless heathens of Romans 1, and then denied that he believed that God is a REWARDER just because the scripture doesn't come right out and say it the way you would like. But Cornelius ACTED UPON the PROMISE of salvation given by the angel and sent for Peter. Therefore, Cornelius believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him.

The faith of Cornelius had both the traits mentioned in Hebrews 11. He believed that God IS (not in the sense of the faithless heathen). And he believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him. This means that Cornelius was regenerated PRIOR to his meeting Peter. So if regeneration is indeed the consequence of faith as you believe doesn't matter. Cornelius had faith in God BEFORE he met Peter which proves that he was a regenerated man BEFORE he met Peter. He needed only to have Christ more fully explained to Him so he could "take hold" (lambano) of salvation and be converted.

I never said I was the father of anyone or anything. Your comment here is way out of line.

For you to say that you subscribe to no tradition is tantamount to saying that you have come up with something new. But you have not. We have heard it ALL before except for your comparison of Cornelius with the faithless heathen. Now that's a new one and is an indicator that you are desperate.

Well, I'm tired of your repeated opinion. You have failed to demonstrate how and when. Totally.

You do not want the truth my friend. You compared Cornelius to the faithless heathen. This proves that you have lost this argument and I suspect you know it. I am still in a bit of shock over the comparison you made.

And I suppose you apply that to everyone who gets saved? Figures. Why don't you actually check out the context. You know, for, uh, context. Jesus was speaking about surviving the Tribulation. It's very obvious from the context. So don't apply that to getting eternal life, or you will be pushing a works salvation, which I reject.

Uh, Jesus said, "When you see these things come to pass "know that your REDEMPTION draws near." Therefore, the expression "shall be saved" referred to their REDEMPTION. Does redemption apply to eternal life? Yes or no!

Why do you deny that there is a real order salutis?

Seems you're mixing apples and grapefruit here. There is no link between the two passages. None at all. It should be obvious that the angel wasn't speaking of physical deliverance here, but rather, eternal deliverance. Please notice what the Jews back in Jersalem said after Peter explained his trip to them, in 11:17.

Again Jesus said, "When you see these things come to pass "know that your REDEMPTION draws near."

Where do you get the unbiblical idea that having "a faith" in God means regeneration? I think you're just making stuff up.

What! Where did I say that faith means regeneration? I have been saying that faith implies regeneration no matter which comes first. Even the Semi-Pelagians accept that the one implies the other. The difference between the Semi-P and the Calvinist is which comes first.

Because he recognized and honored God as Creator (Rom 1:19-20) and was seeking Him (Acts 17:26-27). That's why.

Wrong! God did not accept Cornelius because he believed He was the Creator and was seeking Him. Peter said that he had learned that God ACCEPTS all those who FEAR God and WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever FEARS Him and WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS is ACCEPTED by Him. (10:34-35).

Cornelius feared God and wrought righteousness BEFORE He met Peter:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 10:1-2

The angel that appeared to Cornelius told him that his prayers were heard by God which means that he was ACCEPTED by God. So he was ACCEPTED by God BEFORE he met Peter.

So, NO I NEVER said anything about him being "a faithless man". Not even close. Apparently you don't bother reading my posts yet you fire from the hip.

Yesterday you compared Cornelius to the faithless heathen of Romans 1. What was I supposed to think? And now you put him in the category of those in chapter 17 who are only near to God when the angel implied that he was ACCEPTED by God. You consistently speak less of Cornelius than what the scriptures speak.

Cornelius believed that God existed. That isn't salvation, regeneration or conversion.

Do you deny that those who believe that God IS and that He is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him have a faith that pleases God? Cornelius had both characteristics to his faith. He believed that God IS and he believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him. But you deny that Cornelius believed that God is a REWARDER. Yet he ACTED UPON the angel's promise of salvation for him and his household and sent for Peter as instructed. You have lost the argument my friend!

Whew! It surely is a good thing that you're not God. By your standards a man can believe that God IS and also believe that He is a REWARDER and still not be accepted by God.

If you HAD paid any attention, you would have known that I believe that he was seeking God; fulfilling Acts 17:26-27.

I am paying attention. You're just not paying attention to what you're saying. Cornelius was a seeker of God that EXPECTED God to make Himself known to Him. But you deny that Cornelius beleived that God is would REWARD him.

If Cornelius had not believed that God would REWARD him, then God would NOT have heard him and made Himself known to him. How will you explain this now?

There isn't anything in Heb 11:6 that is speaking of saving faith. Sorry that you have been so confused by that verse.

LOL! First, the faith of Hebrews 11:6 is about the faith of 11:3 that pleases God. Verse 1 says that "by IT the elders obtained a good report."

