Featured What Does Repent Mean?

Why not? Many Psalms are Psalms of salvation to those who have eyes to see. You seem to show some disdain for the OT figurative language. You need some spiritual insight. Consider Psalm 107.

 

I don't need to consider Psalm 107 or any other Psalm for that matter. If you guys are ignorant of the simple plan of salvation, that is the gospel, then it is a pity, isn't it? We are back to basics. What is the gospel. It is not something so mystical that it cannot be explained.

 

A lost of meaning by the typical European based theology neglects that the Apostles were FIRST Jews, and very understanding of OT theology. It was that theology from which they drew - the law and the prophets.

"Faith" resides in taking the term from a Hellenistic view of which there is "faith" in multiple deities in which some have human traits including what was considered sin(ful) by the Jews. This is why the NT does NOT use faith in the sense of one "putting faith into" but consistently aligned with what is consistent with "faithfulness." The apostles and others would be most careful of how the presentation of salvation was communicated to those who would have difficulty in understanding there was a difference in Christ as not just some other deity to worship.

If I recall correctly, there is not a single verse in which the statement (put(ing) faith into) even is alluded. The closest may be the book of James, but even then, James is speaking of faithfulness and not something "put into."

Romans (1:17) uses faith in terms of faithfulness from the "first to the last" (endurance to the end).
1 Timothy (1:19) uses faith in the sense of hanging on to the faithfulness so that one doesn't "shipwreck." If one is to use faith as synonymous with "trust" then there is a problem with shipwrecking trust. Such cannot happen. Trust cannot be "shipwrecked" for the object of trust does not shipwreck.
Galatians (3:23) expresses that before faith(fulness) the believer was shackled and locked up, but the faith(fulness) to come would be reveled. So what unlocks, what is revealed? Something that humans "put into?" The unlocking allows faithfulness, the faithfulness does not unlock.
2 Corinthians (1:24) demonstrates that the Apostles don't lord it over the believers faith(fulness) but encourage the believers to stand firm in faith(fulness.)

Ok, surely by now the readers can perhaps get a glimpse of the principle that I am attempting (poorly so, admittedly) to put forth.


Throughout the Scriptures of the Apostles (what we would consider the OT), the word "trust" does not carry with it the connotation of "trust - fulness" but that which acknowledges the object of trust as "trustworthy."

This is not at all what the typical "faith" thinking when one suggests trust and faith are synonymous.

As such it takes the word "trust" away from ability in a person to perform, and puts the object of the trust in what is worthy.

Faith has no such ability, nor does the NT Scriptures present "faith" in that manner.

 

Brethren, I do not believe that when a person speaks of 'progressive sanctification' (Hebrews 12:14) he is refering to improvement of the flesh lol.

I've not heard any person suggest that ever. That said I believe it to be Scriptural this 'progress in sanctification'.

 

Your question was so vague.....I had to hazard a guess as to
What you want to debate this time.

 

Brother Agedman, the above is good stuff! I too disagree with the doctrine called "progressive sanctification" to because it implies the old man (i.e. the flesh) improves after regeneration, but Jesus said "it is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing" and Paul said after regeneration, "in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing". The old man the flesh will not change until the resurrection day when we receive the adoption of our "vile body" into a new body.The inner man is 100% Holy and the flesh is 100% depraved at all times after regeneration. The inner man is what 1 John is describing when he writes, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.", not the old man the flesh. The old man the flesh is described here, " If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." Only when one recognizes that one verse is talking about the new man that has been born of God is the one that "sinneth not", but the other verse that says "if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar" is talking about the old man the flesh that doesn't improve while we are alive will one recognize these verses do not contradict themselves. While I do not agree with the doctrine of "progressive sanctification", I too do believe as the believer ages he matures as "God giveth the increase" by having the inner man work through him more often the outward man the flesh reigns in him, thus we will become more obedient.

 

The gospel is all inclusive of the kingdom rule and reign of the King.
Sorry you dislike the Psalms as psalm 22 starts speaking of the cross and concludes with the kingdom spreading worldwide!
One would think if a person claimed to be a missionary they could figure that text out and not reject it saying they have no need to consider it.
All Christians and believers have common ground in the psalms.
The psalms describe repentance and salvation as well as the way of holiness of life. They are the songbook of the heart of all believers.

 

"JonC

(In fact, Icon has even resulted to insmed of his position that "some see it clearly with an anointed eye" (implying that those who disagree lack spiritual discernment). When Icon gets to this level, it is typically time to realize the topic has descended into personal attack. If the purpose here is debate, moderators need to do a better job moderating.)

JonC

There was no attack but an observation.
Do you believe 1 Cor 2 means what it says?

