"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

[Revmitchell]

The term "repentance" is used.
You are assuming a certain unbiblical definition of repentance.
Nowhere in the NT does the Bible command us to repent of our sins.
I ask you again: Where in the NT does the Bible command us to repent of all our sins; or even, "repent of our sins."
Remember the Gospel message is not the OT John the Baptist message.

The scriptures are clear in both the gospels and acts. You may have some sort of definition for repentance of sins but you should with reason conced that soe sort of repentance is necessary if you do not wish to ginore scripture:

Act 26:20 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.


This repentance is most certainly turning toward God which is the opposite of going away from Him. When we turn toward God we are forsaking our former life. It is a shame peopel want to ignore scripture.

 

[lbaker]

What do you mean by the "fruit of the Spirit of God at work in our hearts and minds"? Do you hold to pre faith regeneration?

I think that is the whole point everyone has been circling around. It sounds like the idea of Lordship Salvation is more about being able to tell who is really "in" than about how to get in. At least that is what I got from reading MacArthur's 15 years article. It sounds like he is saying that unless you have been able to totally dedicate yourself to following Jesus 150% you haven't been regenerated in the first place. I guess the idea is that unless one can muster up that level of commitment they just aren't one of the Elect and their goose is cooked. Literally.

 

[DHK]

The scriptures are clear in both the gospels and acts. You may have some sort of definition for repentance of sins but you should with reason conced that soe sort of repentance is necessary if you do not wish to ginore scripture:

Act 26:20 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.


This repentance is most certainly turning toward God which is the opposite of going away from Him. When we turn toward God we are forsaking our former life. It is a shame peopel want to ignore scripture.

I agree with everything you have said.
But there is nothing said there that one must repent of all their sins. The Bible speaks of no such concept.

 

[Pilgrimer]

What do you mean by the "fruit of the Spirit of God at work in our hearts and minds"? Do you hold to pre faith regeneration?

I mean that initial "calling" of God that preceeds and initiates every believer's salvation. It doesn't require that the unregenerate be regenerated first in order to be convicted of his sin. Even an unregenerate can comprehend that he is a sinner, and that comprehension brings a conviction of guilt. But it's how the sinner responds to it that is left up entirely to the sinner. Some become incensed at the preaching of the Gospel for that very reason, because it exposes their sin for what it is, and that ticks them off because they love their sin and want to be left to enjoy it in peace. It is the reason some actively hate the Gospel and work to suppress it. But most sinners will simply tend to shy away from hearing the Gospel for the same reason, to avoid the discomfort of feeling the pricks of a guilty conscience, that "still small voice," the calling of God. At least, that's the way it was in my life before I was saved.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree with everything you have said.
But there is nothing said there that one must repent of all their sins. The Bible speaks of no such concept.

Well it appears you have either moved your position or are conceding that you did not explain yourself well in previous posts as this gives us quite a different picture from what you have previously stated:

Quote DHK form post # 173
The term "repentance" is used.
You are assuming a certain unbiblical definition of repentance.
Nowhere in the NT does the Bible command us to repent of our sins.
I ask you again: Where in the NT does the Bible command us to repent of all our sins; or even, "repent of our sins."
Remember the Gospel message is not the OT John the Baptist message.

Repentance isnt about all of our specific sins. It is about repenting of a lifestyle of rebellion and sin against God.

 

[DHK]

Well it appears you have either moved your position or are conceding that you did not explain yourself well in previous posts as this gives us quite a different picture from what you have previously stated:

Repentance isnt about all of our specific sins. It is about repenting of a lifestyle of rebellion and sin against God.

If you look back at my posts you will see that I never changed my position at all.
Your correct in saying that it is repenting of a lifestyle. More accurately, as the word literally means: "a change in direction." It is a change in my attitude with respect to God. I once was living in rebellion (a rebellious lifestyle) to God. I repented. I changed direction in my attitude toward God. Now I live a life in submission to God. My attitude toward God has been changed. That is why repentance is always toward God.

The modern day preacher often preaches a false message of "repent from all your sins."
I cannot even remember all my sins, much less repent of all of them.

Repenting of individual sins comes only after one is a believer. Then they must bring their sin to God on a daily basis and confess it to God (1John 1:9). But that in no way applies to an unbeliever seeking to be saved. Neither is repentance sorrow for sin. It is a change of attitude with respect to God.

