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

[benhur]

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.

Ok. Yes you will want to gladly as it says about the three thousand on Pentecost. I am suggesting the change in heart,the belief,is from a born again experience, a rebirth.of course faith without a work is dead and public baptism is a work gladly prompted by the spirit,but not for rebirth but because of new birth.otherwise we are saved by works. Plus believe is shown many more times by itself for salvation than shown with a byproduct…no where does it say if you believe and are not baptized you are lost,without eternal life

 

[PRmerger]

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 ?

What is your definition of regenerated again? And how does an individual know if he’s been regenerated?

Sorry if you’ve already explained this!

 

[benhur]

What is your definition of regenerated again? And how does an individual know if he’s been regenerated?

Sorry if you’ve already explained this!

No prob it is critical. One post I did this : justification=born again=regeneration=born of the spirit=righteous=perfect= new creation/creature=saved (whether osas or not, whether a process or not). One knows because the spirit bears witness to us whereby we cry abba father where once we did not. I was blind but now I see. Behold all things become new. I once disbelieved the gospel and now I do. It is like how do you know you exist ? Do you walk and talk ?There are evidences. This is not to be confused with conviction-the spirit of God from without speaking to the soul of man. Nor is it sanctification, whereby we grow, mature and live out our purpose in the Body…It is like how do you know that the wind is blowing ? I think part of the blessing of public baptism is that opportunity to seal the deal for "with the heart the man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’’…of course there could be a twist .You can say, “see the work is required, the confession” but i think Paul is saying the work is the faith which if genuine has a direct link to the mouth for expression. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” The mouth doesn’t save but is a reflection of the heart where indeed all the action is.

 

[Porknpie]

Ok. Yes you will want to gladly as it says about the three thousand on Pentecost. I am suggesting the change in heart,the belief,is

… is a “work”. Responding to God grace is a work of the intellect.

.no where does it say if you believe and are not baptized you are lost,without eternal life

The normative means for salvation is having faith AND baptism. Why? Because that is what scripture itself says. That is what Christ himself says. This is the apostolic faith handed down through the ages.

Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3
21 The like figure whereunto 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:

The early Christian understood Jesus’ words, way before there ever was a bible. They understood the stain of original sin on man’s soul.

For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that** 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none”** (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.’” **Tertullian, On Baptism, **12:1 (A.D. 203).

Council of Carthage is pretty direct, in line with the apostolic faith.

"And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ." Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).

Keep in mind that The Church did not decide what books were in the bible until the Council of Rome in 382 ad. This same Church that discerned the canon of Scripture held fast to the belief that baptism was salvific, believed that infants should be baptized and believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as described in John 6.

PnP

 

[Telstar]

We’ll my bible says you must be born of water and of Spirit.big difference.

It’s actually not a ‘big difference’ at all. Unless you believe that the ‘Spirit’ in your version isn’t the Holy Ghost. Is it, or not? Is there any other ‘Spirit’ that would be capitalized? In my opinion, only proper names (or nouns/pronouns that reference God) are capitalized in the middle of any text in the Bible. So, what ‘Spirit’ is referenced in that statement?

KJV “John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Just an FYI: All of my Biblical quotes will come from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (available online). The New Testament was first translated into English in 1582 and the Old Testament in 1609. Both Testaments were translated directly from the Latin Vulgate (the Standard of the Catholic Church prior to all other translations) which was originally assembled and translated (from original documents or copies that were in use by the Church at that time) by St. Jerome, in 382. I tend to believe it is the best source for Scripture, though you might disagree.

Which Bible do you use?

questions are not always argumentative.

That question has been answered many times, so I was unsure why you asked it, again. Sorry, maybe you missed it or didn’t understand the answer, but it seemed like you were just repeating it for argument’s sake. If not, then I apologize.

.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

Actually, Nicodemus absolutely believed in the ‘works’ that Jesus did.

“John 3: [2] This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him.”

He believed in what Jesus did, but that wasn’t enough for Jesus. Why not? If that’s all you claim to be necessary, why do you think Jesus tells him that he still had to be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” to enter the Kingdom of God?

If Jesus rebuked him, it was because Nicodemus clearly understood that Jesus was sent by God, but he still had not acted upon that belief by being Baptized. It’s that acting on his faith that was missing in Nicodemus. What* action* was he missing? Being baptized. He already had faith that Jesus was from God. Baptism is where Christians are “reborn in Christ”.

