Actuality vs Potentiality?

[Winman]

It does not say written on their conscience, it's written on their hearts. The conscience part of it is this:

14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

For our glorifying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. 2 Cor 1:12

having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. 1 Pet 3:16

Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always. Acts 24:16

Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience` sake. Ro 13:5

One who lives by 'patience in well-doing' can indeed have 'a conscience void of offense towards God and man'.

I am not sure of the point you are making here, but Romans 2:14-15 shows man has the ability to do the things contained in the law.

Cornelius was not regenerated as you claim. He could not be spiritually alive, because he needed to be saved from HIS SINS. As long as a person remains in their sins they are spiritually dead.

Now you can attempt to change the definition of the word regeneration all you want, but you cannot be alive again until you are saved from your sins. So, Cornelius WAS NOT regenerated.

Yet Cornelius was able to worship God and do many good works that God recognized. Peter implied that Cornelius was ACCEPTED with God because he feared God and did righteous works.

So, Cornelius absolutely refutes the doctrine of Total Inability whether you like it or not.

 

[Iconoclast]

Cornelius was a devout man ....a proselyte ......

 

[kyredneck]

I am not sure of the point you are making here, but Romans 2:14-15 shows man has the ability to do the things contained in the law......

Wrong. This is so unChristian, so unBiblical Winman. You still hold to that nutty unChristian, unBiblical premise of your's that 99 out of 100 have no need of the Saviour? If you do you should be banned from this board.

 

[Winman]

Wrong. This is so unChristian, so unBiblical Winman. You still hold to that nutty unChristian, unBiblical premise of your's that 99 out of 100 have no need of the Saviour? If you do you should be banned from this board.

There is nothing nutty about it, it is precisely what Paul said;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Your issue isn't with me, it is with the Word of God.

We know Cornelius was still dead in sin, because he needed to be saved.

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Cornelius wasn't saved from his sins, because the angel told him to send for Peter who would tell him words whereby he and his house would be "saved".

And we see when he was saved in vs. 17, when he "believed on the Lord Jesus".

This is when he was regenerated, as shown in vs. 18 when the disciples said, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance "unto life".

And that is the definition of regeneration, to be made ALIVE AGAIN. Cornelius did not have life until he believed on Jesus.

But long before this Cornelius had the ability to fear God and worship him, and do many righteous works.

You can disagree all you want, it is not me you disagree with, it is the Word of God you disagree with. Show me where I have misrepresented scripture.

 

[kyredneck]

There is nothing nutty about it, it is precisely what Paul said;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Your issue isn't with me, it is with the Word of God.

These are 'doers of the law' for only one reason, they've had 'the law written on their hearts' supernaturally from God, by the birth from above, by regeneration. That is the only thing that enables anyone to be 'doers of the law' by nature. Without this supernatural ENABLING from God:

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. Ro 7:18

 

[Winman]

These are 'doers of the law' for only one reason, they've had 'the law written on their hearts' supernaturally from God, by the birth from above, by regeneration. That is the only thing that enables anyone to be 'doers of the law' by nature. Without this supernatural ENABLING from God:

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. Ro 7:18

It doesn't say that, Paul simply says, "the Gentiles".

And man is not only flesh, he is also spirit.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is Jesus describing his disciples in the garden. None of them had received the Holy Spirit yet, as the Holy Spirit was not yet given (Jhn 7:39), yet Jesus says their spirit "indeed is willing".

Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The Holy Spirit was not given until after Jesus rose from the dead and was glorified, so Jesus is speaking of his disciple's natural spirit in Matthew 26:41 and says their spirit was "indeed willing".

You don't get it, Total Depravity is absolutely false, men do not have to be "in the flesh", they can be willing to obey God if they choose, they can believe.

Now, while they are in the flesh it is absolutely impossible to obey or please God, but men can choose to be in the spirit and obey God.

Jhn 7:39 proves this, there were literally thousands of folks who believed on Jesus (including his disciples) that did not receive the Holy Spirit until over 3 years later.

Jhn 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This was three and a half years before the disciples received the Holy Spirit, and they all (except Judas) believed on him.

You just don't get it, Total Depravity is total ERROR. Yes, the flesh fights against the spirit and is contrary to it, but men have the ability to be willing to obey God as Jesus shows in Mat 26:41.

One error leads to another...

 

[kyredneck]

Cornelius was a devout man ....a proselyte ......

