Enigma:

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".

I'm not quite sure that the terms describing each case all mean the same thing, though.

It is true that people could be 'believers' and 'disciples' without being 'born again' in context of new covenant as found in the apostles' preaching. The example in John 9:28 where some Jews affirmed that they were Moses' disciples but not disciples of Jesus is a case in point.

As for Acts 19, I think we should be careful. The context is not that they had not heard anything about the existence of the Holy Spirit, since John the Baptist made clear that Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Rather, it is clear that they had not heard of the fulfilment of the outpouring of the Spirit - compare John 7:39. If there was any promise that a Jew could not be oblivious of, it was that about the Holy Spirit, as Joel 2 recorded.

Following this, it is not difficult to understand why Paul asked them to believe in Jesus, after which they were baptized and received the promised Holy Spirit.

In Cornelius' case, I'm not sure one can easily assume that Cornelius was "born again" already before Peter met him. If it was just a matter of pouring out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius' household in Acts 10, it begs the question why Peter should have been sent to him. I'm thinking about how Peter himself understood the reason for his meeting up with Cornelius - let Peter explain it himself in Acts 11:13-14 --

And he shewed 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; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Peter there was saying that his mission to Cornelius was to tell him words - words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved.

The question then is, if Cornelius was already saved (in context of being "born again", what sense would it make for Peter to have been sent yet to the same Cornelius to preach salvation to him? I'm not saying this is an easy question or that I have a more cogent answer - no. I'm just curious as to how someone who was already saved would still need to be preached unto, that is: to be told words by which he should be saved?

5STAR:

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.

So it is sufficient to be "born again" to believe in the baptism of John? So it is sufficient to be "born again" to believe in repentance and to repent? What then is "repentance" ---- is it not turning to God and walking in a Godly manner?

5STAR:
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),

What is the difference between the case of the people in Acts 19 and that of Cornelius and his household?

5STAR:
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

Several people in the Old Testament also "received" the Holy Ghost ----- before the physical advent of Jesus.

Edited

wordtalk:

. . . . It is true that people could be 'believers' and 'disciples' without being 'born again' in context of new covenant as found in the apostles' preaching.

On what basis would that be? And do show the examples from the apostles' preaching.

wordtalk:
The example in John 9:28 where some Jews affirmed that they were Moses' disciples but not disciples of Jesus is a case in point.

^I'm afraid this is a red herring. Here is the relevant bit from Acts 19

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

Since they believed what or whom? Put that together with them being "disciples", I don't think it is difficult to figure out what or whom they believed.

wordtalk:
As for Acts 19, I think we should be careful. The context is not that they had not heard anything about the existence of the Holy Spirit, since John the Baptist made clear that Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Rather, it is clear that they had not heard of the fulfilment of the outpouring of the Spirit - compare John 7:39. If there was any promise that a Jew could not be oblivious of, it was that about the Holy Spirit, as Joel 2 recorded.

^The Acts 19 passage makes clear that the above interpolation is a glaring error of reading into scripture. Here

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

wordtalk:
In Cornelius' case, I'm not sure one can easily assume that Cornelius was "born again" already before Peter met him. If it was just a matter of pouring out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius' household in Acts 10, it begs the question why Peter should have been sent to him.

When was Cornelius (and his household) "born again"? During Peter's preaching? Afterwards? After the Holy Ghost had already fallen on him/them?

wordtalk:
I'm thinking about how Peter himself understood the reason for his meeting up with Cornelius - let Peter explain it himself in Acts 11:13-14 --

Peter there was saying that his mission to Cornelius was to tell him words - words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved.

Now this is a very good point (possibly the best point of the post) and shows the importance of reading scriptures in context and as a whole. Yes, they were told the message by which they were to be "saved". Nonetheless, we Christians say: 'we are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved'. Of course, even as believers now, the message of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus is the message by which we are saved, being saved and will be saved. Now read just a little further in the same passage in Acts 11

15“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

wordtalk:
The question then is, if Cornelius was already saved (in context of being "born again", what sense would it make for Peter to have been sent yet to the same Cornelius to preach salvation to him? I'm not saying this is an easy question or that I have a more cogent answer - no. I'm just curious as to how someone who was already saved would still need to be preached unto, that is: to be told words by which he should be saved?

