The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[OzSpen]

j

The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian. The Bible commands us to know who our fellow Christians are. Galatians 6:10 is only one example of many "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." How can we "especially do good" to our fellow Christians except that we know who they are. Therefore, we must have a measuring rod to use to determine who is and who is not a Christian. The world and pretend Christians and those self-deceived into thinking they are Christian cannot make this determination. Only a Christian can, and must.

zeke25

zeke25,

Would you be able to list half a dozen criteria you would use to help determine if somebody is of the 'household of faith' = Christian?

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Zeke, thank you for your reply...

Our turn now comes. We exercise that faith and believe, or we turn our backs and walk away. If we choose to believe, then we repent of our sins and the Blood washes those sins away. Believing and repenting is done in the heart and in our spirits. It is not visible to other men, although some will see a change in our countenance. The act of baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change. We are declaring our new man in Christ for all to see.

The difference I would have with you on this explanation, zeke, is that I would see faith, repentance and baptism as all in the same category. You seem to indicate that belief and repentance are key responses to accepting God's grace in Christ , but then you say "baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change." Can you show me a verse that teaches this? Every verse in the Bible indicates that baptism is the moment of an inward change and not a sign that an inward change has already happened. Your explanation makes baptism entirely meaningless as the inward change has already occurred, therefore the outward sign is merely for show which can be taken or left. Peter clearly links baptism and repentance as of equal value in the sinner's response to the Gospel. If you are going to say that baptism is only a sign of something that has already taken place, then we must say the same is true of repentance since Acts 2:38 says that these two are related to the remission of sins equally (yet this would make no sense in the context of Acts 2:38 since the crowd is asking how they can be saved, and Peter continues to urge them to respond in this way so they can "save [themselves] from this wicked and corrupt generation." cf. Acts 2:40-41

Furthermore, I would argue that repentance is quite visible to other men and goes far beyond countenance. John the Baptist told his audience that they should "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." Repentance is a very visible and obvious change in a person's life where they turn their lives around and start living a new life with a new purpose and new Spirit. Likewise, baptism is a very visible act where a person pleads to God for cleansing and God promises to meet them there and wash them and give the Holy Spirit. The whole idea that becoming a Christian as a very private, unseen, inner act is a very postmodern, Western, individualized version of Christianity that was unheard of in the early church (for good reason). God came to create a Church, not a bunch of saved, atomized, unconnected individuals. We have made it all about the individual and their "personal salvation" making Jesus their "personal Lord." Such words are found nowhere in the Bible because they are not what the authors intended.

As for the Nicene Creed rejecting the blood of Jesus: I think this is absurd. The creed references faith in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, the purpose of this creed was to try to bring unity to the Church on issues that various heresies were causing schisms. Issues such as the person of God and the preexistance of Christ are in primary focus in this Creed. It obviously isnt trying to hammer out every detail on every doctrinal issue we may feel is significant: subsitutionary atonement, accuracy of the Scriptures, etc. To try to undermine this Creed for not addressing issues you feel should be pointed out is unfair. Clearly Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins or the death and resurrection would have not been mentioned in the creed. The point of the creed is to highlight what orthodox Christians believed in contrast to the budding heresies around them. Clearly they understood baptism to be the moment a person enters the church and has the work of the cross applied to their life. I think that is because they accepted the teaching of the Scriptures and didnt have to deal with 500 years of bad theology created by Zwingli that taught baptism as a work in contrast to faith. Such a notion is nonsense and I find to be completely unbiblical.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

What does John 3:16 (ESV) affirm? 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

Nothing could be clearer than 2 Cor 7:9-10 (ESV), 'As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death'.

Thus, to receive salvation - to become a Christian requires faith (believing) in Jesus and repentance that leads to salvation. That's Bible! Thus, 2 Cor 7:9-10 is adamant that repentance precedes salvation and not as you want to put it, i.e. repentance comes AFTER salvation. That is not biblical Christianity.

I think your comments make a very good point here Oz and I think you need to apply this same thinking to baptism as well. The problem is that many want to isolate verses like John 3:16 or Romans 10:13 as what the requirements are for becoming a Christian. Yet, as you are showing, we need to keep the teaching of the entire Bible in perspective here. If we only take John 3:16, then we could say baptism and repentance are entirely unnecessary. If we only look at 2 Cor 7:9-10, we could argue that only grief and repentance are needed, ongoing faith and baptism are unnecessary. If we look at Acts 2:38 we could argue that only repentance and baptism are necessary. If we look at Romans 6:3-4 we could argue that only baptism is necessary.

If we do not keep the context of the Bible in view, we can create our own parameters for what constitutes salvation. However, as we look at books as a whole we see the continual theme of belief, repentance, baptism and confessing Christ all as expected means by which someone becomes a disciple and enters the Church. I agree with you that repentance is part of the response and is not the result of being saved. One does not have to read the NT very long to see that you have to turn before you can follow. The NT teaches us that being a Christian is about becoming a disciple and is not about some mystical twinge in our inner selves sparked by a moment of understanding that forever saves us. Such ideas are much closer to Gnosticism than the teaching of the NT. Yet, I would encourage you to re examine the NT's teaching on baptism in this same light. I think just a cursory overview of texts like Acts 2:38, Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-5,Acts 8:36, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 5:25-27, Col. 2:11-13, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21 will make it evident that baptism was seen as a response to bring about cleansing and salvation and not something one does after the fact.

