Pastoraio olojoro adaa fa has turned my innocent women 'escorting' ochocinco to almost an adaafa, too. taking her deeper than the bad condition she was all along:

[Quote]Your works is a product of your faith. They are inseparable. So when we hear that faith without works is dead, really that dead faith was never really faith in the first place. Works without faith is unsustainable. Nobody can keep doing an action that they do not believe in.
LOL at the examples. And the summary really is the gist of the matter.[/Quote]work has became the reason for faith in the bold.

many without religious hence spiritual faith, like Bill Gate, Mouth of the south Ted Turner do good work; i will say noble work. They have no faith at all. They do not believe there is God. is it not therefore that their good work is their faith or at least the reason for faith in the work, to keep going at it because of the end product; result of the work?

faith is what you believe will make you stand better before God's Mercy. Perfectly good faith is One and comes from God. That perfectly good faith is what will be the only faith that will make you stand better to receive Mercy from God. Others, they are just gambling.

^you really are blessed at providing comic relief Whatchu know about Ochocinco sef? you watch American football?

Sweetnecta:
many without religious hence spiritual faith, like Bill Gate, Mouth of the south Ted Turner do good work; i will say noble work. They have no faith at all. They do not believe there is God. is it not therefore that their good work is their faith or at least the reason for faith in the work, to keep going at it because of the end product; result of the work?

Perhaps if you are paying attention and taking down notes you may have noticed pretty much everyone is in agreement 'works' alone by itself is worthless and as pastor said 'unsustainable'. We are discussing something else - works that result from faith from people who have not heard about Jesus. So siddon for corner and pay attenshion jor. Abi body dey scratch you so?

^^^^
Those who never heard the gospel will be judged without the gospel according to their conscience which is a witness of God in them

Zikkyy:

I have a question sir; except for those that were born into a Christian home and grew up living the Christian life (being all they know), why would anyone be willing to accept your teachings on salvation?

even if someone is born into a christian home. it is necessary at a time to formally lead such to christ.

can it be because they were told somebody died for them? or will it be because they've seen in your teachings, principles that are in sync with their value system? Will the acceptance be instantaneous or will it be driven by a period of reflections?

salvation is instattaneaous. but this is a work or operation of the holyghost through the preaching of the gospel.

I am saying this because i think it's possible for the fruit to come first. An example is the story of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.

cornelius didnt get saved gradually , he was obviously formerly converted to jewish religion and he learnt the piety from it. but that didnt get him saved . even though he loved God, he had to be born again legally.

@JeSoul; « #97 on: Yesterday at 04:51:13 PM »
[Quote]^you really are blessed at providing comic relief Cheesy Whatchu know about Ochocinco sef? you watch American football?[/Quote]American FB is my "undergoing Therapy". Please don't let the shrink charge you too much; speak in tongue when he hands you the bill; a Nigerian language will do you plenty of good here, or stammer into chinese language. He/she will pay you to get away or the role will be reversed.



[Quote]Quote from: Sweetnecta on Yesterday at 04:39:32 PM
many without religious hence spiritual faith, like Bill Gate, Mouth of the south Ted Turner do good work; i will say noble work. They have no faith at all. They do not believe there is God. is it not therefore that their good work is their faith or at least the reason for faith in the work, to keep going at it because of the end product; result of the work?
Perhaps if you are paying attention and taking down notes you may have noticed pretty much everyone is in agreement 'works' alone by itself is worthless and as pastor said 'unsustainable'. We are discussing something else - works that result from faith from people who have not heard about Jesus. So siddon for corner and pay attenshion jor. Abi body dey scratch you so?[/Quote]The second bold almost hit the mark. The first, missed it target; neither you nor your pastor treated the subject of work, alone or with faith with any sense of belief in that work. Purpose of work is to believe in it, for whatever reason you do; worldly or spiritual. The spiritual reasons are as many as there are of belief system. A christian does good with if it is for his/her spiritual benefit because of Trinity. Jew does the same because of Yahweh. Hindu, etc even Atheist does work for his own reason, his belief is humanity and thats his own spirituality. Those without any spirituality to anchor their work just do it because it makes their hearts glad.

Muslims do work because of One God, seeking reward from Him.



@Joagbaje « #98 on: Yesterday at 10:52:34 PM »
[Quote]^^^^
Those who never heard the gospel will be judged without the gospel according to their conscience which is a witness of God in them[/Quote]Like those who lived and died before Jesus?
What about those who followed the steps of the another comforter who according to Jesus will "hear from God and say what he hears, neither adding or removing from it, will make correction, will remind and will lead to all truth and glorify [speak honorably], Jesus son of Mary"? There is Prophet with a book that you can see in him all of what Jesus said about another. Is this not the best Prophet to follow based on what Jesus said?

Joagbaje:

cornelius didnt get saved gradually , he was obviously formerly converted to jewish religion and he learnt the piety from it. but that didnt get him saved . even though he loved God, he had to be born again legally.

I don't have issues with the above. I was only responding to your assertion that works comes after salvation.

Joagbaje:

The works only come as fruits of the salvation.

Joagbaje:

The fruits comes after salavation.

We see Cornelius displaying the fruits of salvation even before he got born again. maybe you can provide further clarification.