 

As I have said before I have nothing against the Psalms. But you are wrong. They are not the starting point of the gospel. You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a position of ignorance of the simple gospel message. However, at least twice in the epistles it is referred to as a "mystery." Is the gospel still a mystery to you?
Is it so mysterious that you cannot understand it. The OT saints could not understand the gospel. It was hid from them. Are you in the same position? Prove me wrong. What is the simple gospel message? How is a person saved?

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

 

JonC

ok...so 1 cor 2 figures into the discussion. By way of clarification I would like to respond to two of your posts.Lets look;

Not exactly Jon C...it would be better that you ask me for clarification on my statement, then to put a wrong spin on it...here is the portion of 1cor 2 that I believe speaks to this issue;

0 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
The reason we are given the Spirit is to be able to come to truth. Any truth that comes our way is the Spirit illuminating our minds to welcome the truth.Those passages bolded indicate that, in contrast to the natural man devoid of the Spirit who cannot welcome them.
When I refer to an annointed eye, I am speaking of all christians who come to the same truth by the Spirit opening their understanding.

.

When any person mistakes the supernatural work of the Spirit of God ....for the works of tinkerbell sprinkling magic fairy dust on people ....what would you attribute it to?
I do not think the Spirit speaks of regeneration as magic dust, or the hindu lotus position do you?
here are such posts- post171

or;post70

Maybe you did not read these two posts JONC..they were offered in this very thread.
I did not see you take offense at these ideas?
Can I ask you JONC....do you not see these at that time?
Did you not take offense to these statements?
Do you think these statements reflect any spiritual discernment whatsoever?

I believe the view of repentance that REv M put forth early in the thread was the accepted view across denominational lines...{and RM and I do not often agree at all, yet I think he was on it like white on rice}

This other view of human works, and mere intellectual ascent to the historic facts of the gospel, that divorces repentance from sin is unbiblical borderline heretical...it is not up for grabs at all.

 

JonC

JONC... you are free to be critical of me, what I post, or any thoughts or links I offer.
I am just one person, one sinner saved by grace.
I am welcome to biblical correction and will stand by what I post unless shown to be in error scripturally.

You are welcome to disagree as I am free to respond in kind. Right now you and internet theologian are getting into it a bit as happens on BB from time to time. I have had my share of such interactions.
On one hand we all talk past each other when we get a bit overheated and I agreed with a part of your post saying how we each can sin in going over the edge. None of us are guiltless.
If you feel I have gone too far, I appreciate you calling me on it and offering correction.

A forum such as this can reveal sin in our communication skills and lead to a correction.

Yes... but that is also okay.

This is where I think you two can work through this. Internet theologian has come to my defense when i was away from the computer several times and sees how some would lie, and bear false witness.
I am thankful that he will speak up and identify such falsehoods even if it gets him riled up.
he clams me down sometimes , and I do the same for him.
Both of you in time will work past this I believe.

I appreciate that offer. I do not have thin skin JONC....I am a bit rough around the edges dealing with the people I work around. That is not an excuse on my part, because I must seek some degree of self control no matter where I am..Col 3:17, 23.

 

What evidence do you have for this statement? It is pure unsubstantiated opinion. The apostles were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. For example, Paul, now in the custody of the Romans centurion and his soldiers in Acts 21, as they come to the stairs of the temple, asks the captains if he can speak to the people. He asks permission of the Captain in Greek, and the captain is amazed he speaks Greek (21:37). But when he addresses the Jewish crowd, he addresses them in their sacred tongue, the language of Hebrew. In doing that the crowd is immediately silenced. (21:40-22:2).
Paul was probably the most educated man alive at that time, or at least one of them. He sat under the teaching of the famed Galiel. He had the best teaching that money could afford. He, above all people was not affected by Hellenistic teaching. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He emphasizes how Abraham was a friend of God, walked and lived by faith, and by faith righteousness was imputed unto him.

• Again, the word "faith" and its derivatives are used some 500 times in the NT, a great evidence or argument against the philosophy that you are putting forth. "Trust" is used a mere 20 times. How does your argument even begin to hold water with such a paucity of usages of the word. There is nothing to compare.
• And then, it seems as if you are simply comparing English to English terms which really means nothing. True comparisons must be done from the Greek which I have previously given you.

Again, you are comparing English words to English words. The Apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
As for us we do not speak do not speak the Elizabethan English that James I of England and all his translators of the KJV did. Try having everyone at your dinner table speak only in Elizabethan language and see how far you get. Just because the phrase "putting faith in" is not in an English Bible translation written over 400 years ago, does not mean it is not Biblical. Look at something more modern:

Tit 3:8 This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have put their faith in God may devote themselves to good actions. These things are good and helpful to other people. (ISV)
--Yes, the Bible does speak of one putting their faith in God, but in a more modern translation.
The word "faithfulness" is an adjective. It is not used when the word is used as a verb or noun. Thus, that argument falls apart. For example:
"Faithfulness in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Wrong!
Believe (or have faith) in the Lord Jesus Christ... (Or, perhaps "Put your faith in the Lord Jesus..")
The word "faithfulness" is simply the adjectival form of the word pistew, and that is all. It is the same word as faith and believe, the noun and the verb.