 

[ewq1938]

The reason I did not refer to Matt 4:18-20 (ESV) is because you failed to include the context of Matt 4:17 (ESV): 'From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"'. Notice the word, 'Repent'. This was the same message that was already preached by John the Baptist according to Matt 3:2 (ESV), 'Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand'.

Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Mat 4:20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

There is nothing mentioned about Christ telling these men to repent before he invited them to follow him, which they did. It is therefore more contextually accurate that Christ taught them about repentance after this initial meeting.


Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Mat 4:22 And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

Same here.

Point is, one can convert, be a Christian and follow Christ before repenting. Repenting doesn't make you a Christian as John preached repentance before he even met Jesus or knew his name.

Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

None were Christians until they choose Jesus Christ as their savior, and followed him whether literally or spiritually.

 

[Wormwood]

ewq,

A couple of issues here. First, it is likely that Peter and Andrew had already been disciples of Jesus in Matthew 4. It is likely this call for them to follow him occurred after the miracle in Cana, the first cleansing of the Temple (if one holds the view there were two cleansings) and Jesus interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4. This "call" was likely a call to give up their occupations and follow Jesus as committed disciples. So, we should not read this encounter as all inclusive.

Second, I think the fact that these men give up their occupations as fishermen to follow Jesus is the very act of repentance. Repentance simply means to turn around and move in a new direction. Jesus' call for these men to follow him is the very essence of a call to repent. Clearly, if someone is going to give up everything they know to follow Jesus, they understand the concept of repentance.

Again, we need to be cautious about reading a single narrative and suggesting that narrative says all there is to say about a particular subject, in this case, discipleship. The point of the narrative is not to teach all there is to teach about discipleship and following Jesus. We need to look at the broader scope of the Bible's teaching about what it means to become a disciple and partaker of the Kingdom of God. It is evident that the primary message of Jesus to his listeners was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" It was a command and warning. His message was not, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, which will ultimately cause some of you to repent after you have entered it." This is not what Jesus proclaimed...quite the opposite.

John preached repentance to "prepare the way of the Lord." I dont know how you can say repentance occurs after the fact when it is clearly something done in preparation to encountering the Lord and his message. Every passage on repentance makes it clear that this is how someone is to respond. As James puts it:

James 4:6–10 (ESV)
6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

We submit and draw near to God....then God draws near to us. We cleans our hands and purify our hearts in humility and then God lifts us up. God's actions are in response to our brokenness and repentance. This is true for both the believer and unbeliever. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. God does not start to fill us and then we begin to hunger. We turn in hunger and a desire to be made right with God and then God begins to fill us.

 

[justaname]

So are you saying in this life it is not possible for you, me or anyone else to identify who is truly a Christian? I have recently concluded a major PhD dissertation on some of the beliefs of Jesus Seminar advocate, John Dominic Crossan. He says over and over, 'I am a Christian' or speaks 'as a Christian', yet he denies many of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Are you inferring there is no way to determine if he or any other (including myself) is in or out of the Christian faith?

No, I make no such assertions. What I do want is to have a clear definition of what the term "Christian" is supposed to mean in the title of the thread.

From my point of view, the Nicene Creed is a document crafted by Christians. Even though we may not agree on the exact soteriology language in the creed, this does not mean it is not "Christian." Yet the OP seems to disagree with me. So then I have to ask, what do you mean by "Christian"?

This said the ambiguity of who is or is not a Christian is valid. I believe what is considered orthodox beliefs are the measure, not to be confused with Orthodox Christians (i.e. Greek, Russian, Eastern Orthodox). Trinitarian, Bodily Resurrection...core doctrines of the faith. Secondary concerns like eschatology do not divide. So then I would say JW, Christian Science, Christian Deists (like some liberal theologians), Oneness Pentecostals, and Mormons are out while mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, RC, and Orthodox are in.

Yet here in the OP is an issue of soteriology. This is a difficult issue and has divided the Church greatly.

justaname,

You're right of course. The term Christian has been used and abused by many a person and denomination for centuries. This is the way of the world, this is the way of the enemy of our souls. The marketplace is so flooded with the label of "Christian" that 99.99% of the people have no clue what a Christian really is.

This is a very dangerous situation. Many who profess to be Christians often commit heinous acts. The news and the world quickly points a finger and says, "Look what those horrible Christians are up to now." This, when a Christian is the last thing they were. Nevertheless, real Christians take the heat.

My employer of 25 years tried to drum me out many times because I was a Christian. I even had a performance evaluation once that started with "We weren't sure you would do a very good job because you are a Christian, but you surprised us and did a good job." Can you imagine someone having the guts to say that but substituting for Christian the word "woman" or "person of color" or etc. It wouldn't happen. But Christians are fair game. I had another supervisor, when I transferred to another state who expressed the same sentiment with disgust and unbelief: "I'm amazed that you describe yourself as a Christian." I could go on and on.

The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian. The Bible commands us to know who our fellow Christians are. Galatians 6:10 is only one example of many "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." How can we "especially do good" to our fellow Christians except that we know who they are. Therefore, we must have a measuring rod to use to determine who is and who is not a Christian. The world and pretend Christians and those self-deceived into thinking they are Christian cannot make this determination. Only a Christian can, and must.

zeke25

"The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian."