From time people have been yielding the appropriate fruits without being officially 'born-again'.

@JeSoul
i'd need some time to give some 'body' in answering your question on amazon and romans 2. But know though that no man can be justified by keeping the law, and that even no man can keep the law whether it be imprinted on the heart, head or toes.

Joagbaje:

cornelius didnt get saved gradually , he was obviously formerly converted to jewish religion and he learnt the piety from it. but that didnt get him saved . even though he loved God, he had to be born again legally

  What does it mean to be 'born again legally'? I will insist beyond all resistance that only God knows when a person is 'saved'.  

Everyone's journey to God/Christ is different - we even see this in the bible. Salvation is not an event. It is not linear & we cannot use one universal template to determine every single man's condition or status. 

Infact, when God spoke to Peter in the dream He said "do not call unclean what I have made clean" (refering to Cornelius & the other gentiles). And after Peter met with him, he made this ultimate declaration: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." Meaning God had already accepted Cornelius. Leading him to Peter was to lead him to a greater walk and ultimate revelation of truth. Teaching him about the sacrifice of Christ to me was to bring to glorious fruition what was already started by God in Cornelius. He was already walking with God - now he could know Christ and understand the greatest sacrifice for his sake and accept it and then walk in it - in even greater love & works borne from faith.

If Cornelius (with his great record of love) had died never having the chance to hear the gospel, are we going to say he was never "born again" or "saved"?

---

Image123:

@JeSoul
i'd need some time to give some 'body' in answering your question on amazon and romans 2. But know though that no man can be justified by keeping the law, and that even no man can keep the law whether it be imprinted on the heart, head or toes.

My brother no problem jare. Take all the time you need & no vex if it reach next week before I can respond .

  And I want you to think very carefully about the implications of the part bolded above^ you will run into a ton of problems with Romans 2:14-16 with a rigid interpretation of that viewpoint. Here's the Contempoary English & amplified versions of the verse:

CEV
14Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. 15 This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, 16when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.

Amplified:
14When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law 15 They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] 16 On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).

Joagbaje:


cornelius didnt get saved gradually , he was obviously formerly converted to jewish religion and he learnt the piety from it. but that didnt get him saved . even though he loved God, he had to be born again legally.

The delusion of Over-zealous religiousness is astounding

Mr Joagbaje, how do you know he did not get saved?

Do you seat with God in heaven to know who is saved or who is not saved?

JeSoul:

  What does it mean to be 'born again legally'? I will insist beyond all resistance that only God knows when a person is 'saved'.

 

I like this very much; though I will perhaps just qualify it slightly to read that "only God knows absolutely that (edit: or when) a person is born again and/or 'saved'."

You see some fellow professing Christians have caused a lot of confusion with what it means to be "born again". So we wait for an answer to Jesoul's question of what it means to be "born again" and to be born again legally for that matter.

Meanwhile food for thought: if a person constantly displays the fruit that Jesus Christ desires in His disciples because the person wishes to please "God" but the person is not a "Christian" formally, is it not possible that the person is born again anyway?

Can we human beings delimit the workings of the Holy Spirit? Does the Bible tell us that there is a particular, official, specific, exclusive etc or, for that matter, "legal" way to be born again?  

It boils down to this: is it not possible, in certain circumstances, for an ostensible "non-Christian" to be "born again".

Could we not possibly simplify being "born again" to mean having the mind/fear of God and living according to Godly principles ----- in which case we can be sure that the Holy Spirit will empower/dwell in the person or perhaps is already empowering/dwelling within the person is why the person is seeking to live by Godly principles?

If it is all about being born again "legally" (maybe by saying a sinner's prayer - as we yet await definition) why are so many "Christians" who have been "born again" legally still rogues, fraudsters, inconsiderate, selfish and greedily seeking after "prosperity"?

@ JeSoul, body dey inside cloth my sister. How una dey?

a "disciple" to me is a keen student and follower of a mentor. The disciples were labeled "christians" for one purpose only - they acted, spoke and exhibited the attributes of ONE - their Master Jesus. Christ himself considered them "disciples" because they were willing to be SOLD OUT for Him. It wasnt just a one-off listening to messages here and there for a few weeks thing, these men left family and fortune to follow a man who spoke words they barely understood, hated by all in all faith, sincerity and purpose because they knew He had the truth.

Now lets look at the author's quotes:

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity. Just because I believe that evangelicals should stop evangelizing doesn’t mean that they should to stop speaking of Jesus. I speak of Jesus everywhere I go and with everyone I meet.

what does he mean by "encouraging" everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus WITHOUT MANIPULATION? It reminds me of one woman who called into a christian radio show yesterday (the founder and overall pastor was the one on the air), she bluntly admitted she was NOT a christian. When asked by the founder why she listened to the station, she replied that she found the station soothing, that they talked (NOT preached at her) about christ in a way that made Him relatable to everyone. She claimed the station did not "judge her" (euphemism for being reminded that we are all sinners and need to come to repentance). By the time the call was over, i had zero indication that the woman felt any need for spiritual chance. She was just ok with the feel-good message reinforced by the founder.

Would the author of the above say that the messages Christ preached to Nicodemus and the woman at the well included "manipulation"? Was Jesus merely "encouraging" the rich young ruler to follow Him?

