So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[benhur]

Firstly, Cornelius was a ROMAN centurion. He was a gentile. Not a Jew.

Yes,agreed and said so.

Secondly, can you quote me where Cornelius heard the OT gospel? Book, chapter and verse, please.

So he was praying to Jupiter or Apollo even Caesar ?
You do agree gentiles did convert, had a court in the temple, could be catechumened, that is believe and seek Jehovah before circumcision ceremony ? This Roman was far from home and living amongst the Jews and you ask to prove that he heard of Jewish faith and hope ?

 

[benhur]

No. It began at the Last Supper.
Regardless, even if we accept your tradition of the new covenant beginning after Calvary, Cornelius came to believe AFTER Calvary anyway.

Actually not sure as to supper or calvary. I think supper referenced the soon to be shed blood, which then is calvary. But as you say, no matter, Cornelius was after even Pentecost. Yes, he came to believe what you and I believe.However did he not have faith before ? This was a unique transitional time when souls actually partook of two covenants.

So he was righteous before he was regenerated.
That’s all I’m saying.

That is impossible. No, he was righteous before he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To be righteous means you are justified (by faith), even converted, born again, regenerated. This across all covenants I think.

 

[Nicea325]

Nothing wrong with Baptizing children f they understand what’s happening.

Would you say then that any Church father that argues that infants ought to be Baptized (Origen, Cyprian) then we can logically conclude that not Baptizing infants was also practiced in the Church?

That seems to be the point you’re making in regards to Tertullian.

And what happens to those folks of all ages who will NEVER understand?

 

[Nicea325]

Actually not sure as to supper or calvary. I think supper referenced the soon to be shed blood, which then is calvary. But as you say, no matter, Cornelius was after even Pentecost. Yes, he came to believe what you and I believe.However did he not have faith before ? This was a unique transitional time when souls actually partook of two covenants.
That is impossible. No, he was righteous before he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To be righteous means you are justified (by faith), even converted, born again, regenerated. This across all covenants I think.

The bigger picture here is your understanding of salvation. To many non-Catholics,especially fundamentalist, being born-again is based on merely confessing Jesus is Lord and Savior. Unfortunately for you, Jesus makes it clear in John 3 (water & Spirit). Nothing about a mere confession and not losing your salvation.

 

[Nicea325]

So some agreed and some disagreed?

The biggest disagreement was in relation, if babies should be baptized at eight days or after. And why? Because it replaces circumcision and Jewish males were circumcised when? After eight days.

 

[ltwin]

So, it’s true then: you believe that we are saved through our works (our belief), and not solely through God’s Grace?

Let’s backtrack for a moment. Citing Mark 16:16, QNDNNDQDCE wrote, “If we are being consistent and intellectually honest, we should acknowledge that depriving infants of baptism on account of lack of faith must also necessarily deprive them of salvation.”

I responded by pointing out that even if depriving infants of baptism were depriving them of salvation, baptism alone cannot save. The first part of Mark 16:16 says, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” It does not say, “whoever is baptized” will be saved. It mentions both belief and baptism. Significantly, the word “believes” precedes the word “baptized.” Therefore, logically, “depriving” infants of baptism is not “depriving” them of salvation because baptism alone does not make salvation possible. On the contrary, it seems from the text that we are to first believe and then be baptized.

The above discussion, however, misses the bigger point. The rest of Mark 16:16 says, “but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” If being “deprived” of baptism brought condemnation, it would have been an easy thing for the gospel writer to make this latter statement parallel with the first part of Mark 16:16. But the writer leaves out mention of baptism. It is the failure to believe that condemns, not the failure to be baptized.

To answer your question, I believe we are saved by grace. In fact, it is the grace of God that leads us to repentance, and faith is impossible until God, in his grace, makes it possible through the power of the Word of God and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ltwin]

I love this statement, ltwin. It acknowledges that there was a Catholic Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Well, I do believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

But more to the point, I was making a factual statement. I never said Tertullian was Protestant. His belief that the New Prophets brought forth new revelation that clarified and/or expanded on what the Apostles taught is not consistent with Protestant thought. I never said he wasn’t Catholic. I believe Tertullian saw himself as a Catholic Christian, even though others see him as having left the Catholic Church to be a Montanist.