I am sorry but this seems circular to me...perhaps you could clarify this a bit more for me. As an example all who crafted this document, the creed, agreed they were Christians, thereby by definition they were. Yet you do not allow their claim to the document they crafted.

It seems like you are saying that you are a true Christian, and if you deem someone to not be a Christian they are not. Kinda like...if you do not believe all that I believe then you are not a true Christian, and because I am a true Christian I can tell who is or is not. Yet what if someone calls your Christianity into question?

Also in regard to the OP this would establish WHO is a Christian, yet the creed does not have personhood. So what do you mean by Christian in that context?

 

[StanJ]

It is your problem that you don't honor Jesus' word.

I cannot help you, dear.

Still not an answer and is just another prevarication. I'm not looking for your help, I'm expecting honesty and forthrightness from you, which apparently you cannot or will not do. It IS what Jesus would do, so it would appear YOU are not honouring Jesus by your words.

 

[Joyful]

Still not an answer and is just another prevarication. I'm not looking for your help, I'm expecting honesty and forthrightness from you, which apparently you cannot or will not do. It IS what Jesus would do, so it would appear YOU are not honouring Jesus by your words.

I will not keep on arguing with you like children.,

Suit yourself looking for someone to argue with.

Let Jesus be the judge between us. Jesus is the Lord, dear.

good day.

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,

A couple of issues here. First, it is likely that Peter and Andrew had already been disciples of Jesus in Matthew 4.

That's a huge assumption that has no scriptural support.

Second, I think the fact that these men give up their occupations as fishermen to follow Jesus is the very act of repentance.

That's another assumption that has no support. It doesn't even make any logical sense.

Repentance simply means to turn around and move in a new direction.

No, it doesn't else making uturns in a car would be repenting lol repentance is turning away from bad behavior in regards to sin, not quitting your fishing job which isn't sinful.

Clearly, if someone is going to give up everything they know to follow Jesus, they understand the concept of repentance.

Not at all.

John preached repentance to "prepare the way of the Lord." I dont know how you can say repentance occurs after the fact when it is clearly something done in preparation to encountering the Lord and his message. Every passage on repentance makes it clear that this is how someone is to respond.

Every conversion is different. Some may become Christians repenting first and accepting and following second, some accept Christ first and then repent later. My position is simply to argue against this theory that you have to repent first before you can be a Christian. It is not supported scripturally and I have provided two examples where conversion happened prior to a repentance.

 

[StanJ]

Sorry coming late to the topic...Do you have a post #?

No sorry, but I can recall a few posts that defined it including one of mine but you'll have to look, or search.

 

[StanJ]

I will not keep on arguing with you like children.,
Suit yourself looking for someone to argue with.
Let Jesus be the judge between us. Jesus is the Lord, dear.
good day.

Well if you would have answered right away you would not be perceived as being a child, but if you think you can post without feedback or consequence, you are greatly mistaken. Either answer the question or stop responding to my posts.
BTW, my name is StanJ, not dear. Please stop calling me dear in your condescending manner.

 

[zeke25]

No, I make no such assertions. What I do want is to have a clear definition of what the term "Christian" is supposed to mean in the title of the thread.

From my point of view, the Nicene Creed is a document crafted by Christians. Even though we may not agree on the exact soteriology language in the creed, this does not mean it is not "Christian." Yet the OP seems to disagree with me. So then I have to ask, what do you mean by "Christian"?

This said the ambiguity of who is or is not a Christian is valid. I believe what is considered orthodox beliefs are the measure, not to be confused with Orthodox Christians (i.e. Greek, Russian, Eastern Orthodox). Trinitarian, Bodily Resurrection...core doctrines of the faith. Secondary concerns like eschatology do not divide. So then I would say JW, Christian Science, Christian Deists (like some liberal theologians), Oneness Pentecostals, and Mormons are out while mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, RC, and Orthodox are in.

Yet here in the OP is an issue of soteriology. This is a difficult issue and has divided the Church greatly.

"The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian."

I am sorry but this seems circular to me...perhaps you could clarify this a bit more for me. As an example all who crafted this document, the creed, agreed they were Christians, thereby by definition they were. Yet you do not allow their claim to the document they crafted.

It seems like you are saying that you are a true Christian, and if you deem someone to not be a Christian they are not. Kinda like...if you do not believe all that I believe then you are not a true Christian, and because I am a true Christian I can tell who is or is not. Yet what if someone calls your Christianity into question?

Also in regard to the OP this would establish WHO is a Christian, yet the creed does not have personhood. So what do you mean by Christian in that context?

justaname,

"The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian."

I am sorry but this seems circular to me...perhaps you could clarify this a bit more for me. As an example all who crafted this document, the creed, agreed they were Christians, thereby by definition they were.

They can claim anything they want. But a person cannot just self-declare they are a Christian thereby making it so. On this forum, that is the definition that is used - don’t challenge a person’s claim to Christianity. I try to comply but I can’t say I’m 100% successful. But this forum’s definition of a Christian is compromised and of no value outside of the forum. If it works for you guys on this forum, then that’s what’s important to you. But the forum’s definition of a Christian and Christ’s definition are not the same.

One is not a Christian except that Christ recognizes them as His own.


Yet you do not allow their claim to the document they crafted.

