ECT SO WHERE IS CORNELIUS NOW , IN THE KINGDOM OR THE B O C ??

[God's Truth]

You just continue to show your immense stupidity.

It is obvious and you only have false accusations and name calling.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, in other words, Cornelius was nothing new. So why all the scriptural attention?

The attention is for the explanation given in my response. It is not to support odd notions of divided views of the one, true, gospel, despite attempts to divide as you seek to do.

'God fearers' is not a 'technical term' but a convenient one. These 'God fearers' were not ready to become card carrying Jews, but were dissatisfied by the polytheism of the day, and attracted to the monotheistic religion of the Jews and their way of life. They usually attended the local synagogue and were exposed to parts of the Word of God. The term 'God fearers' did not include the idea of conversion, for the Jews were not concerned with conversion, but circumcision. In other words, all that the term 'God fearer' tells us is that Cornelius was not circumcised. Whether or not he was converted would have to be decided by other parts of the text, as has been explained above.

AMR

 

[Right Divider]

More RD nonsense. Acts 10:43 says that even all the prophets spoke of the forgiveness of sins through Christ. Which is why Judaism was so confused about everything. The fact of his preaching the same Christ he always had been, and predicating it on "all the prophets" shows that the literalists have once again molested the Bible into something it doesn't mean.

Apparently Cornelius was approached because he was receptive, but not because Peter had another kind of gospel or message for him. He could not have been saved without realized that the 'good news of peace through Christ' v36 is what would justify him from his sins.

So according to IP we all need to fear God and worketh righteousness to be accepted by God.

 

[Right Divider]

The attention is for the explanation given in my response. It is not to support odd notions of divided views of the one, true, gospel, despite attempts to divide as you seek to do.

'God fearers' is not a 'technical term' but a convenient one. These 'God fearers' were not ready to become card carrying Jews, but were dissatisfied by the polytheism of the day, and attracted to the monotheistic religion of the Jews and their way of life. They usually attended the local synagogue and were exposed to parts of the Word of God. The term 'God fearers' did not include the idea of conversion, for the Jews were not concerned with conversion, but circumcision. In other words, all that the term 'God fearer' tells us is that Cornelius was not circumcised. Whether or not he was converted would have to be decided by other parts of the text, as has been explained above.

AMR

The point being was not the "God fearing" part but the "and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Do you believe that the gospel of the grace of God requires works of righteousness to be accepted with God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The point being was not the "God fearing" part but the "and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Do you believe that the gospel of the grace of God requires works of righteousness to be accepted with God?

You are assuming, incorrectly, what Acts 10:35 actually teaches. It is not about doing works to become justified. If that were the case, then the contradiction with Titus 3:4-7 would be apparent. Accordingly, there is something else going on that we must sort out to reconcile the two passages.

I get that it is quite easy to then claim "two gospels, two dispensations", etc., and then declare the resolution between the two verses. These sort of passages are frequently teed up by those that disagree with covenantalism, in favor of dispensationalism. They become locus classicus verses around which entire doctrines are crafted, ignoring the full counsel of Scripture.

I beg to differ.

Acts 10:35 "He which feareth God, and worketh righteousness..."

In these two mentions is comprehended the integrity of all the whole life. For the fear of God is nothing else but godliness and religion; and righteousness is that equity which men use among themselves, taking heed lest they hurt any man, and studying to do good to all men. Here, righteousness pertains to the second table of the Law, duty to fellow man. The fear of God here pertains to the first table of the Law, duty to God.

Since the law of God consists of these two parts, (both of which is the rule of good life) so no man shall prove himself to God except he which shall refer and direct all his actions to this end (duty to God and to fellow man), nor shall there be any sound thing in all duties, unless the whole of our life be grounded in the fear of God.

I readily grant that it seems that this verse appears to attribute the cause of salvation to the merits of works. After all, if works purchase favor for us with God, they do also win life for us which is placed in the love of God towards us.

Unfortunately, some do also grasp at the word righteousness, that they may claim to prove that we are not justified freely by faith, but by works. But this latter assumption is much too frivolous.

Righteousness in this passageit is not to be taken for the perfect and whole observing of the law, rather here it is restrained to the second table and the duties of love. Therefore it is not the universal righteousness where from a man is judged just before God, but that honesty and innocency which respects our fellow men, when as that is given to every man which is his.

Therefore the question remains, whether works win the favor of God for us?

I answer that we must first observe that there is a double respect of God in loving men.

First Respect:

Spoiler

Seeing we be born the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), God is so far from finding any thing in us which is worthy of His love, that all our whole nature causes God rather to hate us. In that respect, Paul says that all men are enemies to God until they be reconciled by Christ (Romans 5:10). Therefore the first accepting of God, wherein God receives us into favor, is altogether free. After all, there is yet no respect of works be had, seeing all things done by the unsaved are corrupt and wicked, and speak of their beginning (born in sin). Now, those whom God has adopted to be His children, these God also regenerates by His Spirit, and recasts in them His image. From here arises that second respect.

