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

[Telstar]

No, he is the evidence of my dogma. He had faith in Jesus Christ before he was water baptized. yes that is NT and my dogma was NT. We have discussed OT and yes faith in Christ the messiah was part of Judaism, the biggest part. OT just didn’t know the details, like his specific name Jesus, if i am not mistaken. So you can quote my OT dogma and say it is wrong cause of NT and vice versa. But what I state(d) was, “I do not believe it (NT water baptism) has regeneration effectualness because the new birth has already happened as evidenced by faith in Christ”. Cornelius is evidence that water baptism does not have to be regenerational.
We already went over this. The bible doesn’t say. It only says he sure acted that way (feared and loved God and His people). Was he that way before Jesus appeared on the scene ? Had he even heard of the gospel before his vision ? Again, regeneration is an OT and NT happening. Being born of the spirit is not NT only. I understand your teaching that regeneration today is associated with water baptism. So what does CC say say about OT saints ? Were they dead in spirit? Were they born in the spirit ? What was the difference between a true Jew and a true Gentile? Anything ? Is it that people are inherently good and by there own nature are one with God, in their flesh ? OT people were spiritually alive but just dirty with sin ? Can OT flesh have saving faith apart from the revived spirit within …Not sure what CC teaches.

I think what PR (please, correct me if I’m wrong) has been trying to tell you is that Cornelius was a Roman soldier, a pagan warrior. He had most likely never heard anything about Jesus, but somehow he was inspired to worship and pray to only one God, and to do other good works, like giving alms to the poor. But, God looked down on him and saw that he was a good man, with a good heart, so He sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter. Cornelius had no clue who Peter was, or why he should send for him, but he didn’t hesitate and did it anyway. His faith in God was not based on hearing the Gospel, but came as a direct inspiration from God. How is that possible? According to your belief, to have any faith in God someone must have already heard the Gospel. So, Cornelius doesn’t fit your belief.

 

[benhur]

Thanks, but I would have to say the same thing about your conclusions, as well.

Thanks, i am chuckling.
I

said the New Covenant began after Jesus died on the cross, but it technically began at the Last Supper. My point was that the Old Covenant was being fulfilled by Him, so the Old Law would no longer be valid for the salvation of the Jews. Nicodemus was a Jew, so his heart had to be converted and follow Jesus if he wanted to be saved.

Tell me what was the difference between Nicodemus and say Simeon who prophesied over baby Jesus ? For sure Nicodemus was not born again but was Simeon ? Was Simeon born of the spirit, converted way before Christ was born ?

His circumcision and following of Jewish law could no longer save him.

Again, think Simeon. Under the same circumcision and law as Nicodemus and you are saying there was no difference between the two, that both were saved by their circumcision ?

But, he didn’t fully understand that Jesus was the true Messiah at the time. He was confused,

Why was he confused and Simeon or Zecharias etc. not ? Did Jesus say he was confused ? What did he say to Nicodemus ? Was he spiritually alive or was he like Paul says, circumcised outwardly but not inwardly, to no avail, as Peter states.

that’s why was sincerely asking

Agreed. He (whatever we think his spiritual state was) was being drawn by the Father, which is conviction, not to be confused with spiritual life.

Notice that Jesus made the comment about, “men loved darkness rather than the light”. Nicodemus first came to Jesus at night, because he was afraid to be seen by the other Jews, talking with Jesus.

Yes, I have heard of that good observation before. Agree totally. Nicodemus was in "darkness’’ unborn spiritually, a fleshly religious man.

So, you don’t think those who were baptized by John became reborn in Christ (Christian/adopted sons of God)?

Maybe, maybe not. But it was not for regeneration. it was for purification, and pretty much says so. It says they had questions “about purifying” in regards to John’s and apostles baptism John3;25,6, which is not rebirth.

John was the one who prepared the way for Jesus by baptizing. But, his baptisms were certainly effectual to impart spiritual grace from God, as well as to wash away the stains of sin from their souls. If there was no real spiritual action on the soul, why would he do it?

Grace for what, new birth or to prepare for the new kingdom or to be baptized by the Holy Ghost ? Yes, to purify (because of sin and sinful world) but they had blood sacrifices for that also. I am not saying they(baptism and blood sacrifice) were not effectual to that end, but not regeneration per say.

