Is Calvinism's "Total Inability" and Biblical Hardening Compatible?

[Winman]

They live before they even have lungs.

The illustration is fine.

I don't care how you slice it, there is life before breath.

Not only is your point nitpicking, it is erroneous as well.

Yes, and the egg from the female must receive a sperm from the male before there is a new creation, a new person is conceived in the womb, just as a person must receive the Spirit before they are a new creation, a child of God.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

A person who is spiritually dead is not like a lifeless corpse, they are separated from God because of their trespasses and sins. But they still have ability, and one ability they have is to believe (or not) the word of God.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, and the egg from the female must receive a sperm from the male before there is a new creation, a new person is conceived in the womb, just as a person must receive the Spirit before they are a new creation, a child of God.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

A person who is spiritually dead is not like a lifeless corpse, they are separated from God because of their trespasses and sins. But they still have ability, and one ability they have is to believe (or not) the word of God.

Not according to the Bible.

 

[Dr. Bob]

To take away from the story of Cornelius that he was a righteous man BEFORE salvation is sad. He did good stuff so God said, I will save him.

Sounds like every false religion in the world. Every Catholic I know what agree that salvation comes by doing good deeds and being devout.

My oh my.

(BTW, the NT gift of the holy Spirit is the PERMANENT INDWELLING of the Spirit, nothing else. Folks in the OT and NT were ALL regenerated by the same holy Spirit. Only then could they be devout/true believers.)

 

[quantumfaith]

To take away from the story of Cornelius that he was a righteous man BEFORE salvation is sad. He did good stuff so God said, I will save him.

Sounds like every false religion in the world. Every Catholic I know what agree that salvation comes by doing good deeds and being devout.

My oh my.

(BTW, the NT gift of the holy Spirit is the PERMANENT INDWELLING of the Spirit, nothing else. Folks in the OT and NT were ALL regenerated by the same holy Spirit. Only then could they be devout/true believers.)

Dr. Bob, not certain if you are referring to Winman or not. I don't think Winman said that Cornelius was "righteous", but rather that he was "devout and religious". I think we can all agree that people can be devout and even religious without truly being righteous. If I am wrong in my assumption as to what you were referring to, then you have my apologies.

 

[Winman]

Dr. Bob, not certain if you are referring to Winman or not. I don't think Winman said that Cornelius was "righteous", but rather that he was "devout and religious". I think we can all agree that people can be devout and even religious without truly being righteous. If I am wrong in my assumption as to what you were referring to, then you have my apologies.

Dr. Bob's argument is not with me, it is with the word of God. What did Peter say concerning Cornelius BEFORE he heard the gospel and was saved?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter himself under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit confirmed that Cornelius did righteous works.

If you have a problem with this, take it up with God.

 

[Don]

Winman,
Please consider: You're putting Cornelius on the same level as those spoken of in Hebrews 11.

Instead, consider Paul's conversion in Acts 9; and consider if Cornelius' situation was similar to Paul's (both "worshipped" God, albeit in the fashion under the law; both were given a message by God; both were told to seek a man who would tell them more; both subsequently received a gift from God (Paul had the scales removed from his eyes, Cornelius and all others listening to Peter received the Holy Ghost); and both were subsequently baptized).

Some might argue with me that Saul was not a godly man; I didn't say he was. It's quite obvious from scripture that he persecuted those who followed Jesus; but scripture isn't clear as to whether he faithfully worshipped, albeit erroneously, just like the pharisees and scribes.

So you have two chapters in Acts, one right after the other, that talk about two different men having similar conversion experiences.

Thus, your insistence that Cornelius was saved before he heard the words from Peter, is questionable.

 

[Winman]

Winman,
Please consider: You're putting Cornelius on the same level as those spoken of in Hebrews 11.

Instead, consider Paul's conversion in Acts 9; and consider if Cornelius' situation was similar to Paul's (both "worshipped" God, albeit in the fashion under the law; both were given a message by God; both were told to seek a man who would tell them more; both subsequently received a gift from God (Paul had the scales removed from his eyes, Cornelius and all others listening to Peter received the Holy Ghost); and both were subsequently baptized).

Some might argue with me that Saul was not a godly man; I didn't say he was. It's quite obvious from scripture that he persecuted those who followed Jesus; but scripture isn't clear as to whether he faithfully worshipped, albeit erroneously, just like the pharisees and scribes.

So you have two chapters in Acts, one right after the other, that talk about two different men having similar conversion experiences.