Second Respect:

Spoiler

Once born anew, God does not find man bare and naked, void of all grace, but He knows His own work in the born anew, indeed, Himself. Therefore, God accepts the faithful, because they live godly and justly. And we should therefore not deny that God accepts the good works of the saints. Yet this is another question, (1) whether man may prevent the grace of God with his merits or not, and insinuate himself into God's love, or (2) whether man be beloved at the beginning, freely and without respect of works, in view of the fact that he is worthy of nothing else but hatred.

Further, given that man, left to his own nature, can bring nothing but matters of hatred, he must confess that he is truly beloved. Immediately afterwards, it follows that God is Himself the cause that He loves us, and that God is actuated with His own mercy, and not with our merits. Secondly, while the faithful please God after regeneration with good works, and their respect of their duty to do good works, that is not done with the some inherent merit of good works.

There is no inherent merit in good works in and of themselves. The cleanliness of works is never so perfect that they can please God without His pardon, indeed, given as these works always have some corruption mixed within them, and they are worthy to be refused, unless God grants pardon. Thus, we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This we call the righteousness of faith, that is when a man, empty and drained of all confidence in works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with God is a righteousness which is wanting in himself, and is borrowed from Christ.

AMR

 

[Interplanner]

So according to IP we all need to fear God and worketh righteousness to be accepted by God.

Christian doctrine is not established by random incidents and descriptions in Acts but by the letters. Even so, the passage clearly says that the forgiveness of God in Christ is mentioned in "all the prophets." (In D'ism, you have to but the 'not' in there--it is not mentioned in all the prophets).

 

[Right Divider]

Christian doctrine is not established by random incidents and descriptions in Acts but by the letters.

Sure... Peter didn't know Christian doctrine... says IP.

Maybe Luke quoted him wrong? Maybe you think that God's Word is unreliable.

Even so, the passage clearly says that the forgiveness of God in Christ is mentioned in "all the prophets." (In D'ism, you have to but the 'not' in there--it is not mentioned in all the prophets).

Who said that the forgiveness of God in Christ is NOT mentioned in "all the prophets"?

Once AGAIN, another straw-man gets pummeled. That poor guy sure takes a beating.

 

[Right Divider]

You are assuming, incorrectly, what Acts 10:35 actually teaches. It is not about doing works to become justified. If that were the case, then the contradiction with Titus 3:4-7 would be apparent. Accordingly, there is something else going on that we must sort out to reconcile the two passages.

I get that it is quite easy to then claim "two gospels, two dispensations", etc., and then declare the resolution between the two verses. These sort of passages are frequently teed up by those that disagree with covenantalism, in favor of dispensationalism. They become locus classicus verses around which entire doctrines are crafted, ignoring the full counsel of Scripture.

There are more than two gospels in the Bible and there are also more than two dispensations.

I don't claim to know how many dispensations there are, but there are certainly more than two.

I beg to differ.

Acts 10:35 "He which feareth God, and worketh righteousness..."

In these two mentions is comprehended the integrity of all the whole life. For the fear of God is nothing else but godliness and religion; and righteousness is that equity which men use among themselves, taking heed lest they hurt any man, and studying to do good to all men. Here, righteousness pertains to the second table of the Law, duty to fellow man. The fear of God here pertains to the first table of the Law, duty to God.

False dichotomy. Nowhere in the Bible do we see a "first" and "second" tablet dichotomy. You covenant folks make up anything to get your story to work.

Since the law of God consists of these two parts, (both of which is the rule of good life) so no man shall prove himself to God except he which shall refer and direct all his actions to this end (duty to God and to fellow man), nor shall there be any sound thing in all duties, unless the whole of our life be grounded in the fear of God.

I readily grant that it seems that this verse appears to attribute the cause of salvation to the merits of works. After all, if works purchase favor for us with God, they do also win life for us which is placed in the love of God towards us.

God required them to keep the law. Not that law keeping can earn their salvation, but could they have claimed to get salvation and also claim that they were not under the law per Paul? Not a chance.

The law included what they had to do when they broke the law.

Unfortunately, some do also grasp at the word righteousness, that they may claim to prove that we are not justified freely by faith, but by works. But this latter assumption is much too frivolous.

Righteousness in this passageit is not to be taken for the perfect and whole observing of the law, rather here it is restrained to the second table and the duties of love. Therefore it is not the universal righteousness where from a man is judged just before God, but that honesty and innocency which respects our fellow men, when as that is given to every man which is his.

I was NOT taking this passage to mean the perfect and whole observing of the law. I was taking it just the way that it was written.

There is no inherent merit in good works in and of themselves. The cleanliness of works is never so perfect that they can please God without His pardon, indeed, given as these works always have some corruption mixed within them, and they are worthy to be refused, unless God grants pardon. Thus, we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This we call the righteousness of faith, that is when a man, empty and drained of all confidence in works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with God is a righteousness which is wanting in himself, and is borrowed from Christ.

