Whats it like to be born again?

[Todd977]

jesus says we must be born again what exactly does it fell like to be born again

I suggest you read through the section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on “The Grace of Baptism,” paragraphs 1262-1274, where the effects of baptism are described, and the section on “The Effects of Confirmation,” paragraphs 1302-1305, as adult converts typically receive both sacraments at the same celebration. By reflecting on the effects, appropriate feelings in response to these effects should come to mind. For instance, one of the principal effects of baptism is the forgiveness of all past sins. Certainly, a feeling of great relief would be appropriate, especially for a person guilty of many serious sins and otherwise hell-bound. Baptism also renders a person fit for heaven. So, an overwhelming feeling of joy would also be appropriate. Additionally, when a person is baptized he is adopted into the family of God and incorporated into the Church. A new feeling of belonging would be appropriate. I suppose a person who is born again in baptism might feel much like a prisoner on death row for serious crimes who receives a full pardon, wins a multi-million dollar lottery, and discovers a family he never knew he had all on the same day.

 

[Della]

I was baptised as an infant and yet grew up as a selfish sinful young man. Then after confesson one day I sat in the church and it was as if God lifted a darknes from me and filled me with a joy I never knew. I had been to confession befor but this was diferent. I told God I did not love him because I did not know him and I asked him to shoe himself to me so I could know and love him. My life began to change.

As I wrote in a previous post, what you experienced was an awakening to faith, such as the kind that St. Francis of Assisi experienced as a young man, as well. You might want to see him as a patron of all young men who were in your position.

In baptism the stain of original sin was removed from your soul, but you, and we all, still are inclined to sin, so baptism doesn’t preserve us from sinning–that’s not it’s function–to prevent us from committing actual sins. Confession is the sacrament that helps us restore us to saving grace, which is why Jesus instituted it, along with baptism.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

As I wrote in a previous post, what you experienced was an awakening to faith, such as the kind that St. Francis of Assisi experienced as a young man, as well. You might want to see him as a patron of all young men who were in your position.

In baptism the stain of original sin was removed from your soul, but you, and we all, still are inclined to sin, so baptism doesn’t preserve us from sinning–that’s not it’s function–to prevent us from committing actual sins. Confession is the sacrament that helps us restore us to saving grace, which is why Jesus instituted it, along with baptism.

Has anything been said yet about metanoia, conversion, that wonderful newness of life?

 

[crochet_lady]

Yes, there Are passages that suggest that baptism is part of salvation – but – what about the thief on the cross – he didn’t have a chance to be baptized and he admitted his own need – recognized Jesus as Savior and Christ assured him that That very day the thief would be with Him in Paradise. And the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4 – the Gospel in a nutshell as I’ve heard it referred to. That says that Christ died on the cross , according to Scripture, and that He died and rose again on the 3rd day , according to Scripture and that He was seen by others after that. There’s no mention of baptism in That passage.

I can easily understand where there is confusion about the part that baptism by immersion plays in a person’s salvation.

And baptism Is important – it’s our outward acknowledgement of what we’ve already believed in our heart.

 

[Cathoholic]

crochet lady.

I am glad you mentioned the often-called “Good Thief” (G.T.).

Concerning Baptism and how this requirement could relate to the “Good Thief” . . . .

1. The Church teaches Baptismal requirements concern the New Covenant era.

This occurred at the time in history when there was the New Covenant coming in and the Old Covenant still visible associated with the Temple etc.

If you want, I can do the homework and find this teaching in Church documents. Or if this is not that important to you, I’ll skip the searching for it. What ever you would prefer.

1. The other possibility is we have no idea concerning if this guy WAS Baptized or not.

In another sense (and you may be asserting this or not):

Some of my Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant friends often try to assert the Good Thief is a prime example of justification by faith ALONE.

But of course the Scripture verses do not say or imply that–even with this guy being gifted with a “death-bed conversion” the Scriptures in addition to exhibiting his faith, ALSO exhibits his repentance, hope, and charitable work (by the Good Thief).

I have a review of the “Good Thief and the justification by faith alone claim” in one of our group’s Bible studies. I’ll do a little homework and try to post something from our Bible Study about this Good Thief (was he justified by faith ALONE?) soon–maybe even yet tonight.