Thus, your insistence that Cornelius was saved before he heard the words from Peter, is questionable.

You've misunderstood me, I never said Cornelius was saved before he heard the gospel.

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

We KNOW that Cornelius was not saved UNTIL he heard and believed the gospel, yet before Peter actually preached the gospel to Cornelius he said Cornelius did righteous works.

That does not mean Cornelius was not a sinner, he absolutely was, that is why he needed the gospel. Yet the scriptures say he feared God and did righteous works.

This thread is about Total Inability. The scriptures DO NOT teach that unsaved people are incapable of doing some good. The story of Cornelius proves that.

 

[preacher4truth]

To take away from the story of Cornelius that he was a righteous man BEFORE salvation is sad. He did good stuff so God said, I will save him.

Sounds like every false religion in the world. Every Catholic I know what agree that salvation comes by doing good deeds and being devout.

My oh my.

(BTW, the NT gift of the holy Spirit is the PERMANENT INDWELLING of the Spirit, nothing else. Folks in the OT and NT were ALL regenerated by the same holy Spirit. Only then could they be devout/true believers.)

This is what I gather also, and rightfully so, from what he has said.

Here is a quote from Winman:

I highlighted the part of your quote I have an issue with. Is this really true? Is it true that a sinner is utterly unable to do any good concerning salvation?

I think the story of Cornelius completely refutes your view.

The bolded and underlined is from Dr. Bob and above we have Winman then out to prove a man can do good "concerning salvation" and in this he sets to prove it with the story of Cornelius.

This is why proof-texting is bringing much error. We don't (and shouldn’t) take an obscure passage, or any passage, and interpret it to the destruction of a dogma: 1) "...not of works, lest any man should boast." And another dogma, that Winman overlooks which Peter stated 2) "God is no respecter of persons" prior to announcing this man accepted by God, or, regenerate. This statement of Peter ("God is no respecter of persons") helps qualify Peters following statement which Winman erroneously locks in upon to establish the false conclusions he has; (That God accepted Cornelius by his works.)

Now, by and through Whom alone are we to be accepted of God? Through our works, or through Christ’s work alone? We are only accepted by God through Him, not anything we have done has made us or caused us to be accepted. To take this from this passage is to misunderstand it altogether.

How do we know he, Cornelius was regenerate? Because he was doing works that only a regenerate person under grace can do, and was showing by this he was already accepted by God, or regenerated. This is how Peter knew he was in Christ. Being that Cornelius was a Gentile, Peter is concluding (and being taught):

1) God is no respecter of persons.

2) That God proved this by the regeneration of this Gentile.

3) That God granted the Gentiles repentance unto life, Acts 11:18.

4) That this was not only to teach Cornelius Who it is that had saved him, it was also to teach Peter and the other Apostles; "Oh? God is also saving the gentiles too. He doesn't respect men, but saves whom He wills. Cornelius works prove he is also saving the Gentiles." Thus we have a concluding phrase in Acts 11:18, and God teaching His Apostles that He saves the Gentiles, and they will thus also do righteousness and good works.

He, Cornelius simply needed the rest of the story, the finalization of his salvation, greater understanding, and so too Peter and the Apostles.

Again, the entire context of Acts 10 and 11 is a teaching experience to Peter that God was saving Gentiles, works were proving this.

There are other similar instances of this within Acts 16:14, 18:26, 19:2, for instance. In 19:2 those here were regenerate, yet haven't even heard nor received the Spirit, the final proof of being born from above.

To teach otherwise is to say that we've merited election, or being acceptable to God by doing righteous deeds, which you Dr. Bob have also noted as error and false.

I've also addressed this teaching here in the past. This is not the first time it's been dealt with. This is one perfect example of why it is dangerous to teach doctrine out of Acts.

- Peace

 

[DHK]

Winman,
Thus, your insistence that Cornelius was saved before he heard the words from Peter, is questionable.

That is not Winman's argument. I believe it is Luke's and some of the other Calvinists. They say that he was regenerated before Peter went to him and preached the Word. Then he was saved. They differentiate between regeneration and salvation to such an extent that that is how much time elapsed between the two events in Cornelius's life. I find that that is an extreme position to take. Cornelius heard the Word of God and was saved. It is simple.

 

[DHK]

You are exactly right.

Cornelius must have been regenerate but the process of his salvation was not complete (in time that is) until he heard the words of Peter.