I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean, I don’t allow their claim to being Christian? What I said is that the NC is not Christian because it is compromised by erroneous information. I did not make any assessment about those who drew it up. I don’t know them.

It seems like you are saying that you are a true Christian, and if you deem someone to not be a Christian they are not.

There are many clues that a Christian or non-Christian can give to help discern their spiritual condition. There are many litmus tests that can be used to access whether one is a Christian or not. No one has to agree with my assessment - if God reveals it to me, then I know. It doesn’t do any good to tell you what I think and know, because it leaves the door open for all kinds of speculative argumentations. I can’t be anyone’s Holy Spirit. They need to develop that relationship directly between themselves and God.

Kinda like...if you do not believe all that I believe then you are not a true Christian, and because I am a true Christian I can tell who is or is not.

All Christians do not have to believe exactly as I do.

Yet what if someone calls your Christianity into question?

It happens from time to time. For my spiritual condition is makes to difference. I am not offended. Why should I be? Their erroneous opinion will not sway Christ. Their erroneous opinion will not shake my firm foundation, which is the Rock I stand on - Christ Yahoshua. The spiritual danger is only to my accuser. They need to be careful not to step over the line of no return - in other words they need to be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Ghost. I have had two people in the last ten years who have done just that very thing.

I have accused some, from time to time, of not being Christian. Most frequently their response is to be greatly offended. Why? If they are secure in Christ it makes no difference what I accuse them of. When they respond with great offense, that merely reveals that they have no confidence in Christ, nor confidence in their relationship with him.

Also in regard to the OP this would establish WHO is a Christian, yet the creed does not have personhood. So what do you mean by Christian in that context?

By calling the NC non-Christian I am making the claim that an essential doctrine of the faith has been compromised. There can be no compromise. If water baptism washes away sin, then Christ’s sacrifice was meaningless. There can be no compromise in this matter.

For those who do not agree, that’s between them and God. I can only tell you. Only the Holy Spirit can quicken the message to your spirit. If I’m the one who is wrong, then that is why I started this thread. Prove me wrong with Scripture. I’m open to correction. I invite it. But, so far no apologetic here has convinced me that I should change my mind.

Zeke25

 

[zeke25]

zeke25,

Would you be able to list half a dozen criteria you would use to help determine if somebody is of the 'household of faith' = Christian?

Oz

Oz,

I'm not ignoring you. But I will have to pray about my answer. Suddenly, several people have posed questions on this thread and they all deserve an answer, including you. Let me get organized and get back to you. Thanks,

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

Zeke, thank you for your reply...


The difference I would have with you on this explanation, zeke, is that I would see faith, repentance and baptism as all in the same category. You seem to indicate that belief and repentance are key responses to accepting God's grace in Christ , but then you say "baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change." Can you show me a verse that teaches this? Every verse in the Bible indicates that baptism is the moment of an inward change and not a sign that an inward change has already happened. Your explanation makes baptism entirely meaningless as the inward change has already occurred, therefore the outward sign is merely for show which can be taken or left. Peter clearly links baptism and repentance as of equal value in the sinner's response to the Gospel. If you are going to say that baptism is only a sign of something that has already taken place, then we must say the same is true of repentance since Acts 2:38 says that these two are related to the remission of sins equally (yet this would make no sense in the context of Acts 2:38 since the crowd is asking how they can be saved, and Peter continues to urge them to respond in this way so they can "save [themselves] from this wicked and corrupt generation." cf. Acts 2:40-41

Furthermore, I would argue that repentance is quite visible to other men and goes far beyond countenance. John the Baptist told his audience that they should "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." Repentance is a very visible and obvious change in a person's life where they turn their lives around and start living a new life with a new purpose and new Spirit. Likewise, baptism is a very visible act where a person pleads to God for cleansing and God promises to meet them there and wash them and give the Holy Spirit. The whole idea that becoming a Christian as a very private, unseen, inner act is a very postmodern, Western, individualized version of Christianity that was unheard of in the early church (for good reason). God came to create a Church, not a bunch of saved, atomized, unconnected individuals. We have made it all about the individual and their "personal salvation" making Jesus their "personal Lord." Such words are found nowhere in the Bible because they are not what the authors intended.

As for the Nicene Creed rejecting the blood of Jesus: I think this is absurd. The creed references faith in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, the purpose of this creed was to try to bring unity to the Church on issues that various heresies were causing schisms. Issues such as the person of God and the preexistance of Christ are in primary focus in this Creed. It obviously isnt trying to hammer out every detail on every doctrinal issue we may feel is significant: subsitutionary atonement, accuracy of the Scriptures, etc. To try to undermine this Creed for not addressing issues you feel should be pointed out is unfair. Clearly Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins or the death and resurrection would have not been mentioned in the creed. The point of the creed is to highlight what orthodox Christians believed in contrast to the budding heresies around them. Clearly they understood baptism to be the moment a person enters the church and has the work of the cross applied to their life. I think that is because they accepted the teaching of the Scriptures and didnt have to deal with 500 years of bad theology created by Zwingli that taught baptism as a work in contrast to faith. Such a notion is nonsense and I find to be completely unbiblical.

Good questions. I want to get back to this as soon as possible. It may take a day or so. Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring this post.
zeke25

 

[zeke25]

zeke25,

Would you be able to list half a dozen criteria you would use to help determine if somebody is of the 'household of faith' = Christian?