Possibly you were only wondering about the G.T.'s Baptismal state and are **not **asserting justification by faith alone here with the Good Thief but I’ll look up this section anyway as this misconception is so common among Protestants, I just don’t want any readers of this thread “walking away” thinking the Scriptures teach that the G.T. WAS justified by faith ALONE when in fact the Scriptures do not teach this.

For a Protestant, unless it is pointed out (directly from Scripture), it is almost impossible for them to see that there is no evidence the G.T. was justified by faith alone. But for the Protestant, once it has been pointed out that the G.T. exhibits repentance, faith, hope, and charity, it’s almost impossible to assert the Good Thief was justified by faith alone thereafter. Why this is the case, I won’t get into here.

I don’t want any readers to be walking away from this thread imbibing partial truths (when we can so easily get to a fuller teaching on this directly from Sacred Scripture).

Being Baptized was not a requirement for Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, . . . .etc. etc. . . . King David, the Prophet Daniel, . . . . and possibly even the Good Thief (depending upon if he had the Gospel preached to him in a full way). You did not need to be Baptized in the Old Covenant (but you could not get to Heaven in the Old Covenant either (Elijah went off to the Hebrew word for “The sky” which is often translated as “Heaven”).

There is Old Covenant and New Covenant requirement overlap in the time frame of Jesus and the Apostles until (presumably) the destruction of the Temple and as such, if the G.T. had the full Gospel made known to him, he too would have been required to have "been born again . . . (or) . . . “born of water and the Spirit”. But we do not know if he had the Gospel preached to him in such a fullness.

I think this is your point (?).

You as a Baptist would assert the same thing with the Old Covenant people and “accepting of Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior” so this concept of application to the New Covenant era should not be foreign to you.

But if it is, Sacred Scripture does not tell us one way or the other concerning the G.T.'s Baptismal status.

Thanks for the feedback, and I’ll do the G.T./justification homework too.

As to your point on 1st Corinthians 15, I’m not sure I understand what you are asserting. I think I do, but I am not entirely sure (so feel free to expound on this if you want).

Thank you.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Della]

Has anything been said yet about metanoia, conversion, that wonderful newness of life?

Yes, I did.

 

[Della]

Yes, there Are passages that suggest that baptism is part of salvation – but – what about the thief on the cross – he didn’t have a chance to be baptized and he admitted his own need – recognized Jesus as Savior and Christ assured him that That very day the thief would be with Him in Paradise.

Christ himself gave him his baptism–a baptism of desire. The Good Thief (St. Dismas) gave his confession of guilt to our High Priest himself, who has conferred his ministerial priesthood on men to stand in his place so that our priests do what Christ did–they baptize and grant absolution for sins.

And the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4 – the Gospel in a nutshell as I’ve heard it referred to. That says that Christ died on the cross , according to Scripture, and that He died and rose again on the 3rd day , according to Scripture and that He was seen by others after that. There’s no mention of baptism in That passage.

That St. Paul wasn’t talking about baptism in that passage says nothing whatsoever about its importance or necessity. He didn’t raise a good many other theological issues, either, but that wasn’t his purpose in that particular instance. He did write about baptism’s necessity elsewhere.

I can easily understand where there is confusion about the part that baptism by immersion plays in a person’s salvation.

What confusion? Whether immersion or sprinkling baptism confers saving grace, that’s all we need to know.

And baptism Is important – it’s our outward acknowledgement of what we’ve already believed in our heart.

Sorry, this is not the case. There isn’t one single Bible verse that even suggests this.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, there Are passages that suggest that baptism is part of salvation – but – what about the thief on the cross – he didn’t have a chance to be baptized and he admitted his own need – recognized Jesus as Savior and Christ assured him that That very day the thief would be with Him in Paradise. And the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4 – the Gospel in a nutshell as I’ve heard it referred to. That says that Christ died on the cross , according to Scripture, and that He died and rose again on the 3rd day , according to Scripture and that He was seen by others after that. There’s no mention of baptism in That passage.

So you can ignore the passages in which it occurs as long as it doesn’t occur in every passage?

That seems like a doubtful exegetical method to me.

The thief on the cross was “baptized by desire.” The Catholic Church does not teach that water baptism is absolutely necessary, so you’re attacking a straw man.

