Cornelius the Centurion

[Wes Outwest]

Cassidy,
I have more for you.

1 John 5:5-13 Who can overcome the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 He it is who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone but with water and blood, and it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth. 7 So there are three witnesses, 8 the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide. 9 If we accept the testimony of human witnesses, God's testimony is greater, for this is God's testimony which he gave about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within him, and whoever does not believe is making God a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life, and whoever has not the Son of God has not life. 13 I have written this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God! A Gift given by God? Yes the word of God is his gift to mankind so that whosoever out of all mankind that hears and believes God's TESTIMONY concerning HIS Son, has life. We hear, then we believe! Faith is not a transferable commodity that God gives to human individuals, because HE makes His testimony available to ALL human beings, and leaves it up to us capable human beings to either believe or not believe. Yes, Cassidy, it is up to us!

 

[Wes Outwest]

No response Cassity? Its been 24 hours since I responded to the following post.

If you truly have such a strong position on where faith comes from as you've stated it, it seems you would have responded by now.

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
Hogwash, it is all one faith and our one faith is based on what we hear, what we see, what we taste, what we feel, etc., all of which is knowledge that we build our faith in, on, over, under, through. ONE FAITH -- Human faith.

Well, now you have gone and done it. You have finally said something so utterly stupid that even your "supporters" will have to abandon you.

If there is only one faith, and not two, as Paul says, fine. I will agree with you. There is only one faith, but that is not "Human faith" as you falsely claim, but, according to 1 Corinthians 12:8 and 9, "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;" its the gift of faith!

Only one faith? Fine then, according to the bible that one faith is a gift given to us by God and is not "Human faith." Just as the Calvinists have been saying all alone! Faith comes as a gift from God!

LOL!

Okay, Wes, time to roll it up and go home. You have been exposed as a troll. Nobody could possibly make as many blunders as you have and not be putting us on! We all fell for it, but now the game is over. Time to call it quits. </font>[/QUOTE]By the way, there is much more scripture that I could post that refutes your position that God gives man Faith! Oh, Don't give me Ephesians 2:8,9 either, because many of the scriptures that I've posted refute your interpretation of that one too!

I would hope that since you declare yourself to be a Seminary professor, that you would uphold the calling by acknowledging the evidence that shows you are wrong in your thinking, repent from your wrong thinking and teach the truth for a change. As for the cirriculum that you say you wrote, I challenge you test it against the scriptures that I have posted!

 

[rc]

Neither could he be void of faith in Christ... hmmm.

That is correct. You fail to understand what Geneva said. He had faith in "Christ" (messiah) the one TO COME (as Geneva states), the one hoped for in the law and the prophets.... Notice it didn't say Jesus. He had the same faith of the Jews.... the point I already made, and is consistant with Ordo Salutis. This issue is same. Cornelius could not find the hope of the messiah in the Law and prophets without God giving him a new heart to do so.

 

[JohnB]

RC,
As far as I know, most serious Calvinists believe that the OT saints were regenerated and, as a result, had the same faith in the Messiah (Christ.)Cornelius was no different from Job, David, Abraham, Simeon and Ana. They all had faith in the coming Christ and they were all regenerated prior to that faith (according to Calvinists.)

See the preeminent Calvinist, A. W. Pink: "That the Holy Spirit indwelt saints under the Legal economy is clear from many considerations: how otherwise could they have been regenerated, had faith, been enabled to perform works acceptable to God?"
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Holy_Spirit/spirit_06.htm

Sproul says : "People were regenerated in the Old Testament just as they are regenerated in the New Testament, and the one cannot be regenerated except through the influence of God the Holy Spirit."
http://www.glenwoodhillsbiblechurch.org/article.asp?ID=581

Or you may want to check Boyce on the distinction between regeneration and conversion.
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch32.html

Even Piper, in his Acts sermon, does not claim that Cornelius was unregenerate, just unsaved.
And you might be able to read into that the distinction between regeneration & conversion.

If you switch your argument to a distinction between regeneration and conversion, I think you would have a leg to stand on.

But to insist that Cornelius was unregenerate in v.2 puts you out on a limb by yourself.
Calvin himself said "Furthermore, the fear of God and godliness do plainly prove that he was regenerate by the Spirit."
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol36/htm/xvii.htm

And, to say that the Genevan note distinguishes between "Christ" and "Jesus" is just plain absurd.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Does no response from Cassidy mean that his claims about man's faith being given to him by God is false?

 

[JohnB]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their participation on this thread.

However, I am disappointed that I have had to spend almost all my time educating "Calvinists" in their own system of theology (without even a thank you!)

 

[rc]

John B

Your schooling Calvinists is like saying CNN is promoting conservative news!

 

[rc]

Nowhere does it say that Cornelius was FAITHFUL. At best he was enlightened by God enough just to Judaism. This is not regeneration OR salvation but religion. The new covenant Christ gave wasn't even known to him. But God knew him and chose him and sent Peter to SAVE him.

So an Cornelius DIDN'T have faith in Christ and was not regenerate.

John B (and everybody for that matter)

I can't believe a typed that...
If you look at my privious posts, I do believe I stated he was regenerate in the same sense as the O.T. believers. I equated him with David, Abraham etc.. I was lazy and am sorry. I was sloppy. I will differ to the greats as far as Cornelius' situation being "caught" between O.T. and N.T. sotierology. He was regenerate (enlightened) (as I DID say earlier) but was CONVERTED with Peter....
I was lazy in the sense as not defining thigs properly... I meant regenerate (as per "renewed" in Christ) and was linking that as being FAITHFUL to Him... Since scripture does NOT say he was faithful to Christ. I meant that as not converted to him... Man was my thinking nutty there!