As founder and president of a company called International Initiatives, my work is aimed at building relationships among Christian leaders in the West and among Muslim leaders in the Middle East. It may come as a surprise to many Christians that Muslims are generally open to studying the life of Jesus as a model for leadership because they revere him as a prophet.

At no time did Christ tell us that our goal was to "build relationships" among His disciples and the pharisees. Yes the saducees were VERY open to studying the law as a model for their lives, they also revered Abraham as a prophet . . . did that make Christ any predisposed to welcoming them with open arms? When did we become comfortable with "building relationships" as against speaking the truth in love?

But now that I’m no longer obsessed with converting people to Christianity, I’ve found that talking about Jesus is much easier and far more compelling.

This is absurd. The OVERARCHING theme of the bible is one of sin and redemption through the blood of Jesus. There is no other "compelling" message in the bible than that. Is this man saying that the charge Christ gave at His ascension was merely an "obsession" that we can now do without? Christ's ONLY GOAL on earth was to win souls, the early disciples laid down their lives for this very truth that this man so thoughtlessly disparages.

I believe that doctrine is important, but it’s not more important than following Jesus.

Does this man understand what it means to "follow Jesus" or is he merely reciting an empty mantra? If we were to "follow Jesus" literarily (most of us dont) then how does he justify claiming that converting souls to Christ is a mere "obsession" that we can do without? Wasnt that the sole mission of Christ for His time on earth? Does following Jesus now involve building relationships with muslims who OPENLY DENY the Lordship of the very one you claim you follow?

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Is this guy even a spirit-filled child of God?

As for Cornelius, I'd say he was 'saved' alright; the Bible says that the Holy Spirit fell on him (and his household for that matter) while Peter was still speaking; so no be say Peter make "altar call" and Peter come "save" Cornelius or "win Cornelius' soul" as some people dey like to boast here.

I think that this John chapter 3 has fuelled so much mayhem in the world due to the fact that people refused to read the entire discourse with Nicodemus comprehensively.

Enigma:

 
You see some fellow professing Christians have caused a lot of confusion with what it means to be "born again". So we wait for an answer to Jesoul's question of what it means to be "born again" and to be born again legally for that matter.

Born again has nothing to do with Altar call or making any kind of 'sinner's prayer'. The entire discourse spells it out very clearly. There are two aspects to man. The physical/fleshly aspect (sarx), and the spiritual aspect (pneuma).

We are all born in the flesh yet we have a spiritual aspect that is dormant. We need to awaken this faculty of our being if we are to 1) even see the kingdom of heaven, and 2) if we are to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That we must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven was said in response to nicodemu saying that he knew Jesus was sent from God before of the signs he saw. Nicodemus was accepting Jesus on the evidence of his fleshly eyes. And in my opinion Jesus was telling him that he ain't seen nothing. What there is to see cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh.
To be born again is to be born of Water and of Spirit, and there are ways to tell who is born of the spirit. There is a spontaneity in their actions. there is no telling where they are coming from or where they are going.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

It is not predictable, even with hindsight. These are the traits of spiritually awakened people.

Now to be 'born again', ie to awaken the spirit is no guarantee that you will enter the kingdom of heaven. There are many spiritually awakened and spiritually active people, who are very distant from the kingdom of heaven. It is like saying, you need legs to run. Yet not every one that has legs is going to run with it. Some decide to stroll.
You must be spiritually awakened to enter into the kingdom, but being spiritually aware doesn't automatically get you into the kingdom.

Enigma:

 

Meanwhile food for thought: if a person constantly displays the fruit that Jesus Christ desires in His disciples [/b]because the person wishes to please "God" but the person is not a "Christian" formally, is it not possible that the person is born again anyway?

Can we human beings delimit the workings of the Holy Spirit? Does the Bible tell us that there is a particular, official, specific, exclusive etc or, for that matter, "legal" way to be born again?  

It boils down to this: [b]is it not possible, in certain circumstances, for an ostensible "non-Christian" to be "born again".

And this is how Jesus ends the discourse with Nicodemus . . .

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

What's all this about deeds and doing? Doing evil, doing truth etc etc? What what . . ? And that is the condemnation?? Are you serious? The condemnation is ultimately 'because their deeds were evil'? Where is all the jazz about faith not works? And the deeds of the truthful are 'wrought in God'.

If it is all about being born again "legally" (maybe by saying a sinner's prayer - as we yet await definition) why are so many "Christians" who have been "born again" legally still rogues, fraudsters, inconsiderate, selfish and greedily seeking after "prosperity"?

Since we now know that those that do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, then I think it is save to say that those 'born again' christians that do wickedness have no light in them, and neither is christ in them, and their professing is vacuous.

[Quote]« #107 on: Today at 06:45:46 PM » {JeSoul; has Ochocinco arrived with all the heat in bean town?}.

@ JeSoul, body dey inside cloth my sister. How una dey?

a "disciple" to me is a keen student and follower of a mentor.[/Quote]The bold is the crust of the matter; subject [individual], opinion without the support from the authority, in this case Jesus since it is christianity that is being discussed.



[Quote]The disciples were labeled "christians"[/Quote]Jesus their master who was the prophet they were following did not call them christians. God didn't tell Jesus to call his followers "Christians". The name Christian and the religion Christianity neither is therefore with divine authority; Not from God and not from His elected prophet who led the disciples.