 

[Telstar]

it seems one must always do things to fulfill obligations depending on the covenant to please god according to your answers

Exactly. When God gives His Law to people, they are obliged to follow it. Is something wrong with that? What happens to us when we don’t follow God’s Law?

…my questions not so much what one does or does not do but what one is . Is one born again, born of the spirit?

*"James 2: [14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"*

In my opinion, without the ‘works’ of Baptism, faith is also dead.

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?

Can you find even one reference to being “born again” in the Old Testament? No. Why do you think the Jews (like Nicodemus) were confused when Jesus taught this? It’s a very important part of New Testament teachings, but was never heard of in the Old Testament.

As I said before, those who were faithful under the Old Law (before Jesus established the New Covenant at the Last Supper) were saved. Otherwise, how can you explain Moses and Elias appearing with Jesus at the Transfiguration? They were not “born again” according to the Old Law, but the Blood of Christ still saved them. They were only obligated to follow the Old Covenant Law, because the New Covenant of Christ had not been established when they were alive. The Jews that were alive when Jesus established the New Covenant, through His death and resurrection, were obligated to accept it, or they could not go to Heaven.

 

[benhur]

Can you find even one reference to being “born again” in the Old Testament? No

Right but…" Deut 30:36 when YHWH is speaking to the Jews themselves, he says, “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” “Nevertheless some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.” (Chronicles 30:11-12) monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/OTregeneration.html. …Not an easy topic … just remember even in catholicism that at the fall man dies . Well what died that day ? Certainly not the flesh though eventually.The judgement was death on the day that you eat .What died in “you” Adam and Eve) ? I was always told it was our spirit died, not extinguished but dead to it’s purpose-communion with God. Our spirit is that image of God put in us to commune with him. Is that what you were taught, even at 2nd grade ? I was. But God reconciled and somehow Adams’ descendants could commune with God. I don’t think it was only fleshly mental assent .You had children of the serpent and children of God of the Promise (Eve) as per genesis account. Otherwise works of the flesh can save, justify and faith then is not a gift of God but something we produce in the fallen man. …

 

[benhur]

Can you find even one reference to being “born again” in the Old Testament?

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/OTregeneration.html
" the New Testament states that *the unregenerate man perceives the things of God as foolishness and does not receive them *(1 Cor 2:14a) , The New Testament states that the *unregenerate man’s understanding is darkened and characterized by ignorance, and that he cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (*1 Cor 2:14b); the New Testament states that *the unregenerate man is not subject to the Law of God, and is not able to be (*Rom 8:7), the New Testament states that the unregnerate man cannot please God (Rom 8:8)"…Now, you still think the old testament saints were unregenerated ? The site has scriptures to show those saints did the opposite of what NT says is unregenerate…Again, appreciate the conversation, it is a topic less traveled.

 

[PRmerger]

No prob it is critical. One post I did this : justification=born again=regeneration=born of the spirit=righteous=perfect= new creation/creature=saved (whether osas or not, whether a process or not). One knows because the spirit bears witness to us whereby we cry abba father where once we did not. I was blind but now I see. Behold all things become new. I once disbelieved the gospel and now I do. It is like how do you know you exist ? Do you walk and talk ?There are evidences. This is not to be confused with conviction-the spirit of God from without speaking to the soul of man. Nor is it sanctification, whereby we grow, mature and live out our purpose in the Body…It is like how do you know that the wind is blowing ? I think part of the blessing of public baptism is that opportunity to seal the deal for "with the heart the man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’’…of course there could be a twist .You can say, “see the work is required, the confession” but i think Paul is saying the work is the faith which if genuine has a direct link to the mouth for expression. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” The mouth doesn’t save but is a reflection of the heart where indeed all the action is.

So Cornelius was pleasing to God but you’re not sure he was regenerated when he was pleasing to God.

Are we agreed on that?

 

[benhur]

Can you find even one reference to being “born again” in the Old Testament?

“You hard necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit, as your fathers, so also you” (Acts 7:51). Deuteronomy 10:16 , “Circumcise then your heart and stiffen your neck no more.” Jeremiah 4:4, “Remove the foreskin of your hearts!” Ezekiel 18:31, “Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!”,“Teach me thy way, O Lord, that I may walk in thy truth; make my heart one to fear thy name.” psalm 86:11… If a man can have forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32), obedience of faith (Hebrews 11), intimate fellowship with God (Psalm 23), joy (Psalm 43:4; 51:8, 12) and peace (Psalm 119:165; 4:7, 8) before the Spirit of God ever comes to him, then his coming has lost all its significance and the idea of “regeneration” is reduced to I know not what." desiringgod.org/articles/re-the-new-covenant-and-the-holy-spirit-in-the-old-testament, thanks for looking. It is topic of variation amongst all denominations i think.

