Cornelius had the Word of God, as did the Scribes and Pharisees.
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.
The person, work, atoning sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah were written beforehand by Moses and the Prophets:
And so? Does this fact make a person regenerated? You are really desperate!
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?
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.
It was the gracious work of the Spirit which made the difference.
You are reading something into the text that isn't there, although I am not counting that out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I believe in rightly dividing the word of truth. You are not doing a very good job at it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
