THE CONTEXT OF CORNELIUS

[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:

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

then an expansion of what was said in the recounting by Cornelius' servants

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

Observation #1Cornelius was a righteous man but there was still something that he need to do. He was warned about something and would hear words from Peter on how to deal with the warning. In addition, it is recorded in Acts 10:33 that Cornelius recognized the importance of doing as God directed, heeded the warning by sending immediately for Peter and then gathered his entire house and waited 4 days with them for the arrival of Peter to hear what was commanded by God.

Next critical item in understanding this context is examinng Peter's recounting of it in Acts 11

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Observation #2The words that Peter would speak to Cornelius would be the words explaining how to be saved. In addition, this context explains specifically when the HS fell on them: as Peter began to speak. The beginning of his speaking aligns with Acts 10:34 and this also aligns with what is said in Acts 10:44

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

The HS fell on the Gentiles present in Cornelius' house at the start of Peter's words, the words by which Cornelius would be saved.

Now a few comments about Cornelius' spiritual state. He was a devout man, yes indeed, it describes him as such in the introduction of Acts 10. None the less he needed a warning from God (10:22), he needed to do something (10:6), he would hear words from Peter (10:14) in order to be saved (11:14). There is only one conclusion that can be reached in light of harmonizing all the accounts: Cornelius was NOT saved yet. Cornelius was a "good man" that still needed to do something else to be saved and words would be the means of conveying that salvation. The opposite of saved is lost and yes, lost means separated from God and thus means he would be condemned to Hell just as the rest us before we are saved. I'd like to think of myself as a "good person" before I obeyed God in baptism just as Cornelius had but I too was Hell bound and needed a Savior. Being a "good person" alone does not save. One must heed the words leading to salvation (11:14).

It should also be noted from the account in Acts 11 the conclusion that the bretheren in Jerusalem reached from all this:

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

They reached the conclusion that the HS falling on the Gentiles was showing God had opened the door for Gentiles to also repent and be saved, not just Jews. They didn't conclude that they were already saved, or that the HS falling on them saved them. They concluded that the HS falling was a sign from God that Gentiles should also do something by hearing words, to repent, and be saved as the Jews were also commanded to do.

I think you've gone beyond context to conclude that Cornelius was already saved and likewise, exposes an assumption that the HS could fall ONLY on people that were saved. Perhaps unknowingly, this assumption has driven a line of reasoning that is not supported in scripture. As I have reflected on the discussions in the past months concerning the HS I perceive much confusion about what it means for the HS to be "poured out", to "fall on" individuals, to be "filled with", and "receive the gift of". This maybe some topics for further study.

[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:

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

*Emphasis in the preceeding scripture is mine

It's the speaking and response to words (the thing that Cornelius would be told to do (Acts 10:4-6) ) that delivers salvation, that is specifically what Acts 11:14 says. Second, the HS event occured as Peter began speaking, the words had not completely been spoken nor had Cornelius done anything in response. It is wholly out of context to conclude that the HS is what saved these people. Are you going to harmonize scripture together or ignore some sections in order to agree with your point of view and conclusion? Your understanding of the HS is very flawed.

[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]

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

Marc, because your hamonization is flawed (Acts 11:13-15) it is not warranted to spend time working through a discussion building on a cracked and crumbled foundation. Harmonize the account of Peter in Acts 11:13-15 and maybe we can move forward. I clearly responded to the foundational issue you have had since you began posting on this topic last year: you have assumed that the HS "falling on" is equivalent to salvation. Reading and harmonizing all accounts of Cornelius reaches an entirely different conclusion: the HS falling on them was a sign that the Gentiles should also hear the word just as they concluded in Acts 11:17-18.

You can try to re-direct and confuse this issue but until these fundamental flaws in your logic and harmonization are addressed, there really isn't much of anything further to discuss.

