[JSM17]

These questions are not loaded but are asked to generate thought as to better understand the relationship between Cornelius and God before Peter was sent to him.

1. The first question that needs to be asked is when did the Gospel Come to Cornelius and his household?

This seems to be the easiest of all the questions, truly we would all agree that it was in Acts 10 when this happened, but what was the state of those who were a law unto themselves( Romans 2) before God brought the Good news of Christ to them? Were they condemned to hell because God did not make means by which they could be perserved until the message came to them? Is there any passage that confirms that God's arrangment with the Gentiles was cancelled at the cross?

2. Was Cornelius an ALIEN SINNER? Was he a HELL bound man? Was he amendable to the Gospel prior to Acts 10?Could Cornelius come into the kingdom any sooner than what God allowed?

It seems that the answers to these questions is a big no, look at the context of Cornelius, people get down right angry when you try to show them that Cornelius was a devout man, fearing God, righteous (Acts 10:1, 2, 31). He had been practicing righteousness (35) and was acceptable to God who is no respector of persons (vs. 34, 35).

3. The big question that most over look is "When did the Patriarchal denspensation end for the Gentiles"?

Most say a the cross but if this be true, then God left no protection to those Gentiles until the Gospel came to them in Acts 10. And before the cross we would have to conclude that no man ever outside of the Jewish nation could be perserved until the blood of Christ was shed, this would also include Abraham.

4. If Cornelius was in a right relationship with God before the message came to him and his houshold then why did he need to hear words in which to be saved by?

Just like John the Baptizer there was a transition period were people had to turn from the old and turn to the preaching of John, those who would not submit to his teaching were denying the will of God. (Luke 7:29)

It was like this for Cornelius and his household, unlike most Gentiles, they were faithful. However, Patriarchy was no longer the divine operative for the Gentiles. Therefore if Cornelius rejected Peter's preaching, he would be rejecting God's plan for the Gentiles, and he would lose his soul. As it is said "The ship of Patriarchy was sinking, it was time to get off.

5. The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his house hold just as it did to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, was this for salvation or to bring the Jews to an understanding that God has brought salvation to the Gentiles, these devout Gentiles who were now to receive words inwhich to be saved by, just as it fell on the Apostles so the Jews on the day of Pentecost would believe the message that Peter spoke. Remember, the Apostles were not in lost state either when the H.S. fell upon them, neither was Cornelius and his household. So I conclude once again that Cornelius and his household did not recieve the H.S. for salvation but for a sign, Cornelius was not truly saved by the Gospel until he heard what he must do. The H.S. fell upon them as Peter began the message.


Any questions? Jeffmiller17@sbcglobal.net

[sledford]

Just a few simple observations from the context itself:

First, the angel tells Cornelius that God has heard him but there is something for him to do:

[Marc]

Just returned...

All these expressions mean the same thing:

a. To have the Holy Spirit "fall" upon you (Acts 10:44).
b. To have the Holy Spirit "poured out" on you (Acts 10:45, Titus 3:6).
c. To "receive" the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47).
d. To be "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16).
e. To be initially "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 1:5).

Not only does the fact that since Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48 necessitate he already had "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38) but other passages in the Bible prove that he was already saved before he was water baptized.

A few thoughts:

1. The NT church began in Acts 2:4. They were placed in the church which is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:24). Acts 2:4 further describes Acts 1:5. When they were baptized with the Holy Spirit they were placed in the church (the body of Christ). So too then when Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit (before he was water baptized) he was placed in the body of Christ. If one is "in the body of Christ" are they saved or unsaved?

2. Acts 2:4 is the time when they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Since Cornelius received the same thing as they he too was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is God and if God indwells in you then He is your God and you are His child (2 Corinthians 6:16-18) - such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.

- Marc

[sledford]

Marc, you have a very serious issue harmonizing your conclusion with what is specifically stated in Acts 11 in the recounting by Peter:

[Marc]

Cornelius did hear "the words" in order to be saved. They are found in Acts 10:34-43. In terms of Acts 11:4 and 15 I have already dealt with these two passages in another post.

