Featured Eph 1:1-14

DHK,

Scripture compares the new birth to a resurrection, an adoption, and a new creation, out of those three, what one involves the human will? Did Lazarus have a choice to not come forward when Christ called his name? Is an adopted newborn consulted before they adoption to insure they concur? What role did Adam have in his creation?

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I won't answer your question when it is based on a false premise rather than on scripture.
The new birth is based on the Word, the very gospel itself.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--Born again by the Word of God. Without the Word of God it is impossible to be regenerated.

I recently visited a Reformed website and took from their statement of faith this definition of regeneration:

http://heritagegrace.com/mediafiles/uploaded/h/0e1993099_hgcc-statement-of-faith.pdf
In this Calvinistic definition it is impossible for a person to be regenerated without the Word of God, and furthermore he must respond in faith.
With such a definition it would be impossible for a person like Cornelius to be regenerated, and thus any other person in the world, without hearing the gospel first.

Define it as you will. I do not think that the comparison with Lazarus is a good comparison.
The work of the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God. He does not work in a vacuum.
Where does it mention a "will" in connection to the new birth?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Where else?
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus did not finish his conversation here.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus used this OT story from the Book of Numbers to illustrate that the new birth comes about by faith. One must look to the Savior by faith. Without faith one cannot please God. Without faith one cannot receive the gift of salvation. Without faith there is no salvation. Without faith not even regeneration will happen.
Without the gospel and faith in the gospel regeneration cannot happen.

 

The Word of God is Christ, The logos of God! All for whom He died are born again by His Spirit communicated to them, So essentially to be born again on the Spirit and of the word of God are one and the same!

Nobody can hear Gods word spiritually unless they are born of God John 8:47 !

 

Your conclusion is based on a biased presupposition, and a false premise.
Furthermore it contradicts a direct statement in the Word of God.
Shall I believe you or God?

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

It is quite evident that the Word here is a reference to the gospel, which contains the message of Christ, and not a reference to the logos. Your view is just plain wrong.

 

dhk

Its based upon the scripture !

Is Jesus Christ also the Word of God according to the scriptures ?

Who is this ? Rev 19:13

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

When you can't address Scripture then there is no point in debate.

 

Pot, kettle, oh nevermind........

The Archangel

 

Cornelius had the Word of God, as did the Scribes and Pharisees.

The person, work, atoning sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah were written beforehand by Moses and the Prophets:

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

Thus, knowledge alone is not sufficient to bring forth justifying faith.

Both Cornelius and the Jewish Religious Hierarchy had knowledge.

It may well be that Cornelius was not a witness to the many miracles performed by our Lord, as had the Jewish leaders.

So what made the difference?

It was the gracious work of the Spirit which made the difference.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The centurion of Luke 7 loved the nation of Israel and even built them a synagogue.

The obvious conclusion we may draw is that this centurion loved the God of Israel.

How so?

He, too, had the Old Testament Scriptures which told him of their God and His healing power.

The centurion’s ‘great faith’ was not self-induced.

It was Holy Ghost induced.

Then there was the case of the centurion who witnessed Christ’s crucifixion.

When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

Flesh and blood did not reveal this paramount truth to him.

He was no wiser or holier than the rest who mocked and jeered Jesus.

It was a revelation of God by the Holy Ghost.

Cornelius shared similar traits with the centurion of Luke 7.

He, too, feared (revered and worshipped) the God of Israel, his financial generosity well known.

How was Cornelius, the Gentile, able to find favor with God who sent Peter to him?

There is only one plausible answer: He was numbered among the Elect, drawn by the Father, resulting in justifying faith in Jesus Christ.

DHK speaks much of a literal view of Scripture.

Calvinists, he insists, too often allegorize and spiritualize away the plain meaning of God’s Word.

But let us see how well DHK adheres to his own ‘rules of interpretation.’

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In these verses we have clear teaching that the gift of the Holy Ghost was proven to be given Cornelius and his household because they all “spoke with tongues.”