I do find it puzzling, however, that you make this admission, for it would seem to be that if one believes that the early ecclesial writers and fathers were Catholic, why are you not? Why would you not want to be part of the Church that was present from the very beginning?

Well, because I believe I am part of the church that was present from the very beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

Then you are saying there is salvation/conversion, new life in other churches, even lapsed churches, even cults almost if they use trinitarian formula. This was the dilemma facing Stephen.

Salvation comes ONLY through the Catholic Church, ben.

Through water baptism in the Trinitarian formula these folks are grafted in and joined, although imperfectly, to His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

If one needs to say the “sinner’s prayer” or accept Jesus as their “personal Lord and Savior” in order to enter into the kingdom, then how did all of those bodies rise out of the graves after the Lord died?

Mathew 27:52

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,

---

How was Moses in heaven before the sacrifice?

The Good Samaritan, I know among protestants is not in heaven. In fact I have been told that emphatically.

---

The fact is we can argue or debate over what God meant in the bible when we read one aspect or another aspect. What we do not know for sure is how Christ will separate the goats from the sheep. God will not be pigeon holed by our limited interpretations of who WE THINK He will choose.

Matthew 25:31-46 clearly spells out exactly what Christ will be doing when he separates the goats from the sheep. He never says…I will say to the sheep on my right…enter into the Kingdom that has been prepared for you, for you accepted me as your personal Lord and Savior.

If it is not by works and works has nothing to do with salvation, then why did Christ go into a lengthy description of those whom he will be accepting?

The other thing we learn from that long, very descriptive verse is the TRUE righteous do not even know they are serving Christ. In fact it clearly states that it is not necessary to even know one is serving Christ, to serve Christ. WHO is Christ referring to when He says the TRUE righteous will be asking “When did we ever serve you? When did we ever see you?”

Christians know that verse very clearly and most Christians know when we serve the “least of these” we are serving Christ. So, who are these people that are asking this question?

Christ is also very clear when He says NOT ALL THOSE who say LORD LORD will enter, but ONLY THOSE who DO the Father’s will? What, it does not mean that?

Romans 9:15 very clearly says God will show mercy and whomever He so chooses.

In the Gospel John 5:29 it says:

29 And shall come forth;** they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life**; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

---

The idea of accepting Christ as our “Personal Lord and Savior” is not written anywhere. The verse where Christ says I am the TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE No one comes to the Father but BY ME does not necessarily mean what many imply that it means.

Can it be interpreted that Christ is the judge and He will have the last word on who goes to heaven and who does not? Is that not true?

---

Do we really believe Christ gave man the last word and it is entirely dependent on US saying the sinners prayer, and that in some way obligates the Lord to accept us? How arrogant of us. Almost as arrogant as thinking we can rely on our own interpretations of the word in order to be truly righteous. The interesting part is how pride blinds many to how arrogant that is.

---

Why do we not consider for even a moment that Christians did not even have a canon or a bible to refer to with an address until at least medieval times. The canon was not truly put together until the last part of the 4th century.

Christians would not have had any idea what John 3:16 even meant. So, what did Christians lean on? They all relied on the ORAL TRADITION which is why Paul writes HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS. Now, we have many Christians saying the TRADITIONS are heretical? Yet, they claim to follow the Bible?

---

I know I have no ground to judge. To tell you the truth I am in a constant crisis of faith. I almost consider myself hopeless. Scrupulosity, along with constant shame and often I grow bitter towards everyone, including God.

So, do not think I am judging, but the bottom line is there needs to be one Church. One Body. If we think Christ is obligated in any way to show mercy on who WE think He should, then we are very misguided. Badly misguided.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I do believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

But more to the point, I was making a factual statement. I never said Tertullian was Protestant. His belief that the New Prophets brought forth new revelation that clarified and/or expanded on what the Apostles taught is not consistent with Protestant thought. I never said he wasn’t Catholic. I believe Tertullian saw himself as a Catholic Christian, even though others see him as having left the Catholic Church to be a Montanist.

Well, because I believe I am part of the church that was present from the very beginning.

Then it is curious to me that you are in a church that does not have ecumenical councils, does not celebrate the Liturgy and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, does not have priests and bishops, does not pray to Mary, does not invoke the prayers of the communion of saints…

These are all things that the early church, that was present from the very beginning, did.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving. –St. Justin Martyr

 

[PRmerger]

This was a unique transitional time when souls actually partook of two covenants.