 

[benhur]

So Cornelius was pleasing to God but you’re not sure he was regenerated when he was pleasing to God.

Are we agreed on that?

NO. If he was pleasing to God he was regenerated in the OT sense cause that is all he heard.

 

[Telstar]

Right but…" Deut 30:36 when YHWH is speaking to the Jews themselves, he says, “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” “Nevertheless some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.” (Chronicles 30:11-12) monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/OTregeneration.html.

I didn’t say the Jews of the OT were not inspired by God. Many of them clearly were. But, where does it say that they were “born again”, as it says in the Gospels, specifically? Nothing in your link even comes close to it.

…Not an easy topic … just remember even in catholicism that at the fall man dies . Well what died that day ? Certainly not the flesh though eventually.The judgement was death on the day that you eat .What died in “you” Adam and Eve) ? I was always told it was our spirit died, not extinguished but dead to it’s purpose-communion with God. Our spirit is that image of God put in us to commune with him. Is that what you were taught, even at 2nd grade ? I was. But God reconciled and somehow Adams’ descendants could commune with God. I don’t think it was only fleshly mental assent .You had children of the serpent and children of God of the Promise (Eve) as per genesis account. Otherwise works of the flesh can save, justify and faith then is not a gift of God but something we produce in the fallen man. …

God told Adam & Eve that they would ‘surely die the death’, but He didn’t give them any specific time when they would actually die. We have to remember that a day to us is not the same as a day to God, because in Paradise there is no ‘time’ as we know it. There were a lot of other consequences that came along with the eventuality of their death, too. The earth was never the same because sin twisted everything that God had created.

The most significant change was their (and our) permanent separation from God. Our souls could never enter Heaven as long as we remained separated from God’s Grace. But, even after they were sent out of Paradise, they could still talk (pray) to God, though no longer ‘face to face’ (and He would always listen). As sin grew on the earth, men grew more and more distant from God, but God never abandoned us, completely.) That’s what the Promise of a Savior (Jesus) was all about, to reconcile us with God so we can enter Heaven. (That’s what I was taught.) Our souls were all damaged by the Original Sin of Adam & Eve. Jesus came to atone for that sin, as well as all other sins that keep us separated from God. Baptism reconciles us with God and washes away our sins at that moment in time, but we can still fall back into sin and lose God’s Grace, after we’re baptized. That’s why Catholics don’t/can’t believe in OSAS.

 

[PRmerger]

NO. If he was pleasing to God he was regenerated in the OT sense cause that is all he heard.

That is a man-made tradition that is not supported by Scripture, benhur.

The New Covenant was already established when Cornelius is discussed in Acts.

So what you are saying is that any person, any Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, atheist can be regenerated even if the New Covenant is in place, as long as they haven’t heard the gospel.

That’s something I’m pretty sure your pastor would not agree with.

 

[Telstar]

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/OTregeneration.html
" the New Testament states that *the unregenerate man perceives the things of God as foolishness and does not receive them *(1 Cor 2:14a) , The New Testament states that the *unregenerate man’s understanding is darkened and characterized by ignorance, and that he cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (*1 Cor 2:14b);

“[14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.”

If a man is looking at ***spiritual ***things, but he’s not spiritually minded, he will never understand it, because he thinks it’s foolish. All spiritual things are nonsense to a man that doesn’t believe in spiritual things. He sees everything in terms of “physical reality” (science, aka ‘wisdom of the flesh’), so he can’t understand it, because he can’t see it, smell it, or taste it. Therefore, he thinks it’s just not real.

the New Testament states that *the unregenerate man is not subject to the Law of God, and is not able to be (*Rom 8:7), the New Testament states that the unregnerate man cannot please God (Rom 8:8)"…

“[7] Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. [8] And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God.”

Again, because he has no understanding of spirituality, or God, due to the fact that he sees everything in terms of his own view of “physical reality”, he can’t possibly know or please God.

Now, you still think the old testament saints were unregenerated ? The site has scriptures to show those saints did the opposite of what NT says is unregenerate…Again, appreciate the conversation, it is a topic less traveled.

Once again, we have the difficulties associated with different translations of Scripture. I have no idea how you define regenerate or unregenerate. You have never posted an actual definition of either of them, just some kind of word ‘flowchart’ of sorts that’s very unspecific. That website doesn’t prove anything about anyone being “born again” in the Old Testament, either. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.