AMR

We all agree that ultimately, we all need God's grace and mercy. But that does not change the fact that Israel had requirements that the body of Christ does not have.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hi and lets have a verse for that ??

dan p

It is obvious from the writings of Paul that the Body of Christ is made up of all the believers in Christ and that all the believers in Christ are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Do you have any verses that prove Paul was wrong?

 

[DAN P]

There are more than two gospels in the Bible and there are also more than two dispensations.

I don't claim to know how many dispensations there are, but there are certainly more than two.


False dichotomy. Nowhere in the Bible do we see a "first" and "second" tablet dichotomy. You covenant folks make up anything to get your story to work.


God required them to keep the law. Not that law keeping can earn their salvation, but could they have claimed to get salvation and also claim that they were not under the law per Paul? Not a chance.

The law included what they had to do when they broke the law.


I was NOT taking this passage to mean the perfect and whole observing of the law. I was taking it just the way that it was written.


We all agree that ultimately, we all need God's grace and mercy. But that does not change the fact that Israel had requirements that the body of Christ does not have.

Hi and here is what Acts 10:35 means !!

Acts 10:35 reads , But in every NATION / ETHNOS , thr one revering Him and is working righteousness is acceptable to Him !!

In verse 35 are 3 verbs ALL in the Greek present and speaks of a CONTINUOUS ACTION of worshiping God !!

Here in verse 35 most will , probably say is is speaking of Jews AND Gentiles and in Acts 10:35 , it is to Gentiles !!

In Rom 2:16 it READS , Therefore if the UN -Circumcision ( is Cornelius ) should keep the the Righteous Requirements of the LAW ( that is what CORNELIUS DID ) will NOT his ( CORNELIUS ) Un-circumcision be counted for Circumcision !!

We also BEG TO DIFFER , that Peter in Acts 10:1-48 commanded Cornelius to be water Baptized AFTER speaking in LANGUAGES !!

We see that the Gospel Kingdom message is still alive when Paul is preaching Grace , Rom 1:1 , Acts 20:24 and do not see any COVENANT but the Old Covenant !!

Most will never see that Israel will be set aside as confirmed by Isa 6 , Luke 13:6-9 and in 2 Cor 3:13-15 and there are 4 gospels !!

There ate 2 in Gal 2:7 , called THE GOSPEL OF UNCUMCISION , and THE CIRCUMCISION and in Gal 3:8 the Gospel preached to ABRAM and the Everlasting Gospel in Rev 14:6-7 and a Gospel in Rom 5:14 !!

There is the Dispensation of the Grace of God Eph 3:1-9 !!

The Dispensation of the FULNESS OF GOD ! , Eph 3:10 !!

Any thing else is called and AGE / AION !!~

dan p

 

[God's Truth]

Cornelius is in the body of Christ, in the kingdom.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Israel was DOOMED from Mt Sinai

God is not evil, so He did not give the law to the children of Israel to condemn them to damnation.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.​

 

[turbosixx]

nope. He will establish when He returns then we have peaceful and loving new world.

So you do not believe what Jesus said here?
Matt. 10:7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matt. 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

If these words were not true, wouldn't that make Jesus a false prophet?

 

[DAN P]

God is not evil, so He did not give the law to the children of Israel to condemn them to damnation.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.​

Hi and if you want to , They went from a HIGH to a LOW !!

dan p

 

[meshak]

So you do not believe what Jesus said here?
Matt. 10:7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

It means kingdom of God is coming.

Matt. 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

If Jesus is coming tomorrow we don't experience first death.

 

[turbosixx]

It means kingdom of God is coming.

Yes, it was coming when he spoke this and he said it's "at hand". Two thousand years and counting is not at hand.

Paul speaks as if it's been established.
Col. 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

If Jesus is coming tomorrow we don't experience first death.

That is the last enemy.
1 Cor. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

 

[meshak]

Yes, it was coming when he spoke this and he said it's "at hand". Two thousand years and counting is not at hand.

Paul speaks as if it's been established.
Col. 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.



That is the last enemy.
1 Cor. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Second dead is the final death.

 

[marhig]

Yes, it was coming when he spoke this and he said it's "at hand". Two thousand years and counting is not at hand.

Paul speaks as if it's been established.
Col. 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.



That is the last enemy.
1 Cor. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Yes it's already happened, it's spiritual, and it happened in that generation just like Jesus said it would. And it's still happening now.

 

[marhig]

So you do not believe what Jesus said here?
Matt. 10:7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matt. 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

If these words were not true, wouldn't that make Jesus a false prophet?

The death that Jesus is talking about death to self.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

SO WHERE IS CORNELIUS NOW , IN THE KINGDOM OR THE B O C ??

Don't you even know that the bringing in of the earthly kingdom was been postponed until the Lord Jesus returns to the earth (Lk.21:27-31)?

How could Cornelius be in the kingdom since it doesn't even exist now?

Cornelius is in the Body of Christ!