Baptism is a ‘purification’ because it washes away the stains of sin from the soul, but, it also does much more than that.

I am not a theologian as to be succint on purification vs stain washing.But in a general sense i agree. Purification is more in that it assumes sin washing by blood (another ceremony) and perhaps it is more for sanctification, at least in OT. For instance priests were some times baptized in OT before ordination for purification but not necessarily for sin remission. It was a setting aside for specific purpose apart form other purposes (wash away other desires/purpose).

 

[sallybutler]

In Acts, it says that people had not received the Holy Spirit until they were baptized Acts 8:14-17). Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit after He was baptized (Acts 10:38). Jesus said to go and baptize all, not just adults. Jesus said to let children come to Him and that we must be like children (Mark 10:14-16).

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear. You must be baptized before you can receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said let the children come also. So there is no reason they can not be baptized.

 

[benhur]

I think what PR (please, correct me if I’m wrong) has been trying to tell you is that Cornelius was a Roman soldier, a pagan warrior. He had most likely never heard anything about Jesus, but somehow he was inspired to worship and pray to only one God, and to do other good works, like giving alms to the poor. But, God looked down on him and saw that he was a good man, with a good heart, so He sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter. Cornelius had no clue who Peter was, or why he should send for him, but he didn’t hesitate and did it anyway. His faith in God was not based on hearing the Gospel, but came as a direct inspiration from God. How is that possible? According to your belief, to have any faith in God someone must have already heard the Gospel. So, Cornelius doesn’t fit your belief.

Yes, today, since Pentecost ,we have a new covenant, a new good news. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by this (the Word/gospel)”. “For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved.” I think we all agree on this generally speaking. So how did Cornelius, a Roman warrior (who usually pray to Apollo and others, come to believe or pray to One God , and help the Jews with whom he lived or was stationed ? I would think he “heard” about the one true God and even the one true faith that is in Judaism. He was under the old covenant for the moment. Not sure what you mean by direct inspiration ? One can not say it had nothing to do with hearing anything from the faith of the people he ruled over so to speak. We don’t know. Are we gonna say there was no gospel before our newest gospel ? I don’t think so . ( all covenants had ‘’ good news" in them, or at least had a way of saving faith). Yes, our covenant is the best, and not as conditional as the others, somewhat…But thank you. I understand what you are both trying to say, but you are pegging me wrong. Because I say there is regeneration before baptism you say wait, there is regeneration (or faith) before even hearing a gospel, therefore my first premise is wrong. Not logical, like twisting things to say you don’t need regeneration to have faith. Because obviously according to you there is faith before baptism and baptism before regeneration.That is what is at the heart of our differences… The main thing is that Cornelius had everything possible with grace before water, and baptism was a chance for public confession, and not regeneration. It is like he was confirmed, baptized in the HG before water baptism.

 

[DaveBj]

In Acts, it says that people had not received the Holy Spirit until they were baptized Acts 8:14-17). Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit after He was baptized (Acts 10:38). Jesus said to go and baptize all, not just adults. Jesus said to let children come to Him and that we must be like children (Mark 10:14-16).

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear. You must be baptized before you can receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said let the children come also. So there is no reason they can not be baptized.

I think it has already been pointed out that Cornelius and his group received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. It was the evidence of speaking in tongues that prompted Peter to have them baptized, in spite of the fact that they were uncircumcised Gentiles.

 

[benhur]

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear. You must be baptized before you can receive the Holy Spirit.

Agree somewhat but… Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit without water baptism. And some were water baptized and did not receive the HS gift but did with the laying on of hands . And yes some were water baptized we think then received the gift of the HS. And Jesus just before his ascension breathed on the apostles and said “receive ye (now) the Holy Spirit”. Much later (days) they were baptized in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

 

[sallybutler]

But wasn’t Cornelius blessed with the Holy Spirit to show the Jewish believers that Gentiles could also be chosen. And wasn’t he immediately baptized? Perhaps this was supposed to be an exception, not the rule.

 

[PRmerger]

I think what PR (please, correct me if I’m wrong) has been trying to tell you is that Cornelius was a Roman soldier, a pagan warrior. He had most likely never heard anything about Jesus, but somehow he was inspired to worship and pray to only one God, and to do other good works, like giving alms to the poor. But, God looked down on him and saw that he was a good man, with a good heart, so He sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter. Cornelius had no clue who Peter was, or why he should send for him, but he didn’t hesitate and did it anyway. His faith in God was not based on hearing the Gospel, but came as a direct inspiration from God. How is that possible? According to your belief, to have any faith in God someone must have already heard the Gospel. So, Cornelius doesn’t fit your belief.