Book, chapter and verse for this, please!

That is impossible. No, he was righteous before he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To be righteous means you are justified (by faith), even converted, born again, regenerated. This across all covenants I think.

So Cornelius was righteous before he was born again.

That is in direct contrast to what you wrote originally: “That is one would listen to Jesus speak, then hearers who believed in his message were then baptized. Again, can an unregenerated spirit believe ?”

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing wrong with Baptizing children f they understand what’s happening.

Would you say then that any Church father that argues that infants ought to be Baptized (Origen, Cyprian) then we can logically conclude that not Baptizing infants was also practiced in the Church?

That seems to be the point you’re making in regards to Tertullian.

What I am saying is that the Church has never refused baptism to children.

 

[PRmerger]

No. Cornelius contradicts a paradigm that says one needs water baptism for regeneration/conversion.

I think we are both agreed that conversion can occur before baptism, benhur. No one has proposed that it can’t.

What is being proposed is that Cornelius is a clear example that someone can be pleasing to God before he is regenerated.

 

[benhur]

The bigger picture here is your understanding of salvation. To many non-Catholics,especially fundamentalist, being born-again is based on merely confessing Jesus is Lord and Savior. Unfortunately for you, Jesus makes it clear in John 3 (water & Spirit). Nothing about a mere confession and not losing your salvation.

Thank you but the adverb “merely” is quite telling. Like the flag of the United States is* merely* a symbol or the wedding ring on ones finger. I suppose at the very minimal understanding they are . One *merely *confesses Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God and they are saved. Romans 10 :10 , “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart God hath raised Him from the dead, thous shalt be saved.(vs 9)”. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”, 1 John 4:2. No one confesses Christ as Lord except the spirit of God be in Him. So can one merely call Him Lord ? I say it is impossible to say it genuinely . It takes a miracle to say it . It takes conversion. Saul merely fell of his horse and was converted ? Ruth merely made a confession of faith to become a Jewess ? The thief on the cross *merely *made a confession of faith and where did he end up ? God asked Job who can turn the heart of a man, and who delights in it…I would not put put confessing Christ as a "mere’’ act.

 

[dronald]

Sorry I’m so late back; this thread has moved quite quickly in my absence.

To PR: Yes, baptizing infants was certainly a practice in the third century, though some great names have recorded that infants ought not to be baptized.

To Nicea: “Those who don’t understand ever.” That’s the point Nicea, so that we can be assured that infants and the mentally handicapped are not going to hell simply because they could not have known. Even Saint Gregory said to Baptize infants if danger persists, otherwise wait at least three years so they can understand at least something about the sacrament. I don’t have an issue with Baptizing infants except that they should be allowed to grow and decide that they want Baptism, similar to what Tertullian said.

Again to Nicea: What do you think about waiting to Baptize if there is no danger however?

 

[benhur]

I think we are both agreed that conversion can occur before baptism, benhur. No one has proposed that it can’t.

 

[benhur]

—So whilst Jesus walked was he in the old covenant or in the new ? I thought we agreed that the “new” began maybe at the Supper or Calvary. That leaves about 3 years of what , being in Limbo ? No, I think we agree before that was the culmination of all the other covenants

So Cornelius was righteous before

 

[benhur]

Salvation comes ONLY through the Catholic Church, ben.

Through water baptism in the Trinitarian formula these folks are grafted in and joined, although imperfectly, to His Body, the Catholic Church.

Well Pope Stephen did not have luciem gentum or however it is called at his disposal. These things had not been resolved yet . It was not settled yet that a bishop or priest who lapsed, denied Christ in face of persecution still had valid orders or valid effectual baptisms etc. It was a big deal back then and Stephen said all was still valid. I gave my hearsay that he did so because baptism was not as big a deal (non-spirit giving/regenerative but yes on sin remission).