[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:

When Luke writes that Peter rehearsed the events in orderly sequence it is not to be understood in a strict chronological order for according to Acts 11:13 those listening to him would have believed that Peter is just now being informed of the angel appearing to Cornelius but in actuality he knew about it earlier than this event according to those who spoke with him in Acts 10:22. The account is orderly and correct but it is not strictly chronological. The precise timing of the events are not his concern. In terms of Acts 11:15 then "began" (archomai) is to be taken figurativelly. Thayer states concerning the use of this word in Acts 11:15, "Acts xi.15 (cf. 10:44)". Cf. means "to consult" or "refer to". Thus when we are attempting to ascertain when the Holy Spirit fell we ar told to refer to Acts 10:44 and there it states He fell while Peter was still speaking these "words" (plural) so it does not mean He fell upon them just as he spoke his first word. A discrepency? Not really. Here's a modern day example as to why it is not. Take for example if my preacher appproached me and was describing to me a sermon he recently preached at another church and said, "As I began to preach the Holy Spirit convicted the congregation". It would be perfectly plausible (as well as etymologically allowable) for me to believe the conviction took place "sometime" at the beginning of his sermon rather than at the mere utterance of his very first word. His emphasis would not be on what he spoke during his sermon but on what the Holy Spirit had done. The same holds true with Peter desribing the events with these Gentiles. It wasn't so much as to what he said that he wanted to emphasize but rather what the Holy Spirit had accomplished.

You make some assertions in a word study of the word "began" that don't align with what I'm reading by these men for this word. Here is the direct quote from both Thayer and Strong on the word "began" as used in Acts 11:15.

G756
ἄρχομαι
archomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to be the first to do (anything), to begin
2) to be chief, leader, ruler
3) to begin, make a beginning
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: middle voice of G757 (through the implication of precedence)
Citing in TDNT: 1:478,*

G756
ἄρχομαι
archomai
ar'-khom-ahee
Middle voice of G757 (through the implication of precedence); to commence (in order of time): - rehearse from the) begin (-ning).

Now to highlight something you said specifically in your original post:

Thayer states concerning the use of this word in Acts 11:15, "Acts xi.15 (cf. 10:44)". Cf. means "to consult" or "refer to".

Wow. That's pretty far off from my direct quote of them. As I have quoted from both Thayer and Strong, neither of them says any such thing as you represented in your posting. Both of these linguists assert a direct meaning of chronology to the word "began" and thereby this context. By the way, I have read Wesley, Barnes, Lightfoot and Clarke and not one of them asserts a figurative meaning to this context or this word "began". You are left with a rather large, gaping hole in your study, logic, and conclusion. We know from context that Peter would speak to Cornelius of what he should do (Acts 10:6, 10:14) and we know that what he would do would be for his salvation (Acts 11:14). I think you understand the importance of one little word "began". The HS fell on them at the literal beginning of what Peter would say and he still completed delivering the message, the words, and that establishes the WORD as the motive force of salvation directing men to repentance and obedience of God.

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.

It is indeed revealing! I am approaching this trying to the best of my ability to be intellectually honest and bring glory to God. I would like to believe that an aggregious mis-representation of what Thayer wrote concerning this word study was an oversight but it is so gross and incorrect that it leaves me with an impression of highly malicious and pre-judicial motives. What else have you mis-quoted or twisted? You are building a pattern of being intellectually dishonest. It is not wise or valid to continue forward with your discussion until this is resolved.

[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/ ... -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]

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/ ... -5492.html

That doesn't come anywhere close to resolving your mis-representation of how Thayer defines the word. For the casual reader of this thread here's the quote from the web page if you follow it:

c. αρχ. indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interrupted by something else : Mt. xii. 1 (they had begun to pluck ears of corn, but they were prevented from continuing by the interference of the Pharisees); Mt. xxvi. 22 (Jesus answered before all had finished), 74; Mk. ii. 23; iv. 1 (he had scarcely begun to teach, when a multitude gathered unto him); Mk. vi. 2; x. 41; Lk. v. 21; xii. 45 sq.; xiii.23; Acts xi. 15 (cf. x. 44); xviii. 26, and often.

* bolded emphasis mine

You still have an enourmous problem in your word study, and concuding thoughts from that. And you continue to try to divert, confuse, in what I perceive to be an attempt to avoid this critical flaw in your logic and thereby conclusion. When do you set your pre-judice aside and stop twisting scripture and what other men have written to fit your pre-judiced conclusions? Folks, mark this man as he is an intellectually dishonest person.

[sledford]

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?

I would like to ask a question that needs to be addressed before this. The text says in Acts the following:

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

Thayer defines the root word translated as the phrase "shall be saved" as follows:

1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
a) one (from injury or peril)
1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
2) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue

b) to save in the technical biblical sense
1) negatively
a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

QUESTION: saved from what?

Friend, you need to start at this point and then build from it with respect to your understanding of how/why Cornelius is declared devout, yes, and heard by God BUT still needed to be saved. You are trying to force fit an assumed equivalence between devout and saved that is not supported by this context.

