God grants repentance to life

[Ace777]

The foundation of the Church is the teachings of Jesus Christ.

All we know about Jesus is what the disciples tell us. Of course we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and lead us into righteousness.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

All we know about Jesus is what the disciples tell us. Of course we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and lead us into righteousness.

The apostles and prophets recorded what Jesus said -who is the Authority

The foundation of the Church is the teachings of Jesus Christ. The servant Rom 1:1 is never greater than the Master John 13:16

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me
Jesus is our Mediator 1 Timothy 2:5 we don't need an earthy one, which places our focus on someone else instead of God. Someone claiming to take the place of Christ, or plays His role on earth I would be very careful.


Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go [c]therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [d]Amen.

Jesus is the Rock of our Salvation, the Creator, not the creation.

1 Cor 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to Me, ‘You are my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.’

A lot of people elevate the writings of the apostles over what Jesus taught, for example a difficult passage of Paul taken out of context, they use against what Jesus taught and lived, but they would never do so, they were servants of Christ, as we should be, a servant is not greater than their master. The apostles were the creation- just as we are- we are to serve only the Creator Exo 20:3- Jesus is the example we are to follow 1 John 2:6 Heb 4:15 1 Peter 2:21-22 how did He live what did He teach- the apostles never taught anything different. Acts 5:29 any argument trying to make the case they did, we really should be weary of.

 

[d taylor]

As you will know, the actual word "Christian" (or "Christians") occurs only three times in the New Testament. One is in the Agrippa passage I mentioned, The other two are:

“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” (Ac 11:26 NKJV)

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.” (1Pe 4:16 NKJV)

I don't believe that any of those three uses indicates that only mature believers were known as Christians. In Acts 11:26, for instance, it was "the disciples", not "the mature disciples" who were called Christians. How mature does a believer have to become in your view in order to merit the name "Christian"?

-
​

How can a believer suffer if the believer has not matured in their faith enough that they have went public. So they would be an object of suffering. A believer who is not openly living a life so as other people know this person is a follower (not just a believer) of Jesus, would not experience suffering. They may experience discipline from God for living a worldly life, but they would not experience suffering from the world.

 

[David Lamb]

-
​

How can a believer suffer if the believer has not matured in their faith enough that they have went public. So they would be an object of suffering. A believer who is not openly living a life so as other people know this person is a follower (not just a believer) of Jesus, would not experience suffering. They may experience discipline from God for living a worldly life, but they would not experience suffering from the world.

Well, I think of Saul/Paul. Soon after his conversion, he experienced enmity while he was still in Damascus, so the other Christians had to lower him over the city walls in a basket. He was a new convert. I ask you again, if you insist that the title "Christian" must only be used of mature believers, where do you draw the line between immaturity and maturity? How do you decide, "This believer is now a Christian, having reached the required level of maturity, but that one isn't"?

 

[d taylor]

Well, I think of Saul/Paul. Soon after his conversion, he experienced enmity while he was still in Damascus, so the other Christians had to lower him over the city walls in a basket. He was a new convert. I ask you again, if you insist that the title "Christian" must only be used of mature believers, where do you draw the line between immaturity and maturity? How do you decide, "This believer is now a Christian, having reached the required level of maturity, but that one isn't"?

-
​

Well i believe the problem you are running into is that you are taking the atmosphere back in Paul's, Peter's, John's, etc... time.

And trying to apply this to our contemporary time where the word Christian is not used as it was back in New testament times. Actually according to Acts 11:26 it does not say the disciples called themselves Christians but the verse states And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

This is worded like people outside of the faith gave these disciples the label Christian for openly following Jesus.

But in today's world people say they are a Christian, just because they go to church or have joined a church.

But go up to a person who identifies as a Christian and ask them how does a person become a (permanent) born again child of God. If they give any answer other than belief in Jesus for Eternal Life. I am no judge but it would look like they have never believed in Jesus and become a born again child of God.

So you can have people identifying as a Christian and not actually even be a born again believer. But you can also have born again believers, who have strayed from the faith and are living not as a follower of Jesus. But living more of a worldly life, identifying with the secular lust of the world.