Second, you are now saying that a faith that pleases God AND obtains a good report is not a saving faith. This is totally heretical! They believed a word from God. That was saving faith THEN.

Third, I CLEARLY said that they were not yet saved because they could not be made perfect without us. My point was CLEAR. They are proof that one may have saving faith BEFORE entering into full salvation. Cornelius had saving faith before he entered into full salvation.

John Calvin said:

Wherefore, Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the old fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed.

Fourth, how could those who had a faith that was not a saving faith be called our "elders" in verse 1? How could they be called our "great cloud of witnesses" in 12:1? And how could Abraham be included? Go ahead and say it. Tell us that Abraham's faith was not a saving faith. Paul said that our faith must "walk after the steps of the faith of our father Abraham" (Romans 4:12 NKJV).

You are clearly not interested in learning! You are the one who is confused.

It is very apparent that you have no discernment between believing that God exists and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have ALREADY provided John Calvin my friend.

He wrote:

Yet here may a question be asked, Whether faith require the knowledge of Christ, or it be content with the simple persuasion of the mercy of God? For Cornelius seems to have known nothing at all concerning Christ. But it may be proved by sound proofs that faith cannot be separated from Christ; for if we lay hold upon the bare majesty of God, we are rather confounded with his glory, than that we feel any taste of his goodness. Therefore, Christ must come between, that the mind of man may conceive that God is merciful. And it is not without cause that he is called the image of the invisible God, (Colossians 1:15) because the Father offers Himself to be holden in his face alone. Moreover, seeing that he is the way, the truth, and the life, (John 14:6) wherever you go without him, you will be surrounded on every side by errors, and death shall meet you on every side. We may easily answer concerning Cornelius. All spiritual gifts are offered unto us in Christ; and especially from Him comes regeneration, save only because we are ingrafted into the death of Christ, our old man is crucified? (Romans, 6:5, 6.) And if Cornelius were made partaker of the Spirit of Christ, there is no cause why we should think that he was altogether void of his faith; neither had he so embraced the worship of the true God, (whom the Jews alone did worship,) but that he had also heard, without having at the same time heard, somewhat of the promised Mediator; though the knowledge of him were obscure and entangled, yet was it some. Whosoever came at that time into Judea he was enforced to hear somewhat of the Messiah, yea, there was some fame of him spread through countries which were far off. Wherefore, Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the old fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7772305-2/

Actually, the word "saved" in ch 11 was about deliverance from physical death. Some of them were delivered (saved) from physical death, but not all of them.

No! it says that they ALL died IN FAITH "having NOT received the promise." The promise was salvation. They had a saving faith BEORE they had entered into full salvation.

Oh, this is really sad. You have grossly misunderstood the passage. There is NOTHING there about Isaac being born of the Spirit. Isaac was "born of the promise" (v.23). It is v.28 that you so misunderstand. The phrase "by the Spirit" refers to the One through whom the promise came. I suggest you read the account in Genesis before you keep embarrassing yourself.

It CLEARLY says that Isaac was born of the Spirit.

But, as he who was born according to the flesh [Ishmael] then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is now. Verse 29

Are those who are born according to the Spirit now regenerated? Yes, or no? If you say yes, then Isaac was regenerated from Sarah's womb

If Isaac was born of the Spirit, as you claim, then he would have been

equal to Jesus. Nonsense.

 

[Jack Terrence]

To All,

Freegrace2 has denied that the faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 was a saving faith. He said,

There isn't anything in Heb 11:6 that is speaking of saving faith.

This error is where the Semi-Pelagian doctrine leads to. Verse 1 says that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Then it says, "for by it the elders obtained a good report."

Then verse 6 names the two chief characteristics of faith (believing that God is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him). Then we are given the list of examples of those who had this faith in God. They are even called our "great cloud of witnesses" (12:1).

Father Abraham is included in the list. Yet Freegrace2 says that Hebrews 11:6 is not about saving faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2,

After I read your post yesterday and replied to it I asked myself, "Why am I bothering with this guy?"

Good question. Only you can answer that.

[ You compared Cornelius to the faithless heathens of Romans 1, and then denied that he believed that God is a REWARDER just because the scripture doesn't come right out and say it the way you would like.

You are so full of error it's difficult to know where to start.

First, I NEVER "compared" him to faithless heathens of Romans 1. In fact, if you had actually paid attention, you would have realized that I had CONTRASTED him to the faithless heathens in Romans 1. My point was that, unlike the faithless heathens, he DID recognize and honor God and was thankful to Him, as proven by Acts 10:1-2.

Second, I NEVER denied that he believed God is a rewarder. My point was that there is no evidence from Scripture that he was expecting anything. That's all I said, so your error ridden claims are rejected.

