Was Cornelius in an already saved condition before Peter met him (Acts 10)?

[Olivencia]

Some theologiclly misguided people insist that Cornelius was already in a saved condition before Peter met him. They will cite Acts 10:2 where Cornelius was called "devout" and he "feared God". The primary passage they employ is Acts 10:22 where Cornelius is called "just". They assume from passages like these that he was already in a saved condition.
----------------------
1. If one insists that Cornelius was already in a saved condition based on the use of devout (eusebes) they would also have to hold that the the "devout" (sebw) persons Paul disputed with were also in a saved condition in Acts 17:17. This won't work because these people were "wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17:16).
----------------------
2. I would like to know if those that "feared God" (Acts 13:16) were also in a saved condition before Paul preached the gospel to them.
--------------------
3. Acts 10:22 - Luke records that these men called Cornelius "just". He did not mean in the sense of already saved (see #3 and #4 below) but in the sense of "upright conduct and a sense of responsibility to God" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Frederick Danker, dikaios, page 246). When Danker specifically cites Acts 10:22 it reads "with phoboumenos ton Theon of Cornelius". And simply being a Godfearer does not necessitate that one is saved (Acts 13:16).
-------------------
4. In Acts 10:43 Peter mentions "forgiveness".
a. Danker: "the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt or punishment, pardon, cancellation" he then cites (among others) Matthew 26:28; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43 and Acts 26:18 (aphesis, page 155).
b. Thayer: "forgiveness, pardon, of sins...remission of their penalty" he then cites (among others) Acts 2:38; 10:43 and 26:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, aphesis, page 88).

--> The "forgiveness" mentioned in Acts 2:38 and Acts 26:18 refer to salvation. That is from an unsaved state to a saved one. The same would apply to Acts 10:43. Please cite a Greek lexicon (not your opinion or commentary) that proves otherwise.
-------------------
5. Acts 11:14 "saved"
a. Danker: (citing Acts 11:14) be saved, attain salvation (swzw, page 983).
b. Kittel: ...swzw and swteria are general terms for Christian salvation, 4:12; 11:14; 13:26; 16:17, 30f.; the quotation in 13:47, cf. on this R.11:11. Again and again in Ac the content of swteria is the forgiveness of sins; 3:19, 26; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 22:16; 26:18 (TDNT 7:997, swzw).

--> Please cite a Greek lexicon (not your opinion or commentary) that demonstrates salvation (saved) as used in Acts 11:14 means something different from the two I cited above.
-----------------
6. I would like to add that some from the church of Christ will use this argument to avoid the clear testimony of Scripture that salvation took place before water baptism in Acts 10. Simply pointing out the noble qualities of Cornelius does not prove anything for they must also demonstrate that all those with him (family and friends) were in the same kind of spiritual state he was in before Peter met him (Acts 10:24). That is something they can not do.

 

[JSM17]

First of all I cannot deal with all six points at one time so be patient with me, it is not because I do not want to or that I avoiding it like the plague.

I will deal with the first point first and then when I have time I will move on to the next.

1. If one insists that Cornelius was already in a saved condition based on the use of devout (eusebes) they would also have to hold that the the "devout" (sebw) persons Paul disputed with were also in a saved condition in Acts 17:17. This won't work because these people were "wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17:16).
Apples and oranges. The word devout here was not towards pagan worship. Devout God fearing, righteous, these are the words used to describe Cornelius.

I asked a question on the last post about Cornelius that you have not answered.

What provision was made to those of a none Jewish heritage up to the point when the gospel was given to the Gentiles? Where all Gentiles lost? Abraham, Rahab?

 

[Olivencia]

Apples and oranges. The word devout here was not towards pagan worship. Devout God fearing, righteous, these are the words used to describe Cornelius.


---> Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

See the word "therefore" at the beginning of verse 17? It gives the reason why Paul had his dispute with these unsaved Jews and unsaved devout persons.