I will add my own comments on this context and some very profound lessons for us in our age. People that do good, Godly things, but are absent other good, Godly things such as baptism for remission of sins, are lost. Action based on a devotion (an equivalence with faith) will motivate us, compel us, to do what God says by his word. A devotion to serving God is the foundation which REQUIRES us to act upon what God tells us in his word. How can one be devout and NOT do what God would say by his word? But, that devotion to serving God is not SUFFICIENT on it's own to save.

If there is a case where "faith only" is utterly destroyed it is Cornelius.

I find the comments Paul made to the Athenians, gentiles themselves, revealing and relevant to this topic:

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Cornelius while devout, was not yet in keeping of the "righteousness by that man", Jesus. That is how Cornelius, and us, will be judged. Paul identifies a transition in which the past ingornance was overlooked and the present time of "righteousness by that man". The timing of that transition was the point at which Jesus sent out his disciples to proclaim the word to the world.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[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]

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.

Are you that arrogant that you cannot read? That note by Thayer is a reference that the account of Acts 11:15 speaks of the events of Acts 10:44. It doesn't change the meaning of "began" that Thayer established. The chrological significance still remains of "began" meaning at the beginning of Peter speaking, the HS "fell on" them, and the fact that Peter completed uttering the words given leading to salvation. The reference by Thayer is an acknowledgement that the word "began" elaborates and further defines Acts 10:44 and the EXACT chronology. The HS did not save these people since that invovles no "doing" by Cornelius, it involved no "words" as demonstrated by the order of precedence being at the "beginning" of Peter's utterance, therefore it involved no salvation for him.

To imply, conclude, construe or whatever that cf. overides the definition established by Thayer, that has been directly quoted, is the utmost demonstration of intellectual dishonesty that I have ever seen. You seem to have no end to the twisting and rending of the words of others and the word of God to meet your own pre-judiced conclusions.

[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).

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

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Observation #1: Acts 11:15 states when the beginning occurred "As I began to speak". Speak what, Peter? He had already "spoken" earlier to Cornelius since he had reprimanded him for falling at his feet, "I too am just a man" and stated he shouldn't be there associating with Gentiles in Acts 10:26-29. So, Peter can't be referring to those words spoken as the beginning. The only other "speaking" recorded by Peter is the message for which he was specifically sent for and commanded by God to give: words unto salvation (Acts 11:14). By simple analysis of the speaking by Peter, yes, indeed it is logical that the "beginning" was that of the speaking "words unto salvation" started in Acts 10:34. Finally, the very structure of the language in Acts 11:14-15 is that the antecedant of "began to speak" and what was spoken is the "words unto salvation" of Acts 11:14 establishes the literal beginning to be Acts 10:34 since this marks the beginning of the words leading to repentance and salvation.

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

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Observation #2: The very words of Peter in Acts 10:34 already state a truth of what must have just occurred between what is recorded in v33 and v34: the HS fell on them. Peter concluded in his own mind the same thing the Jewish brethren did in Acts 11:18 in hearing Peter's account: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." What "perception" did Peter achieve in 10:34? The word "perceive" here means "to seize or possess". Peter had just told Cornelius that he shouldn't be there, he had responded to God 3 times in his vision that he can't go against his old Jewish rules, it took a direct command from God upon arrival of Cornelius' servants to have him go, and here he is about to deliver "words unto salvation" and he FINALLY seizes upon the truth that God views all men equally for salvation. And what established this truth in the minds of the Jewish bretheren in Jerusalem (Acts 11:18 )? That as stated by Peter in his account to them:

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

And Peter having concluded this in his mind, seeing the HS falling on them, stating that conclusion in Acts 10:34 and also in Acts 11:17, he began to speak the "words unto salvation", the literal beginning of the message, yes, indeed.

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

Marc, it is abundantly clear that you twist everything to meet your own ends, your own conclusions. Your conclusion requires you to make the word "began" in Acts 11:15 to be "flexible" and "figurative", in your own words. There is no linguistic proof through word defintion, there is no contextual proof, and there is no commentator that I have read that has such a view (and I have read at least 5 different ones noted earlier). There are many things spoken of in Proverbs regarding a "fool", but this one sticks out in my mind:

15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

It is not my own counsel that I seek to put forth but the counsel of God. When will you hearken to it and set aside your foolish intellectual dishonesty with pre-judiced conclusions? I pray that you hearken before the end is sealed. As for me, I am leaving this discussion with you until you can demonstrate intellectual honesty and turn from foolishness. Those that are wise can see the counsel of God and to further wrangle with a fool will not bring glory to God.