I couldn't help but notice you just simply ignored the points I brought up in my post. I guess it is just easier to say my understanding of the Holy Spirit is very flawed than to actually respond to what I wrote.

- Marc

[sledford]

[Marc]

The continual dodge of my original post is indeed revealing.

In terms of Acts 11:4 and 15 see the third page of the thread "The conversion of Cornelius (baptism not necessary)". My post is dated Thursday June 1, 2006 12:09pm.

[sledford]

I think I found the previous post you are referencing:

[JSM17]

Was Cornelius righteous?

Acts 10:22
"We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.
NIV

Acts 10:22
"Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews,
NKJV

Acts 10:22
"Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews,
NASU

Acts 10:22
Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews
KJV

Acts 10:22
Cornelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews,
ASV

Acts 10:22
22 And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation,
RSV




According to Peter and the Holy Spirit this man was righteous before he was saved. When you study the word “righteous” you will see that there is no getting around the simple fact that Cornelius was righteous before God.

Strong’s:
NT:1342

dikaios (dik'-ah-yos); from NT:1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):

Vine’s:
JUST, JUSTLY
1. dikaios NT:1342 was first used of persons observant of dike, "custom, rule, right," especially in the fulfillment of duties towards gods and men, and of things that were in accordance with right. The Eng. word "righteous" was formerly spelt "rightwise," i. e., (in a) straight way. In the NT it denotes "righteous," a state of being right, or right conduct, judged whether by the divine standard, or according to human standards, of what is right. Said of God, it designates the perfect agreement between His nature and His acts (in which He is the standard for all men).

Just so there is no confusion in this matter of what this Greek word means here are a few other scriptures that use this word:

1. James 2:23-24
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
NKJV



a) This word is NT:1343

dikaiosune (dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay); from NT:1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:


KJV - righteousness.

b) Just so we are all on the same page, let realize and understand two important facts about Cornelius and Abraham.

1) Abraham and Cornelius were both Gentiles, not under the Law of Moses.

2) Both men were spoken of (inspirationally) as being righteous.

Conclusion: I like most are in search of truth, even when it comes to this man Cornelius. Everyone assumes that he was this lost man, would we say that Abraham was lost? They are both counted as righteous so why do conclude one to be ok and the other not.

As for the words in which Peter would tell them to be saved, yes Cornelius had come to the point in time that he had to get off the Patriarchy ship and onto the Gospel ship, so to speak. Before these words could even be told to him one thing is evident:

1) Cornelius was righteous, show me one man that was lost, who is called righteous in scriptures, including Abraham.

I hope that people will look at the context of this word and verse, it is hard sometimes to see things, I am not adding to the context, most people take away from this context and do not look intently at the meaning of certain words.

To assume because that Cornelius was lost because Peter would tell him words in which to be saved by is not a valid argument, since you must first take in to consideration that Peter calls this man Just, righteous. And even goes on to say in chapter 11 that:

Acts 10:34-36
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
NKJV

And this was still before the H.S. fell upon them and before Peter was able to speak words in which they were to be saved.

When did the Patriarchy dispensation end?

Where all the Gentiles that were called righteous go to hell because they did not have Christ?

How does Abraham fit into all this as a Gentile?

How does Rahab fit into this?

What is your textual proof that Cornelius was an alien sinner apart from God in a world with no hope given to him by God?

As if God says to him yes you are righteous, but you are separated from me because I have given you no way to come to me until now and all before you will be condemned, including Abraham who I have accounted to righteousness.


The simple question would be was Cornelius righteous before Peter came to him or not, the context says yes.

[Marc]

This is in response to the previous two posts.

Cornelius was not saved before Peter met him. For Peter was to tell him words by which he "shall be" saved (Acts 11:14). If I said, "I shall go to the bakery" I wonder how many of us would conclude that I am "now" in the bakery?
Furthermore, Acts 2:38 demonstrates that when one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit they have the forgiveness of sins. No gift of the Holy Spirit no forgiveness of sins. So when Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:45 (before he was water baptized) he "then" had the forgiveness of sins. If he was saved prior to Acts 10:45 that is saying he went from the forgiveness of sins to the forgiveness of sins.
In terms of Acts 10:22 in respect to Cornelius being righteous notice that this was the description of him by those who were sent to Peter. God didn't specifically say he was righteous - they did.