I have no doubt that the OT saints were very holy, or Jesus wouldn’t have been born, at all. But, the holiness of men in the OT has nothing to do with the question at hand. It has everything to do with our own reconciliation (being spiritually ‘born again’) to God, through Jesus Christ. In the end, the OT Law (from the Covenant made between God and the Jews) has little to do with the New Covenant that Jesus made with us (Christianity). We can clearly see that in how the Apostles also had to change their way of looking at Jesus as the Messiah, as well as what they thought they knew about salvation.

 

[benhur]

That is a man-made tradition that is not supported by Scripture, benhur.

The New Covenant was already established when Cornelius is discussed in Acts.

So what you are saying is that any person, any Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, atheist can be regenerated even if the New Covenant is in place, as long as they haven’t heard the gospel.

That’s something I’m pretty sure your pastor would not agree with.

Was Cornelius a Muslim ,Buddhist or something ? Two things.first scripture says he seemed to love the God of the Jews under the current covenant just before the new or at least he had not heard of the new.we do not know if he had loved god before Christ even appeared. But the bottom line is it was quite possible to be righteous still by the outgoing covenant whilst the new one was still spreading. Otherwise you are saying the whole world was going to hell at 33 ad unless they were Jews believing in their messiah,cause that is all you had at the beginning…so no, Muslims were not saved with the mosaic covenant nor the new covenant nor were Buddhists and atheists. But if you were saved under the old,you still were even if the new had started to exist and it had not yet reached you. Is not that fair ? Just like in the pacific some Japanese soldiers did not know the war had ended for weeks even months on some remote islands so are they guilty of breaking the surrender agreement,morally speaking?..ps there are scriptures to support that Old Testament saints had revived spirits, that they were not unregenerate

 

[benhur]

I didn’t say the Jews of the OT were not inspired by God. Many of them clearly were. But, where does it say that they were “born again”, as it says in the Gospels, specifically? Nothing in your link even comes close to it.

God told Adam & Eve that they would ‘surely die the death’, but He didn’t give them any specific time when they would actually die. We have to remember that a day to us is not the same as a day to God, because in Paradise there is no ‘time’ as we know it. There were a lot of other consequences that came along with the eventuality of their death, too. The earth was never the same because sin twisted everything that God had created.

The most significant change was their (and our) permanent separation from God. Our souls could never enter Heaven as long as we remained separated from God’s Grace. But, even after they were sent out of Paradise, they could still talk (pray) to God, though no longer ‘face to face’ (and He would always listen). As sin grew on the earth, men grew more and more distant from God, but God never abandoned us, completely.) That’s what the Promise of a Savior (Jesus) was all about, to reconcile us with God so we can enter Heaven. (That’s what I was taught.) Our souls were all damaged by the Original Sin of …Adam & Eve. Jesus came to atone for that sin, as well as all other sins that keep us separated from God. Baptism reconciles us with God and washes away our sins at that moment in time, but we can still fall back into sin and lose God’s Grace, after we’re baptized. That’s why Catholics don’t/can’t believe in OSAS.

Agree does not say specifically born again but born again is equal to born of spirit as Jesus used the two in the same discourse.shall we quibble that regeneration is not the same thing also. It is contradictory to say flesh is inspired by God and yet say flesh a avails little and is even contrary to God…so scriptures that imply a new heart or the will to please him are not evidence of a change ?..most translations say on the day you eat you will die and it was much more than a physical death implied by the results. …separation from God was not just not entering heaven but a type of separation here and now. It is much more than not seeing him face to face,they hid from him,and now only by grace could there be any communication. …there is no evidence that paradise was timeless…now that I think about it,why is it that we need to be born again and not any OT saints according to you for we will all end up in the same spot with our lord ?

 

[benhur]

“[14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.”

If a man is looking at ***spiritual ***things, but he’s not spiritually minded, he will never understand it, because he thinks it’s foolish. All spiritual things are nonsense to a man that doesn’t believe in spiritual things. He sees everything in terms of “physical reality” (science, aka ‘wisdom of the flesh’), so he can’t understand it, because he can’t see it, smell it, or taste it. Therefore, he thinks it’s just not real.

"[7] Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. [8] And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God."

Again, because he has no understanding of spirituality, or God, due to the fact that he sees everything in terms of his own view of “physical reality”, he can’t possibly know or please God.