Oz

Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits


1. The question was posed to me, “Where are the signs and wonders of the heresy hunters?” The Bible says in Mark 16:17-18 KJV, “17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” But the bible does not say that you will be able to recognize men of God by their signs and wonders. In fact, the Scriptures warn us in numerous places that the antichrists will be able to perform signs and wonders too. The first evidence of this is in Genesis 3:1 KJV, “Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which [Yahowah] God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” The point I am making here is that Satan can make an animal talk.

2. Have you noticed the tactics used thus far by those who employ lying signs and wonders. First, they accuse the brethren. Second, they make up derogatory names such as heresy hunter, then apply it to their enemies. The homosexuals employ the same tactic. They have coined the word homophobe, and attach it to those who disagree with them. Islam uses the term infidel, and apply it all who will not accept the moon god, Allah, as their own personal god. Heresy hunter, homophobe, infidel, it makes little difference, these are meaningless words spoken by confused minds. The tragedy is that there are confused ears that listen to meaningless words and draw sinful conclusions. These are accusatory terms employed against the true children of God. Who, does Scripture say, is the accuser of the brethren? Revelation 12:9-10 KJV, “9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” He twists the Scripture and tries to make it say what it does not say by questioning, “Hath God said? (Genesis 3:1)” This is one of the deceptive arguments the antichrists employ. They try to turn men of God away from the teaching of Scripture and use apologetics of their own making. Titus 1:16, KJV, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”

3. The Bible does say in Matthew 7:16-20 KJV, “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” In other words, the strong teaching of Scripture leads us away from our empirical experiences and leads us to the word of God, the Bible, and what it says. Because our senses may be wrong, but the word of God is trustworthy.

4. So, what is fruit? Matthew 12:33 KJV, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.” Fruit is not the people that a leader or teacher gathers to himself. Fruit is not the change, for the better or worse, in the lives of those gathered around any particular teacher. Fruit is what grows from and hangs onto a tree. Fruit is the teachings and doctrines that exude from a man, and cling to him, so that others will be able to observe and see his beliefs and character. If this man performs signs and wonders, yet his fruit is in contrast to the Bible, then those signs and wonders are not from God. They are deceptions. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 KJV, “1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for [Yahowah] your God proveth you, to know whether ye love [Yahowah] your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

5. The Bible gives us a second way to recognize those who represent Christ and how to recognize those who represent the antichrist. It is found in 1 John 4:1-3 KJV, “1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that [Yahoshua the] Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that [Yahoshua the] Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” What does it mean to acknowledge that Yahoshua the Christ has come in the flesh? When compared with other applicable Scriptures, its meaning becomes clear. If one confesses that Yahoshua the Christ came from God, that He came from His eternal preexistence which was God (John 1:1,14; 8:58; 17:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 7:3, Revelation 22:13)*, and has now taken on human flesh and is now God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23)*, then this one has confessed that Yahoshua the Christ has come in the flesh.

*NOTE. Isaiah 7:14 KJV, “Therefore [Yahowah] himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Matthew 1:23 KJV, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” John 1:1,14 KJV, “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 8:58 KJV, “[Yahoshua] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” John 17:5 KJV, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Colossians 2:9 KJV, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Hebrews 7:3 KJV, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Revelation 22:13 KJV, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

6. I want the whole Christian community to understand I did not start this fight. I, nor by brothers who have the same calling in Christ, do not cause division. Those who preach false doctrine are the divisive ones. I am not unloving. Those who preach false doctrine are unloving. Those who teach false doctrine are despicable because not only are they hell bound, but because they drag others to their deaths as well. Scripture says these heretics are accursed. 2 Peter 2:1-3 KJV, “1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:10-14 KJV, “10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:”. 2 Peter 2:17-22 KJV, “17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour [Yahoshua the] Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

7. It angers me greatly that the devil has a foothold on them, I wish to snatch them from the fire. Jude 23 KJV, “And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” But it angers me too, that they enjoy the devilish hook so much, that they use it to ensnare others. It is not I who says that I am not divisive and they are, it is Holy Scripture that says it in Romans 16:17-18 KJV, “17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord [Yahoshua the] Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”


8. We welcome constructive input supported by Scriptures from the Bible. Please contact us by our email address [email protected]. Copyright © 2005 Richard Douglas Mauck and/or Sandra Faye Mauck.


Oz, I realize this is not a total answer to your question. Mainly, I have not provided a list of fruit (doctrines) that exude from and cling to those who preach heresies against the essentials of the faith. This treatise was written to teach some how to fish, rather than to provide fish for one meal or one day.

Zeke25

 

[Wormwood]

ewq,

That's a huge assumption that has no scriptural support.

Have you ever read a harmony of the Gospels? Jesus' travels have been studied in detail. It is not difficult to harmonize the Gospels based on the travels of Jesus.

That's another assumption that has no support. It doesn't even make any logical sense.

So how would you define repentance? Wasn't Jesus' call to the rich young ruler to sell all he had and follow him a call to repent and turn his life around? How is this call to leave everything to trust and follow Jesus not a call to life change? Repentance means to turn around or change sides. It doesnt mean say you are sorry for your sins (although it can include that). So again, if dropping everything to trust and follow Jesus is not repentance, how would you define it?