But it’s part of normative descriptions of the way in which human beings are saved by the grace of Jesus. If your normative description leaves it out, then you have a less than fully Biblical doctrine.

Edwn

 

[LegoGE1947]

So you can ignore the passages in which it occurs as long as it doesn’t occur in every passage?

That seems like a doubtful exegetical method to me.

The thief on the cross was “baptized by desire.” The Catholic Church does not teach that water baptism is absolutely necessary, so you’re attacking a straw man.

But it’s part of normative descriptions of the way in which human beings are saved by the grace of Jesus. If your normative description leaves it out, then you have a less than fully Biblical doctrine.

Edwn

Actually what Jesus told Nicodemus was “You must be Born from above” in the Greek the word used could mean Born Again or Born From Above. (At least so I have been led to understand)

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Has anyone seen “Rain” with Joan Crawford as Sadie Thompson?

 

[Della]

Has anyone seen “Rain” with Joan Crawford as Sadie Thompson?

That’s an old one. What does it have to do with the topic?

 

[LegoGE1947]

That’s an old one. What does it have to do with the topic?

It is about to rain here in northern Illinois:shrug:

 

[Della]

It is about to rain here in northern Illinois:shrug:

It’s been raining here and we’re due to get more tomorrow with a change over to snow. :snowing: That’s all right with me, though. I love snow. Unfortunately, it won’t stick around very long.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That’s an old one. What does it have to do with the topic?

It was on TCM last night.

Sadie is a fluzie fugitive, drinkin and hagning with the guys on some south pacific island. A “reformer” arives evangelizing. They, of course, hava a fight but he has pull and can get her shipped back to the states. He is sturn with tuff love. No one but his wife likes him because he is so rigid. I would like to discuss his character with someone. Sadie is desperate but she actually has a conversion guided by and inspired by him. She is willing to go back to the states knowing she will go to prison. She is offered an opportunity not to but says she now wants to go to square herself, to repent. She has a total change of life style. She says she feels reborn and eager to start a new life even though it means prison.

Shall I spoil the ending for you or do you want to try and watch it?

 

[Della]

It was on TCM last night.

Sadie is a fluzie fugitive, drinkin and hagning with the guys on some south pacific island. A “reformer” arives evangelizing. They, of course, hava a fight but he has pull and can get her shipped back to the states. He is sturn with tuff love. No one but his wife likes him because he is so rigid. I would like to discuss his character with someone. Sadie is desperate but she actually has a conversion guided by and inspired by him. She is willing to go back to the states knowing she will go to prison. She is offered an opportunity not to but says she now wants to go to square herself, to repent. She has a total change of life style. She says she feels reborn and eager to start a new life even though it means prison.

Shall I spoil the ending for you or do you want to try and watch it?

I saw it many years ago, or maybe it was a remake, but the story is familiar to me. However, again, Sadie was not “born again” as Our Lord meant it. She had an awakening to faith, which any baptized person may have throughout the course of his life. Sadie had probably been baptized as an infant, but she had abandoned her faith fairly early in life only to make a ruin of it. But she wasn’t the only one needing a conversion of heart/awakening to faith, IMHO. The minister needed to have one that would teach him how to love sinners instead of being a turn off to them. No on likes a sour saint, no matter how holy. I rather think Our Lord would have something to say to him about it.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, there Are passages that suggest that baptism is part of salvation – but – what about the thief on the cross – he didn’t have a chance to be baptized and he admitted his own need – recognized Jesus as Savior and Christ assured him that That very day the thief would be with Him in Paradise.

What everyone always overlooks in this story is that St. Dismas was already doing what Baptism does - he was dying on the Cross with Christ. No one today has the opportunity do do that in quite such a literal manner, but the Sacrament of Baptism takes us back in time and space to that moment to wash us clean in the Blood of the Lamb.

And the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4 – the Gospel in a nutshell as I’ve heard it referred to. That says that Christ died on the cross , according to Scripture, and that He died and rose again on the 3rd day , according to Scripture and that He was seen by others after that. There’s no mention of baptism in That passage.

Who told you that this passage contains all that is needed? Think about it - if so, then who would have bothered with the rest of the Bible? No - the whole Bible is essential; not just one small section.

I can easily understand where there is confusion about the part that baptism by immersion plays in a person’s salvation.