[Quote] for one purpose only - they acted, spoke and exhibited the attributes of ONE - their Master Jesus.[/Quote]And one of them, not just a mere follower, but the "rock" was called Satan. What an attribute of the ONE that was exhibited there.Imagine when they spoke ignorantly and he had to call them names; an adulterous nation seeking sign, you can not bear the truth now and the whole truth will have to be told by the Another comforter. The comforter who will correct you. I am going to stop here if anyone can tell me what was wrong that Jesus said that needed to be correct, or what was wrongly adopted after Jesus had left that the Another Comforter needed to correct the disciples on or who were to be corrected?



[Quote]Christ himself considered them "disciples" because they were willing to be SOLD OUT for Him.[/Quote]Those who followed Noah were disciples just as well. I am sure those who followed Moses were his disciples. Do you disagree and please tell us why?



[Quote]It wasnt just a one-off listening to messages here and there for a few weeks thing, these men left family and fortune to follow a man who spoke words they barely understood,[/Quote]Moses led for almost 40 years and he had many revolts against him. The most popular was the making of "graven image'; the golden calf as god.



[Quote]hated by all in all faith, sincerity and purpose because they knew He had the truth.[/Quote]Jesus was restricted to his communities; the nations of the children of Israel. How many religions they had then, except what they practiced among themselves? Those who strictly followed Moses, like Zacharias and his son, John, Jesus did not disagree with them. he was in fact following the same footsteps that were already on. I am sure if John was a believer who needed to be converted, even if it was possible that he officiated the 'coming of age' ceremony of Jesus, according to the custom, he would have asked him to follow him in his ministry. That was not the case, unless Jesus was lukewarm in his effort, he would not have allowed a person to preach a less than perfect way to God.

I sincerely don't want to create any controversy, the reason I did not introduce the name of Rasullah and the religion of Islam. If you take what seem to be authentic and since about Jesus that mr. davidylan said, and you insert Muhammad [as], his followers [ra], you will not have less authenticity.

The Pagan in Makka, then the Jews, Christians and Pagans in Madina all hated Muhammad [as]. These were mixtures of Arabs and non Arabs, a group that is more potent because of its diversity than the single texture Jews in the time of Jesus. The followers of Muhammad had to leave Makka, without anything to start a life and a community of believers in a foreign land; Madina. Jesus and his group were not ran out by their people. he lived his entire prophetic life where he was known. Its like Cheers; all of them know you.

there were no wealthy follower of Jesus that became destitute and and started over again by the grace of God. Abu Bakr and others including Uthman bin Affan lived this wealth and abject poverty lives. So did Muhammad [as], himself. so was his wife; Khadijah [ra]. So was Umar bin Khattab [ra].


There is ONLY One "ONE". He is God. Not Jesus or Holy Spirit or Melchizedek or anyone. Ever.

I am forced to come back here because as i read some posts, it really grieves my heart, and i wish in my heart of hearts that we will all come to the knowledge of the Truth.


1) @Jesoul

Everyone's journey to God/Christ is different - we even see this in the bible. Salvation is not an event. It is not linear & we cannot use one universal template to determine every single man's condition or status.

Infact, when God spoke to Peter in the dream He said "do not call unclean what I have made clean" (refering to Cornelius & the other gentiles). And after Peter met with him, he made this ultimate declaration: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." Meaning God had already accepted Cornelius. Leading him to Peter was to lead him to a greater walk and ultimate revelation of truth. Teaching him about the sacrifice of Christ to me was to bring to glorious fruition what was already started by God in Cornelius. He was already walking with God - now he could know Christ and understand the greatest sacrifice for his sake and accept it and then walk in it - in even greater love & works borne from faith.

If Cornelius (with his great record of love) had died never having the chance to hear the gospel, are we going to say he was never "born again" or "saved"?


do not call unclean what i have made clean. God "unlearned" everything Peter ever learned with this statement, this statement shows the eternal will of God that all men, not only Jews be saved, this statement wasn't just for Cornelius alone my dear sister( Acts 10:27) , God had not accepted only Cornelius,but in Christ, all Gentiles(me &you too), so all gentiles are potentially Children.

Cornelius was not saved before peter met him, He was a proselyte, and even Jews still need a Savior na, haba!

The Angel said to him, call Peter, He is in the house of Simon, a tanner, He will tell u what u "ought" to do, Acts 10:6, vs 32, and he gathered his household to HEAR WHAT WAS COMMANDED OF THEM (NEEDFUL) BY GOD Acts 10:33

Enigma:

As for Cornelius, I'd say he was 'saved' alright; the Bible says that the Holy Spirit fell on him (and his household for that matter) while Peter was still speaking; so no be say Peter make "altar call" and Peter come "save" Cornelius or "win Cornelius' soul" as some people dey like to boast here.

The Holy Spirit came upon him to prove to Peter God's eternal will for Gentiles as well as Christians, the same empowerment they received in the Beginning was been repeated here, who was he to reject the move of God,, the Gift of the Spirit is also a GIFT friend just like salvation IS, so it's not because of HIS WORKS

Now to Romans 2, We know that the Law couldn't save any man. Now Paul Knew this and was shooting down this Claim to the Law by Jews of his day and encouraging them to accept the grace of God, which is the Gift of HIS SON.