As far as "began" in Acts 11:15 as described by Thayer please see the following site which contains his "full" defintion of the word:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1151642890-5492.html


- Marc

[JSM17]

It is a weak argument to say that God did not say that Cornelius was righteous, they did. Luke wrote it Peter said it the H.S. inspired it, it is true then,You cannot deny what is plainly stated about this man, why not attack some of the important points about cornelius and his situation, how it is unique and not like most cases in scripture where this man who was a Law unto himself (Romans 2) living righteously before Gods eyes doing the work of God, yet condemned. The context does not show us a condemned man. I understand that Peter would tell them words in which to be saved by, Cornelius knew about this Messiah, the context says so, but salvation had not yet come to them. Just like Abraham was reckoned righteousness, but would not recieve the promise until the blood was shed, by the time the Gospel came to Cornelius Abraham was dead, but if he was alive he also would have had to step of the sinking ship of Patriarchy and step onto the Gospel paln for salvation for the Gentiles.

Questions to answer?

1. All Gentiles who were called righteous not under the Mosiac Law or Gospel law were condemned because God gave them no security from Hell through their righteouness that He Himself has proclaimed them to be, i.e. Abraham, Rahab, Cornelius?

2. If you condemn Cornelius then why not condemn Abraham, they are both Gentile men who are both called righteous by way of inspiration?

3. What is the difference between an alien sinner and a devout man, righteous man, what is the difference between someone who does not aknowledge God at all and someone who like Cornelius who is righteous?

4. Why was Abraham in a right relationship with God? Why was Cornelius in a right relationship with God?

If you look at the inspired text of this account the word rightous is the same word used to describe many, even our LORD. It was time for this righteous man to make the change from the dispensation that God gave man without the Mosiac Law and that had not yet recieved CHrist yet but knew of Him. If Cornelius would have rejected HIm then he then would have been an unrighteous man not willing to do the will of God, but we realize that this is not the case.

I hope this at least shedds some light on this issue.

Welcome back MARC!

[Marc]

That is correct "they" said Cornelius was righteous. Nowhere does it say that God did.

Matthew 16:22 - Matthew wrote it, Peter said it and the Holy Spirit inspired it. Is what the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write something that we would agree should have happened?

Not only does Acts 11:14 demonstrate that he was not yet saved before Peter met him but so does the fact (as my original post stated) when Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit this placed him into the body of Christ. What you are saying is that one can be "out" of the body (one is either in or out) yet still be saved.

In answer to your questions:

1. Both Abraham and Rahab were saved when they had faith. Cornelius occurred after the resurrection of Christ. In fact, even those in Acts 19, despite being baptized with John's baptism, were still not saved until they believed on Christ. The same would hold true with Apollos.

2. Cornelius was not called righteous by God. Just because something is recorded doesn't necessiate that God appproved of it. It can be descriptive not prescriptive. In 1 Kings 18:26 a prayer is recorded to Baal but that doesn't mean we are to emulate this.

3. Once the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost all those who do not have the Holy Spirit can not please God (Romans 8:8).

4. Because of their faith.

Thank you.
- Marc

[sledford]

[sledford]

[Marc]

Nice to see that this time have quoted what Thayer actually said concerning Acts 11:15 in the use of "began".

"Acts xi. 15 (cf. x. 44)"

cf. means to consult or refer to. So when deciding the meaning of "began" in this text Thayer says to "refer to" Acts 10:44. And there it demonstrates that the falling of the Holy Spirit occurred while Peter was still speaking these "words" (plural).
Thus your argument crumbles.

[sledford]

[Marc]

What are you talking about?! Is your mind that "water logged" that you can't understand that cf. means "refer to" ponting to Acts 10:44. Thayer states many passages where "archomia" is used and "then" he gives its "explanation" as to its meaning. Open your eyes and read one of the examples he gives before he addresses Acts 11:15.

