Did Christ die for everyone or just for the elect?

And Calvinists believe that all men who trust Christ do make a volitional act of the will to appropriate salvation. So what's your point?

 

For Calvinists, yes they do. But only after their regeneration.
Which circles back to the issue of preaching the gospel to men already regenerated.

 

Whoa! R you saying that Calvinists believe that men are regenerated (Born Again) before they hear the Gospel?

 

I think that Calvinists would claim that Cornelius the Centurion is just such a case.

In Acts 10, he is cited as being pleasing to God and his prayers went before God. If he worshipped and sought God he must have been regenerate (since no unregenerate man can seek God or have true faith in God.) And angel came and told him to find Peter who would tell him what to do to become saved.

So, under Calvinism, Cornelius must have been:
1. First, Regenerated (for days, weeks, months or even years)
2. Then, he hears the Gospel from Peter.
3. Then he is saved.

Or would you have an alternate explanation of how an unregenrate man overcame total inability to seek and please God?

 

John B,

It seems to me you read a lot more into the ACTS 10 Account than is actually there.

There is no proof that Cornelius was a regenerate Christian before Peter preached the Gospel to him and the rest gathered. He was a God fearer which was not unheard of among Gentiles who lived in close proximity to Jews.

If he had been regenerate Peter would not have preached a Gospel message to him and the gathered folks in Cornelius' home.

I disagree with your conclusion that Cornelius was regenerated before he heard the Gospel from Peter. He was being drawn by the Spirit obviously. He had a visit from an Angel which was definitely a WOW thing. But the entire story of Cornelius is not a treatise on How men are saved but a God caused event in the life of the early church and Peter which made them realize that the Gospel was not exclusively for the Jews.

 

You misunderstand me, I do not claim that Cornelius was regenerated prior to the Gospel. I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in "total inability."

As a Calvinist, how would you explain how Cornelius could be unregenrate and respond to the Spirit? You are saying that an unregenerate man expressed true faith? how would this jive with Romans 3:11?

 

As I said before, there were always those people who were impressed by the God of the Jews when they were exposed to Judaism. Cornelius had lived among the Jews in Palestine and had become a "convert" to the God of Israel. He was a God fearer as was the Ethiopian eunuch.

It was the preaching of the Gospel that brought about the Salvation of both these men.

As a Calvinist I do not see a separation of regeneration from faith in Christ or Salvation in Christ. It's all part and parcel of the same God wrought act.

 

Every time I hear Jn 3:16 discussed, I am reminded of the sign in the cafe window "ALL THE FRIED CHICKEN YOU CAN EAT FOR A DOLLAR"
Does this imply that you can continuiously eat until you are sick or the 3 pieces served you are all you can eat for a dollar, If you want more come up with another dollar.
I read it as whosoever believeth, not whosoever believeth or doesn't believe.

PS; I believe there will be both Calvinist and Armenians in Heaven.

 

Hardsheller,

So you believe that unregenerate men can respond to God, seek God and do things pleasing to God?

I thought that this is what total inability and the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith deny.

Calvin himself, in his commentary on Acts, wrote: "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

 

Was Cornelius of the Elect? Of course

Can unregenerate men respond to God? They can respond to whatever revelation God gives them. Obviously Cornelius had knowledge of God and had responded to that revelation. The entire O.T. talks of how people outside the chosen nation of Israel could respond to God as God Fearers. Under that category they were admitted to Judaism.

In your Calvin quote you failed to include the next sentence.

"Furthermore, the fear of God and godliness do plainly prove that he was regenerate by the Spirit. For Ezekiel giveth 17 this praise to God alone, that he frameth the hearts of men to fear him, (Ezekiel 32:40.)"

It's not clear that Calvin meant anymore than Cornelius feared God and this fear of God had come in response to an act of God in his heart.

After Peter had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Cornelius and his Household this is what Calvin had to say about what happened.

"This visible sign representeth unto us, as it were in a table, what an effectual instrument of God's power the preaching of the gospel is; for he poured out his Spirit as Peter spake, to the end he might show that he sendeth not teachers to that end, that they may beat the air with the vain sound of their voice, but that he may work mightily by their voice, and may quicken the same by the power of his Spirit, to the salvation of the godly."

I see no conflict at all in these verses concerning total inability and regeneration.

Regeneration is simply what God does in the heart of a person that both instills faith and demonstrates faith in that person's conversion to Christ.

 

Hardsheller said: "It's not clear that Calvin meant anymore than Cornelius feared God and this fear of God had come in response to an act of God in his heart."

The very word "regenerate" means new birth or re-born. Calvin stated very clearly that Cornelius was re-born prior to hearing the gospel.


One Calvinist puts it this way: "To desire and seek God prior to the new birth is an impossible supposition. (Rom 3:11; 1 Cor 2:14) It is the infusion and quickening of the Holy Spirit within us that we even have the faith or the strength to will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock and believe in the finished work of Christ."
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

I think what you are left with is explaining how Cornelius was regenerate but not yet saved. (Since the visiting angel put Cornelius' salvation in the future tense. Acts 11:14)

 

I wonder, is that the cart before the horse theology? OR is it the apples are in the cart, the horse is not pulling the cart because he's enjoying eating the apples??