Egg-zactly!

 

[Porknpie]

I think it has already been pointed out that Cornelius and his group received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. It was the evidence of speaking in tongues that prompted Peter to have them baptized, in spite of the fact that they were uncircumcised Gentiles.

Yes, Peter knew that they needed to be baptized because baptism is necessary for salvation. 1 Peter 3

21 The like figure to this, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Telstar]

Thanks, i am chuckling.

Tell me what was the difference between Nicodemus and say Simeon who prophesied over baby Jesus ? For sure Nicodemus was not born again but was Simeon ? Was Simeon born of the spirit, converted way before Christ was born ?

When Jesus was brought to Simeon, He was just a baby. So, Simeon was still under the Old Covenant and not obligated by the New Covenant. He died long before Jesus began His public ministry. On the other hand, Nicodemus heard Jesus preach in Jerusalem, so he was subject to the New Covenant, just like all the other Jews that heard Jesus preach the Gospel. They had no excuse and could not claim ‘ignorance’.

God kept all of His promises to the Jews that faithfully kept His Laws, before Jesus began His public ministry. That was all that was required of them, up to that point. They could not be “born again” in Christ under the New Law, because Christ had not been publicly revealed yet. All they could do was to faithfully fulfill their obligations under the Old Law, and wait for the Messiah to come and be revealed.

Again, think Simeon. Under the same circumcision and law as Nicodemus and you are saying there was no difference between the two, that both were saved by their circumcision ?

I said no such thing. See my response, above.

Why was he confused and Simeon or Zecharias etc. not ? Did Jesus say he was confused ? What did he say to Nicodemus ? Was he spiritually alive or was he like Paul says, circumcised outwardly but not inwardly, to no avail, as Peter states.

Nicodemus was confused because what Jesus was preaching was the New Law, His Gospel. Simeon, as well as Zacharias and all in between, never heard the Gospel of Christ preached. They had no possibility of understanding what they had never heard, so they were not subject to it, anyway. The Old Law provided everything that God asked of them, as long as they were faithful to Him.

But, as I said, Nicodemus had already heard Jesus preach. He was confused because what Jesus preached was very different than the Old Law that the Jews had followed for centuries, but didn’t always completely understand. Jesus said a lot of things to him. If you’re referring to Him asking, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?”, I believe He meant that Nicodemus should know that with God, all things are possible.

Agreed. He (whatever we think his spiritual state was) was being drawn by the Father, which is conviction, not to be confused with spiritual life.

He was showing the first signs of conversion by seeking answers to his questions, but at that point, he wasn’t ready make a full commitment to Jesus by being baptized.

Yes, I have heard of that good observation before. Agree totally. Nicodemus was in "darkness’’ unborn spiritually, a fleshly religious man.

The seed of faith was planted, but hadn’t sprouted, yet.

Maybe, maybe not. But it was not for regeneration. it was for purification, and pretty much says so. It says they had questions “about purifying” in regards to John’s and apostles baptism John3;25,6, which is not rebirth.

I disagree. It was the only baptism performed before Pentecost. But, you do not believe the Apostles were ‘reborn’ through John’s baptism. We already agree that it is for ‘purification’, because it washes away sin. But, the passage you’re referring to was from a very early stage in Jesus’ preaching. The Jews saw it in familiar terms. They had many rites and rituals concerning ‘purification’, for both physical and spiritual cleansing. It makes sense that they would also describe John’s baptism in those terms, because they didn’t completely understand what it really did for them. Their full understanding of it would come much later.

Grace for what, new birth or to prepare for the new kingdom or to be baptized by the Holy Ghost ? Yes, to purify (because of sin and sinful world) but they had blood sacrifices for that also. I am not saying they(baptism and blood sacrifice) were not effectual to that end, but not regeneration per say.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your last conclusion. I already said what I believe it does, but even those things only scratch the surface of its true spiritual effects on a soul.

