A wider hope

[Sean]

my point is that a person must be born of the spirit to do right things. only after conversion is a person in the spirit and thus capable of pleasing God.

I don't see how this addresses Todd's point he's making from Acts 10:34-35. Certainly, the Spirit empowers people to serve God consistently. But this isn't what Peter is speaking about in the Acts passage. Peter states that people who do right and fear Him are acceptable to Him. Peter did not then state that because of this they are fine as they are. They are not fine. They are not yet saved. They still need to have their sins washed away and they need the Spirit to empower them to serve God consistently. I believe that is what Romans 3 & 8 are speaking about. Otherwise, statements like the one Peter made would be false.

[Todd]

I don't see how this addresses Todd's point he's making from Acts 10:34-35.

Sean,

But actually, it is my point. Think of it this way. If the only people who have an opportunity for salvation are those that hear the Gospel preached to them, then maybe John Calvin was right after all. Only a very small minority of mankind hears the truth of the Gospel preached to them; most live out their entire lives in cultures where Jesus' name is probably never mentioned. Mass Communication may be changing that, but for many centuries such was the case.

When Peter describes Cornelius and his household as "acceptable", I believe that they have responded to the "light" given them in the way God had intended. Their faith has justified them in God's eyes, and they are acceptable.

If this is the case, is there benefit to becoming a Christian? Of course there is! Devotion to Christ will strengthen their faith and increase their knowledge. Maybe Christians will have a special place in heaven that these don't, but I believe they will still be in heaven.

Todd

[lee]

I pressed this a little bit because I would like to know the extent of the application of the merits of Jesus. I only know of 2 possiblities...Calvinism's 1for1 atonement theory, and the non-Calvinist Jesus' atonement for His elect community of believers. It seems that you guys are suggesting that universalism or pelagianism are possible candidates for consideration.

[Todd]

I pressed this a little bit because I would like to know the extent of the application of the merits of Jesus. I only know of 2 possiblities...Calvinism's 1for1 atonement theory, and the non-Calvinist Jesus' atonement for His elect community of believers. It seems that you guys are suggesting that universalism or pelagianism are possible candidates for consideration.

Lee,

I can only speak for myself. Here is my response to your post.

1. I reject Calvinism.

2. "the non-Calvinist Jesus' atonement for His elect community of believers." This does not account for the multitude of people who never get an opportunity to hear the Gospel; therefore, I believe it provides an incomplete answer. If these "non-hearers" are consigned to hell, then Calvinism is correct (but I just rejected that).

3. Universalism - this is not a discussion of Universalism, which goes beyond what I have suggested in this thread.

4. Pelagianism - defined as follows:

The theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British monk, and condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 416. It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will.

I don't see exactly this way either. Every man is influenced by God to choose righteousness through the God-given knowledge of Him and the work of the Holy Spirit. We are told in John 16:8 that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin. Every man that responds to God by fearing Him and doing what is right is acting in faith and is declared acceptable (according to Peter). This preceding definition of Pelagianism implies that man just decides to do the right thing of his own accord, but I think the doing what is right is a direct result of God's work on the hearts of men. However, I do believe that salvation would not be possible for anyone without Christ's sacrifice.

Todd

[Sean]

I pressed this a little bit because I would like to know the extent of the application of the merits of Jesus. I only know of 2 possiblities...Calvinism's 1for1 atonement theory, and the non-Calvinist Jesus' atonement for His elect community of believers. It seems that you guys are suggesting that universalism or pelagianism are possible candidates for consideration.

I'm not sure how my understanding of Peter's words from the Acts passage contradicts the "non-Calvinist" view.

In the parable of the sower, the seed fell on 4 types of soil. 3 of the 4 were able to hear and believe. 1 type was able to overcome and bear fruit. The soil represents 4 types of people. Theses people were this way before hearing the gospel.