Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

[xBluxTunicx82]

That is what repentance is, turning away from and never looking back and adopting the mindset of Christ(or as close to humanly possible that we can)

 

[jiggyfly]

19 For God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ,20 and through Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.
21 This includes you who were once far away from God. You were His enemies, separated from Him by your evil thoughts and actions.22 Yet now He has reconciled you to Himself through the death of Christ in His physical body. As a result, He has brought you into His own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault.
Col 1:19-22 (NLT)

 

[brightmorningstar]

That is what repentance is, turning away from and never looking back and adopting the mindset of Christ(or as close to humanly possible that we can)

Spot on

 

[Rach1370]

But that is not the definition of repentance. It simply means to change one's mind. It could apply to a variety of things. There is no passage that says repentance from sin is required to qualify for eternal life. The context is unbelief. We are required to turn to faith. That is the repentance that leads to life. Repentance from sin is the result of our salvation, not the pathway to it.

Actually, I would say that repentance is something that hold hands with belief. In believing the message of Christ, we must first come to the realisation that we are sinners and in desperate need of a saviour. We begin to see just how wretched we are...a true belief leads to conviction and repentance.

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:10 ESV)

We also know that John the Baptist, in preparation for Christ's coming, preached for people to 'repent!' That was also Christ's message as well:

From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near!(Mat 4:17).

No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! (Luke 13:5)

 

[xBluxTunicx82]

We are to change our minds, which is a hard thing to do. Could you change your mind easily about Christ if someone taught you a pearl of wisdom that many couldn't accept? It is quite difficult to change your view on something, as typically our paradigm affects our very way of life.

 

[mark s]

Repentance, from the Greek Metanoia, is literally, "aftermind". Meta is the preposition After, Noia the noun Mind.

Meta in conjuction with a noun refers to an exchange. There was one, now it has been exchanged for another, and the metanoia is the new mind that has replaced the first mind.

In the smaller sense, it is to come to a new realization about something, in this case, our sin. When I realize that what I've been doing all these years is sin, and I realized that I don't want to do that any longer, this is repentance.

Interestingly, the Bible also speaks of the "mind of the flesh" and the "mind of the Spirit", where once we only had the mind of the flesh, but now we have the mind of Christ.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Rach1370]

We are to change our minds, which is a hard thing to do. Could you change your mind easily about Christ if someone taught you a pearl of wisdom that many couldn't accept? It is quite difficult to change your view on something, as typically our paradigm affects our very way of life.

Yep, it can be hard...in a lot of cases almost impossible. I think that's one reason why we are given the Holy Spirit, to help us feel the conviction of sins, and to lead us to repentance.

 

[williemac]

Actually, I would say that repentance is something that hold hands with belief. In believing the message of Christ, we must first come to the realisation that we are sinners and in desperate need of a saviour. We begin to see just how wretched we are...a true belief leads to conviction and repentance.

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:10 ESV)

We also know that John the Baptist, in preparation for Christ's coming, preached for people to 'repent!' That was also Christ's message as well:

From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near!(Mat 4:17).

No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well! (Luke 13:5)

Those references are to be respected. However, in them, there is no mention of just what it is that is to be repented of.
On the day of Pentecost, when those in the upper room recieved the Holy Spirit and went out into the crowd speaking in other languages, they asked what this could mean. Peter stood up and preached to them all in one common language. He explained to them that the One whome they rejected and killed was raised from the dead and was the true Messiah. They were cut to the heart and asked "what should we do?". The reply was to repent and be baptized in His name for the remission of sin.

Repent from what? It is in the context. They had rejected their Messiah. Peter told them to change their mind about Him and rather be baptized in His name. He was not telling them to repent from their sin, but rather told them that their sins were about to be remitted when they turn to Jesus.

There can be no denying that one must acknowledge his sin. 1John 1:9 is a good example. All it asks for there is to confess sin to get forgivenss and cleansing from all unrighteousness. BTW, this is a one time event. It was not written as an instruction to believers to keep going to God over and over again for forgiveness. Just reas the next verse.

But back to the point. One can and ought to have the understanding that he is a sinner in need of a Savior. So, it stands to reason that sin needs exposing. Sorrow over sin has led many to try to behave better in order to be accepted by God. This cannot be what repentance for salvation is. This is what they were all doing under the law. It has no power to change one's fallen nature. Sure, it is valid that one must have sorrow over his sin. But true Godly sorrow includes the acknowledgment that one needs forgiveness for his sin, because he is helpless to change himself.