 

[benhur]

If one needs to say the “sinner’s prayer” or accept Jesus as their “personal Lord and Savior” in order to enter into the kingdom, then how did all of those bodies rise out of the graves after the Lord died?
Mathew 27:52
The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,
The Good Samaritan, I know among protestants is not in heaven. In fact I have been told that emphatically.
t is we can argue or debate over what God meant in the bible when we read one aspect or another aspect. What we do not know for sure is how Christ will separate the goats from the sheep. God will not be pigeon holed by our limited interpretations of who WE THINK He will choose.
Matthew 25:31-46 clearly spells out exactly what Christ will be doing when he separates the goats from the sheep. He never says…I will say to the sheep on my right…enter into the Kingdom that has been prepared for you, for you accepted me as your personal Lord and Savior.
If it is not by works and works has nothing to do with salvation, then why did Christ go into a lengthy description of those whom he will be accepting?
The other thing we learn from that long, very descriptive verse is the TRUE righteous do not even know they are serving Christ. In fact it clearly states that it is not necessary to even know one is serving Christ, to serve Christ. WHO is Christ referring to when He says the TRUE righteous will be asking “When did we ever serve you? When did we ever see you?”
Christians know that verse very clearly and most Christians know when we serve the “least of these” we are serving Christ. So, who are these people that are asking this question?
Christ is also very clear when He says NOT ALL THOSE who say LORD LORD will enter, but ONLY THOSE who DO the Father’s will? What, it does not mean that?

Do we really believe Christ gave man the last word and it is entirely dependent on US saying the sinners prayer, and that in some way obligates the Lord to accept us? How arrogant of us. Almost as arrogant as thinking we can rely on our own interpretations of the word in order to be truly righteous. The interesting part is how pride blinds many to how arrogant that is.
Why do we not consider for even a moment that Christians did not even have a canon or a bible to refer to with an address until at least medieval times. The canon was not truly put together until the last part of the 4th century.
Christians would not have had any idea what John 3:16 even meant. So, what did Christians lean on? They all relied on the ORAL TRADITION which is why Paul writes HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS. Now, we have many Christians saying the TRADITIONS are heretical? Yet, they claim to follow the Bible?
I know I have no ground to judge. To tell you the truth I am in a constant crisis of faith. I almost consider myself hopeless. Scrupulosity, along with constant shame and often I grow bitter towards everyone, including God.
So, do not think I am judging, but the bottom line is there needs to be one Church. One Body. If we think Christ is obligated in any way to show mercy on who WE think He should, then we are very misguided. Badly misguided.

You start with OT salvation. Of course they did not use the name Jesus , for he had not been born yet .Yet they were all righteous, saved, regenerated justified by faith and their confession of that faith by word or deed. They looked forward by faith to the Christ as we look back (and forward to second coming). Of course today we now know His name and the confession is adjusted accordingly…Not sure what you mean by good samaritan and not in heaven. Perhaps you meant Lazarus and the rich man. Yes they were not in heaven but in Abraham’s bosom in hades or sheol. The gates of heaven had not been opened up yet for Calvary had not yet also. They were eventually taken up with the Lord’s ascension…Again, the posting is not suggesting a saint does not have works, but clearly the Lord’s work (s) save us and anything we do is really His work in and thru us. Anyways scripture says there are two books .One for works and one book of life . Your entrance into heaven is only because you are written in the book of life for the other book of works finds your sin and imbalance on the scale…Again the posting is a simplification and one can go deeper and does not exclude any fine print. Scripture says anyone who says Christ came in the flesh is saved . It is true but we do not exclude other scriptural light on salvation do we ? And yet it does not make it the scripture false. So I tell you those who God judges to let enter in will most certainly believe Christ came in the flesh, and most certainly have confessed Christ as their Lord…Again that you have false confessors does not negate a true confession…You also dabble in eternal security issues and I do not think the thread is talking about that . The thread is more like is Christ your Savior and Lord, if so, you are saved . That could mean eternally secure to one and to another a process a path to persevere in to the end. But you still confess today He is Lord today don’t you ?.. Sorry to hear of crisis and shame in your walk. I know some have struggled because they were not genuinely born again or totally “let go and let God” do it in you, or perhaps some have not been baptized in the Holy Ghost (a bit like Peter and before and after Pentecost). But yes, we also struggle against the flesh, the old man, as Paul says, "oh miserable man that I am for i do which I would not and would not what I should . Thanks be to God for Christ ".

 

[Holly3278]

There’s a lot of them out there that teach this false doctrine. Most evangelical churches teach this. Some examples of denominations are: Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Pilgrim Holiness, and others. The only one in that list that I know of that teaches the very false and dangerous doctrine of “once saved, always saved” is the Southern Baptists. I grew up as a Southern Baptist before converting to Catholicism and that false doctrine is one of the reasons I left.