 

[Brother Bob]

If you look back at my posts you will see that I never changed my position at all.
Your correct in saying that it is repenting of a lifestyle. More accurately, as the word literally means: "a change in direction." It is a change in my attitude with respect to God. I once was living in rebellion (a rebellious lifestyle) to God. I repented. I changed direction in my attitude toward God. Now I live a life in submission to God. My attitude toward God has been changed. That is why repentance is always toward God.

The modern day preacher often preaches a false message of "repent from all your sins."
I cannot even remember all my sins, much less repent of all of them.

Repenting of individual sins comes only after one is a believer. Then they must bring their sin to God on a daily basis and confess it to God (1John 1:9). But that in no way applies to an unbeliever seeking to be saved. Neither is repentance sorrow for sin. It is a change of attitude with respect to God.

You do not have to remember them. God knows each and every one.

Here we go to the "devil following Christians".

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

I have a question not really responding to the thread but I've notice a lot of debate about what JM said or didn't say. Why? Why all this talk about JM? Is he some sort of Grand Pooba? I mean that guy from silver back has some interesting things to say but he's not a Pooba either unless you want to use his meathod to grow your church. It's not like JM is Calvin or Luther or Wesley or Knox or Amans or Simons or any of the other great reformers. Why should I care what his theology is. I don't like Barth but I don't put JM on the same level I regard Bonhoffer and Lewis more than I do JM. Does he have some great following or something?

What in the world is "silver back"?

And who da' heck is "Amans"?

I think I can figure out Menno Simons and Clives Staples (C.S.) Lewis (assuming those are the ones to whom you are referring) and the rest seem pretty much self-explanatory, but these two things in your post stump me. If I have missed on either Menno Simons or C. S. Lewis, please inform me of these, as well.

That said (and note I do not agree with Lordship Salvation's tenets by any stretch), why would you 'elevate' (or denigrate) John Calvin, Martin Luther, John (and/or Charles) Wesley, John Knox, Menno Simons, or any of the other great reformers, above (or place any or all of them beneath, for that matter) John MacArthur?

Or Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or C. S. Lewis either, for that matter?

Last time I checked, not one of the above was an OT prophet Prophet or a NT apostle, was even named in Scripture, or wrote one single word of Scripture. That ought to put them, as individuals, pretty much all on an even plane in this, I would offer. So I would consider none of them as any "Grand Poobah."

Respect them? Yes!; Learn from them? Yes!; Idolize them? No!

Each and every one of them would have put his pants on (albeit most of those of 500 years ago did not even wear pants, as we know them) one leg at a time.

But I still would like to know about "silver back" and "Amans", however.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I think by "silver back" he means Saddleback -- the church at which Rick Warren is the pastor.

 

[EdSutton]

Can you show me anywhere in the NT where an unbeliever is commanded to repent of their sins in order to be saved.

Great question! I'll even expand it to the OT, as well. Revmitchell has replied, but it appears he has apparently inadvertantly left out some words found in a text (to which he must have access), that should be included in the English text, or so it would seem.

And because I really do like to be helpful,
I will supply those words to the Scripture where it appears he failed to copy them, since they must be there, else he surely would not have said this. (To make it easier for others, I will bold the 'missing' words in blue.)

Luk 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent of your sins, you will all likewise perish.

Luk 16:30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent of their sins.'

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent of your sin, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (that you have repented of), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 3:19 Repent of your sins therefore, and turn away from your sins again, that your sins that you have repented from, may be blotted out,

Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent of their sins,

Act 26:20 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 of sin and turn from their sins to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance from their sins.

At least, considering the poster was 'answering' a direct question from DHK, I assume this is what he is meaning.

Now, wasn't that helpful?? (Or should that actually be a far different word that begins with an "h" of either 6 or 9 letters?)

I thought Revmitchell was quoting from the ESV, but when I supplied those obviously missing words, that the NKJV translators managed to leave out, as well, somehow, I was not able to find a single 'standard' version that read in this manner. I gotta' admit, some "paraphrases" read in some similar manner, but no "translations" come even remotely close to this, that I can see. I wonder why that is the case??

