'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'

[JonShaff]

Brother DHK,

If you are asking brother Icon to show you the scripture to support his assertion that God grants repentance, allow me to give it a crack.Sometimes in the Old Testament God even reveals behind the scenes how He enabled particular Jews to obey his Word when they were called to repent: In 2 Chronicles chapter 30, for example, when couriers with a message of repentance passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, they laughed them to scorn and mocked them when they were called to repent, "Nevertheless some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD." (Chronicles 30:11-12)

The text says some tribes resisted the call to repentance, but only those tribes which the HAND OF GOD GAVE A HEART THAT OBEY THE WORD, repented. So here is a clear instance of the Spirit of God working faith and repentance in the hearts of certain persons among Israel while leaving others to their own rebellious self-will...

Further, the OT often used terminology such as God "circumcising" the heart to indicate a work regeneration producing repentance: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deut 30:6) . Notice first came the circumcision of the heart, in order "that you will love the Lord your God". Circumcision of the heart preceded the person loving the Lord their God.

God bless,

Brother Joe

Dear brother, I do believe your opinion on the matter of what you think circumcision of heart is, fails.

If you are going to be consistent, why not quote the first time God says that in Deuteronomy?

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Clearly, this is a participatory directive.

And clearly, through the verses in context, this circumcision is a yielding of oneself to believing and trusting God.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

The text says some tribes resisted the call to repentance, but only those tribes which the HAND OF GOD GAVE A HEART THAT OBEY THE WORD, repented. So here is a clear instance of the Spirit of God working faith and repentance in the hearts of certain persons among Israel while leaving others to their own rebellious self-will...

Brother Joe

OT texts and illustrations notwithstanding, most of us know that the text that Icon and most other Calvinists refer to on this subject is:
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

It is a verse pulled out of its context, and does not mean what it seems to say. God does not grant repentance to the unsaved. Man must repent exactly as God commanded him just a few chapters later:

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
--God is not a schizophrenic. He does not command man to do one thing and then say: "Nevermind, I'll do it for you."
Rather, it is the Calvinist that has God contradicting himself by taking Scripture out of its context.

What does Acts 11:18 mean? It is referring to a special event in history. It is referring to the first time that the gospel came to the Gentiles, which was at the house of Cornelius. This entire event Peter is rehearsing to the Jewish brethren at Antioch.
Look back in chapter 10:

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--See the similarity between this event and what happened at Pentecost?

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
--"as well as we," refers back to the time at Pentecost. God had granted "repentance" or in this case salvation to the Gentiles. One might look at it as the opportunity to repent and be saved. It is a historic event that will never again be repeated in history, just like Pentecost. Thus taking Acts 11:18 and making it a proof text for one's pet doctrine, not taught in the Scripture is wrong.
It is man that repents, not God repenting for man.

 

[agedman]

--"as well as we," refers back to the time at Pentecost. God had granted "repentance" or in this case salvation to the Gentiles. One might look at it as the opportunity to repent and be saved. It is a historic event that will never again be repeated in history, just like Pentecost. Thus taking Acts 11:18 and making it a proof text for one's pet doctrine, not taught in the Scripture is wrong.
It is man that repents, not God repenting for man.

I can agree that at times all views may resort to a "proof text" technique, and in the case of Acts 10, would agree that it was a singular event to verify to the Jews that Gentiles were OK, too.

However, DHK, the Doctrines of Grace, also have much validity. They do not rest on a single "proof text."

In my personal study of human nature and salvation, I have concluded that without the direct and purposed work of God, none would repent. None would be saved. In this manner, from what I have read of what you have posted we would be in agreement. For I recall in other threads you standing securely in that thinking.

What I consider that you may disagree more strongly about is that, to many of the DofG folks, there is no "freedom of choice or will" in which a person without outside influence may make a choice for righteousness or ungodliness. This teaching by the DofG folks seems to bring some stress to you.

Yet, is it not true that the basis of the thinking for such a "freedom" has as its foundation some prevenient or preceding grace? A grace that has not a single illusion of Scripture support? What I find perplexing is that there are even those of the reformed that endorse such thinking. It has no place in alignment with the DofG.

"Believe" is a word indicating a core change (as you know) has taken place in the underlying motives and agendas of a person. Unfortunately, in the modern times, the word has become more thin of real meat, and taken more as believe means a preferred view rather than a core conviction and life change.

I see us agreeing that one who actually believes is brought to belief by God, and when God implants the new nature in them, they have that change from which they may express belief. That there are those who can and do "profess" belief, but there is no true change in the heart, no new nature, but a worldly sorrow and worldly repentance, and worldly effort to live less like the world.

Dear Brother, circumcision of the heart is not inappropriately related to belief. For without that work done by God, what good are the words "I believe." For that which is not from a "circumcision of the heart" would involve only the intellect, and subject to any whim of influence.

