Wrong. Once again, I started off talking about the verse and topic being discussed: the Father drawing people to Christ. YOU responded to me by saying Romans 3 clearly substantiates your interpretation of that verse (not once, but twice, even asking me "what about Romans 3"). I then responded to you showing how you are using Romans 3 out of context, and then demonstrating, contextually what the proper interpretation is. I also added my comments on total depravity because that it obviously what you were alluding to in all of your posts and your use of Romans 3.
Yeah? This is YOUR opinion. It does not make it right because you repeatedly say it is right. Your posts here are nothing but your views and opinions (as you are entitled to have, of course).
Since I have given in-depth Biblical responses and examples, you have just chosen to now say "you're ranting" or "you just don't like Calvinism" or making false accusations that I do not take the Bible seriously, which again, are just diversions from actually showing me and the rest of the forum your exegesis on Romans 3, Psalm 14, Psalm 10 or Acts 10 -namely the passages in question. Now to say that I am going "off topic" is once again, just wrong. You introduced Romans 3, asked for my response and I responded. And I think this greatly benefits the thread because proper Biblical interpretation is always beneficial! You seem to just be getting snippy now because you have been called on it, frankly.
Probably it could be said a little nicer. I'm just trying to get a simple point across about how poor debating gets the thread at loggerheads. Since you're into this "I am right, you are wrong" kind of debating. We have different views, we do not agree with each others views, alright. No need for anyone of us to put in the message "I am right, you are wrong" or commend oneself every other line. But you do this. You even say that your posts are "in-depth"(!!!). Maybe in your eyes then, and maybe in your take of what "in depth" is, but I (and I'm sure I'm not alone) don't see these kind of posts as "in-depth" by any stretch. Sure, everyone think that their view is right, that's why they believe in it. But few see the need to frequently repeat that. That would just be a poor way of debating. See this for example:
...I then responded...and then demonstrating, contextually what the proper interpretation is...I have given in-depth Biblical responses and examples...proper Biblical interpretation...that is how we properly interpret scripture...
So what you say is "proper", and thereby unquestionable true, because you say so? Or are you some kind of expert that we should listen to because you have some special, objective and authoritative knowledge? Is that what you are saying? If so, I suppose you show us your credentials then. Otherwise I don't get the point with these claims.
Bur let's have a look at this:
You are confusing "just" with "justified before God." The OT Saints were justified before God believing on the promise of a future redeemer (Job 19) just as present day saints are saved on the believe the promise was fulfilled 2,000 years ago. And "the just" is a tile for Jesus as used in the book of Acts. So to say the word "just" always has the same meaning is not really the case. Cornelius was just, but he was not a believer in Jesus Christ.
"Confusing"? Can you name one example in scripture where the word "just" was
not related to being justified in that sense. As an example it says about Noah that he was "a just man and perfect" (Gen..6:9). And, yes, "just" is also a title for Christ, but that's another topic.
What problems?? Cornelius feared God and had not heard the Gospel yet. He had not received the Holy Spirit yet. (It came in verse 44). What you are attempting is called eisegesis -namely injecting things into the Biblical text that is not there. There is nothing in Acts 10 about Cornelius being "regenerate" before he meets Peter. But we do know he was not a believer! He had not believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what we do know. We also know he was saved in verse 44. Can you share your interpretation of this chapter without adding events to the text that are not there??? Because that is how we properly interpret scripture.
You say I add "events", and yet
you say of Cornelius that "we do know that he was not a believer". This is what you are saying. Not the Bible. But think about this for a while, if Cornelius had heard much enough of the Word of God, as the God-fearer he was, then he would also have known about the coming Messiah. To portray Cornelius as a lost sinner, with all the qualities and characteristics he yet possessed, before he met Peter, is to say that he pleased God in the flesh. This would be to contradict a lot of scripture. So much for your talk about
eisegesis. And as for the gospel, do you believe that there was no gospel preached at all before Jesus earthly ministry? Is that what you imply?
The only time "regeneration" is used in the Bible with any relation to salvation is in the context of the "washing of the Holy Spirit." Well, again, we know when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit- verse 44. And he was fearing and seeking God well before then. Again, this is your conundrum. You are running into contradictions because you are starting with a principle that is not biblical. You believe we have to have some special "regeneration" process via the Holy Spirit in order to seek God. Yet Cornelius was clearly seeking God before he received the Holy Spirit. Your theory has lost its internal logic. The Bible is never wrong, so by default, your theory must be.
Your views - again. The Word of God is clear on that
all lost sinners are
dead in their trespasses and sins, and that they cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Paul spoke of the character of himself and fellow believers before regeneration as obviously not interested in seeking God (1Cor.2:14, Eph.2.1-3, Tit.3.3). So, that is not an ability that they possess in that state. Cornelius prayed always before he met Peter and his prayers were accepted and approved before God, he also did righteousness before he met Peter, and Peter acknowledged that Cornelius was already accepted with God (perfect tense, passive voice). In short, Cornelius showed many qualities and characteristics that an unregenerate and natural man do not have. God would not have accepted a wicked and unregenerate man. As for Tit.3.5 it says
"by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost".
The Disciples and Cornelius are not analogous. The Disciples were hearing the Gospel every day for 3 1/2 years. They already believed. Furthermore Jesus told them before He died that the Holy Spirit would give them supernatural power and help them remember things to write scripture. So the Holy Ghost was doing many more things in their lives than just saving them (see John 20 where Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit onto the disciples).
Right. There is a difference between the Disciples and Cornelius in that sense. But the question still remains if the Disciples were born again before or after their Spirit baptism.
With Cornelius we know he was seeking God but did not know the Gospel. Peter then preaches to him once and he believes and is saved (receiving the Holy Spirit). The entire context is salvation. They "heard the word." The disciples clearly understand this because the next thing that happens is Cornelius gets baptized. Again, this chapter refutes your theory. It has nothing to do with me "disliking" anything. I don't dislike Calvinism. It just does not stand up to Biblical scrutiny.
Not "we",
you, and your opinion, again. The word of God is plain. The kingdom of God cannot be seen by a man who is not born again (John 3:3), because he cannot and will not see it. If a man believes on Jesus, he show indication that he is born again (1 John 5:1). If he loves the brethren, he show indication that he is born again (1 John 4:7). If he does righteousness, he show indication that he is born again (1 John 2:29). These are all indications that someone is regenerate.