Listen to this, vs 12 says, All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law, they shall perish outside the law not judged or saved or pitied and declared righteous outside the law.
He was comparing two dispensations as well, the one of the conscience and that of the Law, wait a minute let me ask a question of my own, THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT WERE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS IN OLD TIMES, WERE THEY, BY GRACE OR IT WAS BECAUSE OF THEIR WORKS?(THE LAW), the law was a task master, until the time when God's Son will be manifest. NO MAN CAN MEET GOD'S STANDARD BY HIS WORKS, the bible says if God decides to mark iniquity, no man can stand, also there is non righteous, no not one,

the Bible says WITHOUT FAITH NO MAN CAN PLEASE GOD, (that is for Christians who think a man's works can please God), God will be attracted to good works and then cause "His Word" to come to that one, whether by little whispers in the heart, or dreams, or even visions,or a preacher, i remember the case of the children that were buried with their dead mother and Christ used to come and feed them. The little girl said the man had hands with holes in them. God will look for a way to have the Gospel preached to that one(in this dispensation). GOD'S STANDARD IS SURE PEOPLE.

YOUR MAN IN THE AMAZON WOULD PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER GOD, a stick or stone that he "BELIEVED" protected or provided for him or worshiped his ancestors like most unregenerate men, this already would have made him an enemy of God. MEN OF OLD WERE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE OF GRACE WHICH CAME THROUGH FAITH , THEIR WORKS DIDN'T BRING THEM SALVATION,GRACE DID THROUGH FAITH, Eph. 2:8-9

2) TO BE BORN AGAIN IS TO BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT, TO BELIEVE THAT GOD GAVE HIS SON AS RANSOM FOR SIN,TO HAVE DECLARED JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR,TO HAVE REPENTED FROM YOUR OLD SINFUL WAYS (AND TO BE WORKING WITH GOD ACCORDING TO HIS WILL) it is an ever present condition because salvation can be lost

@5star

5STAR:

I am forced to come back here because as i read some posts, it really grieves my heart, and i wish in my heart of hearts that we will all come to the knowledge of the Truth.

please stay jare. many are being enlightened through your posta already.

Cornelius was not saved before peter met him, He was a proselyte, and even Jews still need a Savior na, haba!


2) TO BE BORN AGAIN IS TO BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT, TO BELIEVE THAT GOD GAVE HIS SON AS RANSOM FOR SIN,TO HAVE DECLARED JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR,TO HAVE REPENTED FROM YOUR OLD SINFUL WAYS (AND TO BE WORKING WITH GOD ACCORDING TO HIS WILL) it is an ever present condition because salvation can be lost

please turn your cheek , take this, .muaaah!, .
God bless you.

Joagbaje:

@5star

please stay jare. many are being enlightened through your posta already.


please turn your cheek ,  take this, .muaaah!, . 
God bless you.

I thought a slap was coming   o.k i 'll try and stay, God bless you too Sir

@JeSoul and all,
Okay, so i got the chance to 'body' what i earlier posted. BTW, i think the questions have already been answered by others. Just to add a thing or two though.
N.B: I'm not the Judge. My opinions and understanding do not have a say in who God considers justified and fit for Heaven. Jesus is the Judge and whatsoever He wills, let Him do on 'the last day'.

 I will agree I have missed something if you take a shot at answering my last post to 5Star, especially the Amazonian man & Romans 2:

Quote from: JeSoul on August 03, 2011, 03:11 PM
Consider a man who lives in the Amazon rainforest in one of the indigenous tribes that have still been untouched by the outside world. Like his ancestors, he has never heard of Jesus or the "word of God" or the bible but he follows the imprinted laws of God on his heart and loves his fellow man as himself. It is such a person that Romans 2 is talking about:

Romans 2 "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Can you still insist that such a man cannot be justified because he has not first had this "faith" that comes by hearing the "gospel of Christ"? Is that Romans is saying? See this verse also below . . . from every nation God will accept people who do what is right:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

Romans and the entire NT (and even OT self) is all about Justification through Christ - the operative word being 'through'. The problem is our limited and flawed understanding of the totality of what this 'through Christ' really means. A man may have never 'heard of' Christ - but if as Rms 2 says - he obeys the law of God in his heart and by his conscience, such a man indeed has Christ and will be saved through Christ.

Before i talk on the above, i feel there's still one thing to say on the below quote

Infact, when God spoke to Peter in the dream He said "do not call unclean what I have made clean" (refering to Cornelius & the other gentiles). And after Peter met with him, he made this ultimate declaration: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." Meaning God had already accepted Cornelius. Leading him to Peter was to lead him to a greater walk and ultimate revelation of truth. Teaching him about the sacrifice of Christ to me was to bring to glorious fruition what was already started by God in Cornelius. He was already walking with God - now he could know Christ and understand the greatest sacrifice for his sake and accept it and then walk in it - in even greater love & works borne from faith.

If Cornelius (with his great record of love) had died never having the chance to hear the gospel, are we going to say he was never "born again" or "saved"?

Please lets examine the Scripture briefly on this again.