[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]

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?

That is a purely emotional question and line of argumentation that assumes the conclusion. This question is similar to the old, analogous rejoinder of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no "right" answer because neither "yes" or "no" is correct. "Yes" is not correct because it doesn't match the human defintion of "degenerate" but, if you answer "no" then it assumes because it does not fit the "degenerate" adjective, that he must already be saved. Neither is correct.

As I pointed out earlier and still remains unanswered from context: Corenlius was saved from what?

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

It is crucial to understand what Cornelius should be saved from to harmonize how he is devout but still needs a salvation. See my previous comments about how I see the only way to harmonize these two concepts.

JSM quoted another passage that establishes the relationship between righteousness and action:

35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Righteousness is not just a state of the heart, a fuzzy feeling inside, a "faith only" thing, but something that "works", has action, effort, and results. Cornelius having had the "words unto salvation" revealed to him by Peter now had to have some action to be consistent with his devotion, his righteousness. However, past "right works" of Cornelius alone would NOT save him. He needed to do the "right works" revealed by Peter through words in order to be saved (v22).

These are not easy concepts to work through given an American culture that desires to define their own "good" and be justified by it. Remember, we are judged by the "righteousness by that man" (Acts 17:31), by Jesus. Cornelius being separate from Jesus stood apart from his righteousness as the standard for judgement. Cornelius needed salvation just as we do.

I'm not here to nit-pick your statements but we all have assumptions that need to be exposed to the light of truth. Here is another one:

WHo had to make the choice about obeying God through the gospel while the time clock of the patriarch was running out!

The Patriarch age for the Gentiles had already run out and was well over, along with the Mosaical age for the Jews. The marker of it's end was the establishment of judgment in "righteousness by that man", Jesus. This was pronounced by Paul in Acts 17:30-31 in his speech to the Athenians. Clearly the account of Cornelius is AFTER the establishment of judgment by the righteousness of Jesus. Otherwise, why would there be something that Cornelius needed to do? (Acts 10:6)

Finally,

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.

Sir, not hardly. This is not a "debate" forum in which a "winner" is declared, let alone a self-declared winner as you attempt to do. The truth of the matter will stand on it's own and God be glorified in it!

[Marc]

JSM17- Already addressed:

a. Friday June 30th, 2006 5:38am
b. Tuesady July 4th, 2006 6:18pm
c. Wednesday July 5th, 2006 11:55am


sledford wrote: "The truth of the matter will stand on its own"

a. If one receives "the gift of the Holy Spirit" they have "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38).

b. Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48.

c. Therefore Cornelius already had "the forgiveness of sins" before he was water baptized.

I'd like to see how "a" and/or "b" which prove the truth of "c" is in error.

[JSM17]

First of all Sledford, how is it you declare that the Patriarchy dispensation ended at the cross, what was the condition of the Gentiles between Christ's death and Acts 10. Are we to assume that there was no safe haven for those who did not recieve the Gospel yet but were righteous, since the Gospel had not gone to the Gentiles until Acts 10. The words that Peter spoke of concerning those who worked righteousness were spoken before the Holy Spirit fell upon them.

Why is it that Marc denies that Cornelius was righteous because God didn't say it directly, instead Cornelius's messengers says it, Luke wrote it and the Holy Spirit inspired it, Peter does not refute it. How do you (Sledford) explain what is said about Cornelius being righteous, will you take the position that Marc takes or will you admitt that Cornelius was righteous before the Holy Spirit fell upon him. I do not deny that Cornelius needed Christ and to obey the Gospel, but we are not clear on what Cornelius's position is before the Gospel came to him. Are all righteous Gentiles spoken of in scripture condemned? What is your scriptural proof that the Patriarchy dispensation ended at the cross?

And to you

Again Marc:
You have what is called a four term syllogism which is not a syllogism at all, we would call such a "silly-gism".

Here is a correct syllogism.

a) One is saved when he receives the H.S.
b)Cornelius recieved the H.S.
c) Therefore cornelius was saved

a) salvation comes by hearing of the Gospel
b) Peter would tell Cornelius words in which they could be saved
c) Salvation came to cornelius by hearing the Gospel ( Not recieving the H.S.)

A four term syllogism cannot be used to prove your position try again.