This is post #7 by Luke.

 

[Winman]

P4T, you falsely represent me, I never said Cornelius was accepted for works, no man is saved by works. You falsely accuse people on a regular basis. You can't present scripture to prove your position, so you attack those who CAN refute your view with scripture. You are as transparent as glass.

This is not about earning salvation through good works, no man can do that. But that does not mean that unsaved man cannot do SOME good things and cannot believe God. Cornelius was unsaved until he heard the gospel, yet he believed in and feared God, and he did truly righteous acts that God recognized and approved of. This is exactly what Peter said in Acts 10:35. The Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability is utterly false and unscriptural.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, you falsely represent me, I never said Cornelius was accepted for works, no man is saved by works. You falsely accuse people on a regular basis. You can't present scripture to prove your position, so you attack those who CAN refute your view with scripture. You are as transparent as glass.

This is not about earning salvation through good works, no man can do that. But that does not mean that unsaved man cannot do SOME good things and cannot believe God. Cornelius was unsaved until he heard the gospel, yet he believed in and feared God, and he did truly righteous acts that God recognized and approved of. This is exactly what Peter said in Acts 10:35. The Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability is utterly false and unscriptural.

Nice try. I have perfectly represented you. You attempt to turn "acceptance" into "salvation" but I will still show you that you are in grave error regardless of your attempt.

I highlighted the part of your quote I have an issue with.

Is this really true? Is it true that a sinner is utterly unable to do any good concerning salvation? I think the story of Cornelius completely refutes your view.

Thats you above quoting against Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob being in bold, and you underlined.

Nice try number 2.

You trying to equate "acceptance" and "salvation." Rather, you were teaching God accepted Cornelius for his works, and then God came along and noticed this then saved him. Another misinterpretation on your part, and another fallacy. You're trying to prove "conditional election" again.

You attempted to prove by the quote of yourself against Dr. Bob above that a man is able to do good "concerning salvation," and you used the story of Cornelius in a feeble and failing attempt to do so.

Now. Either refute that there is nothing in man that merits either acceptance by/of God in any form, or plainly state (as you already have) that man does make himself acceptable to God by works.

Or, you can recant your statements. Which is it?

Then, after this, tell us what exactly you mean in when you refute (and fail) Dr. Bob and attempt to prove in opposite to him that Cornelius is in fact able to do good concerning salvation.

You're the one who set out to refute "man is unable to any good concerning salvation" with the story of Cornelius. Thus, you falsely conclude Cornelius did just that.

This was you coming against Dr. Bobs true quote here:

But still without hope. Not a Romans 1 reprobate sinner, but a Romans 2 rational sinner and Romans 3 religious sinner. But a sinner. And all sinners are completely unable to do any good (concerning salvation)

You set out to prove the bolded as wrong. Dr. Bob is completely Scriptural and correct. Winman, you are in grave error here.

 

[Winman]

Nice try. I have perfectly represented you. You attempt to turn "acceptance" into "salvation" but I will still show you that you are in grave error regardless of your attempt.

I highlighted the part of your quote I have an issue with. Is this really true?



Thats you above quoting against Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob being in bold, and you underlined.

Nice try number 2.

You trying to equate "acceptance" and "salvation." Rather, you were teaching God accepted Cornelius for his works, and then God came along and noticed this then saved him. Another misinterpretation on your part, and another fallacy. You're trying to prove "conditional election" again.

You attempted to prove by the quote of yourself against Dr. Bob above that a man is able to do things concerning salvation, and you used the story of Cornelius in a feeble and failing attempt to do so.

Now. Either refute that there is nothing in man that merits either acceptance by/of God in any form, or plainly state (as you already have) that man does make himself acceptable to God by works.

Or, you can recant your statements. Which is it?

Then, after this, tell us what exactly you mean in when you refute (and fail) Dr. Bob and attempt to prove in opposite to him that Cornelius is in fact able to do good concerning salvation.

You're the one who set out to refute "man is unable to any good concerning salvation" with the story of Cornelius. Thus, you falsely conclude Cornelius did just that.

This was you coming against Dr. Bobs true quote here:

I stand by this statement. Cornelius was unsaved and yet he believed in God (feared God).

I am not saying Cornelius earned salvation and you know it. I am saying the doctrine that teaches unsaved man incapable of believeing God is false.

 

[jbh28]

I stand by this statement. Cornelius was unsaved and yet he believed in God (feared God).