Act 10:6  He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
There was something Cornelius had to do, his good works and sincerity wouldn't suffice.

Act 10:15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
WHat God hath cleansed here was the uncircumcision, not Cornelius. God had opened the way that even the uncircumcised could be saved.

Act 10:22  And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
There you have it again in clearer frame. Cornelius was WARNED by God despite his works. No man's work can save him.

Act 10:28  And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Compare this to the below
Act 10:17  Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
You see that Peter now had a clearer understanding of the vision. And it was not that Cornelius was now clean but that all men (whether clean/unclean i.e circumcised/uncircumcised) should hear the gospel. The Jews still had and do still have a hard time with this understanding though.
Peter is even more lucid below.

Act 10:34  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
This is similar to Paul's "there's neither male or female, Jew or greek etc".  I believe that's clear but incase there are still doubts sha, see Peter's explanation when he got back to Jerusalem and the boys were not smiling at him.
Act 11:13  And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Act 11:14  Who shall tell thee words, whereby THOU and all thy house shall be SAVED.
And
Act 15:7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Okay to the other issue on amazonia and Romans and hopefully other questions. First view change is that the letter to the Romans isn't only to gentiles but to all rome, actually i think it was directed more at Jewish Romans and Jewish christians in Rome. Paul himself was a roman btw.
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 22:27  Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
One major thing that the letter was addressing was that all men were sinners whether Jew(circumcised/clean) or non-Jew(uncircumcised/unclean). And that being clean or keeping the law could save no man but faith(i.e grace through faith). the epistle shines through with FAITH as the operative/force for all nations.

Rom 1:5  By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;
Rom 1:8  First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.  
It is in Romans that we see the popular "the just shall live BY FAITH" emphasized.

Rom 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Of course the Bible teaches that faith without works is dead faith or no faith or fake faith, but it is very clear that faith is paramount in the two. Work is rubbish and useless without faith, and there's no faith without works following.
Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The Bible here in ROMANS says that men are without excuse, whether in Amazon or Jalingo. Then he begins to talk of man's fullness of unrighteousness till he gets to 2v1.
Rom 2:1  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Take 'Therefore' as the operative word. He's saying because all men are unrighteous, no man has an excuse, not even mr.Jew. The jews think they are ok, and worthy of salvation but the epistle says no, they are not, actually nobody is ok.

Rom 2:9  Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10  But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11  For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
There's no partialty with God, everyone would be rewarded or punished both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 2:13  (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
The jews thought that they had the law and prided themselves in hearing the law and having it on their clothes, lintels, palms, forehead everywhere physical. But God was saying through Paul that it is only the doers of the law that would be justified. The clause and trouble though is that no man can do the law, whether Jew or Gentile. It is only God that can do/keep the law, it is only through Jesus that any man can do the law. This is the gospel. It is only those who have a new nature(coming from Christ) that can do the law. He was showing them the gentile(uncircumcised/without the law) who could do the law. The only reason why he can do the law is because of his new nature in Christ.
Rom 2:27  And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.  
Please note that i'm quoting only from the book of Romans.
Rom 2:15a  Which show the work of the law written in their hearts
i believe you know of the promise of God to write His law in the hearts of His children. It's not something that any man is born with. We both know what man is born with. Man is degenerate.


Rom 2:17  Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
The above verse been One of several reasons why i said He was addressing Jews who thought they had arrived through keeping the law. Similar stuff in Galatians.
Rom 2:24  For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25  For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
You can read through the whole passage, its not my aim to write another commentary. All have sinned, all have sinned, including Cornelius, myself and the man in the Amazon forest.
Rom 3:9  What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
The bolded is what He was trying to prove all the while in the previous 2 chapters, not the otherwise. Now he begins to quote other scriptures to buttress his 'reasoning. you can read through the chapter,
Rom 3:19  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
i believe you know how the bolded is expressed in Galatians. the law cannot be kept by any man. Only God can do it in us through Jesus i.e grace through faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21  But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Note the bolded and what i said earlier that "no man can be justified by keeping the law".

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Wish to conclude here too but Paul went on till chapter 16, so let me add another passage, thanks.

Rom 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

^^^ Except that with regard to Cornelius, you conveniently "forgot" all of the following:

1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.

Cornelius who was supposedly not "saved" or "born again"

- was devout and God-fearing
- he gave generously
- he prayed to God regularly
- his prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God (bold/highlight for benefit of "tithes" and "prosperity" fraudsters and their victims)

So, how did his prayers and offerings come up as a memorial before God, if he was not already acceptable and accepted in God's sight? In other words, even in his "unsaved" and "not born again" state, God found his actions acceptable!

Enigma:

So, how did his prayers and offerings come up as a memorial before God, if he was not already acceptable and accepted in God's sight? In other words, even in his "unsaved" and "not born again" state, God found his actions acceptable!

I'm not sure what conclusions are being drawn in this consideration between someone's gifts being accepted and his being born again. But this should not escape our notice:

- a gift offering to the poor does not equate being born again
- if Cornelius was already "saved" by his offering, why did Peter yet have to go preach to him?
- if gifts to the poor translates as being born again, isn't that salvation by works?
- being devout and God-fearing does not mean being saved: see Nicodemus in John 3.