This was proof to Peter that they were born anew as was Peter.

Therefore, we may surmise:

1. Peter spoke with tongues.
2. Speaking with tongues is proof of regeneration.
3. One must speak with tongues first before water baptism can be administered.

These are the literal meaning of the verses cited.

We will now watch as DHK attempts to find a loophole in his ‘literal’ hermeneutical rule, since speaking in tongues is nowhere to be found in his doctrinal confession of faith.

 

That means squat!
I know of a Muslim that has the entire NT memorized. According to you, therefore he is regenerated?? Same false religion!
J.W.'s have the Word of God. Mormon's have the Word of God. The RCC have the Word of God. Are all of them regenerated? In fact everyone of the above have far more of the written revelation of God then Cornelius ever had! They all came from false religions.

And so? Does this fact make a person regenerated? You are really desperate!

Nothing made the difference, except that he sought out God. He wanted to know more. He was an unsaved man seeking God, contrary to what mighty Calvin has indoctrinated you with.

You are reading something into the text that isn't there, although I am not counting that out.

Cornelius was not born again/regenerated/saved until after he heard the gospel and put faith in the gospel. That is evident. That is God's plan.

Pure assumption and even more nonsense then assumption.
First, many of the centurions were friendly to the Jews. They were in positions of authority and needed to maintain a delicate balance of peace in the area. It was a part of "their job description."

Second, you are not paying attention to the Scripture:
Luk 7:4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
Luk 7:5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
--The "they" of verse four is "the elders" of verse three. It is not the Holy Spirit or God's words. IOW, God is not saying that the centurion loved Him. The Jews said that. That doesn't make it true. Since when did Jesus accept the testimony of the ones that crucified him? Seriously??

This man had faith in Jesus power to heal (like the Ten Lepers), but not necessarily to save. There is nothing written to indicate that he was a saved or regenerated man. There is nothing written about the Holy Spirit here. He was religious, sincere, a man of good works, and probably stuck to his own idolatrous religion as well. You have proved nothing.
He gave a good demonstration of faith which Jesus contrasted to the Jews unbelief.
Faith is faith. It is the object of faith that is important. The object of the Centurion's faith was not in Christ as Savior, but rather in Christ as Healer.

All assumptions, reading into scripture things that are not there. They both had not heard the gospel, belonged to false religions, did not profess Christ as Savior, and somehow you believe these unsaved men were magically and superstitiously regenerated! Unbelievable!

I believe in rightly dividing the word of truth. You are not doing a very good job at it.

1. Speaking in tongues was a sign to the Jews (1Cor.14:21,22).
--Peter had brought Jewish brethren with him, and there were no doubt other Jews in the area. This was to convince any Jews that the message being preached was from God, and from God's messengers.
2. Tongues was a sign (one of many) given to the apostles to authenticate them as apostles (2Cor.12:12; Heb.2:3,4. Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all."
3. In Acts 10, this is comparable to the Pentecost of Acts 2, except it is for the Gentiles. This is the first time that the gospel is going to the Gentiles.
Chapter two--The gospel goes to the Jews.
Chapter 8--the gospel goes to the Samaritans.
Chapter 10--the gospel goes to the Gentiles.

When Peter sees the same evidences, the same pattern of events that took place at Pentecost, he declares:

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
"Such as we," that is, such as happened to us on the Day of Pentecost.

Tongues is not a proof of regeneration. It is a sign. It has nothing to do with regeneration or salvation. It has nothing to do baptism. It was a sign to the Jews. Once you bring tongues into this and relate it to salvation you are entering into a works salvation such as the United Pentecostal or Jesus Only believe.

Now put your Calvinism away, look at the Scripture, and see what happened.

First, Peter came and preached the gospel.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
--Peter gave a gospel message. They needed to believe; have faith in the gospel, as is indicated in verse 43. The gospel had been clearly given by verse 43.
Now in verse 44, it says while he was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on them. The believed, trusted Christ during the message that Peter was preaching. In fact, if you study it, Peter didn't even finish his sermon. Folks, convicted of the Holy Ghost, through the Word that was preached, believed and were both regenerated and saved. Both happen at the same time.