God had a far more important point or message for Peter (and for us) in that episode than just "preaching salvation" ------- a clear and express demonstration that the gospel is equally for the gentiles! You see it in Peter's statement from Acts 11 just quoted above. Even before that, you see it clearly in Peter's statement in Acts 10:34

34Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right

Enigma:

On what basis would that be? And do show the examples from the apostles' preaching.

John 9:28 was an example in reference to "disciple"; but since you considered that a red herring, what do you make of people who actually "believe" and yet not considered "saved" in context of John 2:23-25?

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

I'm afraid this is a red herring. Here is the relevant bit from Acts 19
Since they believed what or whom? Put that together with them being "disciples", I don't think it is difficult to figure out what or whom they believed.

You seem to be assuming that because they were "disciples", that translates into their already having been "born again" before Paul asked them to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). It was when they heard what Paul was calling them to believe in (that is, Jesus Christ), we then read in verse 5 that they were consequently baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. I fail to see how this would be the case if they were already were born again before those verses.

The Acts 19 passage makes clear that the above interpolation is a glaring error of reading into scripture. Here

No, it was not an interpolation of error - which was why I pointed out that John already mentioned the Holy Spirit as he preached about Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:11) as well the fact that believing Jews were very acquainted with the promise of the Holy Spirit mentioned throughout the Old Testament. It begs reason to assume that the meaning of Acts 19 was about their never heard any mention of the 'Holy Spirit' as if that was the very first time they heard the mention - but if we look this up in context of John 7:39, the meaning is clear.

Now this is a very good point (possibly the best point of the post) and shows the importance of reading scriptures in context and as a whole. Yes, they were told the message by which they were to be "saved". Nonetheless, we Christians say: 'we are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved'. Of course, even as believers now, the message of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus is the message by which we are saved, being saved and will be saved. Now read just a little further in the same passage in Acts 11

God had a far more important point or message for Peter (and for us) in that episode than just "preaching salvation" ------- a clear and express demonstration that the gospel is equally for the gentiles! You see it in Peter's statement from Acts 11 just quoted above. Even before that, you see it clearly in Peter's statement in Acts 10:34

The question is simple: if Cornelius was to be considered born again ALREADY before Peter was sent, why yet was the apostle sent to go tell him words by which Cornelius and his family should be saved? Peter didn't see his going to Cornelius as a matter of telling him words by which he was already saved, but rather by which he was to be saved.

^^^ Just one question: when was Cornelius (and his household too for that matter) "born again"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMi_-xqhBYw&feature=related

Enigma:

^^^ Just one question: when was Cornelius (and his household too for that matter) "born again"?

^^ This was why I claimed ignorance earlier for you to tell me. To me, such a question presupposes another: when did Cornelius (and his household for that matter) become "believers" if this equates to the same thing as having been born again?

What I could say is that Cornelius was not considered born again before Peter was sent to tell him words by which he should be saved; otherwise it would make Acts 11:13-14 meaningless, incoherent at best. Cornelius was not waiting to hear words from Peter by which the former was already saved; rather, he (Cornelius) was to hear words from Peter by which the former should be saved.

You keep asking again and again the same questions that had been addressed; this has happened a number of times.

Cornelius was a "God-fearing" person; thus he believed in God. Most crucially, God found this acceptable!

Let's see if you will still ask the same question in a different way.


PS I did not respond to your John 2 point because it was another red herring --- if you are interested in it further please go and study what it could mean to say "Jesus did not entrust himself to them" ---- ask if a pastor "entrusts himself" to all "born agains" in his "church".

Enigma:

You keep asking again and again the same questions that had been addressed; this has happened a number of times.

Cornelius was a "God-fearing" person; thus he believed in God. Most crucially, God found this acceptable!

Let's see if you will still ask the same question in a different way.


PS I did not respond to your John 2 point because it was another red herring --- if you are interested in it further please go and study what it could mean to say "Jesus did not entrust himself to them" ---- ask if a pastor "entrusts himself" to all "born agains" in his "church".