[Marc]

If one has the gift of the Holy Spirit do they have the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)?

Yes or no?


2 Kings 5:18 (Acts 10:22)
a. A man of God wrote it.
a. The Holy Spirit inspired it.
b. Elisha like Peter shows no sign of approval or disapproval of what he had heard.

Is what Namaan said he was going to do a sin? Would you bow down in the house of Rimmon?

1. Were "all" those with Cornelius who were listening to Peter's message righteous before Peter came to them?

2. Were the "God fearing" Gentiles saved or unsaved in Acts 13:16 and 17:17?

3. What does Thayer say "katharizo" means in Acts 15:9?

[Marc]

A few more things...

1. John 4 (Acts 10:22)

a. John wrote it
b. The Holy Spirit inspired it
c. The Lord Jesus does not correct her misunderstanding.

I am referring to the Samaritan women at the well.
Verse 10 - The Lord Jesus mentions "living water".
Verses 11 and 12 - She assumes it is the H2O that one imbibes.
Verses 13 and 14 - The Lord Jesus does not correct her misunderstaning of "water" but speaks again of drinking living water so as to never thirst.
Verse 15 - She still thinks He is referring to H2O in that she doesn't want to ever be thirsty again nor have to draw from the well again.

Even after this nowhere in the text does He tell her that He was not referring to H2O but of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39).

So to insist that just because Peter did not correct what they said about Cornelius being "righteous" does not at all prove that he agreed with it as 2 Kings 5 and John 4 demonstrate. In fact, we know that Peter didn't agree with the description of "righteous" being applied to Cornelius for in Acts 15:9 he tells us that all the Gentiles he preached to in Acts 10 were "purified" (katharizo). That is they were now (not before Peter met them) "freed from the defilement of sin and purified from wickedness".

[sledford]

First of all Sledford, how is it you declare that the Patriarchy dispensation ended at the cross, what was the condition of the Gentiles between Christ's death and Acts 10. Are we to assume that there was no safe haven for those who did not recieve the Gospel yet but were righteous, since the Gospel had not gone to the Gentiles until Acts 10. The words that Peter spoke of concerning those who worked righteousness were spoken before the Holy Spirit fell upon them.

Friend, may I ask exactly where you're going with the line of thought to begin with? What conclusion are you trying to establish and to what end? If this is a "simple" discussion of truth, then I must tell you that this is taking an argumentative tack that will not bring glory to God.

You have demonstrated a desire to harmonize scripture in your past postings. You must then understand the need to harmonize the entirety of what is revealed in answering the question: Cornelius was saved from what?

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

As I stated before, it's not easy to expose assumptions to the light of truth, but I pray that you will allow truth to light the path you are seeking to understand. This question of "saved from what?" is so crucial to harmonization that it cannot be avoided. Why have you not addressed it even though this is the 3rd time I've raised it?

[Marc]

Not only has JSM17 shyed away from telling us if "all" the Gentiles with Cornelius were righteous before Peter arrived (Acts 10:24) but he has also avoided Peter's description of the present state of all the Gentiles he witnessed to in Acts 10 as being "purified" (Acts 15:9).

From what I've been able to see he has basically used three texts he believes demonstrates that Cornelius was saved before Peter preached to him.

1. Acts 10:2
a. Devout - Also describes the unsaved in Acts 17:17.
b. Feared God - Also describes the unsaved in Acts 13:16.
c. Prayed - Also describes an unsaved man in Acts 9:11.

2. Acts 10:24
a. Righteous - Were the words of these men.
b. Peter no more corrected their misunderstanding anymore than Elisha (2 Kings 5:18) and the Lord Jesus (John 4:7-15).

3. Acts 10:35
a. Accepted (dektos) - Can also mean "welcomed" (NASB) as is clearly the case in 2 Corinthians 6:2.

None of the passages can be used to prove that Cornelius was already saved before Peter met him.

- Marc

[Marc]

I must apologize. I did not see that Thayer included 2 Corinthians 7:1 in the use of katharizo as meaning the same thing as Acts 15:9. Here Paul is speaking of himself and to the other Corinthians. So this word can be applied to those who are "already" Christians.