As a result of this (an added evidence), they spoke in tongues--just like in Pentecost. However, unlike Pentecost, it was not the Apostles and close disciples of Jesus speaking in tongues. (The 3,000 never spoke in tongues).

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--The tongues were a sign for the Jews. They were astonished. Why? They saw the sign (speaking in tongues) and now knew that this salvation had come to the Gentiles. That is what the gift of tongues was for.

1. The Gospel is preached.
2. The Gospel is believed--faith.
3. Regeneration takes place at the same time as salvation.
4. They speak in tongues.
5. They are baptized last of all.

Where does it say Peter spoke with tongues. It doesn't.

 

Look at you ! Evading the Truth Lol ! Peter was just restating what he has written earlier, that they had been born again by or through the resurrection of Christ from the dead 1 Pet 1:3

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Those words " begotten us again" is the greek word anagennaō which means:


I.to produce again, be born again, born anew


II.metaph. to have one's mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God

And its the very same word he uses in 1 Pet 1:23


23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

So "begotten us again " in 1 Pet 1:3 is the same greek word for "being born again " in 1 Pet 1:23 !

So Peter is reemphasizing being begotten again by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ [The Word of God] from the dead,

For the Word of God is Living or Alive when it refers to Christ the Essential Word.

It was the Word of God that was resurrected from the dead, since Christ is the Word of God Jn 1:1,14 and Rev 19:13

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Now is this Word of God the one that died and rose again ? If yes, then some were begotten again by His Resurrection from the dead 1 Pet 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ[Called the Word of God Rev 19:13] from the dead,

Now, this proves what I have stated to be true by way of scripture ! Now what you deny it and run from it like the spiritual coward you are !

 

You can rationalize the Word of God all you want. It won't make you right.
Avoiding the context is your pitfall.
"Born again by the Word of God...which is the gospel..."
The word here does not refer to Christ, per se, but the gospel which was preached unto them, as is clearly stated in the passage. To say otherwise is a denial of the Word of God and a twisting of Scripture.

 

Like I thought, evasion of the Truth !

 

Protestant wrote:

Squat: “Euphemism for "s**t" when meaning to say ‘nothing.’ Developed because of the squatting posture of defecation.” http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/squat

Your carnal anger is well noted.

Angry as you may be, you cannot negate the truth which our Lord clearly and explicitly stated: The Gospel of the Messiah to come was written beforehand by Moses and the Prophets.

Paul confirms the divine truth that the Gospel was written beforehand by Moses and the Prophets:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

As much as you dislike the truth that the Gospel was in the hands of not only the Israelites, but also the hands of the Gentile Roman centurions, your hatred does not make void the saving power of God.

As I stated several times in all my recent posts, Bible knowledge alone is not sufficient to bring forth saving faith.

Saving faith is God’s gift of saving grace.

The agent is the Holy Spirit.

The means is the Word of God.

The recipients are the beloved Elect:

.....Chosen by the Father before the foundation of the world.

......Given to Christ who paid their sin debt.

......Regenerated and sealed by the Spirit.

Cornelius and the other aforementioned Roman centurions were such recipients, a foreshadowing of the saving grace which our gracious Lord would bestow upon the Elect Gentiles…..a ‘great’ faith.

 

I feel your pain.

It is so difficult for the rational mind to comprehend that which is invisible and supernatural. Jesus said as much:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind [pneuma = Spirit] bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Somehow Jesus neglected to mention the need for ‘faith’ as the prerequisite for spiritual birth.

And somehow Jesus also neglected to mention the need for Gospel preaching as a prerequisite for spiritual birth.

Who should we trust: DHK or Jesus Christ?

 

You have reading comprehension. I was never angry about anything, and it appears as if you are the one that has "lost it" by the tenor of your post.
First, get a reliable dictionary. You really had to search for that one didn't you?
Second, here is What the Merriam-Webster says about the word "squat."