Yes, no doubt he was a proselyte, but he lived by 'patience in well-doing':

...Cornelius...a devout man....feared God...who gave much...prayed to God...

and that BEFORE he had ever heard the gospel.

.......And the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Habakkuk 2:4 YLT

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

...Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10:36,35

 

[Winman]

Yes, no doubt he was a proselyte, but he lived by 'patience in well-doing':

...Cornelius...a devout man....feared God...who gave much...prayed to God...

and that BEFORE he had ever heard the gospel.

.......And the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Habakkuk 2:4 YLT

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

...Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10:36,35

Cornelius was dead in sins, that is why he had to hear from Peter so he could be "saved" from his sins. Therefore he could not be regenerated or alive again.

You can pervert and distort what it means to be regenerated all you want, no man is regenerated until he believes and his sins are forgiven.

Yet, for probably many years (because he had a good reputation among the Jews) Cornelius feared God, prayed always, and gave much alms.

Cornelius absolutely refutes Total Inability.

The only inability around here is the inability to accept biblical truth.

 

[kyredneck]

Cornelius was dead in sins....

How arrogant can you be? I know, arrogant enough to boldly say 'it is of ME, Winman, that I am in Christ Jesus'. So you're arrogant enough to boldly state Cornelius was dead in his sins. How do you know if Cornelius was not one of those 99 out of 100 sheep that you say never strayed and have no need of a Saviour? The text records NO SIN of Cornelius, only good works. According to your nutty theology couldn't Cornelius have been one that had never sinned?

 

[Winman]

How arrogant can you be? I know, arrogant enough to boldly say 'it is of ME, Winman, that I am in Christ Jesus'. So you're arrogant enough to boldly state Cornelius was dead in his sins. How do you know if Cornelius was not one of those 99 out of 100 sheep that you say never strayed and have no need of a Saviour? The text records NO SIN of Cornelius, only good works. According to your nutty theology couldn't Cornelius have been one that had never sinned?

What did Cornelius get SAVED from?

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

The moment any man sins he becomes dead in sin, that is the wage of sin, DEATH.

This is what Jesus came to save us from, our sins.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Until a man believes on Jesus he is condemned. He is dead in sins.

Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Cornelius had not believed on Jesus yet, so he was condemned in his sins. When he believed on Jesus he was saved from his sins.

This is why the Reformed doctrine of regeneration before faith is total error, no man can be spiritually alive until he first believes on Jesus and is saved from his sins.

You can insist all day long that Cornelius was born again before he heard Peter, and you will still be wrong. He had to be saved from his sins before he was regenerated or alive again.

And repeating your error a thousand times does not make you correct.

 

[kyredneck]

What did Cornelius get SAVED from?....

The better question is what Cornelius was saved into. He and his household were brought into the now single fold that used to be two. That's what most of the gist of Acts 9, 10, 11 is all about, the bringing in of that 'other sheep I have that are not of this fold'.

Again, no record of sin on Cornelius's part. According to your nutty harebrained theology couldn't he have been one of those 99 out of 100 that you say have never sinned and need no redeemer?

 

[Winman]

How arrogant can you be? I know, arrogant enough to boldly say 'it is of ME, Winman, that I am in Christ Jesus'. So you're arrogant enough to boldly state Cornelius was dead in his sins. How do you know if Cornelius was not one of those 99 out of 100 sheep that you say never strayed and have no need of a Saviour? The text records NO SIN of Cornelius, only good works. According to your nutty theology couldn't Cornelius have been one that had never sinned?

As for the 99 who never sinned and need no repentance, I believe that is clearly speaking of unborn babies and little children who die before they can sin.

Is there scripture to support this? YES.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Surely you know this verse! Here Paul says that Esau and Jacob while in their mother's womb had done no evil. If they had died in this state (and millions of children die before they are born), would they have been sinners? NO.

But there is more, in Matthew 18 Jesus speaks of little children.

Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus sat a little child in the midst of his disciples and told them unless they be converted and become as a little child (that would mean all children), they would not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become sinners to enter heaven? Absurd.

It is here Jesus mentions the 99 who have not "gone astray"

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

In Luke 15 Jesus repeats this verse except he says they need no repentance;

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

You can mock all you want, it was Jesus himself who spoke of 99 persons who went not astray and which need no repentance.

These are little children, not adults;

Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

I do not care if you mock, I am glad for people to see these scriptures. I am not the one who spoke of 99 just persons which never went astray and need no repentance, it was Jesus Christ himself. And Jesus knows doctrine better than Augustine or Calvin.