But Cornelius ACTED UPON the PROMISE of salvation given by the angel and sent for Peter. Therefore, Cornelius believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him.

Sure, by the end of Acts 10. I wasn't referring to the end, after Peter preached. I was commenting on YOUR claim that he was saved at the beginning of Acts 10. Or, don't you remember what you claimed????

The faith of Cornelius had both the traits mentioned in Hebrews 11. He believed that God IS (not in the sense of the faithless heathen). And he believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him. This means that Cornelius was regenerated PRIOR to his meeting Peter.

There you go, bouncing back to the beginning of Acts 10. you are "all over the place". You need to settle down and sort out what you believe and claim.

So if regeneration is indeed the consequence of faith as you believe doesn't matter.

Truth ALWAYS matters. Since you believe that regeneration is necesssary for faith, where are your support verses? Do you have any?

Cornelius had faith in God BEFORE he met Peter which proves that he was a regenerated man BEFORE he met Peter.

Nonsense. He knew that God existed, and his prayers and alms were evidence that he was seeking God, as per Acts 17:26-27. Your conclusions are quite faulty.

He needed only to have Christ more fully explained to Him so he could "take hold" (lambano) of salvation and be converted.

He was neither regenerated before Peter's visist, or saved.

For you to say that you subscribe to no tradition is tantamount to saying that you have come up with something new.

Let me let you in on a little secret; the bible isn't tradition. It's the Word of God.

But you have not. We have heard it ALL before except for your comparison of Cornelius with the faithless heathen.

I wish you would pay attention to my posts, so that you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.

You do not want the truth my friend. You compared Cornelius to the faithless heathen. This proves that you have lost this argument and I suspect you know it. I am still in a bit of shock over the comparison you made.

Well, if you have actually been paying attention to my post here, your face should be as red as a beet, for all the errors you have made. I NEVER compared him to faithless heathen. I CONTRASTED him to them. Unlike then, he DID honor God and was thankful to Him.

Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball.

Uh, Jesus said, "When you see these things come to pass "know that your REDEMPTION draws near." Therefore, the expression "shall be saved" referred to their REDEMPTION. Does redemption apply to eternal life? Yes or no!

Why are you now changing the subject? The word can be used in a variety of ways, just like "save". Let's just stick with the subject, ok?

Why do you deny that there is a real order salutis?

I deny that Calvinism is correct. I don't find an order of salvation in the Bible the way the Calvinists explain it.

[/QUOTE]What! Where did I say that faith means regeneration?[/QUOTE]
I never said you did. Here is what I did say, and you misunderstand:

Where do you get the unbiblical idea that having "a faith" in God means regeneration? I think you're just making stuff up.

You indicated that having "a faith" meant Cornelius was regenerated. I asked where you got that idea from, and you aren't answering me.

I have been saying that faith implies regeneration no matter which comes first.

OK, same question. Where did you get that idea from?

Even the Semi-Pelagians accept that the one implies the other. The difference between the Semi-P and the Calvinist is which comes first.

I'm not into labels, so I don't care what either of you think. My only concern is what Scripture says. And Calvinism cannot find any Scripture that SAYS what they say.

Wrong! God did not accept Cornelius because he believed He was the Creator and was seeking Him. Peter said that he had learned that God ACCEPTS all those who FEAR God and WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS:

Another very confused and convoluted statement. First, you speak of Cornelius, and then Peter, but seem to infer that the "he" in "Peter said that he..." refers back to Cornelius. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Again, all over the map here.

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever FEARS Him and WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS is ACCEPTED by Him. (10:34-35).

I don't know what translation you used, but I doubt it is correct. Here is NASB:
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Big difference between "works righteousness" and "does what is right". Even the NIV has "does what is right".

Cornelius feared God and wrought righteousness BEFORE He met Peter:

At best, an inference. Not specifically stated. Regardless, he wasn't saved until Peter preached the gospel to him.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 10:1-2

Yep. He did what the faithless heathens in Romans 1 didn't do and had no excuse for not doing.

The angel that appeared to Cornelius told him that his prayers were heard by God which means that he was ACCEPTED by God. So he was ACCEPTED by God BEFORE he met Peter.

Sure. In the sense that He believed that God existed. Why? Because God has shown Himself to mankind, per Rom 1:19-20. And what God revealed, Cornelius believed. That pleases God, per Heb 11:6. He still wasn't saved, nor regenerated. They occur at the same time, which is proven by 1 Jn 5:1.

Yesterday you compared Cornelius to the faithless heathen of Romans 1. What was I supposed to think?

You were supposed to use your head and pay attention, that's what you should have done. Your misrepresentation is without excuse.

And now you put him in the category of those in chapter 17 who are only near to God when the angel implied that he was ACCEPTED by God. You consistently speak less of Cornelius than what the scriptures speak.