Where the error lies is in the message that comes where repentance is thought of as the act of not sinning anymore. That has led many to the proverbial funny farm. They try their best, but eventually fall. They repent and try again. And fall again, thinking each time that maybe they are not saved, connecting their salvation with their own effort. This comes from the teaching that a requirement for salvation is to quit sinning....because they were told that repentance means to turn from sin. That one error has produced a ton of stress and uncertainty in many lives.

According to several references, including Rom.10:9,10, it is the confession of sin that is required. For many, the repentance that is needed is the turning from their own works, to faith, for justification.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I agree with Willemac, faith in Christ causes repentance from sin.

But it is interesting how the debate has moved to repentance from sin etc. There is a big and signinificant liberal heresy that calls Paul and Jesus different as though Paul didnt testify of Christ like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all the other NT writers.

Paul was primarily an apostle to the Gentiles, but not exclusively, his epistle to the Romans is to both Jews and Gentiles, firstly about the Gentile tendancy to licence and the Jewish tendancy to legalism... so no surpirse that the espistles of Paul have a different emphasis than other epistles and the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels are more historical of how the disciples learnt, the epistles are to the church post pentecost and released in the Spirit.

 

[jiggyfly]

Those references are to be respected. However, in them, there is no mention of just what it is that is to be repented of.
On the day of Pentecost, when those in the upper room recieved the Holy Spirit and went out into the crowd speaking in other languages, they asked what this could mean. Peter stood up and preached to them all in one common language. He explained to them that the One whome they rejected and killed was raised from the dead and was the true Messiah. They were cut to the heart and asked "what should we do?". The reply was to repent and be baptized in His name for the remission of sin.

Repent from what? It is in the context. They had rejected their Messiah. Peter told them to change their mind about Him and rather be baptized in His name. He was not telling them to repent from their sin, but rather told them that their sins were about to be remitted when they turn to Jesus.

There can be no denying that one must acknowledge his sin. 1John 1:9 is a good example. All it asks for there is to confess sin to get forgivenss and cleansing from all unrighteousness. BTW, this is a one time event. It was not written as an instruction to believers to keep going to God over and over again for forgiveness. Just reas the next verse.

But back to the point. One can and ought to have the understanding that he is a sinner in need of a Savior. So, it stands to reason that sin needs exposing. Sorrow over sin has led many to try to behave better in order to be accepted by God. This cannot be what repentance for salvation is. This is what they were all doing under the law. It has no power to change one's fallen nature. Sure, it is valid that one must have sorrow over his sin. But true Godly sorrow includes the acknowledgment that one needs forgiveness for his sin, because he is helpless to change himself.

Where the error lies is in the message that comes where repentance is thought of as the act of not sinning anymore. That has led many to the proverbial funny farm. They try their best, but eventually fall. They repent and try again. And fall again, thinking each time that maybe they are not saved, connecting their salvation with their own effort. This comes from the teaching that a requirement for salvation is to quit sinning....because they were told that repentance means to turn from sin. That one error has produced a ton of stress and uncertainty in many lives.

According to several references, including Rom.10:9,10, it is the confession of sin that is required. For many, the repentance that is needed is the turning from their own works, to faith, for justification.

Excellent post WM, another thing to note is that many have taken the results of experiencing Christ and made them requisites for experiencing Christ.

 

[Sabitarian]

Jiggyfly,
The problem is with your Bible and the translation used in it not my words. The meaning is unaccused not without fault as your paganized version depicts this is the same message with the woman that Christ did not accuse, He made no mention of pardoning her. Get a real Bible and use an interlinary and concordance and you will see a major difference in scripture.
GroundZero,
You have just removed any reason for the Great White Throne Judgement in one stroke, are you god? Have you ever used a concordance and interlinary? The word is rubbed out or erased, but does it really have your meaning? If you erase a word written in pen or ink does it really completely disappear, or does it leave a smude? Why does James say we will be judged for our sins if all sin is completely done away with as if it were not there at all? In that line of thinking there is no need for repentance. You teach another Gospel.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[jiggyfly]

Jiggyfly,
The problem is with your Bible and the translation used in it not my words. The meaning is unaccused not without fault as your paganized version depicts this is the same message with the woman that Christ did not accuse, He made no mention of pardoning her. Get a real Bible and use an interlinary and concordance and you will see a major difference in scripture.
GroundZero,
You have just removed any reason for the Great White Throne Judgement in one stroke, are you god? Have you ever used a concordance and interlinary? The word is rubbed out or erased, but does it really have your meaning? If you erase a word written in pen or ink does it really completely disappear, or does it leave a smude? Why does James say we will be judged for our sins if all sin is completely done away with as if it were not there at all? In that line of thinking there is no need for repentance. You teach another Gospel.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

Sorry Sabitarian but I don't know which of my posts in response to yours are you referring?