Something else came to mind. In terms of the word "forgiveness" (aphesis) Thayer states, "forgiveness of sins...remission of their penalty" and then he cites passages that apply to this meaning. Among several of these are included Acts 2:38; 10:43 and 26:18.
If one is going to insist that Cornelius was in a saved state even though without experiencing the "forgiveness of sins" as described in Acts 10:43 then in being consistent they must also believe that those to whom Peter preached to were also in a saved state prior to receiving "the forgiveness of sins".
Moreover, in Acts 26:18 it reads that those who have received "the forgiveness of sins" have had their eyes opened, haved turned from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God. These descriptions are clear that it refers to going from an unsaved condition to a saved. one. In fact, Thayer describes "sanctified" (hagiazo) as used in this passage as referriing to "Christians". Thus since "the forgiveness of sins" as described in Acts 26:18 refers to those who did not previously have it so to it means the "same thing" in regards to Cornelius before Peter met him.

Thanks
- Marc

[JSM17]

You talk about how I have not answered certain question, But I have been asking one question from the beginning and still no one has answered it.

What does God do with those who are righteous, but had not yet receive salvation from God? We are talking about a special time here when two things were coming together for a change, just like John the baptist came to prepare a change. It is funny that we cannot see that Cornelius was righteous, we keep focusing on our bais man made doctrines that will not allow us to see the simply application of a man that was righteous before God's eyes.

Deal with the question, was Cornelius a patriarch? If he was not under the Mosiac Law, and salvation through the Gospel had not yet come to the Gentiles then what are we to say about those who were righteous, they are all condemned?

This is called a search of truth forum, we all are searching, which will mean we all do not see the same thing.

I do not see a degenerate man, Luke and Peter do give us this idea, we assume. Just because Cornelius would be saved by the Gospel does not mean that he could not have been right with God before had if one dispensation was comimg to an end. The Gospel had not come to the Gentiles yet.

Nobody still has told me how Abraham was saved apart from the blood of Christ, notice it was reckon to him.

How does Romans two tie in with the idea of a man being a law unto themselves, how would God judge them,were all men condemned to Hell, because they were apart from the Mosaic law?

Just show me the scripture with in the context that tells us that Cornelius was an alien degenerate sinner.

Marc has already proclaimed that we are not to believe what is said about cornelius because God didn't say it.

So then from the context what was Cornelius?

[Marc]

In answer to your question, since they have not received salvation from God they are thus not righteous.

In answer to your next question as to if Cornelius was a Patriarch see the ten definitons at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriarch
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. Not likely
10 Could be (?)

In terms of the condition of Cornelius before Peter met him I would refer to Luke 12:48.

The one Scripture where the Bible tells us that Cornelius was a lost degenerate sinner is Acts 10:43. As already stated "forgiveness" as used in this passage refers to the remission of the "penalty" of sins. So that means before Peter met Cornelius he (Cornelius) was under the "penalty" (punishment) of his sins in the eyes of God. Furthermore, Luke uses the same word for "forgiveness" (and Thayer applies it as well) to the condition of those in Acts 2:38. If Cornelius was saved before Peter met him then these Jews were also saved before they repented and were baptized. I simply can't buy that. Moreover, that would mean that the people Paul was sent to preach the gospel to were also already saved (Acts 26:18). That just doesn't make any sense at all to me. What applies to those being referred to in Acts 2:38 and 26:18 also applies to Cornelius and those with him in Acts 10:43 - that is an unsaved condition.

- Marc

[Marc]

As already demonstrated "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which necessitates the forgiveness of sins (salvation) in Acts 2:38 also signfies salvation in Acts 10:45 - before water baptism in Acts 10:48.

a. The same Greek phrase
b. By the same author
c. In the same book
d. In the same context (the theme of the Lordship and resurrection of Christ)

I also gave the following two quotes from both Thayer and Vine:

1. With the epexegetical gen. of the thing given, the Holy Ghost, Ac 2:38; 10:45 (Joseph Henry Thayer, Dorea, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.161).

2. In Acts 2:38 'the gift of the Holy Ghost', the clause is epexegetical, the gift being the Holy Gost Himself; cf. 10:45 (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p.147).

I don't know what else it would take to convince a person who is a "truth seeker" to accept that the expression is in reference to salvation in both passages.

Perhaps one more will do:

3. Receive the Spirit as a gift Ac 2:38; cf. 10:45 (Arndt & Gingrich, Dorea, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 210).