"Boys and girls, can you say 'read words INTO the Bible texts'?" - the late Mr. Fred Rogers, who incidentally was also a songwriter, an ordained minister, and a Seminary graduate.

What RevMitchel said.. :laugh:

Et tu, ReformedBaptist? BTW, the gentleman's BB 'handle' is Revmitchell.

I am not sure what was so difficult about that.

Adding to the words of Scripture, you mean?? Apparently that is not difficult at all, for some seem fairly adept at it.

It is a shame peopel want to ignore scripture.

I do agree with this. However personally, I think it is a bigger shame when people want to twist or add to the Scripture. :tear:

A quote of Peter:
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (II Pet. 3:16 - NKJV)

A quote of John:
18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[b] to him the plagues that are written in this book; (Rev. 22:18 - NKJV)

I think I'm gonna' go with Peter and John on this one, but maybe that is just me.

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Great question! I'll even expand it to the OT, as well. Revmitchell has replied, but it appears he has apparently inadvertantly left out some words found in a text (to which he must have access), that should be included in the English text, or so it would seem.

And because I really do like to be helpful,
I will supply those words to the Scripture where it appears he failed to copy them, since they must be there, else he surely would not have said this. (To make it easier for others, I will bold the 'missing' words in blue.)At least, considering the poster was 'answering' a direct question from DHK, I assume this is what he is meaning.

Now, wasn't that helpful?? (Or should that actually be a far different word that begins with an "h" of either 6 or 9 letters?)

I thought Revmitchell was quoting from the ESV, but when I supplied those obviously missing words, that the NKJV translators managed to leave out, as well, somehow, I was not able to find a single 'standard' version that read in this manner. I gotta' admit, some "paraphrases" read in some similar manner, but no "translations" come even remotely close to this, that I can see. I wonder why that is the case??

"Boys and girls, can you say 'read words INTO the Bible texts'?" - the late Mr. Fred Rogers, who incidentally was also a songwriter, an ordained minister, and a Seminary graduate.Et tu, ReformedBaptist? BTW, the gentleman's BB 'handle' is Revmitchell.Adding to the words of Scripture, you mean?? Apparently that is not difficult at all, for some seem fairly adept at it.I do agree with this. However personally, I think it is a bigger shame when people want to twist or add to the Scripture. :tear: I think I'm gonna' go with Peter and John on this one, but maybe that is just me.

Ed

Ed:

It is commonplace for LS advocates to force into or extract from the Bible whatever they must to float Lordship's works heresy. LS does no stand the test of Scripture unless it is forced into conformity with its man-centered message.

Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate RevMitchell's example of Lordship's forcing meaning into the Word of God that is not there..


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I agree with Reformed Baptist. I don't see anything in the words of MacArthur, that have been quoted, to suggest he is preaching a works-based salvation. But it depends on MacArthur's view on repentance.

If you take the view that repentance is a work of man that preceeds or initiates salvation, then yes, repentance-based salvation would be a works-based salvation and Mr. Martuneac would be correct.

But if you take the view that repentance itself is the fruit of the Spirit of God at work in our hearts and minds, then repentance-based salvation would still be faith-based.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer:

The works based message of JM's Lordship Salvation is not negated by the extra-biblical presupposition that regeneration precedes repentance and faith. The Bible does not teach that lost men are regenerated (born again) prior to and apart from personal faith in Christ.

I encourage you and all lurkers to read Pastor George Zeller’s article, The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith. The Bible does not teach that men are regenerated, born again, BEFORE believing.

John MacArthur says, “salvation is (only) for those who are willing to forsake everything.” When he makes this demand it is the context of the lost making this commitment FOR salvation.

Is God not satisfied with the atoning work of His Son? If, as we know He is, why does LS call on the lost for a promise to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) that should be the natural result of salvation in exchange for the promise of eternal life?


LM

 

[EdSutton]

You do not have to remember them. God knows each and every one.

Here we go to the "devil following Christians".

BBob,

What the devil are you talking about?

Ed

 

[Goldie]

a change in direction." It is a change in my attitude with respect to God.

Actually true Biblical repentance means a change of mind (when you turn from being a heathen to a believer), it doesn't mean a change in lifestyle - that comes later with the help of the Holy Spirit, who convicts.