 

[Sabitarian]

Jiggyfly,
Post 102

 

[williemac]

Jiggyfly,
The problem is with your Bible and the translation used in it not my words. The meaning is unaccused not without fault as your paganized version depicts this is the same message with the woman that Christ did not accuse, He made no mention of pardoning her. Get a real Bible and use an interlinary and concordance and you will see a major difference in scripture.
GroundZero,
You have just removed any reason for the Great White Throne Judgement in one stroke, are you god? Have you ever used a concordance and interlinary? The word is rubbed out or erased, but does it really have your meaning? If you erase a word written in pen or ink does it really completely disappear, or does it leave a smude? Why does James say we will be judged for our sins if all sin is completely done away with as if it were not there at all? In that line of thinking there is no need for repentance. You teach another Gospel.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

I assume jiggfly can answer this, but I must say, one passage is easliy pulled apart. However, there is enough biblical evidence to support the general conclusion in what you insist is a bad translation. Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sin. I would say if our sins have been removed, how could we be at fault? As well, the author of Hebrews also confirmed this removal in 10:11, commenting that the old sacrifices were weak in that they could never take away sins. He goes on to compare these with the sacrifice of Jesus, by which we are perfected forever (vs.14), as well commenting that where there is remission of sin, no more sacrifices are required(vs.18).

So the fact that Jesus died once is proof that He finished the job of removing sin. Therefore the promise of God is mentioned in vs.17.."their sins and lawless deeds, I will remember no more". So yes, I would say there is a very good reason we are unnaccused. But I would add that once in Christ, we will never be accused, at least not by God. Our sin is removed from His record. It may not be entirely gone yet from our being, but that will happen in the resurrection. This is just one biblical example. So to pick apart one passage is well and good, but why draw conclusions that fly in the face of many more?

It is not Jigglfly who has removed the need for the Great White Throne judgment. Jesus Himself has promised that for those believers in Him, we will never sit before that judgment seat (John5:24), which is kind of the point of the passage you picked apart. Regardless of the bad translation, the point still stands. (see also the assurance given by Jesus in John6:47-58)

As for James, Please show the reference that demonstrates God will judge believers at the Geat White Throne. I doubt that it is in his letter.

 

[jiggyfly]

Jiggyfly,
Post 102

Sorry you misunderstood, my post #102 was not a response to you.

 

[Groundzero]

GroundZero,
You have just removed any reason for the Great White Throne Judgement in one stroke, are you god? Have you ever used a concordance and interlinary? The word is rubbed out or erased, but does it really have your meaning? If you erase a word written in pen or ink does it really completely disappear, or does it leave a smude? Why does James say we will be judged for our sins if all sin is completely done away with as if it were not there at all? In that line of thinking there is no need for repentance. You teach another Gospel.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

Wow! Have I really? Something tells me that the blotting of sins requires conditions, which most people don't meet, but of course, I'm preaching another Gospel, so what do I know. . . . . as far as I was aware, when Jesus died on the cross, he willing took all the penalty for all our sins. All we have to do is accept him and follow his commandments. But once again, what do I know . . . .

 

[brightmorningstar]

But faith in Christ is a renewing of ones mind, so seeking and wishing not to sin and repenting of it means God wipes the sin from the slate.
It can only be this because we all still fall short at times.

 

[James Forthwright]

THE TWO GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The scriptural quest to reconcile the seemingly contradictory comments by the Apostles James & Paul concerning the merits of the Law of God, led to researching some of the beliefs of various sects in the early Christian Church. Many of us like to entertain the false assumption that after the death and resurrection of Christ the nascent Christian Church was one unified body of believers each having basically the same (or largely similar) set of doctrinal beliefs. But such was not the case.

Just as there were various sects within Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.), a number of divisions began to emerge amongst the early Christian Church. The Nazarenes, Ebionites, Arians, Gnostics, Elkasites, Circumcellions, Jacobites, Nestorians and the Orthodox, sometimes called Rum, i.e., the Romans or the Byzantines are just some of these early Christian sects.

The Apostle Paul plainly addressed this growing problem in his first letter to the Corinthians:
1Cor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?