So to me the labels applied to people today, do not mean much. If they have never believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. They remain an unbeliever and can apply Christian to their identity. But God does not take into account what people label themselves. God acknowledges belief in His Son, people who have believed in Jesus and counts them as a born again child.

 

[David Lamb]

-
​

Well i believe the problem you are running into is that you are taking the atmosphere back in Paul's, Peter's, John's, etc... time.

And trying to apply this to our contemporary time where the word Christian is not used as it was back in New testament times. Actually according to Acts 11:26 it does not say the disciples called themselves Christians but the verse states And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

This is worded like people outside of the faith gave these disciples the label Christian for openly following Jesus.

But in today's world people say they are a Christian, just because they go to church or have joined a church.

But go up to a person who identifies as a Christian and ask them how does a person become a (permanent) born again child of God. If they give any answer other than belief in Jesus for Eternal Life. I am no judge but it would look like they have never believed in Jesus and become a born again child of God.

So you can have people identifying as a Christian and not actually even be a born again believer. But you can also have born again believers, who have strayed from the faith and are living not as a follower of Jesus. But living more of a worldly life, identifying with the secular lust of the world.

So to me the labels applied to people today, do not mean much. If they have never believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. They remain an unbeliever and can apply Christian to their identity. But God does not take into account what people label themselves. God acknowledges belief in His Son, people who have believed in Jesus and counts them as a born again child.

Now I see what you mean. People who self-identify as Christians but who don't really know the Saviour certainly aren't Christians in any bible sense. The label has become almost meaningless today, as you say. But that is different to a person who really does know and believe the Saviour, but is new to the faith.

 

[d taylor]

Now I see what you mean. People who self-identify as Christians but who don't really know the Saviour certainly aren't Christians in any bible sense. The label has become almost meaningless today, as you say. But that is different to a person who really does know and believe the Saviour, but is new to the faith.

-
​

I can use myself as an example. When i was younger i believed in Jesus that Jesus was The Messiah The Son of God. But i hated school and reading etc.. and i would identify as a Christian but i was not studying The Bible and maturing in my faith. Not until i began to mature as a person did i began to realized faith is more than just believing in Jesus. It is learning and studying God's word and applying this to ones life. But through God's grace i became a disciplined student (well as much as one who dislikes reading can) and now i can say i am a born again child of God but also a Christian (well most days) who will openly say i am a believer in Jesus.

 

[Josheb]

You are somehow willing to believe that one can preach something about Jesus, that he would later rebuke Jesus for saying the same thing

And on the 3rd day after the cross, when others told the 12 that Jesus has risen from the grave, you reason that Peter can even refuse to believe that information (Mark 16:13-14), when you also believe he was preaching the exact same story in Luke 9:6.

I rest my case then.

Never happened. Go back and re-read the posts, and re-read them until they are correctly understood. And next time you want to disagree with me have enough integrity to tell me and everyone reading the posts you've already made up your mind and nothing I post will change it.

That will save us both some time.

 

[Ace777]

The apostles and prophets recorded what Jesus said

That is what they call oral tradition.
A LOT of our Bible is oral tradition.
A lot more than they want to admit to.

 

[Josheb]

Peter has a reputation for having the most faith and even the Catholic Church calls Peter the first Pope. Yet I had a pastor that said Peter was second in line behind Judas for betraying Jesus. LIke the time Peter denied Him. So there seems to be a lot of difference of opinions about Peter. Yet He was preaching on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirt was poured out on the Church. Even if he did not understand the significance of that. Clearly the foundation of the church is the teaching of the disciples.

Yep.

And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. I said Peter was double-minded and vacillated. I did not say he didn't have faith. Even on the night when he denied Jesus three time the unstated, implicit motive underlying his denials was that he would be able to stick around and see what happened to Jesus. Had he confessed his association with Jesus outright he knew he might be arrested (or worse). He knew what Jesus had been teaching the last few days (that he would be killed).

And that simply cannot happen.