I am not a theologian as to be succint on purification vs stain washing.But in a general sense i agree. Purification is more in that it assumes sin washing by blood (another ceremony) and perhaps it is more for sanctification, at least in OT. For instance priests were some times baptized in OT before ordination for purification but not necessarily for sin remission. It was a setting aside for specific purpose apart form other purposes (wash away other desires/purpose).

I’m very far from being a theologian, or even an expert on Scripture. But, I know that if I have any questions, I can go to the Catechism or other Catholic sources (such as the New Advent website) to find whatever information I need to answer any question I might have. I can always trust the Catechism to teach me the truth on whatever the Church teaches. Unfortunately, many other Christians don’t have that same kind of confidence, that what they find will be 100% accurate, or that they will see things in the same way as the other source. I don’t think I could ever take that kind of position.

 

[Porknpie]

Agree somewhat but… Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit without water baptism.

Chapter and verse please for this. St Peter ordered for them, the gentiles, to be baptized.

44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. **Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. **Then they invited him to stay for several days.

Baptism of Cornelius below by Trevisani (1709)

 

[Porknpie]

Here’s another earlier piece of Catholic art depicting the baptism of Cornelius from the 12th century. .Link is here

PnP

 

[Irishgal49]

It goes back to once saved always saved. I have no idea where they got it.

They think that as long as you believe and are baptized you are in. That’s what they have told me anyway. Again no idea how they get this.

I was raised this way so I can comment. I was told that it comes from John 10:28. It is the idea that once we accept Christ we can never again be lost…that his calling to us will always prevail. Not sure about this but it was what I was told…just pray this prayer and you’re all set.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you can tell us when Cornelius was regenerated?.

We already went over this. The bible doesn’t say

Then you will have to amend your tradition that the unregenerate cannot please God.

If you don’t know when Cornelius was regenerated, then how is it that you can say the unregenerate cannot please God?

Remember, this is a story in Acts, which is AFTER the atoning death of Christ. Thus, the new covenant is enacted now.

 

[benhur]

But wasn’t Cornelius blessed with the Holy Spirit to show the Jewish believers that Gentiles could also be chosen. And wasn’t he immediately baptized? Perhaps this was supposed to be an exception, not the rule.

Why were they baptized or commanded to ?

 

[benhur]

Then you will have to amend your tradition that the unregenerate cannot please God.

If you don’t know when Cornelius was regenerated, then how is it that you can say the unregenerate cannot please God?

Remember, this is a story in Acts, which is AFTER the atoning death of Christ. Thus, the new covenant is enacted now.

Let’s see the first statement can be answered two ways, for we differ on regeneration definition The unregenerate , the un baptized can certainly please God by your definition. No I don’t know when he was regenerated per my definition but I wrote we certainly know at some point he acted like it before his vision. It is your box that says he can not be regenerated cause he has not do some rite even though he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…so when the new covenant began all folks saved under the old we’re back on the black list,even if they had not heard of anything new yet ? So all the folks who believed in the promises of God and were justified by faith in the future messiah were all of a sudden unjustified because he arrived ?

 

[benhur]

When Jesus was brought to Simeon, He was just a baby. So, Simeon was still under the Old Covenant and not obligated by the New Covenant. He died long before Jesus began His public ministry. On the other hand, Nicodemus heard Jesus preach in Jerusalem, so he was subject to the New Covenant, just like all the other Jews that heard Jesus preach the Gospel. They had no excuse and could not claim ‘ignorance’.

God kept all of His promises to the Jews that faithfully kept His Laws, before Jesus began His public ministry. That was all that was required of them, up to that point. They could not be “born again” in Christ under the New Law, because Christ had not been publicly revealed yet. All they could do was to faithfully fulfill their obligations under the Old Law, and wait for the Messiah to come and be revealed.

I said no such thing. See my response, above.

Nicodemus was confused because what Jesus was preaching was the New Law, His Gospel. Simeon, as well as Zacharias and all in between, never heard the Gospel of Christ preached. They had no possibility of understanding what they had never heard, so they were not subject to it, anyway. The Old Law provided everything that God asked of them, as long as they were faithful to Him.

But, as I said, Nicodemus had already heard Jesus preach. He was confused because what Jesus preached was very different than the Old Law that the Jews had followed for centuries, but didn’t always completely understand. Jesus said a lot of things to him. If you’re referring to Him asking, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?”, I believe He meant that Nicodemus should know that with God, all things are possible.