No, it doesn't else making uturns in a car would be repenting lol repentance is turning away from bad behavior in regards to sin, not quitting your fishing job which isn't sinful.

Actually, making a u-turn in a car is a good picture of repentance. However, obviously the point is to change one's life and direct it toward God. Which is precisely what someone is doing when they leave everything to follow Jesus.

Not at all.

You need to do some word studies on this term and how it was used in the first century. Josephus uses this word when he called the Jews who were under siege by the Romans to "Repent" and "lay down their arms." I think you have turned it into a theological word devoid of its first century connotations.

Every conversion is different. Some may become Christians repenting first and accepting and following second, some accept Christ first and then repent later. My position is simply to argue against this theory that you have to repent first before you can be a Christian. It is not supported scripturally and I have provided two examples where conversion happened prior to a repentance.

No, you don't become a follower of Jesus without turning your life around first. No one builds a tower without first counting the cost. Jesus would not allow people to follow him without first understanding the cost and turning from their old lives. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." He didnt say, "If anyone would come after me, let him follow me, and perhaps sometime later take up his cross and deny himself."

The Bible is incredibly clear on this that the call to repent is a prerequisite to becoming a Christian. The examples are legion:

Acts 3:19 (ESV)
19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,

Acts 5:31 (ESV)
31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:18 (ESV)
18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Acts 20:21 (ESV)
21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:20 (ESV)
20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

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

2 Timothy 2:25 (ESV)
25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

Hebrews 6:1 (ESV)
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

The Scriptures could not be more clear....repentance is turning to God which leads to salvation, a knowledge of the truth, life, and forgiveness of sins.

 

[zeke25]

Zeke, thank you for your reply...


The difference I would have with you on this explanation, zeke, is that I would see faith, repentance and baptism as all in the same category. You seem to indicate that belief and repentance are key responses to accepting God's grace in Christ , but then you say "baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change." Can you show me a verse that teaches this? Every verse in the Bible indicates that baptism is the moment of an inward change and not a sign that an inward change has already happened. Your explanation makes baptism entirely meaningless as the inward change has already occurred, therefore the outward sign is merely for show which can be taken or left. Peter clearly links baptism and repentance as of equal value in the sinner's response to the Gospel. If you are going to say that baptism is only a sign of something that has already taken place, then we must say the same is true of repentance since Acts 2:38 says that these two are related to the remission of sins equally (yet this would make no sense in the context of Acts 2:38 since the crowd is asking how they can be saved, and Peter continues to urge them to respond in this way so they can "save [themselves] from this wicked and corrupt generation." cf. Acts 2:40-41

Furthermore, I would argue that repentance is quite visible to other men and goes far beyond countenance. John the Baptist told his audience that they should "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." Repentance is a very visible and obvious change in a person's life where they turn their lives around and start living a new life with a new purpose and new Spirit. Likewise, baptism is a very visible act where a person pleads to God for cleansing and God promises to meet them there and wash them and give the Holy Spirit. The whole idea that becoming a Christian as a very private, unseen, inner act is a very postmodern, Western, individualized version of Christianity that was unheard of in the early church (for good reason). God came to create a Church, not a bunch of saved, atomized, unconnected individuals. We have made it all about the individual and their "personal salvation" making Jesus their "personal Lord." Such words are found nowhere in the Bible because they are not what the authors intended.

As for the Nicene Creed rejecting the blood of Jesus: I think this is absurd. The creed references faith in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, the purpose of this creed was to try to bring unity to the Church on issues that various heresies were causing schisms. Issues such as the person of God and the preexistance of Christ are in primary focus in this Creed. It obviously isnt trying to hammer out every detail on every doctrinal issue we may feel is significant: subsitutionary atonement, accuracy of the Scriptures, etc. To try to undermine this Creed for not addressing issues you feel should be pointed out is unfair. Clearly Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins or the death and resurrection would have not been mentioned in the creed. The point of the creed is to highlight what orthodox Christians believed in contrast to the budding heresies around them. Clearly they understood baptism to be the moment a person enters the church and has the work of the cross applied to their life. I think that is because they accepted the teaching of the Scriptures and didnt have to deal with 500 years of bad theology created by Zwingli that taught baptism as a work in contrast to faith. Such a notion is nonsense and I find to be completely unbiblical.

Wormwood,

The difference I would have with you on this explanation, zeke, is that I would see faith, repentance and baptism as all in the same category. You seem to indicate that belief and repentance are key responses to accepting God's grace in Christ , but then you say "baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change." Can you show me a verse that teaches this?

A cardinal rule I follow and teach is that we are never to put two Scriptures in conflict with one another. Instead, we add the information together, with each verse giving more information on the same subject so that we receive a complete picture of that which is being taught. If we perceive that two Scriptures are in conflict with one another, then we must continue to study them in context until we find the key that reveals they are not actually in conflict, rather they compliment one another.

A classic example of this, which I’ve posted on this forum, is Counting Hours (Mark 15:25 and John 19:14 Exegesis). These two verse actually compliment one another they do not oppose one another, nor do they use a different time system. They are both using the same time keeping system.

So, let’s look at Acts 8 in answer to your question above.

Acts 8:12 KJV, “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of [Yahoshua the] Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Belief came first, baptism was not part of that experience. Baptism was subsequent to the believing in Christ and His shed Blood.

