I never said all the aforementioned people were regenerated.
Perhaps you didn't. But that is the argument many of the Calvinists here make.
Being healed of a physical infirmity by Christ does not mean that someone was ipso facto saved by Christ.
Quite true. But faith is not a prerequisite to being healed either. Jesus healed all (on some occasions) whether they had faith or not.
Yes, she had faith that Jesus from Nazareth could heal her. This is why she sought Him out rather than Fred the Plumber from Jericho.
True. It demonstrates that every human has inherent faith.
Yes, the Centurion had great faith. But, contextually, his great faith is not intended to be a pat on his back but a slap in the Jew's face. Here is a gentile (probably a God-fearer, according to Luke 7) who is believing Jesus to be the Messiah when the majority of the non-Gentile Jews do not.
That may be so. But what is the source of his faith?
When we see the Centurion telling Jesus that he [the Centurion] is not worthy to have Jesus under his roof, this is a clear indication that the Centurion is already believing Jesus to be the Messiah.
No, it shows that he realizes his own sinful condition. Perhaps, by this time, the Holy Spirit had begun to work in his life.
No Centurion would defer to a Jew in this way--even a well-renowned healer. No, it must be the case that the Centurion was a believer in Christ before he sought Him out.
That is not what the account says. He was desperate. He sought out Jesus because he knew that Christ was a great healer.
This, again, is much more easy to establish when it is understood that the Centurion was a God-fearer who was already worshiping Yahweh.
That is not what the account says. The account specifically says that after his child was healed
then he believed!
What he believed here is up for debate as you say. Actually I was confusing two stories. Here is another:
So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. (John 4:46)
The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. (John 4:49)
Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth.
And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way. (John 4:50)
And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth. (John 4:51)
So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and
himself believed, and his whole house. (John 4:53)
--In this account we see that the nobleman believed twice.
It would seem that the first time he believed the words of Jesus that his son would not die. And in verse 53 he believed on Christ as Messiah and was saved.
The nobleman, like the centurion was not a Jew. Here is what Barnes says:
A certain nobleman. One who was of the royal family, connected by birth with Herod Antipas; or one of the officers of the court, whether by birth allied to him or not. It seems that his ordinary residence was at Capernaum. Capernaum was about a day's journey from Cana, where Jesus then was.
It was by no means any faith given to him by God that saved him. He put his own faith in Christ: once for healing and a second time for salvation.
What is "ludicrous" is that you cannot separate my interpretation from my Calvinism. Your interpretation, in fact, is deeply flawed in many ways as you are reading it without consideration for the historical context.
Jesus healed all. Healing was only one aspect of his ministry. It demonstrated his deity. Some of those, like the nobleman, were saved. They went one step farther and believed "a second time," that Christ could not only heal, but save as well. That is the point I was trying to make. I didn't do a good job first time around because I got two stories confused.
Faith is a key word in the gospels. But, you are thinking that these people have never heard of Jesus before--which simply isn't the case. The Centurion had to have heard of Jesus in order to seek Him out. It wasn't like he happened to bump into him at a baseball game. The woman with the issue of blood had to know of Jesus in order to seek Him out. How else would she have said to herself "if I can only touch Him?" She knew Him as a healer and she had heard of Him before. Again, it wasn't as if she bumped into Him at the grocery store.
All of that is true.
And all of us (non-Cals) believe that:
Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God.
We have the ability to believe. The object of our faith must be Christ in order to be saved. But how will they know about him unless they hear about him. Read Romans 10:13-15. The more they heard about him, the more confident they became that he was the one that was able to heal, and eventually able to save.
These events do not take place in a vacuum. There is context. The context is that Jesus was known in this area at this time, so people did seek Him out.
People sought him out for different reasons:
"never a man spoke as this man spoke"
"for he speaks as one that speaks with authority"
They came to see the works (miracles) that he did.
"Good master what shall I do to have eternal life?" He knew what He could do spiritually, but was not willing to sacrifice, and went away sorrowful.
--They knew who he was. They heard him. They saw his miracles. Some even sought eternal life from him. Some rejected eternal life. Some accepted. Salvation is by faith.
Does that mean they were "regenerate?" No, not necessarily. The Rich Young Ruler was certainly not. Cornelius certainly was.
Some believe in Christ and some don't. To make the jump that Cornelius was regenerated long before he was saved is untenable.
The over all problem with believing that each has an inherent faith and that inherent faith is what saves us is this: It means you have faith in faith, and not faith in Christ.
It is not inherent faith, per se, that saves. It is that faith that has as its object Christ and his atoning work
as the object of its faith that saves. It is the object of our faith that is important. Faith is faith--confidence, trust. But what is the object of your faith? Your faith may be sincere, but sincerely wrong, as is the case of the J.W.'s, Mormons and other cults and religions.
If we ask the Evangelism Explosion diagnostic question "If you were to die tonight and stand before God and He were to ask you 'why should I let you into my heaven' what would you say?" what answer would you suggest these people would give?
If they have gone through the plan of salvation first so that Christ has been adequately presented then yes, there may be a chance that that person may be saved. Why not? I have used that same question myself. The answers are different, varied, and often very interesting.
Do you think the Centurion or the woman with the issue of blood or you yourself would actually say "God, you have to let me in because I have faith?"
I haven't heard that answer yet. It is usually along the lines: "I am not a bad sinner; I am good enough to get there; I am a Christian too, etc.
While I don't think you would answer this way, you are suggesting that this is, in fact, the correct answer.
No, I don't. Faith in Christ and his atoning work is the answer. If Christ is not the object of one's faith then what good is it. As a small child I had faith in my parents. Every child does. When I grew a bit older I started putting faith in my friends and found out quickly that my "friends" often failed me. When I put my faith in Christ, he never failed me, and his promises to me are always true. It is the object of faith that is important.
The only correct answer for the EE question posed above is this: "Well, God, you shouldn't let me into your heaven." And at that point, Christ walks up and says, "It's OK Father, he's one of mine."
I can enter on the basis of the shed blood of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)
We know from other passages of Scripture that God does indeed choose and call those who are not believers with the direct intent of turning them into faithful believers (Abraham and Jacob come to mind). So, your presenting of these passages--especially your including of logical leaps which are facts-not-in-evidence--is unconvincing.
Then you have only half of a salvation story which also is unconvincing. Half of the story is not good enough.