No, I and the Scriptures are on the same page. It's you who are confused about Cornelius, claiming that he was regenerated before Peter came.

Do you deny that those who believe that God IS and that He is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him have a faith that pleases God?

Of course. Heb 11:6 says so. But that is not saving faith, if you though it did.

Cornelius had both characteristics to his faith. He believed that God IS and he believed that God is a REWARDER of them that diligently seek Him. But you deny that Cornelius believed that God is a REWARDER.

I SAID there is no evidence of that. The Scriptures don't note that. You are only assuming, or presuming that. We only know what Scripture says; he knew that God existed and he honored Him, per Rom 1:19-20. Nothing more, until he immediately did what the angel told him to do. That shows that he was seeking God, and viewed the angel as a messenger of God. clearly he wanted more information. He fulfilled Acts 17:26-27. Unlike the faithless heathen in Rom 1:21ff.

Yet he ACTED UPON the angel's promise of salvation for him and his household and sent for Peter as instructed. You have lost the argument my friend!

That's ridiculous. You weren't even paying any attention to what I posted. You have been arguing against just a straw man that you created. Go get 'im, tiger!! Show the straw man who's da boss.

Whew! It surely is a good thing that you're not God. By your standards a man can believe that God IS and also believe that He is a REWARDER and still not be accepted by God.

I've NEVER said anything of the kind. But one would have to be paying attention in order to know what I believe. Unlike you.

I am paying attention.

Your post proves otherwise.

You're just not paying attention to what you're saying.

A little off there. You're the one not paying attention, as I've just proven by your own words and false claims regarding what I've posted.

Cornelius was a seeker of God that EXPECTED God to make Himself known to Him. But you deny that Cornelius beleived that God is would REWARD him.

There is no evidence of what you claim. We know that he believed that God existed, and he was seeking him. We know he was fulfilling Acts 17:26-27.

Second, you are now saying that a faith that pleases God AND obtains a good report is not a saving faith. This is totally heretical!

Well, I NEVER said anything close to that heresy. You really need some no-dose in order to stay awake when you read my posts.

John Calvin said:

Wherefore, Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the old fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed.

Well, gee. Now, that was real helpful. It is clear that he was fully aware of Moses and the prophets, but up until Peter explained who Jesus was, all he knew was that a man called Jesus was claiming to be God, which according to any Jew or proselyte was heretical. Peter proved to him that Jesus WAS the Messiah. Many of the Jews were expecting the Messiah and had faith in Him. But when Jesus appeared, they HAD to believe that Jesus was that Messiah. Which the religious Jews rejected. Cornelius was aware of the promise of the Messiah, but he needed to know and believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Not a blaspheming Jew claiming something He was not.

Fourth, how could those who had a faith that was not a saving faith be called our "elders" in verse 1? How could they be called our "great cloud of witnesses" in 12:1?

OK, let's stick with the subject. Heb 11 is another subject. Of course all of them were believers. But the subject is about an unregenerate Gentile who knew of the Messiah, but needed to believe that Jesus WAS that Messiah to be saved. He already was aware of Jesus and His crucifixion. He needed to know that Jesus wasn't just human; He was the Son of God and Messiah to be saved.

If Cornelius had died ignorant of Jesus and all that happened in Jerusalem, I believe he would have gone to heaven. But the appearance of Jesus changed everything, because Jesus IS the Messiah, and people can no longer just believe that "the Messiah" is coming, like some orthodox Jews of today. When He came, they HAD to believe that He was the One to be saved.

Before Jesus appeared, all the Jews had was the promise of the Messiah. Those who believed it were saved. Real simple.

I have ALREADY provided John Calvin my friend.

Well, that's nice that he's your friend. But I'm not interested in his commentary on the Bible. I can't find any verses that back up his theology called Calvinism.

He wrote:

Yet here may a question be asked, Whether faith require the knowledge of Christ, or it be content with the simple persuasion of the mercy of God? For Cornelius seems to have known nothing at all concerning Christ.

I'm cutting yer friend off here. Acts 10:36-38 is a narrative that clearly indicates that Cornelius was aware of Jesus and what the "sect" claimed about Him. But since he wasn't yet saved, it is clear that he didn't believe that Jesus WAS the Messiah at that point. But from v.39ff, Peter proves that He is the Messiah.

No! it says that they ALL died IN FAITH "having NOT received the promise." The promise was salvation. They had a saving faith BEORE they had entered into full salvation.

If they died IN FAITH, they were saved. What Hebrews is speaking of is the inheritance promised. Which is NOT salvation but eternal rewards way beyond salvation. But this is a whole different discussion. Let's not get bogged down.