Acts 8:13 KJV, “Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.” The same scenario repeats itself here, first belief and then that was followed by baptism.

Acts 8:36-37 KJV, “37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that [Yahoshua the] Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” Here it is pointed out that Philip confirmed the eunuch’s belief, prior to baptism. Once again, baptism is not a requirement to complete the salvation process. Instead, it is a requirement to complete the salvation process prior to a meaningful baptism. In other words, one can get baptized all day long for naught, except that one first believes.

These are not the only examples available in the NT.

So, what do we do with all the Scriptures that have been interpreted to mean that baptism is required and part of the salvation process? We must go back and look at them again, pray and study until we have an answer to make all of these verses be in agreement with one another. I am satisfied that I have done so. Therefore, that is why I teach what I do.

Every verse in the Bible indicates that baptism is the moment of an inward change and not a sign that an inward change has already happened. Your explanation makes baptism entirely meaningless as the inward change has already occurred, therefore the outward sign is merely for show which can be taken or left.

I don’t agree that baptism is meaningless. We are commanded to do it, and we should for that reason alone. Also, this is one way to declare you belief in Christ before all men. We don’t want to be closet Christians. Our belief is a testimony to others.

Peter clearly links baptism and repentance as of equal value in the sinner's response to the Gospel. If you are going to say that baptism is only a sign of something that has already taken place, then we must say the same is true of repentance since Acts 2:38 says that these two are related to the remission of sins equally (yet this would make no sense in the context of Acts 2:38 since the crowd is asking how they can be saved, and Peter continues to urge them to respond in this way so they can "save [themselves] from this wicked and corrupt generation." cf. Acts 2:40-41

I don’t agree that Peter “clearly” links baptism and repentance as of equal value due to the Scriptures I shared above. I am curious though. Did you determine this from your own studies, or did you come into agreement with it after someone taught it to you? What was the theological persuasion of those that taught you (if anyone did)? By theological persuasion I mean denomination or “church” father in history, etc.: Catholic, Calvin, SDA, Luther, Wesley, or much older ones, etc.?

Furthermore, I would argue that repentance is quite visible to other men and goes far beyond countenance. John the Baptist told his audience that they should "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." Repentance is a very visible and obvious change in a person's life where they turn their lives around and start living a new life with a new purpose and new Spirit. Likewise, baptism is a very visible act where a person pleads to God for cleansing and God promises to meet them there and wash them and give the Holy Spirit. The whole idea that becoming a Christian as a very private, unseen, inner act is a very postmodern, Western, individualized version of Christianity that was unheard of in the early church (for good reason). God came to create a Church, not a bunch of saved, atomized, unconnected individuals. We have made it all about the individual and their "personal salvation" making Jesus their "personal Lord." Such words are found nowhere in the Bible because they are not what the authors intended.

I think I would be opening up a whole other teaching if I responded to this. I’ve got enough on my plate right now. Let’s see where the first part leads us before we expand too much.

As for the Nicene Creed rejecting the blood of Jesus: I think this is absurd. The creed references faith in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, the purpose of this creed was to try to bring unity to the Church on issues that various heresies were causing schisms. Issues such as the person of God and the preexistance of Christ are in primary focus in this Creed. It obviously isnt trying to hammer out every detail on every doctrinal issue we may feel is significant: subsitutionary atonement, accuracy of the Scriptures, etc. To try to undermine this Creed for not addressing issues you feel should be pointed out is unfair.

Since the shed Blood of Christ and the full meaning behind that is what Christianity is all about, at a minimum that should be the focus of any creed. But it goes beyond that - and I return to the OP - saying that water baptism forgives sin is to me a direct affront against the shed Blood of Christ. An attack on the Blood is an attack on the Body of Christ and Christianity.

As such, not only is it fair for me to vigorously respond, it should have been fully expected by those who drafted the NC. The claim was that they were correcting heresies that were creeping in, but instead they have promoted the worst heresy possible. I see a conspiracy afloat that needs to be sunk.

If not for the Blood, what do we have? Death for everyone, eternal separation from Yahowah. When did we first learn about the need for the Blood to eliminate sin? Yahowah introduced it to us in the Garden of Eden - no baptism there. When did we first learn about the Passover Lamb of God? Yahowah introduced it to us via Moses in the land of Goshen at Passover - no baptism there. When did all of this come together? On the tree at Calvary - no baptism there. It’s the Blood, nothing but the Blood of Yahoshua - as an old hymn plays. What does the enemy of our souls want? He wants to trivialize the Blood. He will drum it out of existence if given full reign. He has already made great headway in many denominations, churches, congregations, and individuals. May my Father take me home before I ever succumb to such deception and heresy.


zeke25

 

[OzSpen]

. I think just a cursory overview of texts like Acts 2:38, Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-5,Acts 8:36, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 5:25-27, Col. 2:11-13, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21 will make it evident that baptism was seen as a response to bring about cleansing and salvation and not something one does after the fact.

Wormwood.