And this is not the only places Jesus spoke of persons who have not sinned, he also said the elder son in Luke 15 never sinned.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

It was Jesus who spoke of the elder son who claimed never to have transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Did the father rebuke the son or call him a hypocrite? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true, he called him SON, he said THOU ART EVER WITH ME, and ALL THAT I HAVE IS THINE.

Not only this, but he did not say he was dead or lost like his brother the prodigal.

And note that the prodigal was ALIVE AGAIN, which refutes that men are born dead in sin.

I am not ashamed to show the words of my Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yes, no doubt he was a proselyte, but he lived by 'patience in well-doing':

...Cornelius...a devout man....feared God...who gave much...prayed to God...

and that BEFORE he had ever heard the gospel.

.......And the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Habakkuk 2:4 YLT

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

...Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10:36,35

This entire analysis by you over Cornelius is absurd. Most Calvinists disagree with progressive sanctification and in this passage you go beyond that and argue for progressive regeneration and insert a transitive period from regeneration to justification, and quite a lengthy one at that considering that it was at minimum no LESS than 24 hours before Peter arrived to speak to Cornelius.

There is nothing in the Bible ANYWHERE where God regenerates a man first and then waits 24 hours or more later to SAVE him.

Furthermore, that defies the Calvinist view of irresistible grace where they argue that such grace is offered at a particular MOMENT of which THEN it can not be resisted, and yet Cornelius was not saved in a particular moment according to you, he was saved in a series of moments.

This is the worst attempt I've ever seen at trying to get around the fact that Cornelius sought God and demonstrated goodness CONTRARY TO HIS FALLEN NATURE BEFORE he was saved.

Hab 2:4 has nothing to do with being saved 24 hours later by faith. It is that the JUST, LIVE by faith. You are quoting this verse in context with God saving Cornelius as if it implies God saved Cornelius ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS. And your view of Romans 2,"To them who by patience and well doing" defies the Calvinist view that a person dead in sin can seek God at all, and yet somehow you attempt to make this verse fit into a man's works leading to God saving Him.

NONSENSE

 

[Winman]

The better question is what Cornelius was saved into. He and his household were brought into the now single fold that used to be two. That's what most of the gist of Acts 9, 10, 11 is all about, the bringing in of that 'other sheep I have that are not of this fold'.

Again, no record of sin on Cornelius's part. According to your nutty harebrained theology couldn't he have been one of those 99 out of 100 that you say have never sinned and need no redeemer?

If Cornelius was one of the 99 he would not have needed to be saved.

A baby that dies needs no repentance, they are not lost.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Cornelius did need to be saved, the angel said so. So Cornelius could not have been one of the 99.

But there have been many billions of children who have died before they were born or died shortly after birth before they could sin. I believe this is what the 99 just persons Jesus spoke of represent.

What I do not believe is that Jesus would speak of imaginary persons that could not possibly exist. Jesus did not say foolish things.

 

[The Archangel]

A baby that dies needs no repentance, they are not lost.

Then, why did he or she die in the first place?

The Archangel

 

[DrJamesAch]

The better question is what Cornelius was saved into. He and his household were brought into the now single fold that used to be two. That's what most of the gist of Acts 9, 10, 11 is all about, the bringing in of that 'other sheep I have that are not of this fold'.

Again, no record of sin on Cornelius's part. According to your nutty harebrained theology couldn't he have been one of those 99 out of 100 that you say have never sinned and need no redeemer?

If Cornelius had no sin, first of all, why did God send Peter to preach to him about salvation if there was nothing to be saved from? Secondly, why did Peter include this in his sermon:

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" Acts 10:43

 

[Winman]

Then, why did he or she die in the first place?

The Archangel

Because men have been cut off from the tree of life.

If sin causes physical death, then why did God have to ban Adam and Eve from the tree of life? Wouldn't they have died anyway?

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Even in the New Jerusalem we will need to eat of the tree of life. We will also need it for healing.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

If Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life they would have lived forever. Therefore their sin did not directly cause physical death, but the consequence of being banned from the tree of life caused physical death.

But even in heaven it seems we will need to eat of the tree of life for healing and sustenance.

Edit- Now it is certain that the curse on the ground affects our lifespan, and that the world underwent great changes after Noah's flood that greatly decreased our lifespan. But if man had eaten of the tree of life he would have been healed and continued to live as a sinner forever.