 

[percho]

Just pointing out the absurdity of many unbiblical definitions of repentance there are. There is no concept of "repent of your sins" taught in the NT. That is not what repentance is.
Repentance is a change of mind.
More specifically it is "a change of mind with respect to one's attitude toward God."
Once a person was rebellious in his attitude toward God. Then he repents. He changes his attitude.
Now he submits to the will of God. He has changed his mind in respect to his attitude toward God.
He once was rebellious but now is submissive. That is repentance: a change of mind with respect toward God.

It is also the flip side of faith. What happens when one "believes on the Lord Jesus Christ..."
Since he believes that Christ is Lord he submits to Him as Lord and his life is changed (just like repentance). Both produce a change in one 's life. Belief is not simply intellectual assent as is asserted by some.
The devils believe and tremble. The devils are not saved. They have intellectual assent.
No one here believes that faith is simple intellectual assent.

Paul, leaving for Damascus in unbelief, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye, went from unbelief unto belief. Did he just change his mind? Did God give him a new heart and he became, repentant? Was Paul seeking Jesus or seeking those who worshiped Jesus for evil unto them? Why at that moment?

Something I cannot prove from the word of God but something I believe. Paul, after he became a, "Christian," after he wrote concerning holy days being a shadow, desired to be in Jerusalem on Pentecost. I say that to ask. Do you think Paul was in Jerusalem on the Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was shed? Did he hear Peter preach that day? Do you think fifty four days before that Pentecost he might have been in the crowd calling out, crucify him? Was he a sheep in unbelief that God had to call unto belief?

I for sure believe he heard Peter preach that day but it was not his moment to become a believer.

 

[kyredneck]

we have sin, and need to repent, we have to exercise faith every day.

....or what?

'We' being the elect, what happens if some disobey?

 

[Iconoclast]

OT texts and illustrations notwithstanding, most of us know that the text that Icon and most other Calvinists refer to on this subject is:
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

It is a verse pulled out of its context, and does not mean what it seems to say. God does not grant repentance to the unsaved. Man must repent exactly as God commanded him just a few chapters later:

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
--God is not a schizophrenic. He does not command man to do one thing and then say: "Nevermind, I'll do it for you."
Rather, it is the Calvinist that has God contradicting himself by taking Scripture out of its context.

What does Acts 11:18 mean? It is referring to a special event in history. It is referring to the first time that the gospel came to the Gentiles, which was at the house of Cornelius. This entire event Peter is rehearsing to the Jewish brethren at Antioch.
Look back in chapter 10:

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--See the similarity between this event and what happened at Pentecost?

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
--"as well as we," refers back to the time at Pentecost. God had granted "repentance" or in this case salvation to the Gentiles. One might look at it as the opportunity to repent and be saved. It is a historic event that will never again be repeated in history, just like Pentecost. Thus taking Acts 11:18 and making it a proof text for one's pet doctrine, not taught in the Scripture is wrong.
It is man that repents, not God repenting for man.

Of course it refers back to what happened at Pentecost. ...God granted repentance then.....then to the Samaritans ,then to the Gentiles. .....God granted repentance. ...not an opportunity for repentance. ....but indeed repentance itself.
You have not understood this verse for years.....in fact you never have understood it ever.
Soon ITL will search the archives. ...he will discover who it was that suggested that repentance was not necessary. ....it was not me......haha.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Of course it refers back to what happened at Pentecost. ...God granted repentance then.....then to the Samaritans ,then to the Gentiles. .....God granted repentance. ...not an opportunity for repentance. ....but indeed repentance itself.
You have not understood this verse for years.....in fact you never have understood it ever.
Soon ITL will search the archives. ...he will discover who it was that suggested that repentance was not necessary. ....it was not me......haha.

Once you get one to accept the necessity of repentance (not that this accomplishment is due to man, but God) the next thing is to dispel the false teachings propagated of late that it, repentance, only means and is limited to a change of mind only. Those good examples of the transformation in the NT show it is much more that this false assumption, 1 Thess. 1 being only one example.

 

[Iconoclast]

Once you get one to accept the necessity of repentance (not that this accomplishment is due to man, but God) the next thing is to dispel the false teachings propagated of late that it, repentance, only means and is limited to a change of mind only. Those good examples of the transformation in the NT show it is much more that this false assumption, 1 Thess. 1 being only one example.

Yes....that is the classic go to passage on how this grace actually takes place.
With any truth there are some who oppose themselves by resisting truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

....or what?

'We' being the elect, what happens if some disobey?

What happens is Divine Chastising. ......prayers are hindered or cut off......sickness, and even death can result even though these sins are forgiven.....God has no Undisciplined children.

 

[JamesL]

God has no Undisciplined children.

Yes He does. They are simply illegitimate. That's what the writer of Hebrews actually wrote - not your ignorant nonsense

Illegitimate children are still children, but they are not sons, and are not heirs. Like Ishmael, who was a child of Abraham, but was driven away with his mother. He had no inheritance

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Dear brother, I do believe your opinion on the matter of what you think circumcision of heart is, fails.