To the contrary. Let's examine a passage you mentioned, Matt 28:19-20 (ESV): 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”'

William Hendriksen, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, provides an excellent response, in my understanding:

But just what is meant by “make disciples”? It is not exactly the same as “make converts,” though the latter is surely implied.… The term “make disciples” places somewhat more stress on the fact that the mind, as well as the heart and the will, must be won for God. A disciple is a pupil, a learner.…
The apostle, then, must proclaim the truth and the will of God to the world. It is necessary that sinners learn about their own lost condition, God, his plan of redemption, his love, his law, etc. This however, is not enough. True discipleship implies much more. Mere mental understanding does not as yet make one a disciple. It is part of the picture, in fact an important part, but only a part. The truth learned must be practiced. It must be appropriated by heart, mind, and will, so that one remains or abides in the truth. Only then is one truly Christ’s “disciple” (John 8:31) (Hendriksen 1973:999-1000).

The place of baptism and teaching in relation to discipleship is explained well by Hendriksen's exegesis:

[SIZE=11pt]The main verb is “Make disciples.” Subordinate to this are: a. baptizing them, and b. teaching them. In such a construction it would be completely wrong to say that because the word baptizing precedes the word teaching, therefore people must be baptized before they are taught. It is rather natural that baptizing is mentioned first, for while a person is baptized once (ordinarily), he continues throughout his life to be taught.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The concepts “baptizing” and “teaching” are simply two activities, in co-ordination with each other, but both subordinate to “make disciples.” In other words, by means of being baptized and being taught a person becomes a disciple, with the understanding, of course, that this individual is ready for baptism and is willing to appropriate the teaching. The context makes very clear that Jesus is here speaking about those who are old enough to be considered the objects of preaching. He is not here speaking about infants.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To be ready for baptism requires repentance (Acts 2:38, 41). It requires "receiving the word" (Acts 2;41). This also shows that a certain amount of teaching must precede being baptized (Hendriksen 1973:1000).[/SIZE]

Therefore, to become a disciple (learner) is a process that begins with conversion. Baptism is part of that learning process in becoming a disciple. Therefore, on this basis, I do not see baptism as you do. I understand it as NOT bringing about cleaning and salvation (your language), but being an obedient response of discipleship.

Practically, that's how it was for my wife and me. She was saved as a child but was not baptised until age 16, which she considers was too soon in her discipleship. I was saved at age 15 and was baptised at age 16 - again, too soon for me in my discipleship. If you want baptism to coincide with salvation and be part of the cleansing of salvation, then my wife and I were not saved until we were baptised. This is theology that I reject. I do not support baptismal regeneration. However, perhaps you have something else in mind and not baptismal regeneration.

Oz

Works consulted
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Hendriksen, W 1973. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,


Have you ever read a harmony of the Gospels? Jesus' travels have been studied in detail. It is not difficult to harmonize the Gospels based on the travels of Jesus.

Sure but that isn't evidence that the fishermen had already been converts of Christ.

So how would you define repentance?

I gave that in my last post.

Wasn't Jesus' call to the rich young ruler to sell all he had and follow him a call to repent and turn his life around?

No, it was something above and beyond in order to be "perfect".

How is this call to leave everything to trust and follow Jesus not a call to life change?

I never said it isn't a life change. What it isn't is "repentance".

Repentance means to turn around or change sides. It doesnt mean say you are sorry for your sins (although it can include that).

Biblically speaking, that is exactly what it is. Turning from sin or a sinful life. Quitting your job as a fisher doesn't equate to repentance but Christ certainly would have explained to them repentance and his ability to forgive sins replacing the old animal sacrifice ways they would have known.

So again, if dropping everything to trust and follow Jesus is not repentance, how would you define it?

Conversion to the religion Christ was teaching.

However, obviously the point is to change one's life and direct it toward God. Which is precisely what someone is doing when they leave everything to follow Jesus.

Only if they were living a sinful life directed away from God. What evidence do you have that his first disciples were Godless sinners?

You need to do some word studies on this term and how it was used in the first century. Josephus uses this word when he called the Jews who were under siege by the Romans to "Repent" and "lay down their arms." I think you have turned it into a theological word devoid of its first century connotations.

That is a different context than is used normally in the NT. In the NT it is usually in the context of repenting of your sins to be forgiven.

No, you don't become a follower of Jesus without turning your life around first.

One accepts Jesus then turns their life around.

The Bible is incredibly clear on this that the call to repent is a prerequisite to becoming a Christian. The examples are legion:

Acts 3:19 (ESV)
19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,

Acts 5:31 (ESV)
31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:18 (ESV)
18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Acts 20:21 (ESV)
21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:20 (ESV)
20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

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

2 Timothy 2:25 (ESV)
25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

Hebrews 6:1 (ESV)
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

The Scriptures could not be more clear....repentance is turning to God which leads to salvation, a knowledge of the truth, life, and forgiveness of sins.

What you are missing is that repentance first is not required. Perhaps it is the usual way but one can accept Christ and repent afterwards. I recall a woman showing much love to Christ and without a repentance he forgave her of her sins.

 

[OzSpen]

There is nothing mentioned [Matt 4:18-20] about Christ telling these men to repent before he invited them to follow him, which they did. It is therefore more contextually accurate that Christ taught them about repentance after this initial meeting.

There is nothing mentioned in these 3 verses about becoming disciples and being baptised either. Are you telling me that the disciples called in Matt 4:18-20 were not required to be baptised and become disciples? Same with repent. None of these called by Jesus would need to be told about the need to repent because that was clearly a centre of the Gospel message as Matt 4:17 makes clear. It was the message of John the Baptist (Matt 3:2).

I find that you are straining at a gnat to try to prove your point. It doesn't work with me.

Oz