In part two of our study, we closed by
discussing the case of Cornelius and his household. Calvinists
mistakenly allege that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius
and his household (Acts 10:44-48) was for the purpose of saving them.
Good people, nothing could be further from the truth!
To
miss the purpose of Acts 10, 11, and 15 is to miss the truth of the
context.
The gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on Cornelius and his
household. What was Peter's conclusion when this occurred on these
Gentiles? Peter concluded, "Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord"
(Acts10:47-48). Why should our reaction to what had happened be any different then
Peter's when he saw it? To Peter it said, we cannot refuse to
baptize Gentiles. This was the revealed point from an inspired
apostle. How dare that anyone today conjecture more than an apostle of
Christ? Those who do, however, go beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6)
and miss the divinely stated purpose of why the gift of the Holy
Spirit fell upon the Gentiles. (Note: “the gift of the Holy
Spirit” as found here in Acts 10:45 and in Acts 2:38 is nothing
more than the bestowal of miraculous ability to certain individuals in
the first century, i.e., speaking in tongues, etc., as the contexts
bear out. This will be discussed in future articles on the Holy Spirit).
The Jewish brethren heard that Peter had been associating with
uncircumcised Gentiles and wanted an explanation from him. Acts
11:1-18 is Peter's explanation in order from the beginning (v.4).
Peter said that the falling of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles, "as
on us at the beginning" forced him to draw a conclusion.
"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" (Acts11:17).
Therefore, to refuse the Gentiles would be refusing God! Peter
declared that the gift of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles revealed
that they, too, were accepted. The Jews hearing Peter's explanation
did not dare ask any further questions about Peter's behavior. "When
they heard this, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying,
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"
(Acts11:18). That was their commentary as to why the Spirit fell on
the Gentiles. Why should anyone today even dare say that it had a
different goal? These Jewish brethren rightly concluded that the
purpose for the Spirit falling on the Gentiles was to show that God
also granted repentance to the Gentiles. How can anyone say today that
there was another aim for it?
Moreover, in the great dissention about whether Gentiles should be
circumcised (Acts15:1-5), Peter referred to the giving of the Holy
Spirit to the Gentiles (Acts15:7-11). The fact that the Gentiles
should hear the word of the gospel and believe is established because
God "bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did unto us."
Watch Peter's use of the giving of the Spirit.
What
did it prove? Peter says it showed that the Gentiles should be saved
through the grace of the Lord just as the Jews were - no more, no
less!
Three times the gift of the Spirit upon the Gentiles is used to prove
that the Gentiles are now subject to the gospel of Christ. Does that
point need to be founded again? No, because in Acts 11 and 15:7-11,
Peter cited it. God did not pour out the Spirit again in Acts 11 and
15 to establish the fact. Rather,
Peter preached the purpose of it, and that is what we need to do.
So, again, the purpose of this occurrence in Acts 10, was simply to
convince the Jews that God was placing His stamp of approval upon the
Gentiles as potential citizens of the kingdom of Christ. It was not a
manifestation of their salvation but to show that the Gentiles were
entitled to be baptized and be saved. The falling of the Spirit simply
validated that the Gentiles were now accepted of God.
There
are some things about the case of Cornelius that are still true in
every circumstance of New Testament conversion:
1.
It
is still true
“that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth
Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him” (Acts
10:34).
2.
It
is still true
that people need to hear words whereby they can be saved (Acts 11:14).
Faith, all faith, is produced by the gospel (Acts 15:7; Rom.10:17).
Even our adversary, the devil, knows that (Luke 8:12).
3.
It
is still true “that through Jesus’ name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive
remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). John tells us that in believing
we may have life through His name (John 20:30-31). Those who believe
on Jesus’ name are given the right to become sons of God (John
1:12). A person’s heart is purified by faith (Acts 15:9). Of course,
the faith that purifies is that which is obedient to the truth. “Seeing
ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (1 Pet.1:22).
4.
It
is still true
that we are commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts
10:48). In Acts 2:38, repentance and baptism were declared to be “in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” The command
to be baptized in the name of the Lord will continue as long as people
need to be saved (Mark 16:16).
In
the final analysis, when the miraculous elements of the narrative
about Cornelius are properly understood, we can see a simple
demonstration of salvation by grace through faith. The same is true of
all the other conversions in the New Testament. Compare Acts 8:26-40
and Acts 16:25-34. We should not allow ourselves to be carried away by
outrageous reasoning regarding certain miraculous events, which are
limited to the particular situation described in the text. Today, we
should not expect an angel to appear to appear to tell us to hear an
apostle anymore than we should expect an earthquake to take place in a
conversion sequence as it did in Acts 16:26. However, we must
still hear, believe, and obey the gospel in order to be saved
(Matt.7:21; Heb.5:8-9).
1.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine. It
substitutes “divine force for divine favor.” It portrays God as a
manipulative tyrant who arbitrarily, and forcefully, compels people
against their own will to be saved.