It says nothing about defecating or anything remotely similar. You are wrong and owe me an apology. Next time think, before you write.
Actually the word I was looking or trying to think of was "diddley-squat."
The same dictionary defines that as:

IOW, you don't know what you are talking about.
Here are the given synonyms for the same word:

Obviously I used the word correctly and your carnal mind was in the gutter taking it in the worst possible way that you could. That is quite shameful indeed.

It is difficult to answer one with a condescending attitude who is falsely accusing me of anger.
The Lord never declared the gospel to these men. It is not in the text. You are reading into the text something that is not there. If it is in the text you would be able to demonstrate it. Chapter and verse please!

However these Roman soldiers were not Jews. The Gospel was not written to the Roman soldiers beforehand.

I have no hatred, and you have no proof that these men had the gospel. Where is the scripture that the gospel went to these Roman soldiers at any time?

No, but it is necessary, absolutely necessary. God does not save in a vacuum. One cannot be regenerated without the gospel as is clearly noted in 1Pet.1:23ff.

No one has ever demonstrated that God gives "saving faith" to unregenerated people. In fact "saving faith" is not once used in the Bible. Faith is faith. You have your own Calvinistic terminology, much of which is not even biblical.

The recipients are the unsaved, and those who will receive God's gift of salvation.

Baloney. One cannot be regenerated without ever hearing the Word of God.
Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India and Pakistan who have never heard the Word are not regenerated. Period! Cornelius was in the same boat.
Your airy-fairy theories are just that--void of anything substantial, have no weight, no scripture, no biblical doctrine--you might as well throw it on the top of some philosophical junk heap.

Come back when you are ready to discuss the Word of God and not philosophical theories.

 

Believe Christ. Somehow you forgot to read the rest of the story:

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

 

A reading of Acts 10 shows that Cornelius was familiar with the OT. He did have Scripture.
DHK I consider myself a dispensationalists but reading your post makes me want to run as far away from dispensationalism as fast as possible. The fact that you want to basically throw out the OT as if there is nothing of value is very disturbing to me as All Scripture is God Breathed and it is All useful faith and practice.

 

The Ethiopian Eunuch could not be saved by simply reading the OT, neither could the Jews. Why would we assume that unsaved Roman soldiers would be saved who are totally unfamiliar with the Scriptures, not even having had the opportunity to study the OT as the Jews did all their lives in the synagogues.

Why assume they were regenerated when there is completely no evidence.
When Paul came to Berea, here is what happened:

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--These Jews did not take Paul at his word even though he was one of the most educated people on the earth. He was a famous rabbi, a former member of the Sanhedrin, taught be the famous Gamiliel, and then after salvation taught for three years with direct revelation by God himself while in the Arabian desert. He was one of the Apostles. Yet, for all that they would not take his word at face value. First they would check it according to their OT scriptures. If it lined up to the OT scriptures that they had then they believed.
Paul condoned them, praised them for this astute Bible study. Just knowing the OT was not enough. As Philip explained the scriptures to the Ethiopian Eunuch, so Paul had to explain the scriptures to the Bereans.

These Roman centurions do not come suddenly regenerated all by themselves without any understanding of the scriptures, having never heard of Christ, having never heard the gospel. Whoever believes this borders on heresy IMO.
That is next to saying that one can hear the gospel from the Koran, after all there are some Bible stories contained in it, and it does mention Jesus and Mary.
Both are false religions. This event with Cornelius was well after Pentecost, well after the cross. And yet he had never heard the gospel. That is the whole point of God telling Peter to go and tell him the gospel, preach the good tidings to him. If he didn't need to hear to be regenerated, why did God send Peter?

 

No one is arguing that they were saved prior to God sending someone with the Gospel to them. Why did God send the Gospel to them in extraordinary ways? God will save the elect.

 

Please read Acts 2:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
……Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Peter recognized that Cornelius and his household were also speaking in tongues. Therefore, he knew they, too, had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.