John 2 is not difficult to understand in context; and shows a simple case that just because we find the word "believe" in the NT, it does not necessarily indicate "born again". People can "believe" in the power of Jesus' Name to cast out demons and do mighty works - if such "believe" translated to being born again, why would Jesus say He never knew them in Matthew 7:22-23?

Nicodemus believed in God, else how would he have been able to say that to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God"? Yet, he was the one who was being preached to by Jesus about being born again.

It's true I've been asking questions around Cornelius; but your explanations seem rather presumptive - there doesn't seem to be a persuasion in them that shows Cornelius having been born again before Peter was sent to him, especially in light of Acts 11:13-14.

^^^ The demons too believe that Jesus is the son of God ---- so they must be "born again"!

You forget the people in Acts 19 were believers and disciples. What was Nicodemus' line until he met Jesus?

Enigma:

^^^ The demons too believe that Jesus is the son of God ---- so they must be "born again"

Seriously? No further comments, unless you were kidding.

Just because there might be people who genuinely seek to understand some of these things. Here is what would have made the distinction between Nicodemus at that time on the one hand and the discuples in Acts 19 and Cornelius (and his household) on the other hand.
John 3

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

The Acts 19 believers as disciples and Cornelius as a God-fearing person lived by the truth and came into the light ------- that is being "born again".

wordtalk:

^^ This was why I claimed ignorance earlier for you to tell me. To me, such a question presupposes another: when did Cornelius (and his household for that matter) become "believers" if this equates to the same thing as having been born again?

What I could say is that Cornelius was not considered born again before Peter was sent to tell him words by which he should be saved; otherwise it would make Acts 11:13-14 meaningless, incoherent at best. Cornelius was not waiting to hear words from Peter by which the former was already saved; rather, he (Cornelius) was to hear words from Peter by which the former should be saved.

youve answered it already. dont allow anyone to confuse you. cornelius was not born again until he met peter. he was a believer in judaism.  being born again is to recieve eternal life which is in christ.

1 John 5:11-12
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Simple question , had cornelius received christ before meeting Peter? No. Had he recieved eternal life? No. He God born again and filled with the spirit at the preaching of Peter.

You can only know the mind of God by studying his Word,
"This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success." Joshua 1:8

http://www.openheavensdevotionals..com/

Joagbaje:

youve answered it already. dont allow anyone to confuse you. cornelius was not born again until he met peter. he was a believer in judaism.  being born again is to recieve eternal life which is in christ.

1 John 5:11-12
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Simple question , had cornelius received christ before meeting Peter? No. Had he recieved eternal life? No. He God born again and filled with the spirit at the preaching of Peter.

One correction, born again is not 'recieving eternal life which is in Christ'. Born again is awakening of the spiritual faculties of the human constitution.

^^^
Evidently pastor joagbaje doesn't know what it means to be born again yet he is preaching what he doesn't know to lost souls. He probably assumes answering an alter call means being born again.

^^^ That one should just stick to scamming people with his fraudulent preaching of tithes, first fruit and other similar rubbish or to the other nonsenses of Chris Embassy like saying no one needs to obey God's commandments.

Pastor AIO:

One correction, born again is not 'recieving eternal life which is in Christ'. Born again is awakening of the spiritual faculties of the human constitution.

What is your reference? What do you say about this scripture ?

1 John 5:11-12
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Theologians.

Joagbaje:

What is your reference? What do you say about this scripture ?

1 John 5:11-12
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

I say about your quote above, that it doesn't mention 'born again' at all. So what this has to do with being born again is something that you have to explain to me.

The passage in the bible where 'born again' is treated is in John chapter 3.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 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.

To be born again is to have a spiritual awakening. The direct contrast is made between flesh and spirit.

^^^
Pastoraio
Thanx for that, it's so unfortunate that this simple truth clearly stated in the bible has been twisted to mean something else by the pentecostal movement and reduced to merely answering alter calls.