He was showing the first signs of conversion by seeking answers to his questions, but at that point, he wasn’t ready make a full commitment to Jesus by being baptized.

The seed of faith was planted, but hadn’t sprouted, yet.

I disagree. It was the only baptism performed before Pentecost. But, you do not believe the Apostles were ‘reborn’ through John’s baptism. We already agree that it is for ‘purification’, because it washes away sin. But, the passage you’re referring to was from a very early stage in Jesus’ preaching. The Jews saw it in familiar terms. They had many rites and rituals concerning ‘purification’, for both physical and spiritual cleansing. It makes sense that they would also describe John’s baptism in those terms, because they didn’t completely understand what it really did for them. Their full understanding of it would come much later.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your last conclusion. I already said what I believe it does, but even those things only scratch the surface of its true spiritual effects on a soul.

I’m very far from being a theologian, or even an expert on Scripture. But, I know that if I have any questions, I can go to the Catechism or other Catholic sources (such as the New Advent website) to find whatever information I need to answer any question I might have. I can always trust the Catechism to teach me the truth on whatever the Church teaches. Unfortunately, many other Christians don’t have that same kind of confidence, that what they find will be 100% accurate, or that they will see things in the same way as the other source. I don’t think I could ever take that kind of position.

it seems one must always do things to fulfill obligations depending on the covenant to please god according to your answers…my questions not so much what one does or does not do but what one is . Is one born again, born of the spirit? Was Zaharias or Simeon born of the spirit? Is being born again only a nt thing? I mean you must be born of the spirit to have eternal life. So how can one infer ther we’re not OT saints,and if so by fulfilling the law? Why can one not see the common thread of faith and justification and being born of the spirit thru out all the covenants?

 

[Telstar]

Why were they baptized or commanded to ?

Because, Jesus commanded it:

“John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Peter had a vision immediately prior to being called to the house of Cornelius, that showed him that what he had believed under the Jewish Law no longer applied, because God told him “kill and eat” things that were forbidden to the Jews. So, when he saw that the grace of the Holy Ghost had also descended on the Gentiles (Cornelius, his family and friends), Peter realized that his vision meant that they were also called by God to accept the Gospel. What was the first thing that always happened to new converts? They were baptized!

Is it really that difficult to figure out, or are you just being argumentative on purpose? I’m really not sure.

 

[benhur]

Because, Jesus commanded it:

“John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Peter had a vision immediately prior to being called to the house of Cornelius, that showed him that what he had believed under the Jewish Law no longer applied, because God told him “kill and eat” things that were forbidden to the Jews. So, when he saw that the grace of the Holy Ghost had also descended on the Gentiles (Cornelius, his family and friends), Peter realized that his vision meant that they were also called by God to accept the Gospel. What was the first thing that always happened to new converts? They were baptized!

Is it really that difficult to figure out, or are you just being argumentative on purpose? I’m really not sure.

We’ll my bible says you must be born of water and of Spirit.big difference.questions are not always argumentative…nicodemus did not believe the works of Jesus.being baptized would not have helped, for you must first believe before you are water baptized. Jesus was not saying all you need is to be water baptized and you will be fine nicodemus. He rebukes him for not believing,and whatever being born of water and Spirit is,would change that.
But like I said why would it mean water baptism if one generally already believes before one is baptize ? His dead spirit inherited from the first Adam needed reviving by the
Spirit of God,then he would believe,and then he would obey and be baptized.that reviving is what I call and believe Jesus called born again or also born of the spirit

 

[sallybutler]

We’ll my bible says you must be born of water and of Spirit.big difference.questions are not always argumentative…nicodemus did not believe the works of Jesus.being baptized would not have helped, for you must first believe before you are water baptized. Jesus was not saying all you need is to be water baptized and you will be fine nicodemus. He rebukes him for not believing,and whatever being born of water and Spirit is,would change that.
But like I said why would it mean water baptism if one generally already believes before one is baptize ? His dead spirit inherited from the first Adam needed reviving by the
Spirit of God,then he would believe,and then he would obey and be baptized.that reviving is what I call and believe Jesus called born again or also born of the spirit

Anyone who believes AND is baptized will be saved. Per Jesus in Mark (18:16). I take that to mean that if you believe, you will want to be baptized. Jesus said you had to do more than believe. He said be baptized.