You are simply reading the wrong translations. We don't speak Elizabethan English.

Romans 1:17 For the righteousness of God in it is revealed from faith to faith, according as it hath been written, `And the righteous one by faith shall live,' Youngs
--This is a quote from Hab.2:4. It is not talking about faithfulness at all. It is speaking about being justified by faith and faith alone.

You have a misunderstanding of this verse. Look at Young's again:

1 Timothy 1:19 having faith and a good conscience, which certain having thrust away, concerning the faith did make shipwreck,
--It is "the faith," something tangible, not the intangible faith. He is speaking here of our Christianity or our "faith" per se. That is "the body of truth which we believe--the faith which we contend for, according to Jude.

Same as above. See Young's again:
2Co 1:24 not that we are lords over your faith, but we are workers together with your joy, for by the faith ye stand.
--Not faithfulness; but their Christian faith which they were to contend for. In this "faith" they were laborers together.

We need to concentrate on what the NT say about faith--over 500 times compared to the 20 or so times that the NT uses the word "trust." There is just no comparison. Even if we include all the times the word "trust" is used in the entire Bible, Old and New, it would just be 134 times, a pittance compared to what God inspired the apostles to write about faith.

Faith and trust, as we use them today, are for the most part synonymous. You are simply giving your opinion without any valid source.

The NT presents faith as the means of salvation. For by grace are you saved through faith.

 

"DHK
DHK...as this thread is about repentance and not the gospel...according to your rules to me when you mentioned I should receive infractions for derailing the thread...nevertheless I will respond to your off topic post

You think I am wrong? what a surpriseUnsure

What do you think was the starting point of the gospel?
I think it was Gen 1:1......then 3:15....then Gen 9...then Gen 12......then throughout the whole OT;
the good news was the revelation of God's Covenant Love In Christ. It is all throughout the Ot and psalms....
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Your "simple" gospel message is the historic facts of the gospel, when in reality the gospel is
ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES......that is all the scriptures that you ignore.

That ignorance is what clings to your presentation;
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

all the scriptures that spoke of Jesus....
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

No.. what is a mystery to me is how you can attempt to insult all of us who offer you correction and go on as oblivious to truth as Mr.Magoo was to danger in those cartoons.

They understood it...or they would not be OT SAINTSWinkWinkWink

 

Let me just say that what I did was to point out the behavior of jonc as it is plain to see his name calling throughout this thread and in another. It is hypocritical for him to go on the attack and accusatory path then call on the mods to look see as if he's innocent and exemplary.

That is grandstanding and his denial of what he does is dishonest even though you call on Iconoclast to testify for you. Jonc has also been dishonest elsewhere when I referred to his non usage of Scripture so he lies and points to a post I didnt refer to. He knows that wasn't what I referred to and another pointed it out as well. Instead of admit jonc you denied it and that is bearing false witness. But I'm seeing that this is just who you are.

So when you do this and make pretense you I'm going to call you on it and of late your name calling is out of control. Go ahead and continue that name calling if you like just know I will point it out again. And by the way I'm not riled up I simply hate the lying and hypocrisy that you jonc have displayed. You began it in this thread when you thought I was addressing you. I called out dhk for his theology, you jumped in (grandstanding again) not knowing the history behind it and what he had said along the same lines. Interestingly you feel it is OK to do all this, to defend even in ignorance of facts, but you still jump in. Yet you don't like it when other brothers if another camp do this.

Adding to the spiritual eye thing it is completely biblical and making the comparison is as well. Some do not do 2 Timothy 2:15 well at all. This is seen here. Some are not of Hebrews 5:11ff either so there is not the same spiritual eye.

 

JonC

My view is that we are not to despise gifts God has given to the church. Pastors/teachers are men....not infallible but are used by God to help us. which post spoke of that ? i would like to double check.
I have met several of the men I post links from, or sermons from.
They are the real deal and not superficial as some are online.
The links are designed to get at truth, not the men that offer the teaching, but the truth about Jesus.

 

What did I post as common belief?

 

The word "gospel" in that verse simply means "good news" the same expression that "gospel" always means. It is good news. But when used in the context in the above verse, the good news was not referring to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, was it? Please don't pull a word out of its context and attach a different meaning, one that it shouldn't have. That is butchering the scriptures, not rightly dividing them.

Young's Translation:
Galatians 3:8 and the Writing having foreseen that by faith God doth declare righteous the nations did proclaim before the good news to Abraham--

Yes, it is according to the Scriptures. I don't ignore the Scriptures at all, but I find that you ignore the scriptures that I keep patiently pointing out to you.