 

[FreeGrace2]

To All,

Freegrace2 has denied that the faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 was a saving faith. He said, "There isn't anything in Heb 11:6 that is speaking of saving faith."

You just keep embarrassing yourself, huh. I spoke clearly AND specifically only about 11:6, NOT the entire chapter, as you have erroneously claimed.

In fact, the faith being spoken of in 11:6 is about the day to day "living by faith" concept; not the "believe in Christ and get saved" concept.

Of course those named in Heb 11 were saved. I've NEVER said anything to the contrary.

This error is where the Semi-Pelagian doctrine leads to.

You are full of error because you don't pay attention.

Verse 1 says that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Then it says, "for by it the elders obtained a good report."

Yep. And they were saved.

Then verse 6 names the two chief characteristics of faith (believing that God is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him). Then we are given the list of examples of those who had this faith in God. They are even called our "great cloud of witnesses" (12:1).

You still haven't refuted anything I've said. Oh, wait. You'd have to have paid some attention in order to know what I've said BEFORE you would be able to refute anything I've said.

Father Abraham is included in the list. Yet Freegrace2 says that Hebrews 11:6 is not about saving faith.

It is the on-going day to day faith that is what all believers are commanded to do. You know, "the just SHALL live by faith". That kind of faith.

But I suppose you may have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Puritan Reformed commentary on Cornelius (purple lettering):

Cornelius was justified BEFORE he met Peter because he was waiting for the promised Messiah:

Cornelius was already a devout believer and his conversion was more of an advancement in religion than a specific conversion. He was by birth a Gentile, and by profession a roman soldier. He was a proselyte to the Jewish faith and believed in, and worshipped, the One True God. As he conformed to Jewish worship, so it is evident that his prayers were addressed to the God of Israel. Acts 10:4 states, “And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.” Here it may be inferred that he must have been a genuine believer and a justified man as in the same case of Abraham. He was justified awaiting the promised Messiah and may be regarded as a believer.

The proof that Cornelius was justified BEFORE he met Peter is seen by the fact that God had accepted his alms, for the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord:

For we know the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination before God. He simply had not had the opportunity to believe in the Christ as “come already,” and this was the task of Peter to explain this to Cornelius and his household. The centurion here was in a time of transition from the Jewish to Christian faith. This would be a move from an imperfect sight of the Messiah (through types but by faith) to a more perfect sight of Him. He was a Jewish proselyte and from this he became a Christian convert.

A Puritan's Mind » The Holy Spirit, Regeneration, and Sanctification – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Cornelius believed in the Messiah BEFORE he met Peter. He just needed to be taught that he had already come in the person of Jesus Christ.

However, Cornelius's deeds were NOT the grounds of his justification. On Acts 10:35 Reformed theologian John Gill wrote:

and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him;
that is, he who from such principles, as the fear of the Lord; love to him, and faith in Christ, does works of righteousness, particularly alms, as Cornelius did, and which the Jews often call (hqdu) , "righteousness"; (See Gill on Matthew 6:1), such an one is acceptable, or well pleasing to God, let him be of what nation he will: it should be observed, that though God accepts of such who fear him, and work righteousness from a right principle, and to a right end, without any regard to their being circumcised, or not circumcised, or to their being of this or the other nation, yet their fear of him, and working righteousness, are not the ground of their acceptance; but are to be considered as descriptive of the persons, who are accepted by him in Christ; for there is no acceptance of persons or services, but in Christ Jesus....

Acts 10:35 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Our Semi-Pelagian friend Freegrace2 has put God in a box with his synergistic "decisional regeneration" doctrine. But God may regenerate any man He wills at any time He wills. He regenerated Isaac at his birth (Galatians 4:21-31).

29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh [Ishamel] THEN persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is NOW.

If the one who is born of the Spirit "NOW" is regenerated, then the one who was born of the Spirit "THEN" was regenerated. Isaac is explicitly said to be born of promise AND of the Spirit from Sarah's womb.

If Cornelius was accepted (justified) by God BEFORE he met Peter, then he was regenerated BEFORE He met Peter.

 

[Jack Terrence]

You just keep embarrassing yourself, huh. I spoke clearly AND specifically only about 11:6, NOT the entire chapter, as you have erroneously claimed.

Come on! The faith of 11:6 is the SAME that is introduced and expounded upon in the entire chapter. You're just playing games with the scriptures. I was only stating the logical conclusion. If 11:6 is not about saving faith, then the entire chapter is NOT about saving faith.

In fact, the faith being spoken of in 11:6 is about the day to day "living by faith" concept; not the "believe in Christ and get saved" concept.

Well then, if you are not speaking about the entire chapter, then tell us what parts of the chapter are about saving faith.

You have concocted an artificial distincition. The "day by day" faith as you put it the SAME faith which justified us. The faith that justified Abraham is the SAME that was put to the test.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested...."