Since the evidence points to the fact that the forgiveness of sins had indeed occurred in Acts 10:45 before water baptism took place in Acts 10:48 rather than just accept the testimony of what the expression means in "both" passages some have resorted to seek refuge in the belief that the Gentiles were saved even before Peter met them for to hold to the position that they were not saved in Acts 10:45 until water baptism took place in Acts 10:48 is simply untenable. Let it be also pointed out that the above evidence does not even allow the possibility to seek umbrage for this latter position for "the forgiveness of sins" applies "equally" to both Acts 2:38 and 10:45. That it refers to salvation in Acts 2:38 the same would apply to Acts 10:45 - before water baptism in Acts 10:48.

- Marc

[Marc]

In terms of the gift of the Holy Spirit having the same meaning both in Acts 2:38 and 10:45 I have quoted Arndt and Gingrich, Thayer, and Vine. Here is one more:

"In Ac. the Spirit is called the dorea of God in 2:38...10:45" (Gerhard Kittell, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 2, page 167).

Therefore in light of the cumulative evidence to insist that these Gentiles in Acts 10 were not saved until they were water baptized is simply perverse.

- Marc

[JSM17]

No one can be saved apart from hearing the word of God, even if they recieved the H.S. for the purpose of proving to those Jews on that day that salvation could be preached to the Gentiles.

To preach a different Gospels is perverse. The same requirements on the day of Pentecost can be applied to Cornelius and his household. Not every circumstance is the same but the Gospel is always the same from Christ to judgement, it is the same. Believe, repent, confess, be baptized for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just because we do not see it the same way in Acts 10 does not mean there is a different gospel it means we do not understand what is happening.

[Marc]

No one can be saved apart from the word of God even if they received the Holy Spirit?

You are making a false dichotomy. Because people heard (and believed) the word of God proves that they received the Holy Spirit. You can't receive the Holy Spirit without the word of God.

By receiving "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which necessitates "the forgiveness of sins" proves that the salvation was "already" preached and had occurred before these Gentiles were water baptized in Acts 10:48.

Yes to preach a different Gospel is perverse. I don't believe it was a differnt gospel in Acts 2. Their water baptism was inherent in their repentance for their special guilt in delivering Christ up to Pilate. This constituted "the greater sin" (John 19:11).

Acts 2 and 10 can "not" be the same requirements.

Jews - Be water baptized - Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
Gentiles - Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - Be water baptized (Acts 10:45, 48)

That's the "same"?
No, it is not the same and we do understand what is happening for Luke in Acts 10:45 clearly tells us that they received "the gift of the Holy Spirit".

So just as "the gift of the Holy Spirit" necessitates "the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38 so too "the gift of the Holy Spirit" necessitates "the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 10:45 - before water baptism in Acts 10:48.

[JSM17]

Would you admitt that the Jews were saved by their baptism (Acts2) but Cornelius (Acts 10) and the rest of the world are not?

[Marc]

Yes.

The Jews during this time period received the gift of the Holy Spirit (salvation) in or immediately upon water baptism (Acts 2:38).

The Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit (salvation) before water baptism (Acts 10:45).

[JSM17]

So then does God show partiality between the Jew and the Gentile? Two different methods of entrance into the Kingdom, two Gospel plains for salvation one first to the Jews then God changed it for the Gentiles?

[Marc]

The "greater sin" required the greater repentance on the part of those who committed it (the Jews during this time period).

On Tuesady October 24, 2006 at 3:19pm I made clear that I believed it is not a different gospel.

By the way you didn't address "the gift of the Holy Spirit".

[sledford]

Marc, there are two possibilities for the phrase "gift of the Holy Spirit"

a) A gift the Holy Spirit brings (the subject of the "gift" is something other than the Holy Spirit)

- OR -

b) The gift is the Holy Spirit itself (the subject of the "gift" is the Holy Spirit)

I'll leave you with this and then I will come back and post more on it later. In order to properly evaluate which subject the "gift" is, the place to start is to harmonize Joel 2:28-29 with the application that Peter makes in Acts 2:15-18. I'll give you a really BIG hint as well: you're going to have to deal with "pour out my spirit" and "all flesh". Understanding these two contexts where Scripture is commenting on Scripture is key to this question. If you'd like to start before I post on it, please feel free.

28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

[Marc]

Sledford,

The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

a. with the epexegetical gen. of the thing given, the Holy Ghost, Ac 2:38; 10:45 (Joseph Henry Thayer, Dorea, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 161).

b. In Acts 2:38 "the gift of the Holy Ghost", the clause is epexegetical, the gift being the Holy Ghost Himself; cf. 10:45; 11:17 (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 147).

c. Receive the Spirit as a gift Ac 2:38 cf. 10:45 (Arndt and Gingrich, Dorea, Greek-English Lexiocon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, page 210).

d. In Ac. the Spirit is called the dorea of God in 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17 (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 2, page 167).