I am not saying Cornelius earned salvation and you know it. I am saying the doctrine that teaches unsaved man incapable of believeing God is false.

And how do you know that Cornelius was unsaved? Remember, this is acts and this is a time of transition. The NT indwelling of the Spirit is shown 3 times in Acts, (chapter 2, 10 and 19). Does this passage ever say that he was unsaved? Maybe I missed it.

I'm about to go to church, so I might not have time to respond till tonight.

 

[preacher4truth]

I stand by this statement. Cornelius was unsaved and yet he believed in God (feared God).

I am not saying Cornelius earned salvation and you know it. I am saying the doctrine that teaches unsaved man incapable of believeing God is false.

Nice try. You set out to disprove Dr. Bob saying man cannot do any good concerning salvation.

You then said Cornelius refutes this.

You're in serious and grave error Winman.

 

[Winman]

And how do you know that Cornelius was unsaved? Remember, this is acts and this is a time of transition. The NT indwelling of the Spirit is shown 3 times in Acts, (chapter 2, 10 and 19). Does this passage ever say that he was unsaved? Maybe I missed it.

I'm about to go to church, so I might not have time to respond till tonight.

Because Peter revealed that the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter who would tell Cornelius and all his house words whereby they would all be saved.

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

That's how we KNOW Cornelius was not saved. He was not saved until he heard and believed the gospel from Peter.

 

[Winman]

Nice try. You set out to disprove Dr. Bob saying man cannot do any good concerning salvation.

You then said Cornelius refutes this.

You're in serious and grave error Winman.

Cornelius refutes Total Inability and all who hold to it. Cornelius believed in God, he did good works that God recognized and approved of. But he was not saved, the angel God sent to speak to him told him to send for Peter who would tell him words whereby he and all his house SHALL BE SAVED (future tense).

You are the one in error and denying the clear words of scripture. Your argument is not with me, it is with the word of God.

 

[Luke2427]

That is not Winman's argument. I believe it is Luke's and some of the other Calvinists. They say that he was regenerated before Peter went to him and preached the Word. Then he was saved. They differentiate between regeneration and salvation to such an extent that that is how much time elapsed between the two events in Cornelius's life. I find that that is an extreme position to take. Cornelius heard the Word of God and was saved. It is simple.

You are mistaken. IT is not my belief that he was already saved. Peter recounting the story in chapter 11 confirms that he was not saved until he heard the words of Peter.

But he was in the process. He had been awakened spiritually.

It was in this state that Cornelius prayed and gave alms and did deeds of righteousness.

That is my understanding of the passage.

But the other Calvinists have a fine argument as well that Cornelius was already saved just like David was saved and Rahab and all those who knew God before the Resurrection.

They came to know a fuller salvation or at least came to know salvation more fully and so the verse in 11:14.

 

[jbh28]

Because Peter revealed that the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter who would tell Cornelius and all his house words whereby they would all be saved.

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

That's how we KNOW Cornelius was not saved. He was not saved until he heard and believed the gospel from Peter.

Yes, but when you look at the first part of the passage, it sure does look like a saved person. Anyway, thanks for your answer. I'm going to read the chapters again. If you look at chapter 19 and the church of Ephesians. , I see a parallel. This is a transition time. He looks like he was still believing like those in chapter 19 like the OT saints. Peter came and gave the gospel.

I'll read it again.

btw, end of chapter 10 is good for both doctrines of water baptism doesn't save and water baptism is for believers.

 

[DHK]

You are mistaken. IT is not my belief that he was already saved. Peter recounting the story in chapter 11 confirms that he was not saved until he heard the words of Peter.

As my understanding of what you believe regarding salvation, that is correct.

But he was in the process. He had been awakened spiritually.

It was in this state that Cornelius prayed and gave alms and did deeds of righteousness.

That is my understanding of the passage.

From what I understood from your post you believed that God had regenerated him (which precedes salvation), and then when he heard the Word from Peter he was saved. This (the process) is what I have heard from you and almost every Calvinist: that regeneration must precede salvation.

But the other Calvinists have a fine argument as well that Cornelius was already saved just like David was saved and Rahab and all those who knew God before the Resurrection.

They came to know a fuller salvation or at least came to know salvation more fully and so the verse in 11:14.

I can't comment on those events. My view is different, as I regard salvation as an event and not a process. There were 3,000 saved instantaneously on the Day of Pentecost. There was no process there. They heard and then they believed or were saved. It wasn't a process.