There is a marked difference between what happened in regard to the apostles' preaching prior to the crucifixion and after Jesus' resurrection. The disciples preach by the Spirit prior to the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension/Pentecost, but they are not regenerate and indwelt like they are after Pentecost. Comparing the two is a false equivalence (apples and oranges fallacy). It is at Pentecost that the Spirit reveals to Peter and Peter reveals to the attending audience the promised thrown is the resurrection, not a man-made chair covered in gold (a physical throne).

Acts 2:29-36 NAS
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.

Acts 2:30-31 ESV
Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Acts 2:30-31 KJV
Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

When God oathed a future descendant would sit on David's throne, God spoke of the resurrection and His anointed one not rotting in the grave. I know that is not a popular understanding among a certain segment of the Christian population, but that is specifically and explicitly exactly what is stated at Pentecost.

So go back to what I originally said in Post #33 where the dissent began and re-read it with Acts 2:12 in mind.

• The Old Testament had veiled references to the resurrection.
• The prevailing view in Judaism (the Sadducean view) denied any resurrection, any life after death.
• Jesus taught a completely different truth, one that revealed and restored the true meaning of Old Testament content.
• The disciples appropriated a Roman term, the word "gospel," or "euangelion," and used it to preach Jesus and Jesus' teaching.
• Euangelions are announcements, specific types of good newses about great victories, usually accompanied with the victor's deification.
• The gospel of Jesus is about Jesus being God and the King, the King of (all) Kings, and Lord of (all) Lords who has defeated death and now has the name far above all other rule.

So when the op asks...

What is the gospel?

The answer to that question is Post 33.

And that, in turn, is necessary to the rest of the op, especially the first statement in the op.

The predominate position seems to be “Repent of your sins and believe in Jesus.”

From the very beginning of the gospels the message of both John, Jesus, and both men's disciples was, "Repent for the kingdom is at hand" (Mt. 3:2, Mt. 4:17; Mk. 1:15). That message is the first "version" of the gospel preached in the NT. Repentance had been taught from the Law all the way through the prophets. That part was nothing new. In the gospels, though, the gospel is "repent for the kingdom is at hand." The gospel necessarily includes mention of the kingdom. The first century Jewish understanding of that kingdom imagined the Messiah would overthrow the occupying Romans and establish a new Davidic kingdom but that was NOT what the gospel was about. According to Peter, speaking through the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the promised throne was the resurrection, that Jesus would defeat the grave and not rot in Sheol like everyone else.

And as a consequence of that accomplishment, anyone who believed in his name would/could also have eternal life. Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.

Now, this op is about "God granting repentance to life," not specifically the nature of the kingdom. The op correctly leverages faith, but because it has predicated itself on the answer to the question, "What is the gospel?" it is necessary to have an accurate and whole understanding of the gospel. You'll notice I haven't been able to get to the matters of...

People are saved by God's grace through faith. The faith they have is a gift from God. Just before Jesus died on the cross, He said.............

The things needed for salvation are a sinless sacrifice for our sins, repentance toward God and saving faith.

Saving Faith: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. NKJV

As long as people have hope in Jesus, they believe Jesus is their savior. The only people judged with the world are people that do not believe that Jesus is their savior.

...and other statements worth examining and discussing because folks can't get past Post #33. You'll also notice few in this thread have addressed the specified topic of the op: God granting repentance. You'll also notice the op defines the gospel as "Repent of your sins and believe in Jesus," but then later (Post 4) states, "To continue why believing the gospel is repentance," thereby creating a works-based gospel. The gospel is repentance, not believe . Now, I assume that was unintentional, and I make that assumption based on the emphasis placed on faith in the opening post. Salvation is by grace through faith..... having been created in Christ for good works. It's the entire paradigm that is a gift of God, not just one or two of the constituent elements but I can't get there with anyone because we cannot settle on what is the gospel.

People believe any number of things. Belief itself is not salvific in any way. Believing in just any Jesus is not salvific, either. If it were then Every Muslim, every Jehovah's Witness, and every Latter Day Saint would be saved. They would have been granted repentance. But I am guessing that is NOT what the op is asserting. Not only is it necessary to correctly understand what is the gospel, it's also necessary to have a correct understanding of repentance because there are a lot of people who think the Law of Moses is the only measure of sin, and sin is the only reason for change (the word "repent" means change).