Notice something else from Thayer concerning the word "sphragizw" (sealed - which is Strong's #4972):
"respecting God, who by the gift of the Holy Spirit indicates who are his".
The Gentiles received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 therefore they were His (saved) before they were water baptized in Acts 10:48.

- Marc Taylor

[sledford]

Marc, those are interesting quotes from MEN but none of them harmonize Joel 2 with Acts 2. Replacing the definition to be that the subject of "the gift" is the HS itself then presents a very serious problem with being "poured out" on "all flesh" as Joel states and then Peter applies on the day of Pentecost. It presents a problem because the HS did not literally indwell in "all flesh" on that day, nor on any other time since.

The subject of "the gift" being something that the HS brings, is the only definition that renders Joel 2 and Peter's application in Acts 2 as making any sense at all. "All flesh" had "poured out" on them beginning that very day what the HS enabled and brought to Peter and the apostles on the day of Pentecost, proclaim words leading unto salvation. And because of the continuing power of that message to this day the spirit continues to be "poured out" on us now. Not that the spirit itself is literally "poured out" but what the spirit brought, words leading unto salvation, is brought to "all flesh".

The context of Joel 2 and Acts 2 form the single strongest definition and proof since it is Scripture commenting on Scripture, no speculation by MEN, no trying to figure out what contextual definitions apply, Joel states it as prophecy and Peter applies it. Would you care to reason from these scriptures then?

[Marc]

These "men" are authoritative New Testament Greek scholars. I have provided several sources to back up my claim that "the gift of the Holy Spirit" refers to the same thing as used in both Acts 2:38 and 10:45. You have not provided one source. I would like to see sources that you can provide to back up your claim and then we can compare them with the sources I cited. Otherwise it is simply your opinion.

You are taking the word "all" too strictly in terms of all flesh. There is also "flesh of beasts, birds and fish" (1 Corinthians 15:39). Does this mean the Spirit was to be "poured out" (ekxeo) upon them as well? Or do you "limit" it?

[sledford]

These "men" are authoritative New Testament Greek scholars. I have provided several sources to back up my claim that "the gift of the Holy Spirit" refers to the same thing as used in both Acts 2:38 and 10:45. You have not provided one source. I would like to see sources that you can provide to back up your claim and then we can compare them with the sources I cited.

I quoted the most authoritative source in known existence: Scripture commenting on Scripture (Peter applying Joel 2 to the events of Acts 2). It doesn't agree with your conclusion and perhaps it doesn't agree with your "authoritative scholars". The trouble I perceive is that you are drowning in your conclusion and will not accept evidence to the contrary. That, my friend, is supreme intellectual dishonesty and I pray you recognize it before it's too late. You have heaped up words for "itching ears" to hear what you want to hear.

You are taking the word "all" too strictly in terms of all flesh. There is also "flesh of beasts, birds and fish" (1 Corinthians 15:39).

I was expecting that retort to come at some point. Again, I will direct you to Peter's application of the spirit being "poured out" on "all flesh" as being the events of the day of Pentecost. If you substitute your definition of "flesh" to also include "flesh of beasts, birds, and fish" then it makes no sense whatsoever even for your misguided belief that the "gift" of the HS is the HS itself. Are you then concluding that the HS was "poured out" on beast, birds, and fish? It doesn't take a linguistic scholar to see as again, this is Scripture commenting on Scripture. The two harmonize perfectly because of the very source of the commentary itself being Divine. Take your definition and the contexts make no sense with even your application of it. From internal evidence of these two contexts, the only definition of "flesh" that makes sense is "human flesh". That's not "limiting" the definition of flesh but applying the definition in context that makes sense.

You are also trying to introduce a rejoinder of "reasoning from exception" that by proposing an exception to the definition of "flesh" also means an exception to the class of flesh as being something other than literally "all". Your attempt is sorely lacking as again, you have provided no internal evidence from Scripture commenting on Scripture that "all" is restricted in any way. Friend, from the source of this Divine commentary it has applied "all" in a way that leaves no other possible definition than a literal "all".

Marc, you exhibit a lot of great qualities but you are failing to use a single one of them honestly in this endeavor of yours to drive a baseless conclusion into Scripture.