You speak nonsense! You expect us to believe that the faith that justified Abraham was not the SAME that was tested. But the faith by which Abraham offered up Isaac was indeed the SAME which justified him at the beginning.

I've NEVER said anything to the contrary.

And I did NOT accuse you of saying that they were not saved. I accused you of heresy for saying that 11:6 says nothing about saving faith. The whole chapter is about saving faith TESTED.

It is the on-going day to day faith that is what all believers are commanded to do. You know, "the just SHALL live by faith". That kind of faith.

But I suppose you may have no idea what I'm talking about.

The just shall live by the SAME faith that justified them. And yeah, you're right, I do not know what you are talking about because you make no sense. Abraham was justified by faith. God tested that SAME faith by commanding him to offer up his son Isaac.

Cornelius had the SAME faith that Abraham had BEFORE he met Peter. His faith was completed when he believed on Jesus as Abraham's faith was "fulfilled" when he offered up Isaac.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Puritan Reformed commentary on Cornelius (purple lettering):

Cornelius was justified BEFORE he met Peter because he was waiting for the promised Messiah:

Cornelius was already a devout believer and his conversion was more of an advancement in religion than a specific conversion.

If Cornelius was accepted (justified) by God BEFORE he met Peter, then he was regenerated BEFORE He met Peter.

Puritan Reformed commentary is only that; commentary. An opinion.

Interesting that you ignored the huge error you made by completely missing what I did say about Cornelius, btw.

While he might have been waiting for the Messiah, there is no evidence from the text of that. And it doesn't matter anyway. Why? When Jesus appreared, those waiting for the Messiah HAD to believe that Jesus was the Messiah in order to be saved. To wait for the Messiah and to reject Jesus meant not saved. Period.

Your statement: "Cornelius was already a devout believer and his conversion was more of an advancement in religion than a specific conversion." is just silly, really. No such thing in the Bible. Somebody just made that up.

Only SAVED people are justified, and that by faith. If one is justified, they HAVE believed in Jesus as Messiah. Cornelius obviously hadn't done that.

And to equate being "accepted" with being "justified" is just way out in left field. The very context is clear: God accepts all men, not just Jews, as Peter and the rest thought. Remember, Jews like Peter considered Gentiles "unclean", and God taught Peter that all men are clean in the sense that God accepts men from everywhere, and not just Jews. That's all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Come on! The faith of 11:6 is the SAME that is introduced and expounded upon in the entire chapter. You're just playing games with the scriptures. I was only stating the logical conclusion. If 11:6 is not about saving faith, then the entire chapter is NOT about saving faith.

That is correct, it's not. The writer was speaking to believers; they already HAD saving faith. They were saved. The chapter begins by defining faith and then illustrated through the lives of OT heroes. Who were saved.

You have concocted an artificial distincition. The "day by day" faith as you put it the SAME faith which justified us. The faith that justified Abraham is the SAME that was put to the test.

Your statement reveals a lack of discernment. I can't fix that.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested...."

You speak nonsense! You expect us to believe that the faith that justified Abraham was not the SAME that was tested.

Because of lack of discernment, you seem unaware of the fact that "faith" can have different objects or purpose. Saving faith is specifically that trust in Christ as Savior who died for you and provides eternal life for you.

The "faith" of Abraham in Gen 15 was about believing God's promise of an heir from his own body.

But the faith by which Abraham offered up Isaac was indeed the SAME which justified him at the beginning.

Again, you reveal your lack of discernment. If the faith of offering up Isaac is the same faith as what justified him earlier, then are justified by works. Duh!

Yet, Paul condemned that line of thinking!! Rom 3:28 -
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law

Rom 4:2-5
2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

Rom 9:30-32
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone

And I did NOT accuse you of saying that they were not saved. I accused you of heresy for saying that 11:6 says nothing about saving faith. The whole chapter is about saving faith TESTED.

Uh, that's different than saving faith. Different objectives.

Cornelius had the SAME faith that Abraham had BEFORE he met Peter. His faith was completed when he believed on Jesus as Abraham's faith was "fulfilled" when he offered up Isaac.

Did you really think that making your letters BIGGER helps you out? It doesn't.

If Cornelius had saving faith, then he would have been saved already. But he still wasn't saved, according to God's angel. Take it up with him.

 

[hedrick]

The problem with the original question (does repentance remit sins) is that there are different ways of interpreting it.

I'd say that typically someone who is repentant has justifying faith. Indeed in the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee, Jesus said that the tax collector was justified, after observing a prayer of repentance.

However there are enough dangers that I hate to answer "yes" without qualification. Luther's original problem was due precisely to thinking that forgiveness depended upon repentance. He thought he had to repent specifically of every sin, and that that repentance had to be perfect. That's turning repentance into something legalistic.