So, if the conclusions being reached by some is that gifts to the poor translates into being saved or born again, how then does that idea square with the thrust of the New Testament that salvation is not by any man's work? Just curious.

The Bible here in ROMANS says that men are without excuse, whether in Amazon or Jalingo    

Thank you Image123 for taking such time and pain to enlighten us further, your reward is definitely in heaven. God bless

I'd like to add a couple of points for consideration.

Most of us believe in the Trinity doctrine i.e. there is ONE God consisting of three persons being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus said anyone who has "seen" him has "seen" the Father. Is it not possible to invert that i.e. anyone who has "seen" the Father has also "seen" Jesus? Think about it very carefully. Thus if a person in honesty seeks to please God the Father, responds to God the Father and seeks to walk in a manner pleasing to God the Father, will Jesus cast such a person out? Will Christ and the Holy Spirit not dwell in such a person?

Also, let us go back to Abraham. Many tell us today that they agree that "tithing" is not based on the law (or Malachi) but predated the law through Abraham. But they fail to connect that, similarly, it can be said that to be "born again" predated the law through Abraham. Let me show you.

Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10[b]Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before![/b] 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the[b] righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised[/b]. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

23[b]The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness[/b]—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

So what do today's so called "born agains" have that Abraham didn't have ---- other than he lived before the days of Jesus' physical crucifixion?

Sorry, let me add one or two more on justification mainly. No man can be justified/righteoused by works. Justification is by faith. No matter how pious one may be, God saves. All our righteousness are as filthy rags before God. We need to dump them aside and seek god's righteousness if perhaps we might find it. We can only seek God by faith, not by power, not by brain, but by faith.
Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
i like the other thread opened by frosbel on Jesus been the only way, i think it says it better.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:30  Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Rom 4:2  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
i believe it safe to replace Abraham in this  verse with 'the man in the amazon forest' and the answer becomes clear.

Rom 5:1  Therefore being[b] justified by faith[/b], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Truly, without faith, it is impossible to even take the first step in a long walk of pleasing God.

Rom 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:18  Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The focus on the bolded is that people have suffered in time past as a result of their ancestors, history has a way of repeating itself i think.

Rom 9:31  But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Israel could not attain it, no man anywhere can, no matter how zealous and pious he is to do good. It brings him to a similar wretchedness of the man in Romans7.
Rom 9:32  Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 10:4  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Today, if any man seeks God and righteousness BY FAITH, we would get it. That's the good news. WE should preach the gospel, every believer should preach the gospel in season and out of season. We should preach it without mincing words, we should bring others to Jesus instead of the gloatings on doctrines and which church or pastor is doing or not doing what.

Rom 10:14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Now this below is interesting and i think important.

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18  But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
If my comprehension is clear, the verse says that the gospel has gone into all the earth. God has considered the whole world has having heard the word of God that produces faith that produces justification that produces salvation. i think that's a serious round off if we look at it with our own eyes. So there's no one with excuse somewhere saying the preachers have not reached my village i'm free. If an individual doesn't take the word of God seriously, it would most likely affect his family and descendants. We should be serious with our relationship with God and make sure that our children and those who God has put in our care are also serious with the word of God. That's what God trusted about Abraham. That's why through him, Israel enjoyed and enjoys God. Through him, Levi paid tithes to Melchisedek. And the other way round, one man's unrighteousness can influence his future generations. gehazi committed sin and it affected his descendants. Rechab had faith and it affected the Rechabites, for life i think. The tribe of levi were on the Lor's side it affected their descendants. What about Jacob, and David, and Reuben and Joseph, and Gideon. If a man refuses education and civilisation, and migrates from others into some place, do you think that his descendants would be educated or civilized? this is history, common. Has their forefathers' decisions not made them today a backward, poor, sick and suffering continent? Some people left England and among other things brought faith and trust in God to N.America. The decisions we make today influence many tomorrows.

wordtalk:

I'm not sure what conclusions are being drawn in this consideration between someone's gifts being accepted and his being born again. But this should not escape our notice:

- a gift offering to the poor does not equate being born again
- if Cornelius was already "saved" by his offering, why did Peter yet have to go preach to him?
- if gifts to the poor translates as being born again, isn't that salvation by works?
- being devout and God-fearing does not mean being saved: see Nicodemus in John 3.

So, if the conclusions being reached by some is that gifts to the poor translates into being saved or born again, how then does that idea square with the thrust of the New Testament that salvation is not by any man's work? Just curious.

It's incredible how prosperity "gospel" people have tunnel vision and tend to only focus on things touching on "giving" and in particular to kick against giving to the poor!

Did my post not start with saying Cornelius was God-fearing? Should it not be obvious that a person who is "God-fearing" believes and has faith in God? Is it not the same faith that was credited to Abraham and that is credited to the followers of Jesus (as the final passages of that Roman 4 shows) that was recognised by God of (and, ergo, credited to) Cornelius even BEFORE Peter went to preach to him?

Enigma:

It's incredible how prosperity "gospel" people have tunnel vision and tend to only focus on things touching on "giving" and in particular to kick against giving to the poor!

In so far as my comments did not kick against giving to the poor or claim tunnel vision, I don't think that part of your remark was necessary.