"Mark iv. 1 (he had scarcely begun to teach, when a multitude gathered unto him) Can you see that? First the passage where it is used and "THEN" the explanation as to how it is used.


That is exactly what he does in Acts 11:15.

"Acts xi. 15 (cf. 10:44)"

He is saying that Acts 10:44 "describes" Acts 11:15.

And as my post had shown even when Luke records Peter saying that he gave the events in an "orderly account" (Acts 11:4) this expression was also very flexible. So we now have a basis for understanding "began" as used in Acts 11:15 "as being flexible also".

Furthermore, you never responded to the modern day example I gave where "began" can refer to an event taking place "sometime" at the beginning.

[Marc]

Let's take another look at Thayer in regards to your "the Holy Spirit fell just as Peter was getting the very first word out of his mouth" theory.

In his definition of "began" as used in Acts 11:15 he cites several other texts along with it. This is under "2c". It reads that in these texts archomai "indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interrupted by something else". One of the texts he cites that falls under this "SAME" category as Acts 11:15 is Acts 18:26. Speaking of Apollos it reads,
and he began (archomai) to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

His speaking, according to Thayer, was "interrupted" by this Christian couple taking him aside.

So Apollos barely got one word out of his mouth but somehow in some weird way both Priscilla and Aquilla felt compelled to take him aside and explain to him the way of God more accurately even though they may at most heard just one word of what he had spoken.

Yes that makes perfect sense.

- Marc

[sledford]

There is far more internal evidence of the literal chronological definition of the word "began" to be the literal beginning of Peter's words than just Thayer's definition. One of the principles of word study is definition in context. Here are two additional supporting observations direct from context about the literal defintion of "began" in Acts 11:15 to be the beginning of Peter's "words unto salvation" (Acts 11:14).

***********************************************************************************************

[Marc]

1. My present day example showing that "began" can be used figurativelly was dodged.

2. Luke's recording of Peter saying he gave an "orderly account" when in fact it wasn't "strictly" chronological was dodged.

3. In terms of commentators who hold to the belief that the falling of the Holy Spirit occurred while Peter was speaking check out Albert Barnes at http://studylight.org/com/
But as with Thayer I wouldn't be surprised that he too will be downplayed. While you are at this site you can also read what John Gill says about it. Scope out Robertson's NT Word Studies at http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robertact11.htm. You never read any commentator that has such a view? Now you have three.

4. Thayer's use of "began" in Acts 18:26. Oh sure you have no problem citing Thayer but now since this evidence was brought to the forefront disproving the false "water gospel" his lexicon is now simply down played. Real nice. If that's your excuse as to how you give an qanswer to any one who asks you a question about the Bible I certainly pity the people who you may happen to teach.

[JSM17]

The Patriarchal Age or Dispensation is the first period of God-authored religious history, which was subsequently followed by Judaism and Christianity, respectively. The type of interaction between God and mankind that was characteristic of Patriarchy began immediately following creation of Adam and Eve. Until the institution of Judaism for the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, Patriarchy was a universal religion. After God gave the descendants of Jacob Judaism, Patriarchy continued for the rest of humanity not included in God's covenant with the Israelites. Upon the establishment of Christianity, Patriarchy seems to have continued for a time also parallel to Christianity, until the Gospel of Christ was proclaimed to non-Jews (the Gentiles, Acts 10-11).

Remember that LUKE said these things about Cornelius:

Acts 10:1-3
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment,2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.3 About the Ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius!"
NKJV

Does this sound like a lost degenerate alien sinner? Besides the context says that Cornelius had heard of this Jesus, but salvation by Him had not come to the GENTILES yet, but was about to, this does not mean that Cornelius was in a wrong realtionship, because cornelius did not have the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not been given to the Gentiles yet. Inspiration says that cornelius was a righteous man, why do we try to remove that from him?

Acts 10:34-36

Then Peter opened his mouth and said:"In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
NKJV

This describes Cornelius as a righteous man

This Peter spoke of before the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius!