And baptism Is important – it’s our outward acknowledgement of what we’ve already believed in our heart.

Actually, Baptism is how we are adopted into God’s family.

 

[Cathoholic]

jmcrae. You stated:

St. Dismas was already doing what Baptism does - he was dying on the Cross with Christ.

This is a great insight. I hope you don’t mind but I’m going to swipe this one:thumbsup:.

ROMANS 6:3-6 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

My Anabaptist friends would simply reply: The Good Thief WAS dying with Christ on the Cross. But the issue is HOW (and they would say, “by accepting Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior and that is all”, which still leaves them dodging what Jesus’ words elsewhere are . . . but a great insight and I’m going to use this in the future).

It is very difficult for someone raised in an anti-physical nature (anti-Sacramental nature) to assent to the Sacraments. This is why all the Biblical contortions with verses such as “you must be born of water and the Spirit”, “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, “whose sin you forgive are forgiven, who’s sins you hold bound are held bound”, “call for the elders (presbyteroi) and have them pray over the sick man . . . and anoint him with oil”, etc., etc.

We all want to think if we could go back in the proverbial time machine, WE’D be the ones that believed in Jesus as True God AND True man . . . .But would we? Would we worship Jesus (after all, Jesus looked like any other man in many respects).

The Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Baptism) in a certain sense test a person to see if they would be a believer even when your mere five senses don’t tell you enough (which is WHY we NEED the gift of faith among other graces that we NEED–notice no “faith alone” here but we DO need faith).

 

[Cathoholic]

The Good Thief Does Not Teach Sola Fide . . . Therefore it CANNOT be teaching the Anabaptist concept of “Being Born Again” (nor does anywhere else in Scripture teach the Anabaptist concept of “Being Born Again” or sola fide–which is justification by faith alone).

It’s been said that God allowed one deathbed conversion to be in Scripture, to show that we should never despair of our salvation. But ONLY ONE deathbed conversion, so presumption of salvation does not creep in us as well.

This “deathbed” conversion is the narrative of the “good thief”.

Anabaptist Objection: “Well the good thief episode for sure teaches sola fide!” (The sola fide proponents think.) “After all, the guy is converted by Jesus on his proverbial death bed. He didn’t have time for any works here, so in this instance we for sure see faith alone saving him.” (they will often say)

But is this true? No.

As we look into it we will see the Graces of . . . .

• Good Work or “Charity” (“admonishing our fellow sinners” is the third spiritual WORK of mercy, as in “rebuke” the other thief)
• Repentance (our “due reward” for our sins)
• Faith (“Your Kingdom”)
• Hope (“Remember me”, I hope to go to Heaven)
• Humbling oneself (This sentence against us is, “just” or “indeed justly”)

Let’s look at the episode of the good thief closer to see if it teaches us sola fide.

We will see even the good thief initially attack and deride Jesus!

But Jesus gifts the man with “a death-bed contrition”. Jesus provides the GRACE for the good thief’s conversion.

Initially the good thief was attacking Jesus right along with many others.

MATTHEW 27:35-40, 44 35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; 36 then they sat down and kept watch over him there. 37 And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” 38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. 39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” . . . . 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

MARK 15:27-32 27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

Some of the sola fide people will say Luke’s Gospel account of the good thief will show us sola fide being taught. We’ll get to St. Luke’s account shortly and see that far from teaching us sola fide, St. Luke’s Gospel suggests otherwise.

St. Luke’s Gospel certainly shows “faith” within the good thief – “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.” This thief correctly believes Jesus can deliver him. He correctly believes Jesus has a “kingdom”. This is all true. It certainly teaches justification by faith.

But is this ALL it teach us? Does the St Luke’s passage of the good thief teach justification by faith, ALONE? No!

Let’s look at St. Luke’s account to deepen our insight. . . . (Next post) . . .

Incidentally. The “one on his right and one on his left” point from Matthew 27:38 above, SHOULD ALSO hearken us back to Matthew 25 when Jesus in His KINGDOM tells us about people on his right and left too.

MATTHEW 25:34-46 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[Cathoholic]

Now we will look at St. Luke’s account to deepen our insight. . . .

LUKE 23:32-38 32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar, 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.” . . . (verses 39-46 will be presented below)

So as we lead up to the verses concerning the “Good Thief” we again ask, does Luke’s account of the Good Thief teach us justification by faith ALONE?