Once again, we have the difficulties associated with different translations of Scripture. I have no idea how you define regenerate or unregenerate. You have never posted an actual definition of either of them, just some kind of word ‘flowchart’ of sorts that’s very unspecific. That website doesn’t prove anything about anyone being “born again” in the Old Testament, either. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.

I have no doubt that the OT saints were very holy, or Jesus wouldn’t have been born, at all. But, the holiness of men in the OT has nothing to do with the question at hand. It has everything to do with our own reconciliation (being spiritually ‘born again’) to God, flow chart was not a flow through Jesus Christ. In the end, the OT Law the Covenant made between God and the Jews) has little to do with the New Covenant that Jesus made with us (Christianity). We can clearly see that in how the Apostles also had to change their way of looking at Jesus as the Messiah, as well as what they thought they knew about salvation.

again is faith a gift of God to OT saints ? Ok it seems you are saying man, OT, is capable of righteousness as a fallen man . He can still be spiritual,spiritually minded, non sensual…why do we need to be born again and they did not ? My flow chart was not about flow but synonyms. Do you really need to define ,born of the spirit or the new man. The whole idea is that no one is born with a spirit towards god unless god gives it to him, it is not automatic as or with fleshly birth, born of water from our mothers womb. …so how were they holy if they were not regenerated or born again nor born of the spirit. How can they in OT be holy if their spirit were dead in sin ? Born again ,regeneration is at least a revived heart,even a new heart a new inner man after god? How can you say they were holy and inspired like nt saints yet they had no rebirth unlike nt saints?..you make it sound like the new and old had nothing in common,nor even any foreshadowing, kind of cold and creepy. We do have the better portion and abundantly but they certainly had a downpayment as surely as we do. We have all been ransomed and given seals to that end…All are reconciled towards God via the blood of Christ,old and New Testament saints. They looked forward to Calvary as we look back.

 

[PRmerger]

Was Cornelius a Muslim ,Buddhist or something ?

Yes. He was “or something”.

Two things.first scripture says he seemed to love the God of the Jews under the current covenant

No, ben. You have just added to Scripture.

It does not say “under the current covenant”, in which you mean the Old Covenant.

In fact, even if we accept that Scripture says this, the “current covenant” at the time of Cornelius was…

the New Covenant.

(Remember, you acknowledged that the new covenant began at Calvary).

There is no such thing in Scripture of a special transition time in which people were kind of bound by the Old Covenant, but not really since the New Covenant was already established but also not really bound by the New Covenant either.

That’s ga-ga la-la nonsense.

And, if that is indeed your position, at what point did a person get truly bound by the New Covenant?

Was it after the death of the last apostle?
Was it after Paul preached 40 homilies?
Was it after Peter met at the Council of Jerusalem?

When did this very special transition period end?

 

[benhur]

Yes. He was “or something”.

No, ben. You have just added to Scripture.

It does not say “under the current covenant”, in which you mean the Old Covenant.

In fact, even if we accept that Scripture says this, the “current covenant” at the time of Cornelius was…

the New Covenant.

(Remember, you acknowledged that the new covenant began at Calvary).

There is no such thing in Scripture of a special transition time in which people were kind of bound by the Old Covenant, but not really since the New Covenant was already established but also not really bound by the New Covenant either.

That’s ga-ga la-la nonsense.

And, if that is indeed your position, at what point did a person get truly bound by the New Covenant?

Was it after the death of the last apostle?
Was it after Paul preached 40 homilies?
Was it after Peter met at the Council of Jerusalem?

When did this very special transition period end?

you chopped up my statement .of course Cornelius had his vision while the new covenant had started and was spreading.the new was in the process of replacing the old. This is biblical history is it not? It happened to others, the ones that were believers, in Christ, under john’s baptism but had not heard of Pentecost, and had not heard of the full gospel/covenant yet. They added to their faith and were baptized in the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands. The transition is evident from an older thing to the newest thing .same principle for Cornelius,though a much bigger transition,for apparently he had not even heard of the new covenant in Christ…anyways perhaps current was not precise but for sure I qualified it saying he had not heard of the new covenant,and was perhaps operating on the one just before it. I will venture to say I believe he thought he was up to date and was “current” in his faith and walk and had not heard of anything differently…he was not on Facebook……do you want to go on record to judge those remote Japanese soldiers negatively who continued to be at war, did not surrender their arms,breaking the agreement of their nation’s surrender months earlier ? The CC does teach that God will judge perfectly and by the light a soul received and even has special provision for those who have never heard the Gospel. Why do you deny this to the first century. Was the Middle East or Europe better than a remote jungle in Brazil or deep in Africa and didn’t need that special provision? Would you judge the same way a person who has heard the good news and one who hasn’t ? So even today there exists those two kinds of people. …the thing about Corneliusis is that while under the same general special provision rule he at least had the second latest version of truth whereas some remote jungle dweller has muddled truth going way back,perhaps just post deluvial.