Thank you JohnB, for pointing the Calvinist in the RIGHT direction. Of course, they'll wiggle around Bible Doctrine in the effort to hold to a false premise.

 

I don't have to defend Calvin's Statement and cannot without understanding everything he was implying or taught on the subject both before and after what he wrote in this commentary on the passage and I simply have not studied Calvin enough to know this.

But what I can do is read and study the Scriptures concerned to understand the proper theological impact of Cornelius' conversion.

Cornelius when he is introduced into the Scripture is a Godly Man - a God fearer. A praying man and a giving man.

Cornelius is described as being a man who has had a vision from the Lord in which he saw an angel who told him to send for Peter.

Cornelius obeyed the Angel from the vision and sent for Peter.

Cornelius at the close of Peter's Sermon was a Saved Man.

If John Calvin said that Cornelius was regenerate at the beginning of Acts 10 then I have no problem with that - and if what Calvin meant by Regeneration includes both regeneration and conversion then I concur.

Here's what James P. Boyce said about Regeneration and Conversion. "They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul, conversion invariably accompanies regeneration."

Boyces goes on to say that regeneration always precedes conversion and in some cases there is an appreciable interval between the two - and he gives Cornelius as a prime example.

Conclusion: The Proof of Regeneration is always Conversion so that only in light of Cornelius' reaction to the Sermon of Peter can Calvin or anyone say that Cornelius was regenerate. God acts on a man's heart(Regenerates) and the proof that it was God acting comes when the man demonstrates, by an act of his will, his faith in Jesus Christ. We call all of that, (Regeneration and Conversion), the New Birth.

 

Could you clarify these statements?
"If John Calvin said that Cornelius was regenerate at the beginning of Acts 10 then I have no problem with that - and if what Calvin meant by Regeneration includes both regeneration and conversion then I concur. "

So - you are ok with believing that Cornelius was regenerated and converted at the beginning of Acts 10?

So then, your statement that "We call all of that, (Regeneration and Conversion), the New Birth" means that Cornelius had the "new birth" at the beginning of Acts 10?

Or do you agree with Boyce that he was regenerated some time beore his conversion? It seems that you have 2 trains of thought here.

 

I thought I was being very plain.

1. No one can label anyone as being Regenerate before the evidence of Conversion - because they are inseparably linked and the latter is proof of the former. Cornelius was under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the Beginning of Acts 10. I unlike Calvin prefer not to call that "regeneration" but rather the "drawing of the Spirit".

2. I did not say that Cornelius was regenerated and converted at the beginning of Acts 10. I meant that I could concur with Calvin if he meant that Cornelius' regeneration was validated by his subsequent conversion.

3. No, Cornelius did not have the New Birth until he heard the preaching of the word and believed in Jesus Christ. Was he on the way to faith in Christ? Absolutely. Was he being drawn to faith in Christ? Absolutely. Is everything that happened to Cornelius from the beginning of the passage in Acts 10 to the end called being "Born Again"? Absolutely.

4. I agree with Boyce that Cornelius' conversion was the result of an Act of God. God drew him to Salvation and he responded in Faith and there was a prolonged interval between the two. If you insist on a static definition of regeneration them regeneration must always precede conversion. I don't draw that kind of distinction between the different elements of the "Born Again" experience. It is a cohesive event with a Divine side and a Human side. Therefore when I say I have been "Born Again" that means I have personally experienced Salvation in Jesus name. God took the initiative and gave me a desire for him that I didn't have and I responded to the Gospel in Faith.

 

Hardsheller,

Thanks for the clarification of your views.

 

Hardsheller,

That is a big change from Reformed theology. Personally, I agree, but just wanted to comment that this is a big change from standard Calvinist ordo salutis.

Of course, I differ with the 1st part, about notbeing able to label anyone as regenerate until evidence of conversion is present... can you give your scripture on that?

Thx,

FA

 

I also think that Paul was neither Calvinist, nor Armenian. Both are right and both are wrong on different points.

 

That is a big change from Reformed theology. Personally, I agree, but just wanted to comment that this is a big change from standard Calvinist ordo salutis.

Of course, I differ with the 1st part, about notbeing able to label anyone as regenerate until evidence of conversion is present... can you give your scripture on that?

Thx,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps we should agree on terminology before we begin to try to lay out our positions. How do you define regenerate?

 

That is a big change from Reformed theology. Personally, I agree, but just wanted to comment that this is a big change from standard Calvinist ordo salutis.

Of course, I differ with the 1st part, about notbeing able to label anyone as regenerate until evidence of conversion is present... can you give your scripture on that?

Thx,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps we should agree on terminology before we begin to try to lay out our positions. How do you define regenerate? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, off the top of my head, regenerate is one who has been born spiritually - "born again", though that is probably more accurately translated as "born from above." It refers to one who has had his sins justified ("declared to berighteous and genuinely viewed as such.") through faith in Christ. (You probably won't agree with the latter.)

IMO no one can respond in faith to the gospel unless He is drawn by the Father - unless God illumines him. But that is not regeneration - he then will eventually respond in faith... if he continues to pursue the truth.

FA