It shows faith to be sure.

But it also shows the good thief hopes to go to Heaven – “Jesus remember me”. The verses show the hope of the good thief here. He hopes to get to Heaven by the power of Jesus’ remembrance. “Remember me” – I hope to go to Heaven.

But it even shows more. It shows works! The good thief now admonishes or rebukes the other thief for his reviling Jesus, even though before this, he himself was reviling Jesus too!

Admonishing our fellow sinners in love is a spiritual work of mercy, but a “work” it is.

How many times have you heard someone use bad language and not had the fortitude to admonish our fellow sinner?

Or how often was someone else committing a sinful act that you saw and you neglected to corrected them?

Yet this good thief, with all of his suffering, finds the grace (given to him) to rebuke a fellow sinner.

And yes there is even more. The good thief “humbles himself” (as Jesus in Luke 18:14 taught us earlier with the repentant publican - “every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted”).

The good thief says in verse 41 concerning their sinful DEEDS: “And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds”. This teaches how sinful works may result in condemnation too. This suggests a repentance in the good thief as well.

. . . . LUKE 23:39-46 39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” 44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

So we’ve seen faith, hope, and a charitable work DEMONSTRATED from the good thief. We’ve seen this man humbling himself and recalled Jesus’ words “every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted”. We’ve seen a warning about sin and the recompense for sin, - “we are receiving the due reward of our deeds” (there is no evidence the “bad” thief ever repented). We’ve also seen at least the suggestion of repentance in the good thief. Far from teaching sola fide, this set of verses, if anything, refutes sola fide.

**

• Good Work or Charity? Check.
• Repentance? Check.
• Faith? Check.
• Hope? Check.
• Humbling oneself? Check.

**

Someone might object and say: “Well this is all because of the guy’s faith.” But notice they have to assert something that is NOT stated in Scripture.

Before it was: “This MUST be an illustration of sola fide as this guy didn’t have time for any good works”, BUT NOW it’s “Well the good works came from his faith”.

And the faith ALONE proponent must also ignore the aspects of repentance, hope, and humbling himself (none of which fit into justification by faith ALONE) or try to assert these are mere “incidentals to the passages”.

And the Good Thief even demonstrates his work BEFORE he demonstrates his faith (I am NOT asserting he can save himself from “his work”. I AM asserting “his work” is itself “a grace”, just like his “faith” is a “grace” too).

I think ALL of this man’s gifts (his faith, hope, and charity, as well as his humility and EVEN his repentance) were GRACES.

Notice St. Paul doesn’t say, “the grace of your repentance is a result of your faith”. St. Paul says God grants people repentance (2nd Timothy 2:24-26) and implies it is a direct GRACE from God—a necessary GRACE, but a grace.

The synoptic passages concerning the Good Thief do not teach or suggest sola fide (nor is sola fide taught anywhere in Scripture. It is specifically taught against. Sola fide is a tradition of men that makes void God’s commandments!).

Thus the Good Thief does not illustrate the Anabaptist concept of being “born again” unless you read-into the passage things that are not there and read-out of the passage things that ARE there.

All bold, underline, and parenthetical additions to Scripture quotes on this thread is from me and not in the Bible. I am simply emphasizing these concepts that Scripture brings out.

 

[crochet_lady]

teachccd

I Should have included Scripture passages – will do that Now – from NKJ Romans 10:9 & 10 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
Also – Ephesians 2 : 8 & 9 “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God., not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
vs. 4"But God, who is rich n mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).
vs. 19 “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”
Another passage in John 20: 27 "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.-- And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

A comment to ‘cathoholic’
You’re saying that the Good Thief – in the process of rebuking the Bad theif for his attitude – was doing a good work to gain His personal salvation?
Performing a ‘good work’ to gain salvation – would be a person Purposefully doing ‘something’ for the sole purpose of gaining entrance to heaven. Because the person doesn’t believe that God’s grace is sufficient – that Jesus Christ’s shed blood isn’t Really enough – that somehow God Needs our assistance to getting us to heaven. That for Some reason God’s power to raise Jesus Christ from the dead – that Jesus’s raising Lazarus from the dead – that He Still needs Our help – is – well – saying that God is Not omnipotent (all-powerful).