I think what Jesus recognized in the tax collector was a recognition that he needed God, and some kind of intention to follow him. The literal meaning of repent, to change ones direction, would imply that. If repentance reflects that kind of understanding and commitment, then I think faith is also there, and thus justification.

 

[hedrick]

But the faith by which Abraham offered up Isaac was indeed the SAME which justified him at the beginning.

Again, you reveal your lack of discernment. If the faith of offering up Isaac is the same faith as what justified him earlier, then are justified by works. Duh!

I disagree. The offering wasn't itself faith. It reflected faith. Thus it's perfectly possible to speak of the faith by which he offered up Isaac.

Heb 11:4 ff speaks precisely in this way, saying that it was by faith that various people did various faithful things. Indeed Heb 11:17 says precisely what you have rejected: "By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac."

As far as I can tell, faith for Paul is the same thing as following Jesus is in Jesus' teaching: it's an overall orientation of one's life. (It had better be, or we set Paul against Jesus.) Works are part of that pattern, but they're not all of it. Paul's concern with "works of the law" is not works that are part of a life of following Jesus, but works seen as saving in themselves, leading to a salvation based on merit.

 

[Jack Terrence]

deleted: posted accidentally before completion

 

[FreeGrace2]

I disagree. The offering wasn't itself faith. It reflected faith. Thus it's perfectly possible to speak of the faith by which he offered up Isaac.

I don't disagree with this, but my point is the difference in the purpose or goal of one's faith. For eternal life, the object is Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for us and gives eternal life, the purpose of the faith.

But the day to day "living by faith" has another purpose or goal. It is trusting God, not for salvation, but for daily necessities for life or whatever is being requested. But not for salvation. If you think the "living by faith" is a requirement to stay saved, I would strongly disagree. Once saved, we are secure in God's hands.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Acts 10:22 says that Cornelius was a "just" man.

And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a JUST man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

Please note that the men who said that Cornelius was "just" were representatives of God. So let no one discard their assessment as mere human opinion.

To be just is synonymous with "to be accepted." Peter CLEARLY said that Cornelius was ACCEPTED by God. The first word Peter spoke to Cornelius when he came to his house was this,

"In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is ACCEPTED by Him."

NOTE: Peter said that Cornelius was ACCEPTED by God BEFORE He had begun to preach Christ to him. He said that God accepts those who fear Him and works righteousness. This goes along with the angel's word that God had ACCEPTED Cornelius's prayers and alms. So God ACCEPTED Cornelius BEFORE he met Peter, and BEFORE Peter had preached Christ to him.

How could Cornelius have been ACCEPTED by God if he had not already been regenerated and justified? Therefore, regeneration PRECEDES conversion!

From yesterday:

For we know the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination before God. He simply had not had the opportunity to believe in the Christ as “come already,” and this was the task of Peter to explain this to Cornelius and his household.

The centurion here was in a time of transition from the Jewish to Christian faith. This would be a move from an imperfect sight of the Messiah (through types but by faith) to a more perfect sight of Him. He was a Jewish proselyte and from this he became a Christian convert.

A Puritan's Mind » The Holy Spirit, Regeneration, and Sanctification – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Therefore, the word "saved" in Acts 11:14 means "converted" just as I have said. Cornelius went from having faith in the promised Messiah to having faith that Jesus was Him, that is, he went from being a Messianic Jewish proselyte to being a Christian convert specifically. If Cornelius would have died before he met Peter he still would have lived with the Lord forever just as Abraham.

God had ACCEPTED Cornelius BEFORE he was converted. Peter said so!

 

[Jack Terrence]

But the day to day "living by faith" has another purpose or goal. It is trusting God, not for salvation, but for daily necessities for life or whatever is being requested. But not for salvation. If you think the "living by faith" is a requirement to stay saved, I would strongly disagree. Once saved, we are secure in God's hands.

What a mess!

You Semi-Pelagians are synergist/monergist (I cooperate with God to get saved but God does it all after that). But Calvinists are monergist/monergist (God does it all from start to finish).

Confusion!

 

[Jack Terrence]

Freegrace2 said:

Again, you reveal your lack of discernment. If the faith of offering up Isaac is the same faith as what justified him earlier, then are justified by works. Duh!

You are being ridiculous!

James said that the faith by which Abraham offered up Isaac FULFILLED the scripture which says, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God" (James 2:23).

Abraham was justified when He believed that God would give him a son from his and Sarah's dead reproductive organs. Paul said that Abraham believed that God could bring life from their dead bodies (Romans 4:16-22). Paul said that Abraham's faith that God could perform this was "accounted unto him for righteousness."