Did my post not start with saying Cornelius was God-fearing? Should it not be obvious that a person who is "God-fearing" believes and has faith in God? Is it not the same faith that was credited to Abraham and that is credited to the followers of Jesus (as the final passages of that Roman 4 shows) that was recognised by God of (and, ergo, credited to) Cornelius even BEFORE Peter went to preach to him?

And your conclusion in all this was , ?

Try and reconsider my prior comments - I said "if" the conclusions being reached was thus and thus: that does not say that I had cemented what you were driving at. I was curious about this whole rap on 'God fearing', 'gifts' and 'acceptance', etc. which seemed to be leading to the Cornelius' case.

What I'm wondering about is this: did Cornelius 'gifts' and all the arguments around him mean that he was born again before Peter went to him? If yes, then why did Peter still need to preach the Gospel of salvation to him?

^^ First, at what point during Peter's preaching did Cornelius (and his household) get "born again"?

Enigma:

^^ First, at what point during Peter's preaching did Cornelius (and his household) get "born again"?

Let me claim ignorance and request you to tell me, please.

The one thing I'm curious about is the gist of your comments. Remember, "curious" - that's how I feel in reading the points you were trying to make, even though it may not be clear to me (thus, my use of "if".

I read earlier where you said:
"Meanwhile food for thought: if a person constantly displays the fruit that Jesus Christ desires in His disciples because the person wishes to please "God" but the person is not a "Christian" formally, is it not possible that the person is born again anyway?"

That is why I'm curious, because that sounds like someone being born again on the basis of his own lifestyle, efforts, behaviour, etc - in short, a 'gospel' of works salvation.

Now, if Cornelius was already born again (following the same line of reasoning as in your quote above), why would Peter need to still go and preach to Cornelius if the latter as already 'born again anyway'?

I'm going to wait and see how things develop and perhaps much later tonight I will explain some things further about the Cornelius' story.

In the meantime, following your request, my point has been very simple: I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.

Very simple.

Thanks, Enigma. This was what I was curious about:

Enigma:

In the meantime, following your request, my point has been very simple: I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.

Your point is noted, and perhaps I'll look out for your views on Cornelius.

Addendum: maybe I should deal with the below now --

wordtalk:

Now, if Cornelius was already born again (following the same line of reasoning as in your quote above), why would Peter need to still go and preach to Cornelius if the latter as already 'born again anyway'?

Very simple: God wanted to demonstrate to Peter and the other apostles disciples that even non-Jews (i.e. "gentiles" are acceptable in the kingdom of God. It was not to make Cornelius "born again" through Peter's preaching. Instead, to demonstrate to Peter that Cornelius was already accepted even before/without Peter's preaching, God "showed" Peter "seniority" by pouring the Holy ghost on Cornelius and his household --- WITHOUT Peter making an "altar call" or the like.

Now let me show you an example of people who were "born again" already ---- well ahead of "receiving" the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tonguesc and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Here we have people who were believers and disciples i.e. already "born again" according to your line of reasoning. Yet they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost let alone "received" Him! They "received" the Holy Ghost much much later after they were "born again".

Compare Cornelius and when he too "received" the Holy Ghost.

Enigma:

Addendum: maybe I should deal with the below now --

Very simple: God wanted to demonstrate to Peter and the other apostles disciples that even non-Jews (i.e. "gentiles" are acceptable in the kingdom of God. It was not to make Cornelius "born again" through Peter's preaching. Instead, to demonstrate to Peter that Cornelius was already accepted even before/without Peter's preaching, God "showed" Peter "seniority" by pouring the Holy ghost on Cornelius and his household --- WITHOUT Peter making an "altar call" or the like.

Now let me show you an example of people who were "born again" already ---- well ahead of "receiving" the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19
Here we have people who were believers and disciples i.e. already "born again" according to your line of reasoning. Yet they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost let alone "received" Him! They "received" the Holy Ghost much much later after they were "born again".

Compare Cornelius and when he too "received" the Holy Ghost.

these are different scenarios bro,

in Acts 19, these brethren were already born again, how do i know?, they answered the baptism of John, what was this?, it was the baptism of repentance, bible says the people came to John "confessing their sins"  Matt 3: 5-6, they confessed their sins and were baptised. Just as Paul told them this baptism was unto repentance, Acts 19 goes further in vs 5 , When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, before he laid his hand on them, he would have preached Jesus to them and they had willingly accepted and believed.


Now to the issue of when Cornelius became born again, we need to point out that being born again mustn't come as a response to an altar call, a necessary ingredient is the belief in God's sacrifice for sin as undertaken by Jesus Christ on the cross and the remission of sin by His blood,

the Bible says, vs 36-43, he preached Jesus to them, as they have heard and the fact that he died and rose again to fulfill prophecies which they sure have heard about, and they "believed". these were ready and willing hearts full of faith in what the "man of God" was speaking the Holy Ghost couldn't resist such invitation(as it were),

bottom line , FAITH IN JESUS AND HIS ATONING SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS BRINGS SALVATION AND THEY HEARD IT FROM THE MOUTH OF PETER AND GOD SEALED THEM WITH THE HOLY GHOST TO SHOW HIS WILL

SOME PEOPLE CAN AND DO RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST BEFORE WATER BAPTISM, BUT THE FOUNDATION IS BELIEF IN CHRIST JESUS