 

[kyredneck]

As for the 99 who never sinned and need no repentance, I believe that is clearly speaking of unborn babies and little children who die before they can sin.

Really now, you're not just back peddling/changing your tune are you?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1943692#post1943692

I could easily dig deeper into this but got better things to do. Maybe others are curious to know just how whacky your theology is.

 

[The Archangel]

Because men have been cut off from the tree of life.

If sin causes physical death, then why did God have to ban Adam and Eve from the tree of life? Wouldn't they have died anyway?

There is a difference between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 where the fall occurs.

They had to be banned from the Garden after the fall, not before. It is assumed by the actions of God in banning them that something has changed--sin, and death because of sin, is now the "state" of humanity.

If Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life they would have lived forever. Therefore their sin did not directly cause physical death, but the consequence of being banned from the tree of life caused physical death.

Again, you have to make a distinction between pre-fall and post-fall. They would have lived forever had they eaten from the tree of life.

Edit- Now it is certain that the curse on the ground affects our lifespan, and that the world underwent great changes after Noah's flood that greatly decreased our lifespan. But if man had eaten of the tree of life he would have been healed and continued to live as a sinner forever.

Agreed. However, lifespans increase and decrease for many reasons (facts not in evidence here), but death is still because of sin.

But, your assumption here begs the question: If they had eaten from the Tree of Life, which was not forbidden, would they have been forever-perfect and not susceptible to sin? You seem to assume that to be the case.

But even in heaven it seems we will need to eat of the tree of life for healing and sustenance.

Are you arguing that we will need to keep on eating of the tree to be "eternal?" If so, then one would have to assume that those in hell would need to do the same, otherwise you have what amounts to annihilationism.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

There is a difference between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 where the fall occurs.

They had to be banned from the Garden after the fall, not before. It is assumed by the actions of God in banning them that something has changed--sin, and death because of sin, is now the "state" of humanity.

God had told them that the day they ate of the forbidden fruit they would die. They did not physically die, so this was speaking of spiritual death.

It is obvious sin did not cause their physical death, although I do believe a physical corruption passed over the whole universe when God cursed the ground. So all things began to wear out and pass away, chaos and disorder were introduced into the universe which would account for babies being born with birth defects or stillborn.

Nevertheless, God himself said if they would have eaten of the tree of life they would have lived forever, so obviously this tree would have continuously healed them from aging or disease. So physical death is a consequence of their sin, not a direct result of it, otherwise there would be no need to ban them from the tree of life, as they would die regardless.

Again, you have to make a distinction between pre-fall and post-fall. They would have lived forever had they eaten from the tree of life.

OK, this is what I said, what is your point?

Agreed. However, lifespans increase and decrease for many reasons (facts not in evidence here), but death is still because of sin.

God cursed the ground which introduced chaos and entropy into the universe.

That sin itself does not cause physical death is shown by the extremely long lifespans of these early persons, even though the scripture says they were very corrupt. It is the fear of death that is man's greatest incentive to repent, if men are sinful when they live 70 years, imagine how sinful they would be if they lived 900 years or more. So, I believe God changed the earth during Noah's flood, we see men's lifespans decrease very rapidly after the flood. This is actually a blessing, as it curbs sin and gives man more incentive to repent.

But, your assumption here begs the question: If they had eaten from the Tree of Life, which was not forbidden, would they have been forever-perfect and not susceptible to sin? You seem to assume that to be the case.

That is a great question, but one I cannot answer for a certainty. I actually believe it is impossible for man to live perfectly. Only God is perfectly sinless, and God cannot create himself. Man cannot hold any perfect attribute, these belong only to God. Even God must create everything that is inferior to him, as it is impossible to be equal to him.

That said, when we are born again our spirit is joined to the Holy Spirit and we become one spirit (1 Cor 6:17). Now we are partakers of the divine nature. Because of this we might be able to live sinless in heaven, tell you when I get there. :thumbsup:

Are you arguing that we will need to keep on eating of the tree to be "eternal?" If so, then one would have to assume that those in hell would need to do the same, otherwise you have what amounts to annihilationism.

The Archangel

I don't know about those in hell, but scripture says the tree will give a different fruit each month, and that the leaves are for the "healing" of the nations.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

We are the only ones who have the right to eat of this tree, so obviously the healing is for us also.

We will ALWAYS be dependent on God.