The point being the object of believe is necessarily critical.

Believing in a different gospel, believing in a different Jesus, repenting of the wrong things is not what God grants.

And it was not my intention to cause a digression. I was simply informing the answer to the question asked so we'd all have a fuller and mutually shared understanding of the gospel because God granting repentance is predicated on the gospel, and the gospel's perfect sacrifice is very much tied to the resurrection and the kingdom.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is what they call oral tradition.
A LOT of our Bible is oral tradition.
A lot more than they want to admit to.

Thats what the Catholics believe.

I am more inclined to believe what Jesus taught

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

 

[Ace777]

I am more inclined to believe what Jesus taught

You miss the point of what the oral tradition is and how much our Bible is a part of that.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You miss the point of what the oral tradition is and how much our Bible is a part of that.

Yet Jesus tells us to live by His every Word Mat 4:4 and scripture is to be the light to our path Psa 119:105 so for me I will stick with what Jesus said. Going outside of it, we are warned Isa 8:20 Perhaps its not me missing the point.

 

[Ace777]

Yet Jesus tells us to live by His every Word Mat 4:4 and scripture is to be the light to our path Psa 119:105 so for me I will stick with what Jesus said. Going outside of it, we are warned Isa 8:20 Perhaps its not me missing the point.

The Book of Psalms is a collection of 150 poetic prayers that were written over a period of about 1,000 years, from the time of the Israelites' conquest of Canaan to the post-exilic period:

• Earliest psalms
  Some believe that Psalm 90, titled "A Prayer of Moses the man of God", was written by Moses around 1500 BC. Others believe that the oldest psalms were written during Moses's time in the wilderness, around 1440–1400 BC.
• Psalms from the reigns of David and Solomon
  Many psalms are attributed to King David and other Biblical figures, such as Asaph, the sons of Korah, and Solomon, and are thought to have been written during their reigns in the tenth century BC. However, most modern Bible scholars do not accept David's authorship.
• Psalm 126, which refers to Israel's return from exile in 537 BC, is thought to be one of the latest psalms
• 
  
• Psalm 139 was most likely written 3,000 years ago
• 
  
• Here is the Bible, read it.
• 

 

[Aaron112]

I am more inclined to believe what Jesus taught

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

GOOD ....

Millions of pages of tradition is actually directly opposed to Jesus and contrary to God's Word.

All Scripture is Inspired Directly by God, not man's idea(s),
and is in perfect total complete harmony , totally unlike oral tradition.

 

[Aaron112]

What is the gospel?

GOOD NEWS to those who receive it, to those who love God and are called according to HIS PLAN.

 

[Ace777]

Millions of pages of tradition

Tradition is oral not written. The Bible was oral tradition before it was written. You are saying someone, somewhere had to go though MILLIONS of pages to extract what is today our Bible. Why do you trust that they knew what they were doing. The Catholics for example have books in their Bible that is not in our Bible.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Book of Psalms is a collection of 150 poetic prayers that were written over a period of about 1,000 years, from the time of the Israelites' conquest of Canaan to the post-exilic period:

• Earliest psalms
  Some believe that Psalm 90, titled "A Prayer of Moses the man of God", was written by Moses around 1500 BC. Others believe that the oldest psalms were written during Moses's time in the wilderness, around 1440–1400 BC.
• Psalms from the reigns of David and Solomon
  Many psalms are attributed to King David and other Biblical figures, such as Asaph, the sons of Korah, and Solomon, and are thought to have been written during their reigns in the tenth century BC. However, most modern Bible scholars do not accept David's authorship.
• Psalm 126, which refers to Israel's return from exile in 537 BC, is thought to be one of the latest psalms
• 
  
• Psalm 139 was most likely written 3,000 years ago
• 
  
• Here is the Bible, read it.
• View attachment 352703

Your point in how it relates to what you are promotioning oral tradition -over obeying God’s Word?

I have my own bible - not sure why you would think I wouldn’t have one when it’s what I am promoting- that we live by what Jesus said -His Word. Mat 4:4

 

[Aaron112]

The Bible is not oral tradition.

 

[Ace777]

zzz