Nice posts from Image, 5Star, Wordtalk - and thanks to Enigma & PastorAIO for providing the counter perspective. Image & 5Star, thanks for the detailed reponses and I don't wish to rehash all that Enigma has already said, but for the sake of clarity & so things don't get convoluted, lemme try to keep things simple.

We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.

Now Image & 5Star & Wordtalk, you all hold that Cornelius' life of good works and fearing God was insufficient for him to be "saved". I would like to ask how you can reconcile that point of view with this:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

¹ Religion
² that God
³ accepts
⁴ as pure
⁵ and faultless
⁶ to look after orphans, widows, poor
⁷ keep yourself from being corrupted by the world

  Please carefully and soberly reflect on all these powerful descriptors. Cornelius fulfilled all these requirements.[/b]GOD ACCEPTS(approves, regards as righteousness) RELIGION[i](notice it does not say judaism or christianity)[/i] as PURE and FAULTLESS[i](if this doesn't qualify as saved or justified and headed for heaven then I don't know is)[/i] is to look after the poor and powerless.

From the above God [b]accepts (approves, saves, regards as righteous etc) those who do these 'works' that you all are tossing aside as inferior to a audible 'confession' of faith. Or are we saying God will accept their 'works' & 'religion' but not them? The point is anyone who actively & passionately & consistently does these 'works' and keeps themselves from the world - just like Cornelius - already has faith good enough to be accepted by God - who are we to say otherwise? This is not a salvation that is based on works - but rather one that is proven by its works that are a product of faith - there is a monumental difference.

As much as we try to seperate the two, WORKS & FAITH are inextricably linked, you cannot have one without the other and be acceptable before God. Likewise we cannot claim one is superior (in the fanciful sense we like to think) to the other because one is dead without the other.

^^^ Not to repeat but just to add and empasise that God accepts . . . .

In the Cornelius example, Peter indicated that God had already accepted Cornelius and his household before Peter visited them

These are the first words of Peter before going into the story of Jesus' death and resurrection or before "preaching salvation"!
Acts 10

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

Also, when the Holy Ghost had fallen on Cornelius etc, Peter says, nay asks

Then Peter said, 47“Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me clear that Peter recognised that Cornelius & co were "saved" both before and irrespective of Peter's "preaching of salvation".

Jesoul,

Thanks for the point you raised. Although I'm not quick to hold to any cemented or particular view, I believe that the issue here is one of being 'saved' or 'born again' in context of the NT - that which we find as foundational in the doctrine of the apostles.

To that end, while we are all making basic statements to reject salvation by works (cf. Eph. 2:9 - "not of works", what I find particularly worrisome is the view that you're pressing - which is, that works (as in Cornelius' case) brings about the said 'saved' or being 'born again'. I may have misread you on that; but if that is exactly what you're summing up, I find that idea indefensible in light of the apostles' meaning of salvation in Christ.

Here is why -

JeSoul:

Now Image & 5Star & Wordtalk, you all hold that Cornelius' life of good works and fearing God was insufficient for him to be "saved".

True (at least, I speak for myself).

I would like to ask how you can reconcile that point of view with this:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

One quick question: Does RELIGION save any man?!?

I would not think that James would promote the idea that 'religion' was sufficient to 'save' any man - not at all. In that same James 1, we find in verse 18 that he already acknowledged the basis of our salvation in Christ - "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures".

God begat us of His own will - not by our own will or efforts or works of righteousness: that is the tenor of the New Testament on the question of being born again. Compare that with the following (verses cited from the ESV, English Standard Version)-

1. - "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man" (John 1:13)
2. - "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:9)
3. - "[God] who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works. . ." (2 Tim. 1:9)
4. - "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness," (Titus 3:5)
- - - etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure we all know those verses in point already.

However, coming to James 1:27, we cannot grasp the gist of that verse until we ask a basic question: who was James addressing in particular? The answer is in verse 26 - "If any man among you seem to be religious. . ." He was addressing people who were already saved! The verse 27 is not another path to obtaining salvation as separate from verse 18.

