Repentance: Easy Believism VS Hard Believism

[kyredneck]

opinion rises out of different views of the same scripture.

scripture is not opinion, "thy word is truth".

 

[HankD]

scripture is not opinion, "thy word is truth".

Right - Goodbye.

 

[AustinC]

Both extremes are heresies. By God's grace, this study can be of some help if you deem fit to refer someone to it:

The keys here are:
1) how do you define repentance?
2) what age/dispensation are you quoting?

Let's hear it

Both are predicated on the philosophy that humans save themselves by their own free will. One, by saying the sinners prayer. The other by obeying the law. In both cases the philosophy is man-centered and reduces or ignores the work of God in redemption of sinners.
Second, dispensationalism is a modern day manufactured theory never, ever presented in scripture. It butchers scripture and claims that God's means of redemption changed over various periods in human history. It is a consequence of synergism promoted by Charles Finney and propagated to many denominations who teach man's cooperation with God in salvation.

 

[AustinC]

opinion rises out of different views of the same scripture.

I agree. Most error comes from people ignoring context and abusing scripture as a prooftext for their unsupported theology by taking a sentence or phrase out of context to claim it as "biblical."
Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists all use that approach. They find a phrase in the Bible, assume it supports their theory of God and then quote it as biblical proof regardless of the context. I have seen this tactic used countless times here at the Baptist Board. It's poor exegesis, lazy thinking and demeaning of the author of scripture, God.

 

[JonC]

A comment was made at the start of the video that was wrong (that is where I turned the video off).

The video presents two groups. One of these are those who believe repentance should not be preached - which is a group I do not believe exists within Christianity.

 

[George Antonios]

Both are predicated on the philosophy that humans save themselves by their own free will. One, by saying the sinners prayer. The other by obeying the law. In both cases the philosophy is man-centered and reduces or ignores the work of God in redemption of sinners.
Second, dispensationalism is a modern day manufactured theory never, ever presented in scripture. It butchers scripture and claims that God's means of redemption changed over various periods in human history. It is a consequence of synergism promoted by Charles Finney and propagated to many denominations who teach man's cooperation with God in salvation.

When you say "save themselves by their own free will" you are using your own wisdom. Why?
Because you are reasoning that: free will = self saving.
I'm prepared to accept that equation, if you prove it with scripture.

A more helpful reply would have been to counter specific points made in the video, with scriptures.
Anyone can just type out their opinion and simply dismiss something as you have done.

 

[George Antonios]

A comment was made at the start of the video that was wrong (that is where I turned the video off).

The video presents two groups. One of these are those who believe repentance should not be preached - which is a group I do not believe exists within Christianity.

I don't think I understand what it is that you're saying.

As to turning off the video that quickly, for such a statement...well that doesn't sound wise. Trigger-reactions usually aren't.

 

[HankD]

I agree. Most error comes from people ignoring context and abusing scripture as a prooftext for their unsupported theology by taking a sentence or phrase out of context to claim it as "biblical."
Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists all use that approach. They find a phrase in the Bible, assume it supports their theory of God and then quote it as biblical proof regardless of the context. I have seen this tactic used countless times here at the Baptist Board. It's poor exegesis, lazy thinking and demeaning of the author of scripture, God.

True and isn't it called eisogesis Austin?

 

[JonC]

I don't think I understand what it is that you're saying.

As to turning off the video that quickly, for such a statement...well that doesn't sound wise. Trigger-reactions usually aren't.

It was not a "trigger-reaction". I often read opposing views and views that hold a different basis than my own. But falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies when a statement presents what I see as a false dichotomy (if the argument is false I do not see a reason to stick around for the conclusion).

All I am saying is that the video presented an environment where there were two distinct groups. One group believed repentance should be preached while another group believed repentance should not be preached. In my experience that second group does not exist. So for me to entertain the ideas of the video I need to be educated first of the group of Christians who believes repentance should not be preached. I am not saying they do not exist, but in my experience they do not exist (if they do, I am ignorant of their existence).

 

[George Antonios]

It was not a "trigger-reaction". I often read opposing views and views that hold a different basis than my own. But falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies when a statement presents what I see as a false dichotomy (if the argument is false I do not see a reason to stick around for the conclusion).