If you are going to be consistent, why not quote the first time God says that in Deuteronomy?

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Clearly, this is a participatory directive.

And clearly, through the verses in context, this circumcision is a yielding of oneself to believing and trusting God.

Firstly, Merry Christmas to you brother Jon!

Regarding Deuteronomy 10:16 and circumcision, Philippians 3:3 tells us, "For we are the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh.” If we without the Spirit, through the will of our flesh circumcise ourselves in obedience to God's commandment of Deuteronomy 10:16, then why would Paul then say he has "no confidence in the flesh". As far as it being a "participatory directive", it is as much "participatory" as this passage is, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13). Here we see the command to the believer is to "work out your own salvation", but the next verse tells us how this is actually accomplished by God working in us to "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" , and so it is with circumcision of the heart, God both wills and does it. If you were sick and unconscious and the 911 operator commanded that you go to the hospital, then your wife puts you in the car and drives you there, in a sense you have fulfilled the command of the 911 operator as you did go to the hospital, but it was your wife's willingness and doing of putting you in the car and driving you there that caused you to get to the hospital for medical attention, thus fulfilling the command of the 911 operator.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes He does. They are simply illegitimate. That's what the writer of Hebrews actually wrote - not your ignorant nonsense

Illegitimate children are still children, but they are not sons, and are not heirs. Like Ishmael, who was a child of Abraham, but was driven away with his mother. He had no inheritance

Of course.....I should have known as you have proclaimed yourself to be a genius. ..regular understanding is beneath you.For the rest of us....not everyone is God's child.
So even the writer to Hebrews is wrong according to your SPECIAL understanding......yes...I see.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Of course.....I should have known as you have proclaimed yourself to be a genius. ..regular understanding is beneath you.For the rest of us....not everyone is God's child.
So even the writer to Hebrews is wrong according to your SPECIAL understanding......yes...I see.

Looks like SPECIAL ignorance instead. That dude hit ignore within hours of me being on here.

'Then are you bastards and not sons. '

The meaning is plain, but as a true antinomian the holy text must be subject to his error.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Yes He does. They are simply illegitimate. That's what the writer of Hebrews actually wrote - not your ignorant nonsense

Illegitimate children are still children, but they are not sons, and are not heirs.

Hi Brother James,

1 Corinthians 11:32 tells us those who are not chastened by the Lord are "condemned with the world". It says, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." John 3:18 tells us a child of God who believes is not condemned, "He that believeth on him is not condemned" (John 3:18), thus anyone who is condemned must therefore be an unbeliever and accordingly unsaved and also "condemned", not a "bastard" child of God as you imply that is what Hebrews 12:8 teaches. God does not have any "bastard" children of God, nor does he have any that are condemned. A "bastard child of God" is an oxymoron. I am afraid you are forcing your antinomian doctrine to fit the text, rather than letting the text dictate your doctrine.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[HankD]

Brethren,

Some have"repent" and "repentance" correct as to its raw Koine Greek meaning : Metanoeo, Metanoia :To change one's mind, a change of mind.

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees (or is it the other way around?).

Anyway I believe there is a verse of scripture that defines NT biblical repentance probably to everyone's satisfaction (well hopefully).

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Now that's a colossal changing of minds.

In context we should exchange our selfish sinful adamic way of thinking to the thinking of the mind of Christ.

For me this started on my "passover".

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I still have (smaller, lesser?) "changes of mind" even almost 60 years later after being reproved by the word of God.

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

Looks like SPECIAL ignorance instead. That dude hit ignore within hours of me being on here.

'Then are you bastards and not sons. '

The meaning is plain, but as a true antinomian the holy text must be subject to his error.

JamesL examined to me few months ago that I could not understand his posts....he is above us....lol...you obviously cannot grasp his special meaning also...lol

 

[Internet Theologian]

JamesL examined to me few months ago that I could not understand his posts....he is above us....lol...you obviously cannot grasp his special meaning also...lol

uh...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's probably very proud of his humility! Laugh

 

[Iconoclast]

uh...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's probably very proud of his humility! Laugh

It must be hard being such a genius....the whole church sees it the other way....but we are fortunate enough to get JamesL to tell us how the whole church is wrong.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It must be hard being such a genius....the whole church sees it the other way....but we are fortunate enough to get JamesL to tell us how the whole church is wrong.

Here is a starting place for self-proclaimed geniuses, written to such within congregations:

'Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.' 1 Cor. 3:18

 

[JamesL]

Looks like SPECIAL ignorance instead. That dude hit ignore within hours of me being on here.

'Then are you bastards and not sons. '

The meaning is plain, but as a true antinomian the holy text must be subject to his error.

Yes, the great theologian cannot discern between child and son.

Care to take a swing at why Isaac was called the "only son" of Abraham?