On the other hand, the doctrine also suggests that God
forcefully keeps all others from being saved. They are compelled to so
sin as to be eternally lost! It makes man nothing more than a robot.
God is said to directly supplies man his own character and personality
- that man does only what God makes him do; he thinks only what God
makes him think; he believes only what God makes him believe!
2.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace implies that God is the
author of sin. If every action and thought of a person, including
their salvation and reprobation, are the result of an arbitrary decree
of God, then God ultimately is the final Cause for the existence of
sin itself. Every sinful act (murder, rape, treachery, debauchery,
mayhem) or wicked thought, are things for which God is ultimately
responsible. This is pure blasphemy and the Calvinist cannot escape
this problem.
3.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace makes God unjust in as much
as He sends His “irresistible grace” arbitrarily upon some and not
all. Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:5-11, and Colossians 3:25 refute every
core of Calvin’s theology. How could God not be a “respecter of
persons,” while arbitrarily compelling some to be saved by His
“grace” and compelling all others to be lost? This absolutely
contradicts the Bible! If He miraculously hardens some hearts and
miraculously opens hearts of some others, then He is showing respect
for persons. This contradicts the word of God.
4.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace repudiates the Biblical
doctrine of the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures in salvation and
sanctification of the soul of man. The Holy Spirit, Himself, affirms
that the word of God is all-sufficient to convict, convert, and
sanctify a person’s soul (Psa.19:7-9; John 8:31-32; John 17:17; Acts
10:6; Acts 10:22; Acts 11:14; Acts 20:32; Romans 1:16-17; 1 Cor.1:21;
1 Tim.4:16; 2 Tim.3:15-17; Heb.4:12; James 1:18-21; 1 Peter 1:21-23; 2
Pet.1:3). Faithful obedience to the word of God without some mystical,
mysterious “zapping from on high,” is sufficient to save a soul
and to provide entrance into heaven (Rev.22:14).
5.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace makes preaching unnecessary
and useless. Why preach the gospel at all? After all, according to
Calvinism, the elect are going to be saved regardless, while the
non-elect could never understand it, much less believe it! Why bother
preaching to them? The Calvinist, implicitly and logically, rejects
his own doctrine every time he stands up to preach it or, polemically,
to defend it. Why try to convince others of the truth of Calvinism
before and without such a direct operation of God as is involved with
Irresistible Grace?
6.
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace is false because the grace
of God can be resisted and rejected by people (Neh.9:30; Isa.30:10;
Jer.6:16-17; Matt.23:37; John 5:39-40; Acts 7:51; Acts 13:43-46;
Eph.5:30; Heb.10:29). Calvinism is a doctrine to be rejected!
The
Perseverance of the Saints
The
concept of the “Perseverance of the Saints,” is synonymous with
other expressions, such as “The Eternal Security of the Saints,”
or “Once in Grace, Always in Grace.” Sometimes this doctrine is
simply referred to as, “Once Saved, Always saved.”
This is the idea of “The Impossibility of Apostasy.”
The
idea of this doctrine suggests that a child of God can never “fall
from grace” so as to be lost in hell. It is rather silly for those
of the Calvinistic persuasion to talk about “election according to
grace” and then begin to talk about the perseverance of all saints.
The basic issue concerns the freedom of man. Is man free to decide and
act accordingly, or is he a mere machine incapable of exercising free
moral agency?
Calvinism
insists that of the “elect” will be eternally saved without any
effort or “persevering” on their part. It’s all God and none of
man! But, how can a child of God “persevere” without any spiritual
effort on his part? To the Calvinist, no sin he might commit could
potentially endanger his soul. Of course, for the Calvinist, the
overpowering, supernatural, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit is a
necessity even though one is already “elected.”
According
to the Calvinist, the impossibility of apostasy rests upon their
concept of “election.” It is asserted that due to the sovereign
and eternal choice made by God, Himself, all of God’s elect are
secure.
The
following passages are used to defend the Calvinistic notion of
“election, “ 1 Peter 1:2; Romans 9:11; Romans 11:5-6; John 15:19,
etc. I would not object the Bible doctrine of election but I do object
the false interpretations placed upon those passages, which affirm the
truth about election.
Paul
writes in his epistle to the Ephesians, “According
as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and without blame before Him in love”
(Eph.1:4). This passage
does not say what the Calvinist wants it to say. There is no hint of
that God arbitrarily chose specific individuals to be saved and
certain other individuals to be cast into hell. But someone might
respond and say, “Didn’t God chose Israel?” Yes, indeed, but
what happened to those in Israel who transgressed God’s law?
Of all the adult men who were chosen and left Egypt, only two
reached the Promise land!
When
Paul wrote the church at Corinth he addressed his letter to the “church
of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ
Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1
Cor.1:2). Those called
and sanctified had become carnal in their living. There was strife,
divisions, and the saints walked as men (1 Cor.3:3). “If a man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy” (1
Cor.3:17). Does it make sense to warn people when there is no danger?
The divine choice of God was with respect to character and not
specific persons.