So, how do we reconcile these verses? Simple: verse 18 tells us how we are saved; while verse 27 stresses the nature of our works. The nature of our works follows after our having been saved, even as Paul shows in Ephesians 2:9-10 -

(a) Ephesians 2:9 - our salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast"
(b) Ephesians 2:10 - after we are saved, then "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works"

Bottom line is that, I do not find anywhere in the apostles' teaching and doctrine that salvation (on the basis of being born again) is ever obtained by any works of man. NONE. Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been.

JeSoul:
.

We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.

What God saw in the guy was his hunger and desire to seek God. But lacked the knowledge of how. He was acceptable unto God under Judaism , but dispensation has changed. And God has to reach him with the gospel. If he was born again already ,there would no longer be need for salavation.

Now Image & 5Star & Wordtalk, you all hold that Cornelius' life of good works and fearing God was insufficient for him to be "saved". I would like to ask how you can reconcile that point of view with this:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

¹ Religion
² that God
³ accepts
⁴ as pure
⁵ and faultless
⁶ to look after orphans, widows, poor
⁷ keep yourself from being corrupted by the world

  Please carefully and soberly reflect on all these powerful descriptors. Cornelius fulfilled all these requirements.[/b]GOD ACCEPTS(approves, regards as righteousness) RELIGION[i](notice it does not say judaism or christianity)[/i] as PURE and FAULTLESS[i](if this doesn't qualify as saved or justified and headed for heaven then I don't know is)[/i] is to look after the poor and powerless.

From the above God [b]accepts (approves, saves, regards as righteous etc) those who do these 'works' that you all are tossing aside as inferior to a audible 'confession' of faith. Or are we saying God will accept their 'works' & 'religion' but not them? The point is anyone who actively & passionately & consistently does these 'works' and keeps themselves from the world - just like Cornelius - already has faith good enough to be accepted by God - who are we to say otherwise? This is not a salvation that is based on works - but rather one that is proven by its works that are a product of faith - there is a monumental difference.

The Muslims are religious too . What do you say about their salvation?.

Joagbaje:

The Muslims are religious too . What do you say about their salvation?.

Very good thinking there! And that was why I asked: Does RELIGION save any man?
Which brings up another question: Are Muslims 'born again' because they are religious?

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

wordtalk:

Jesoul,

Thanks for the point you raised. Although I'm not quick to hold to any cemented or particular view, I believe that the issue here is one of being 'saved' or 'born again' in context of the NT - that which we find as foundational in the doctrine of the apostles.

Actually no. The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance - which is why I brought in the amazonian man who has had no contact with the outside world.

To that end, while we are all making basic statements to reject salvation by works (cf. Eph. 2:9 - "not of works", what I find particularly worrisome is the view that you're pressing - which is, that works (as in Cornelius' case) brings about the said 'saved' or being 'born again'. I may have misread you on that; but if that is exactly what you're summing up, I find that idea indefensible in light of the apostles' meaning of salvation in Christ.

  Indeed you have misread me and Enigma - it was just my last post in which I said this:

JeSoul:

  We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.
As much as we try to seperate the two, WORKS & FAITH are inextricably linked, you cannot have one without the other and be acceptable before God. Likewise we cannot claim one is superior (in the fanciful sense we like to think) to the other because one is dead without the other.

One quick question: Does RELIGION save any man?!?

Aha! You would first have to define what you mean by 'religion'. Then we can properly tackle the rest of your post below.

I would not think that James would promote the idea that 'religion' was sufficient to 'save' any man - not at all. In that same James 1, we find in verse 18 that he already acknowledged the basis of our salvation in Christ - "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures".

However, coming to James 1:27, we cannot grasp the gist of that verse until we ask a basic question: who was James addressing in particular? The answer is in verse 26 - "If any man among you seem to be religious. . ." He was addressing people who were already saved! The verse 27 is not another path to obtaining salvation as separate from verse 18.

So, how do we reconcile these verses? Simple: verse 18 tells us how we are saved; while verse 27 stresses the nature of our works. The nature of our works follows after our having been saved, even as Paul shows in Ephesians 2:9-10

You know I cannot let you off the hook by simply saying James was already addressing a crowd that was 'saved' . 
EDIT: Infact he's in essence saying "Those of you who claim to be religious . . . if you don't do A & B . . . your religion is worthless"

Bottom line is that, I do not find anywhere in the apostles' teaching and doctrine that salvation (on the basis of being born again) is ever obtained by any works of man. NONE. Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been.

. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother? Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

Joagbaje:

What God saw in the guy was his hunger and desire to seek God. But lacked the knowledge of how. He was acceptable unto God under Judaism , but dispensation has changed. And God has to reach him with the gospel. If he was born again already ,there would no longer be need for salavation.

  So Cornelius was acceptable to God until Jesus came? I'll give you a chance to take that back and rephrase. Peter wasn't sent to 'save' Cornelius . . . 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8855056

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.

The Muslims are religious too . What do you say about their salvation?.

Very simple, I say what the bible says: "Acts 10:34 "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."

---

wordtalk:

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

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8856052

Pls, this is borderline bigotry.


Tel me, if an individual was born in Saudi arabia and all that he knows is islam due to the involuntary Indoctrination most of us have been subjected to, are you now telling me that person is not "saved"?

Do you only have to be a Christian (followers of Christ) to be "saved"?

What is wrong with this world?  Even the ones that preaches the "Love", "peace" and "Salvation" are indirectly saying "It has to be our way or no other way" and no other way means eternal damnation.

What is the difference between that and the threat of some islamist fundamentalist ideology of "our way or no way".         

JeSoul:

Actually no. The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance - which is why I brought in the amazonian man who has had no contact with the outside world.

Well, that is where the problem stands. I've been asking about the implications of the view seemingly being upheld by yourself and Enigma, which was one that rests on the question of being "born again" - as in this quote from Enigma:

I ask you and others to consider the possibility that Cornelius was ALREADY "born again" before Peter came to his house to preach.  

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8868344

So, as regards all ideas considered with words such as 'accepted', 'saved', 'works', etc, I wanted to know their implications in your views with reference to Cornelius. It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

Indeed you have misread me and Enigma - it was just my last post in which I said this:

I apologise. However, I don't seem to get your point. Could I ask if your implication was that Cornelius was "already born again" because of his religious works (he 'gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway')? I'm asking this in view of what Enigma said earlier - "that Cornelius was ALREADY born again before Peter came to his house to preach"?

If that is another misreading of your view, please oblige me.

Aha! You would first have to define what you mean by 'religion'.

Religion means a lot of different things to different people. But whatever or however defined, I was clear in saying: "Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been": the words highlighted qualifies whatever definition of religion one might have in mind.

You know I cannot let you off the hook by simply saying James was already addressing a crowd that was 'saved' .

No; rather I said that he was addressing people who were already saved, and not that he was already addressing them. (Not a big deal, other than that I want to be clear: the 'already' qualifies the people whom he addressed, and not his addressing any crowd).

. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother?

No, I still don't get you; because, while you're saying this -

Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

- it comes back to the point that is of concern to me: that your view is that Cornelius' religion saved him! That is where I'm quizzed, and was asking: Does religion save any man?

I don't know which thread is best to post the following.  I might post it in other threads as well, where it fits.  It fits here because of the issue of Faith vs.  Works.  I actually think that the distinction is false and that they are inseparably bound together.  However the argument reflects the dichotomy between the ritual aspects of the Law as emphasised by the priesthood and the moral aspects as emphasised by the prophets.  



The Law and the Prophets.

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

This issue seems to go back further that just christian theology although it plays a great part in understanding christian theology.
We all know that Israelite religion was divided into the Law and the Prophets.  What is not so obvious is the distinctions between them in what they emphasised.  Even when they address the same events their opinions can quite varied.  

There are many points on which there are differences but the point that I want to raise in relation to James 1:27 lies in the difference between Religion as Ritual and/or ceremony, and Religion as moral conduct.  

In the Law provisions are provided in order to reconcile a sinful people to God.  These facilities include sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offerings etc etc etc.  These Rituals which are performed by the official priesthood are stipulated in the Law and are one way to do religion (re-ligere, binding back to God).  