God tested that SAME faith again when He commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac. Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17:-19). So there was no difference in the faith. It was the SAME faith.

On both occasions Abraham was called upon to believe that God could bring life from the dead.

The difference was this: The first time Abraham was justified and the second time the scripture was "fulfilled" which said he was justified.

So your distinction between "saving faith" and "day to day" faith is silly. The bible does NOT speak this way about faith at all.

Back to regeneration. Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it wills." Then He said, "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." It means that God is sovereign in the matter of regeneration. You need to get yourself in a Calvinist church and shed off this "decisional regeneration" nonsense.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

How could Cornelius have been ACCEPTED by God if he had not already been regenerated and justified? Therefore, regeneration PRECEDES conversion!

If you would just read the passage, it will tell you how he was accepted by God.

But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Nothing about regeneration and justification, just fear of God and works of righteousness. Do not add what is not there. Therefore, fear of God and works of righteousness precede conversion.

 

[hedrick]

If you would just read the passage, it will tell you how he was accepted by God.

But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Nothing about regeneration and justification, just fear of God and works of righteousness. Do not add what is not there. Therefore, fear of God and works of righteousness precede conversion.

Huh? Being accepted by God *is* justification.
Fearing God is faith.
Working righteousness is living a faithful life, including both right action and things such as caring for others and repentance. (Righteousness in the Bible is a "larger" word, encompassing a life that as a whole is acceptable to God.)

Having faith shown by his life is exactly what Paul says caused God to declare Abraham as justified. So this passage is an exact parallel with Paul's discussion of Abraham's justification.

I see no reason think that Cornelius was unconverted, unless you think Abraham was. He didn't know about Jesus, which is why he was sent to Peter. So this is a key passage for inclusivism, along with Paul's treatment of Abraham.

Your reading seems to suggest the late medieval concept that we are required to live as well as we can on our own. God will recognize that and bestow grace. Surely that's not what you mean. That's the view the Reformers were rejecting.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Acts 10:22 says that Cornelius was a "just" man.

And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a JUST man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

Hate to disappoint you (well, yes I do), but the Bible doesn't say that, the people of Israel said that. And you're going to take their word as if it is the Word of God? Since when do people have the information to make such judgments as who has been justified? btw, they weren't saying that he was "justified", as it seems you are inferring. To say a man is just is to say a man is fair. That's all. Nothing more.

Please note that the men who said that Cornelius was "just" were representatives of God. So let no one discard their assessment as mere human opinion.

Well, let's do. Why do you treat them as if they were speaking FOR God? They weren't. They were noting that he was a fair man, not that he was justified.

Further, it was the men who came from Cornelius's house who said that, not "representatives of God", as you have claimed. LOL Just read the text. Talk about blatant and overt eisegesis!!

To be just is synonymous with "to be accepted." Peter CLEARLY said that Cornelius was ACCEPTED by God. The first word Peter spoke to Cornelius when he came to his house was this,

You know why? Because Christ died for all. All the sins of everyone have been paid by Christ. So God CAN accept them, and save those who believe in His Son.

How could Cornelius have been ACCEPTED by God if he had not already been regenerated and justified? Therefore, regeneration PRECEDES conversion!

I just told you, and no, your conclusion is false. There was no regeneration before he was saved.

Therefore, the word "saved" in Acts 11:14 means "converted" just as I have said. Cornelius went from having faith in the promised Messiah to having faith that Jesus was Him, that is, he went from being a Messianic Jewish proselyte to being a Christian convert specifically.

Had Cornelius died prior to his general knowledge of the man Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, he would have been saved. But because Peter noted his knowledge of all that went on in Jerusalem, we know that he was aware of Jesus the man. But not Jesus the Messiah. Because Jesus had now appeared, all Messianic Jews HAD to believe specifically in Him as Messiah to be saved. And Cornelius wasn't saved.

If Cornelius would have died before he met Peter he still would have lived with the Lord forever just as Abraham.

God had ACCEPTED Cornelius BEFORE he was converted. Peter said so!

None of this proves that he was regenerated before he was saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What a mess!

I believe the theology of Calvinism is.

You Semi-Pelagians are synergist/monergist (I cooperate with God to get saved but God does it all after that). But Calvinists are monergist/monergist (God does it all from start to finish).

I never said or inferred that I "cooperate" with God to get saved. All I can do is receive what He gives. That's what the Bible says, so if that is your definition of cooperation, it is Biblical.

For me, to cooperate with someone would involve some kind of effort, or works, in order to help someone do something. That is synergism to me, and I'm no synergist. We are NOT saved by works plus faith.

Consider 1 Cor1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Please explain to me how there is any "cooperation" here in God being pleased to save those who believe? Can you show me?

Confusion!

I believe the theology of Calvinism is confused. Quite.