The Jews were unsaved just like these devout persons were unsaved.
Therefore your assertion that devout refers to only saved people is in error.
You can not use this word to support your position.
Next word please.....
--------------------------------------------
I asked a question on the last post about Cornelius that you have not answered. What provision was made to those of a none Jewish heritage up to the point when the gospel was given to the Gentiles? Where all Gentiles lost? Abraham, Rahab?

--> That's more than just "a question". After the birthday of the church (Acts 2:4) if one had the Spirit they are saved but if they did not have the Spirit they were lost. Abraham and Rahab were saved for we read about them in Hebrews 11.

 

[Darron Steele]

...I would like to add that some from the church of Christ will use this argument to avoid the clear testimony of Scripture that salvation took place before water baptism in Acts 10. Simply pointing out the noble qualities of Cornelius does not prove anything for they must also demonstrate that all those with him (family and friends) were in the same kind of spiritual state he was in before Peter met him (Acts 10:24). That is something they can not do.

Before I start, I want to make clear that I am not a member of the Churches of Christ, nor am I open to becoming one. I have no desire to defend distinctive Church of Christ precepts -- normally.

Still, I could not help but notice that every thread you have started is against the Churches of Christ. I am curious as to why.

In my view, putting `bulls-eyes' on specific church groups creates resentments that harm any chance of discussing issues.

Also, personally, putting `bulls-eyes' on specific church groups makes me feel sympathetic toward the church group being `put up' for a `dunking stool.'

I admit that I have a bias against your approach. Perhaps if you took some time to explain intended benefits to your approach, I would feel differently.

If you would prefer not to discuss this publicly, please let me know and I will delete this post and try to discuss it by private message.

 

[JSM17]

That's more than just "a question". After the birthday of the church (Acts 2:4) if one had the Spirit they are saved but if they did not have the Spirit they were lost. Abraham and Rahab were saved for we read about them in Hebrews 11.

Acts 8:12

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
NKJV


True or False "These men and women were saved when they believed?"

True or False "When these men and women believed they received the Holy Spirit just like Cornelius?"

True or False "If one had the Holy Spirit they are saved?"

True or False "Because these men and women did not have the Holy Spirit they were not saved even though they believed and had been baptized?"

 

[Darron Steele]

You are already going to the "True or False" tactic?

I would like to think you can do better than that. I would like to think you are better than that.

Please at least try.

 

[Olivencia]

JM17 I have addressed the fact that simply because Cornelius was described as being devout does not necessitate the he was saved. I then asked for the next wrd but then in typical church of Christ fashion you ignored it. What is the next word you rely on to prove your assertion that Cornelius was already in a saved condition before Peter met him. Stop dodging. You write that you don't have the time to address everything I have written but then you go off and discuss something else.
OK. Since I already addressed the use of "devout" I want you to supply any Greek lexicon that states the use of "forgiveness" as used in Acts 10:43 does not refer to a person going from an unsaved state to a saved state. I cited two now it's your turn.

Thank you

Olivencia

 

[JSM17]

Acts 8:12

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
NKJV


"Were these men and women were saved when they believed?"

"Did these men and women received the Holy Spirit when they believed just like Cornelius?"

If one had the Holy Spirit are they saved?"

"Because these men and women did not have the Holy Spirit they were not saved even though they believed and had been baptized?"



It looks like the Greek Lexicons would also state that these people were not saved also.

 

[Olivencia]

Once again we see how those of the church of Christ refuse to respond to statements and/or questions that are given to them that refute their heretical beliefs.

I am still waiting for one Greek lexicon that states the use of "forgiveness" as used in Acts 10:43 does not mean going from unsaved to saved.

Still waiting.....

 

[billwald]

"Saved" is a non-technical term for a process, not an event. Regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion is the human response to the Holy Spirit regenerating the person. Some people are slow to catch on.

 

[TCGreek]

A reading of Acts 10, 11 and 15 forces us to conclude that Cornelius was saved, declared in right standing with God, forgiving of his sins, regenerated, before his water baptism.