The priesthood are officially recognised social positions.  In contrast to that the prophets were like mavericks.  Prophethood did not assure a high social rank.  If anything it could make one an outcast.  

Most Israelite prophets did not write down their prophecies.  The first of the 'Writing prophets' that we are aware of is Amos.  He was active in the 8th century BC.   So we can see that this early on in Israelite religion there was amongst the prophets a contempt for the great rituals and the ritual centers, even the cult centers of Yahweh, including prominent centers like Bethel.  Reconciliation with God depends not on performing sacrifices but rather on changing moral behaviour.  

Those who are so meticulous at observing ritual yet remain sinful are mocked.  
Chapter 4:

4“Enter Bethel and transgress;
        
In Gilgal multiply transgression!
         
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
         
Your tithes every three days.

5“Offer a thank offering also from that which is leavened,
         
And proclaim freewill offerings, make them known.
         
For so you love to do, you sons of Israel,”
         
Declares the Lord GOD.

They practice the rites yet continue to transgress.  As punishment they suffer yet even in the suffering they don't realize that God is against them.  

.Chapter 5
6“But I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities
         
And lack of bread in all your places,
         
Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD.
7“Furthermore, I withheld the rain from you
         
While there were still three months until harvest.
         
Then I would send rain on one city
         
And on another city I would not send rain;
         
One part would be rained on,
         
While the part not rained on would dry up.

8“So two or three cities would stagger to another city to drink water,
         
But would not be satisfied;
         
Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD


And then comes the killer punch:

 4For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel,
         
“Seek Me that you may live.

5“But do not resort to Bethel
         
And do not come to Gilgal,
         
Nor cross over to Beersheba;
         
For Gilgal will certainly go into captivity
         
And Bethel will come to trouble.

6“Seek the LORD that you may live,
         
Or He will break forth like a fire, O house of Joseph,
         
And it will consume with none to quench it for Bethel,

7For those who turn justice into wormwood
        
 And cast righteousness down to the earth.”

8He who made the Pleiades and Orion
        
 And changes deep darkness into morning,
         
Who also darkens day into night,
         
Who calls for the waters of the sea
         
And pours them out on the surface of the earth,
         
The LORD is His name.

9It is He who flashes forth with destruction upon the strong,
         
So that destruction comes upon the fortress.

10They hate him who reproves in the gate,
         
And they abhor him who speaks with integrity.

11Therefore because you impose heavy rent on the poor
         
And exact a tribute of grain from them,
         
Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone,
         
Yet you will not live in them;
        
You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine.

12For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great,
         
You who distress the righteous and accept bribes
         
And turn aside the poor in the gate.

A clear distinction is made between seeking God and going to the ritual centers to deliver tithes and sacrifices.  These are all futile without something called Tsedeq, which is translated as righteousness.  It includes Justice for the poor and the widows and orphans.  

Without Tsedeq all the tithes, sacrifices, and praise worship singing are actually detestable to God.  Not my words but the words of God in Amos.

Chapter 5
21“I hate, I reject your festivals,
         
Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.
22“Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
         
I will not accept them;
         
And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings.

23“Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
        
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
24“But let justice roll down like waters
         
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

More prophets:


Hosea 8:
13As for My sacrificial gifts,
         They sacrifice the flesh and eat it,
         But the LORD has taken no delight in them.
         Now He will remember their iniquity,
         And punish them for their sins;
         They will return to Egypt.

Micah 6:


6With what shall I come to the LORD
        
 And bow myself before the God on high?
         
Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings,
         
With yearling calves?

7Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,
         
In ten thousand rivers of oil?
         
Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,
         
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8He has told you, O man, what is good;
         
And what does the LORD require of you
         
But to do justice, to love kindness,
         
And to walk humbly with your God?

wordtalk:

Well, that is where the problem stands. I've been asking about the implications of the view seemingly being upheld by yourself and Enigma, which was one that rests on the question of being "born again" - as in this quote from Enigma:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8868344

What does being 'born again' actually mean to you? What is the relationship between being born again and being acceptable to God, and what is the relation between being born again and being 'saved'. I'm starting to get the feeling that these words are actually meaningless when used in religious conversations.