 

[Telstar]

Agree does not say specifically born again but born again is equal to born of spirit as Jesus used the two in the same discourse.shall we quibble that regeneration is not the same thing also.

OK, we’re making progress, but we’re still not quite speaking the same language. You still haven’t defined exactly what you mean by the term ‘regenerate’. I don’t understand your use of the term because it’s not one that Catholics ever use (at least not that I’m aware of). It’s found nowhere in the Catholic Bible. I’ve searched several online versions and it’s just not there. There are only a few references to “born again”, also. So, that makes it very difficult to understand exactly what you mean by it.

It is contradictory to say flesh is inspired by God and yet say flesh a avails little and is even contrary to God…so scriptures that imply a new heart or the will to please him are not evidence of a change ?

I don’t think it’s contradictory at all. When the Apostles or Jesus refer to someone who is “of the flesh”, they indicate a man that sees the world only in ‘worldly’ (or scientific) terms, a man that doesn’t believe in God or any spiritual existence. God can still inspire those men, but they usually don’t respond to the inspiration because they don’t understand what it is. They are not ‘tuned in’ to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. But, occasionally, they might understand it. If they respond to it and act on that inspiration, then, they open themselves up to God. Just because man doesn’t always understand inspiration, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t* try* to inspire them. But, if they do respond, that’s still only the beginnings of a true ‘conversion of heart’. It takes much more than that for them to actually believe (have true faith) in God.

…most translations say on the day you eat you will die and it was much more than a physical death implied by the results. …separation from God was not just not entering heaven but a type of separation here and now.

Agreed. Sin caused them (and us) to be, in a sense, ‘spiritually dead’ to God’s Grace. That’s the ‘separation’ that needed to be reconciled by the Savior (Jesus). That’s also the part of us that needs to be ‘born again’ through Baptism. Before we go ‘into the water’ of Baptism (by immersion or pouring) we are spiritually dead to God’s Grace. While we are in the water, we are washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb. When we come up out of the water, we are then ‘reborn’ in the Holy Spirit, allowing God’s Grace to enter our soul. The entire act of being Baptized is the spiritual process of ‘rebirth’ that resembles the natural birth of the flesh. That’s what Jesus meant by being ‘born again’.

It is much more than not seeing him face to face,they hid from him,and now only by grace could there be any communication. …there is no evidence that paradise was timeless.

They hid because they were ashamed; not just of their bodies, but of their sin of disobedience.

Of course there’s no scientific ‘evidence’ of there being no time in Heaven (Paradise). But, God existed before the universe was created. The universe requires time to exist, so God created time. But, time is not the same ‘as we know it’, in Heaven. God doesn’t need time in order to exist. We do. The spiritual realm is not subject to the passing of time like the physical realm is. The Garden of Paradise was also separated from the earth through the fall of Adam and Eve. The physical existence was separated from the spiritual.

"Genesis 1: [1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good;* and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.***

…now that I think about it,why is it that we need to be born again and not any OT saints according to you for we will all end up in the same spot with our lord ?

Because, being ‘born again’ refers to our being reunited with God, through Jesus Christ, Who opened the Gates of Heaven that were closed to us by the sin of Adam and Eve. That’s the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was the Promise of God to the Jews, to send mankind a Savior. The New Covenant is between the Savior and us, and it’s completely different than the old one. The New Law and everything about it is different. We can’t apply anything of the New Law to the Old Law, or visa versa, because they are not the same. Jesus is already here! That’s why the Old Law is no longer valid, because Jesus fulfilled the Promise. When Jesus was on the Cross, He said, “It is finished.”. He meant that the Old Covenant was now complete, because the Savior (Himself) had fulfilled God’s Promise. So, following the Old Law is no longer necessary, or effectual, for the salvation of mankind. It was a Covenant between God and the Jews, so it only applied to them. The New Law was officially established by Jesus Christ, and that is all that matters to all mankind from that point on. Rehashing the events of the Old Testament to somehow find reasons to ignore anything that we find in the New Testament, won’t do any of us any good. The Old Testament (the Old Covenant), is fulfilled and finished in Jesus Christ.