Though I suppose the “correct answer” to the apostle’s rhetorical question above is an emphatic “NO!”, however in practice, the Body of Christian believers were going off in a myriad of different doctrinal directions. Whether such church divisions were caused by Satanic influence to divide and conquer or merely the natural tendency of mankind to seek the company of like-minded individuals (or some combination of both) I’ll leave for you to decide.

Thus a series of religious councils were convened to address these bitterly divisive matters and to attempt to separate the heretics from the true believers. The first recorded Church Council occurs in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. The main two topics of discussion were:

1. Whether Gentiles can/should be converted to Christianity? and if so,
2. Are these Gentile believers compelled to, likewise, be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses as was readily being observed by the Christian Church at Jerusalem?

I’m sure there must have been some extended heated debate on all sides of the issues not recorded by the author of the Book of Acts but after both Peter, Paul and Barnabas gave their stirring testimonies regarding the marvelous manifest works of God evident amongst the Gentiles it was quickly agreed that the answer to the first question was squarely in the affirmative.

The answer to the second thorny question was summarized by James, the brother of the Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Though James’ wise summation appears to be universally agreed upon by all the esteemed church leaders, it still leaves considerable areas of doctrinal doubt and confusion that persist in the Christian Church today. Though not explicitly stated, are these Gentile converts exempt from following the Ten Commandments? Certainly logic tells us that besides the aforementioned idolatry, fornication and certain food laws they would likewise be prohibited from practicing murder, blaspheming, stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, etc. But are they exempt from honoring the seventh day Sabbath as prescribed by the Law of Moses or the other biblical food laws?

Also, what piqued my interest (and the creation of this thread) was that, if you read a bit between the lines, there was a clear distinction or doctrinal lines of demarcation being made between the Gospel of Christ being observed by the Israelite Christians at Jerusalem and what was decided to be preached as Gospel to the Gentile Christian congregations. The Church at Jerusalem appears to have maintained the practice of circumcision, keeping the Sabbath holy, feast days, temple worship, etc. Whereas, the Gentile converts were generally not subject to those Laws.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Paul publicly contends with Peter about his shifting alliances and respect of persons. Gal 2:14

Acts 24:14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets;” – Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles

 

[brightmorningstar]

As much as the early church came to terms with the information, the NT as we have it does not indicate anything other than one same gospel. (some recalling and correction by Peter accepted) Disagreement over who to take on missions is not the gospel. So it is rather unhelpful to refer to two gospels of the early church.

But the issue here is a new heresey that sets the epistles by Paul against the gospels, which in holistic context has no scriptural foundation. However I mostly see it used as 'Paul says this about sin but Jesus doesnt mention it''
I think it is some people causing trouble because they want a gospel without holiness and one that allows sin.

 

[James Forthwright]

As much as the early church came to terms with the information, the NT as we have it does not indicate anything other than one same gospel. (some recalling and correction by Peter accepted) Disagreement over who to take on missions is not the gospel. So it is rather unhelpful to refer to two gospels of the early church.

The NT is but a glimpse into the early church history. Paul’s epistles were written first and contain most of the doctrinal expose’s. Peter does make mention of some confusion being generated by Paul’s epistles but his critique is rather deferential to his fellow apostle. (2Pet. 3:15-16) IMO, it's not quite fair to put ALL the blame on the shoulders of the spiritual dullness of Paul's readers.

The Apostle Paul’s writings were/are the source of many misunderstandings of theology. Quite a number of false doctrines are IMO directly attributable misconstruing the Pauline Epistles, e.g., Non-observance of the Sabbath, Pre-trib Rapture, No works salvation, fixation upon Jews, rejection of circumcision, Antinomianism, dismissal of biblical food laws, blind obedience to authority, celibacy, all sins are equal, etc.

But the issue here is a new heresy that sets the epistles by Paul against the gospels, which in holistic context has no scriptural foundation. However I mostly see it used as 'Paul says this about sin but Jesus doesn’t mention it.''

Or maybe their audience was completely different. Jesus spoke ‘only to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel’ (Matt. 15:24) and the Apostle Paul to Hellenistic largely scripturally ignorant gatherings (Rom. 15:16).

I think it is some people causing trouble because they want a gospel without holiness and one that allows sin.

I tend to agree. There needs to be a more definitive line of demarcation between our ‘Liberty in Christ’ and a “gospel” of lawlessness spawned by antinomianism (rejection of the Law of God). (1Pet. 2:16)