Cornelius is not the poster child for the no means view of salvation that the Primitive Baptists wish him to be. I marvel at how often he is used as an example that one can be saved without ever hearing the gospel, when the simple fact of the matter is that...
He heard the gospel.
One can argue all he wants about whether or not Cornelius was '"already saved" by the time he was visited by Peter. I once read an entire book defending this proposition! But ultimately it matters not. The plain fact of the matter is that he did hear it eventually, didn't he? At very best (although I disagree) Cornelius could only be used as a case study pondering the possible idea that regeneration is immediate and void of means but that gospel conversion will follow at some point later.
To what Bible figure may we turn who was regenerated and NEVER heard the gospel? That is what must be found if the no means view of salvation wants to gain any kind of foothold. This character however is not in the Word of God, but is hypothetically created when conversion is not only divorced from regeneration but removed from the order of eternal salvation altogether.
When I was struggling (when I was involved with the "primitives") with the notion of someone being saved without also believing in Christ,I asked a pastor for a bible example of someone who was both saved and never came to believe on Christ. The two examples I was given were an elect infant(Davids son who died as such) and a sub-set of elect spiritual Israel who rejected Christ (as allegedly found in Romans ch.9,10 and eleven. David's Son aside, I would challenge anyone to honestly come up with such an interpertation of Romans 9,10,11 from pure exegesis and without turning a relatively plain teaching into a twisted labyrinth of triple divided salvations and ridiculous thought flow disruption. Hard enough it will be to first come to an understanding of the interpertation and harder yet to believe it.
ReplyDeleteBrother Henry, your journey from error to truth is a lot like mine and others with whom I've corresponded. You start seeing how the flow of Bible passages is interrupted and the text is interpreted in a vacuum, so to speak, so that it might conform to a preconceived anti-means grid. Nowhere have I witnessed this abuse more than Romans 9-11, as you mention. I'm thankful you've been blessed to see this.
ReplyDelete