All I am saying is that the video presented an environment where there were two distinct groups. One group believed repentance should be preached while another group believed repentance should not be preached. In my experience that second group does not exist. So for me to entertain the ideas of the video I need to be educated first of the group of Christians who believes repentance should not be preached. I am not saying they do not exist, but in my experience they do not exist (if they do, I am ignorant of their existence).

There is a large group that believes repentance should not be preached if repentance is defined as repentance from dead works to good works rather than repentance of the mind/heart from unbelief to belief. This controversy has not been in a corner but has been raging for years.

 

[HankD]

the Greek word for repentance is metanoia the root meaning is - to change one's mind.

So repentance for the Christian means to change one's mind about certain behaviors via the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

We have to be taught to change our mind sometimes by visits to the woodshed - at least i did.

 

[JonC]

There is a large group that believes repentance should not be preached if repentance is defined as repentance from dead works to good works rather than repentance of the mind/heart from unbelief to belief. This controversy has not been in a corner but has been raging for years.

I am unaware of them. Most of the time I see churches preaching to repent from Sin. But my experience is mostly with SBC churches.

Can you give me a site so that I can see for myself what this group is teaching?

Thanks.

 

[George Antonios]

I am unaware of them. Most of the time I see churches preaching to repent from Sin. But my experience is mostly with SBC churches.

Can you give me a site so that I can see for myself what this group is teaching?

Thanks.

Well, my video was about that although without names. I can't think of a specific site, I'm sorry. I'm sure others here could.

 

[JonC]

Well, my video was about that although without names. I can't think of a specific site, I'm sorry. I'm sure others here could.

Thanks. Perhaps others would chime in. I just want to evaluate the group via their statements because I think it only fair.

As you indicate it is a large group, if anyone could point me to a sermon to consider I'd appreciate it. Like I said, my experience is limited.

 

[MartyF]

Thanks. Perhaps others would chime in. I just want to evaluate the group via their statements because I think it only fair.

As you indicate it is a large group, if anyone could point me to a sermon to consider I'd appreciate it. Like I said, my experience is limited.

3 reasons why I don’t preach on repentance (“turn from sin”)

 

[JonC]

3 reasons why I don’t preach on repentance (“turn from sin”)

Thank you. This is an interesting article. He believes in repentance from sin but holds it is conveyed not in preaching about sin but in preaching about God.

Is this a large group (is he speaking for himself or a denomination)?

Edit: I never considered it before, but he does have a point. What are the passage that tell Christians to repent (as opposed to telling them not to sin)?

 

[AustinC]

When you say "save themselves by their own free will" you are using your own wisdom. Why?
Because you are reasoning that: free will = self saving.
I'm prepared to accept that equation, if you prove it with scripture.

A more helpful reply would have been to counter specific points made in the video, with scriptures.
Anyone can just type out their opinion and simply dismiss something as you have done.

Romans 9:30-32
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over thew stumbling stone.

Notice that the works based (choosing) of Israel did not succeed, but the God given faith to the Gentiles lead to salvation.

You may now accept the equation.

George, a more helpful thing would be for you to bullet point the ideas from your video for us and make your point. Anyone can post a video and think they have made their point.

 

[George Antonios]

works based (choosing)

And that - slipping in "choosing" for "works", then setting that up within a false dichotomy whereby faith is "not choosing" - is a great example of sleight of men (Eph.4:14), and an apt illustration of how Calvinism can be propped up as a philosophical system.
Webster 1828: SLEIGHT, n. slite. 1. An artful trick; sly artifice; a trick or feat so dexterously performed that the manner of performance escapes observation; as sleight of hand.

Free-will faith is expressly presented in the Bible as a non-work:

 

[MartyF]

Thank you. This is an interesting article. He believes in repentance from sin but holds it is conveyed not in preaching about sin but in preaching about God.

Is this a large group (is he speaking for himself or a denomination)?

Edit: I never considered it before, but he does have a point. What are the passage that tell Christians to repent (as opposed to telling them not to sin)?

The first one I met was in my teenage years. Long time ago. I've met a couple since then. I don't know of any denomination which holds to it.

 

[JonC]

The first one I met was in my teenage years. Long time ago. I've met a couple since then. I don't know of any denomination which holds to it.

I agree people can think that way. Do you believe they are just trying to justify their own sin (that they are "forgiven" so it doesn't matter)?