Problems with Theological Inclusivism – Part 31: The Case of Cornelius

It amazes me how often Cornelius is appealed to in favor of inclusivism. Because of the description of him in Acts 10:2 as a devout man who fears God, gives money to the poor, and spends time in prayer, many argue that he must have been saved before Peter shared the gospel with him.[i] This is all in spite of the explicit declaration of Acts 11:14 which says that Cornelius was not saved until Peter preached the gospel to him: “He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.” Verse 18 says that Cornelius received eternal life through repentance when Peter visited them: “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.’”

The description of Cornelius as one who fears God is a title for his status as a Gentile who had converted to Judaism. These people were known as “God-fearers.” They feared God in the sense that they recognized that paganism is false and chose to believe in the one true God. The same expression is used in Acts 13:16 when Paul addresses the Jewish synagogue: “Men of Israel and you who fear God.” He did not tell these Gentile converts to Judaism that they were already saved, but that he was preaching to them “the message of salvation” (Acts 13:26). It was only when they believed this message that they were saved in contrast to the Jews who rejected it (Acts 13:46-48).

But Cornelius’ worship of God was done in ignorance because he did not approach God through the Messiah, the only way to God. That he gave alms to the poor and practiced the Jewish hours of prayer is a sign that he understood and obeyed the teachings of the Mosaic law in their outward form. He is described as upright from our perspective because he was far better than the pagans around him. But God sees the heart and knows whether our actions flow from selfish motives or are being done for his glory alone.

Cornelius is the perfect person to bring the gospel to because he already believed in the truthfulness of the Old Testament and had been prepared for the presentation of the gospel. Fallen man is depraved because of the fall, but that does not mean the lost are as bad as they could be. In addition, Cornelius is not in the same category as those who have no access to the gospel because he was a Gentile convert to Judaism who knew the Old Testament in Greek.

So how do inclusivists get around Peter’s statement in Acts 11:14 that Cornelius and his household still needed to be saved? Terrance Tiessen, following John Sanders, claims that “you will be saved” is not a reference to justification, but to future salvation when Christ returns:

“Looked at from this eschatological perspective, the angel’s statement to Cornelius was an indication that God wanted him to know of the work of Christ, on the basis of which he and his household would be saved in the last day.”[ii]

The problem is that this interpretation does not fit with Tiessen’s professed Calvinism. According to Calvinism, all who are justified will be glorified and raised up on the last day (Rom 8:30). That means if Cornelius was truly justified, then his glorification was secure regardless of how he responded to Peter’s message. But this interpretation is not a problem for Sanders because as an Arminian he believes that a justified believer can lose his salvation. That means if Cornelius did not respond to Peter’s message, then he would have lost his salvation and not been “saved in the last day.”

But this interpretation overlooks the connection between verses 14 and 18. The saving of “you will be saved” in verse 14 is rephrased as “God has granted repentance that leads to life” in verse 18. That means Cornelius was not granted repentance that leads to life before Peter arrived. Salvation is not possible without God granting repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 2 Tim 2:25). It was through the preaching of the gospel that God’s Spirit came down and gave them new life.

The same form of the verb translated as “you will be saved” in verse 14 is also repeated later in Acts 16:31 and told to the Philippian jailer before he placed his faith in Christ. It is used one other time in the New Testament in Romans 10:9 to refer to the initial salvation experience of confessing Christ as Lord. Another parallel passage is Acts 15:9 where Peter relates how the Gentiles were first saved through his message: “And he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” Peter believed that the Gentiles who heard his message, including Cornelius, needed to have their hearts cleansed (Titus 3:5).

Richardson tries to get around this statement by making the incredible claim that Peter misquoted the angel and was wrong to say that Cornelius needed to be saved:

“Peter, perhaps groping for a way to mollify his critics, added words the angel did not say to Cornelius! The angel did not say, ‘so that you may be saved.’ . . . Clever Peter knew exactly what to say to get himself off the hook, but in doing so he unwittingly set a trap for Exclusivist commentators who would later misguidedly use Peter’s misquote to buttress their belief in Exclusivism.”[iii]

I do not know of any commentary on Acts that agrees with this novel interpretation of Peter’s speech. It is true that “a message by which you will be saved” is not included in the angel’s message as recorded in Acts 10, but Richardson is assuming that the entirety of the speech is given there. Luke is not obligated to record every word of every speech that he reports on. This interpretation also potentially compromises the inerrancy of Scripture by making Peter a liar when he is relating to the church what happened. If Peter was lying, then he was deceiving the church as an apostle.

Another argument for inclusivism in this passage is based on Acts 10:34-35 when Peter says to Cornelius, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Therefore, some argue that the unevangelized who fear God and do what is right are saved even though they have not heard the gospel.[iv] But this argument is begging the question by assuming what it seeks to prove: there are unevangelized people who fear God and do what is right in the same sense that Christians fear God and do what is right. We must remember that Cornelius’ description as one who feared God identifies him as a Gentile convert to Judaism without revealing the condition of his heart since not every convert to Judaism was saved. He does what is right in the sense that he obeys the outward form of the Mosaic law. The Gentiles are kosher or acceptable to God because they are welcome in the church which is made up of all people groups (Acts 10:15).

Part 32

---

[i]Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 175-78.

[ii]Ibid., 178.

[iii]Richardson, Heaven Wins, 99.

[iv]Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 96.