I posted this last year, but since we seem to have a new batch of regular posters, I wanted to re-post this and get a fresh take on it. Vis a vis the issue of Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism, how do you interpret the story of Cornelius the Centurion in Acts 10-11? As a non-Calvinist, here's my take. 1. God takes the initiative in salvation through general revelation and through particular revelation (in this case, through His elect people, the Jews, and the OT.) 2. Unregenerate Cornelius responds to God and expresses God-pleasing faith. 3. God is pleased with Cornelius and sends an angel with instructions which Cornelius follows. 4. Peter gives Cornelius the gospel. 5. Cornelius is regenerated and saved. How can we square this story with Calvinism? Since, under Calvinism, unregenrate man is unable to respond to God in faith (total inability,) was Cornelius regenerated prior to prior to his expressions of faith and good works? If he was regenerate, why was his salvation referred to in the future tense (Acts 11:14?) Or, can one be regenerate for a period of days, weeks, months or even years prior to being saved? Last time I posted this, the Calvinists who responded could not agree as to whether Cornelius was regenerate in Acts 10:1 or not. I am hoping someone can give me a clearer understanding.