[Marc]

Hey!

Now that it has been established that Cornelius did indeed hear the gospel message before he received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:45) demonstrating that he already had "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38) before he was water baptized I would like to make several remarks about your post.

1. In terms of being "devout" (Acts 10:2) Paul still preached to other "devout" Gentiles in Acts 17:17. They were no more saved than the the Jews mentioned in this passage.

2. In terms of fearing God this too applied to other Gentiles (Acts 13:16) but as demonstrated by #1 they were no more saved than the Jews. Both their conditions before their acceptance of the gospel was a lost state.

3. Paul "prayed" to God after the incident on the road to Damascus but he was not yet saved.

4. If you are going to use Acts 10:2 to demonstrate that Cornelius was saved before he met Peter then you must "assume" his condition applied to "everyone" of his friends (Acts 10:24).

5. In Acts 15:9 Peter states that the hearts of the Gentiles were "cleansed" by faith. The Greek word for cleansed is "katharizo". In regards to this passage Thayer states, "to free from defilement of sin and faults; to purify from wickedness."
So before he met Peter Cornelius:
a. Had the defilement of sin and faults
b. Was wicked

If a person is defiled by their sins and faults and is considered "wicked" are they saved or unsaved?

- Marc

[JSM17]

THE CONTEXT DOES NOT SAY HE IS WICKED, IT SAYS THAT HE IS RIGHTEOUS!

CORNELIUS WAS MORE THAN DEVOUT, he was one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
NKJV

Acts 10:22
"Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you
NKJV

Acts 10:35-36
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
NKJV

NT:1184

dektos (dek-tos'); from NT:1209; approved; (figuratively) propitious:
KJV - accepted (-table).


Did you know that Noah, Job, Abraham were Gentiles, how were they saved by faith apart from the blood of Jesus?

How was Cornelius righteous before God without recieving salvation from God before Acts10? Did God leave all Gentiles to destruction until Acts 10?

[Marc]

As shown, Acts 13:16 and 17:17 shows that these Gentiles "feared God" but they were still in need of salvation. You didn't address these passages at all. You also didn't address how you would go about proving that "everyone" that was with Cornelius was also saved before Peter met them (Acts 10:24).

W.E. Vine states that dektos "denotes a person or thing who has been regarded favorably (Luke 4:19, 24; Acts 10:35; 2 Corinthians 6:2). 2 Corinthians 6:2 is very clear that salvation was "possible" not that it had already occurred. Thus it carries with it the meaning of being "welcomed" as the NASB proclaims.

You never did address what Thayer said concerning katharizo (cleansed) in regards to being purified from "wickedeness" . You simply stated the context shows he was righteous. And I have shown that it does not mean that. Furthermore the Bible says "the sum of Thy word is truth" (Psalm 119:160) so when formulating a doctrine one must look at "ALL" the words of the passages of Scripture and in Acts 15:9 Peter says Cornelius was "cleansed". That is Cornelius was purified from "wickedness" and the "defilement" of sin and faults. Defilement means "filthiness".

- Marc

[JSM17]

First off, there are no rules that say that I have to debate with you, I made a post for those who can accept what is written, the context says that he was righteous, notice that Peter never refutes this thought given to him about cornelius, yet he would not allow Cornelius to bow to him, do you think that if Cornelius was not a righhteous man that Peter would allow someone to say that he was, or for that matter, do you think God would allow it to be written if he did not want us to think that he was?

Maybe you should deal with the passages that I have posted, I am not debating when Cornelius was saved, I am looking at what was Cornelius's state before the Gospel was given to him, his relationship with God, I know it is difficult to understand, since we all have preconceived ideas about most people. Cornelius was righteous, he was a Patriarch who was RIGHTEOUS. WHo had to make the choice about obeying God through the gospel while the time clock of the patriarch was running out!


Just answer this question, which I think you will not, does the context say that Cornelius was a righteous man?

YES OR NO?

[Marc]

The "SUM" of Thy word is truth (Psalms 119:160).

[JSM17]

Acts 10:22
"Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you."
NASU

[sledford]