Thanks John.

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by JohnB:
I just wanted to thank everyone for their participation on this thread.

However, I am disappointed that I have had to spend almost all my time educating "Calvinists" in their own system of theology (without even a thank you!)

If you know what we believe better than we do, why don't you become a calvinst so you can better teach us?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by whetstone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JohnB:
I just wanted to thank everyone for their participation on this thread.

However, I am disappointed that I have had to spend almost all my time educating "Calvinists" in their own system of theology (without even a thank you!)

If you know what we believe better than we do, why don't you become a calvinst so you can better teach us?

</font>[/QUOTE]Better to be a Christian and go to heaven than a Calvinist and go to hell. One can be a Calvinsist and never know Christ but an impossibility if a follower of Christ.

 

[JohnB]

RC,

Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate that you are honest enough to write that post and I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.

Whetstone,
No offense, but I probably know Calvinism better than most (but not all) people on this board.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, I used to be a very rigorous adherent of Calvinism (and I have the library & tapes to prove it!) I once made all the same arguments for Calvinism that everyone here does (though I was better at it

It's a common Calvinist fallacy to believe that those who reject it, don't understand it.
I reject it because I understand it all too well.

 

[rc]

But are you depending on Cornelius for your best offense?
John,
What do you think is so "dependable" for Arminianism? I found your Greek to be very suspect at best, especially in Acts 13.48

 

[JohnB]

RC,

No. My thread on Cornelius was merely an exercise to illustrate how how little concensus and understanding there is within "Calvinism" itself. As a systematic theology it leaks like a sieve. Calvinists are Calvinism's own worst enemies, because, even without "Arminians," they are perfectly content to bite each other to death.

I never claimed to be an Arminian. Like Calvinism, it also is an imperfect attempt by human reasoning to cram God into a box.

As to "my greek," I really have no idea what you are referring to. I have never referenced greek or Acts 13:48 in my posts.

Fortunately, God is bigger than any box. And God never calls us to war and die under the banner of a systematic or dogmatic theology. He created us, all mankind, for a personal relationship with a loving Savior.

I came across this quote from Max Lucado in Bible study last night that I thought was powerful:"...since he couldn't bear the thought of eternity without you, he chose the nails."
Praise God!

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by JohnB:
Whetstone,
No offense, but I probably know Calvinism better than most (but not all) people on this board.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, I used to be a very rigorous adherent of Calvinism (and I have the library & tapes to prove it!) I once made all the same arguments for Calvinism that everyone here does (though I was better at it

It's a common Calvinist fallacy to believe that those who reject it, don't understand it.
I reject it because I understand it all too well.

Translation: "The more prideful I got the more I felt like abandoning sound doctrine."

Sure, you're the king.

One question: Why are you gracing us with your almighty presence when there is a world to save? Go! For the good of the country!

 

[whetstone]

nother double post. sorry

 

[JohnB]

Whetstone,

Why are you not a Roman Catholic (which I presume you are not?) Hopefully because you know better. Are you prideful about it? Do you think you are the king?

Why am I not a Calvinist? For the same reason I am not a Roman Catholic. Because I know better.

As for your last comment, I rejoice in it's abounding Christlikeness.

 

[rc]

Please John B,
Your not equating Calvinists to the RC are you?

You have read the council of Trent on total depravity, right? You also know why they had this council also....

since he couldn't bear the thought of eternity without you

This takes ALL the glory and gives it to man... this is horrible!!

Read Jonathan Edwards' Dissertation on the "Ends for Which God Created the World" ..... It was all done for HIS Glory. Man had nothing to do with it.

 

[here now]

gb93433
Better to be a Christian and go to heaven than a Calvinist and go to hell. One can be a Calvinsist and never know Christ but an impossibility if a follower of Christ.


One can also claim to be a Christian and NOT know Christ at all.
And please don't take that personal because I am in no way refering to you.

Oh, and I hope that you are not saying that if one is a Calvinist then one can not be a Christian and therefore that person would go to hell.

 

[JohnB]

RC,
It detracts from God's glory to think that He created man in His image in order to have a loving, personal relationship with His creation?
So we shouldn't believe that God loved us so much that He sent His one and only Son to die for us?

If it is only about glory, why did He not redeem the angels? Or why did He offer redemption at all? Why not send us all to Hell?

As far as Calvinism and the RCC, yes, I am drawing a comparison. Not that both have similar beliefs (duh),but that both are high complex, well thought out systems of theology supported by lots of really smart people who all claim to make Biblical arguments. The same could be said for covenant theology, dispensationalism, amillenialism, premillenialism, etc. All these groups would claim better interpretation, giving greater glory to God, etc. But we don't accept them all as right.

My point to Whetstone, using the RCC as an example, is that rejecting wrong doctrine does not spring from pride or arrogance. A Calvinist may well wonder of a non-Calvinist "How can they reject some overwhelming scholarship and learning?" Well, there are a lot of R. Catholic theologians wondering the same thing about Protestants.

 

[rc]

Point taken...

Sorry I got you mixed up with icthus on the Greek thing in Acts... that wasn't you.

And with God not choosing to redeem angels and man? Because He CHOSE to display HIS love to us and not the angels... The love by the way is also to magnify the SUBJECT and NOT the object. God for HIS GLORY shown how loving he is by redeeming something... It was to magnify Him NOT who it was for.

ESV Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

His purpose in his "Chief Ends" is to glorify in Himself.