Because Lordship Salvationists think it means a change in lifestyle, they don't give any room to baby christians - and that's what the Book of Corinthians is about - baby christians, Paul even tells them they are still babes in Christ, and even though they behaved like maniacs, he still called them "brethren", which means they were indeed saved. What were they doing? They were taking one another to court and suing one another, they were sleeping with one another's wives, they were taking the Lord's Supper with the wrong motives and behaviour, not to mention that their church services were absolutely chaotic. The Book of Corinthians (which consists of two chapters) tells us that since they were taking the Lord's Supper in the wrong manner - they were being disciplined anyway - some were getting sick and others were dying - and when they died - yes they went to heaven, because Paul refers to them as "brother" and "brethren". And Paul would never have called anyone who wasn't saved "brother" or "brethren" - I think the terminology in that respect would've been "dog" or "idol worshipper" or "heathen".

So much for Lordship Salvation and having good works to be saved.

 

[Revmitchell]

Great question! I'll even expand it to the OT, as well. Revmitchell has replied, but it appears he has apparently inadvertantly left out some words found in a text (to which he must have access), that should be included in the English text, or so it would seem.

And because I really do like to be helpful,
I will supply those words to the Scripture where it appears he failed to copy them, since they must be there, else he surely would not have said this. (To make it easier for others, I will bold the 'missing' words in blue.)At least, considering the poster was 'answering' a direct question from DHK, I assume this is what he is meaning.

Now, wasn't that helpful?? (Or should that actually be a far different word that begins with an "h" of either 6 or 9 letters?)

I thought Revmitchell was quoting from the ESV, but when I supplied those obviously missing words, that the NKJV translators managed to leave out, as well, somehow, I was not able to find a single 'standard' version that read in this manner. I gotta' admit, some "paraphrases" read in some similar manner, but no "translations" come even remotely close to this, that I can see. I wonder why that is the case??

"Boys and girls, can you say 'read words INTO the Bible texts'?" - the late Mr. Fred Rogers, who incidentally was also a songwriter, an ordained minister, and a Seminary graduate.Et tu, ReformedBaptist? BTW, the gentleman's BB 'handle' is Revmitchell.Adding to the words of Scripture, you mean?? Apparently that is not difficult at all, for some seem fairly adept at it.I do agree with this. However personally, I think it is a bigger shame when people want to twist or add to the Scripture. :tear: I think I'm gonna' go with Peter and John on this one, but maybe that is just me.

Ed

I did not leave any words out. This is bearing false witness. Repent. And I find it interesting that out of all the folks who has posted on this you address only me in this ungodly and inflammatory manner.

 

[Brother Bob]

What the devil are you talking about?

Ed

I take it back after rethinking ..........:wavey:

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

I did not leave any words out. This is bearing false witness. Repent. And I find it interesting that out of all the folks who has posted on this you address only me in this ungodly and inflammatory manner.

I take it you (Revmitchell) noticed I was being a bit sarcastic. I deny this as being "ungodly" or "inflamatory" in any manner.

You are the one who insists that "repentance" really means "repentance from sin," and I quote your post # here, where you answered Lou Martuneac - viz.

As soon as you can acknowledge that repentance for salvation is NEVER about turning from sin...forsaking sin, the resolve to stop committing sin, and implying the intention to start obeying.

When you drop that teaching from biblical repentance because it is not there.

I have clearly shown it is.

This is a definition and wording the Bible never once uses in any of the texts you cited, and as I have already noted at least six times on the BB noted, words that cannot be found in any standard translation of Scripture, although it probably can be found in some of the various 'creeds/Statements of Faith,' such as the Baptist Faith and Message 1963 & 2000. Incidentally, the bolded statement is not found in the BF&M 1925, nor in any of the New Hampshire, Savoy, London, nor Philadelphia Confessions.

Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. [FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial]Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God.[/FONT][/FONT] (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000,- Art. IV, Section B)

However, what is the difference, between you claiming this is the usage, when answering the post and question of DHK, and my merely inserting the words you are defining but the Scripture does not use, in any of the instances cited? I believe that Jesus had something to say about making the Word of God of no effect through one's tradition which had been handed down, if I remember correctly. (Mk. 7:13) Which one of us is "adding to Scripture," by this definition and application you are attempting to impose on theactual text?? I claim it is not DHK nor actually me- EdSutton, regardless of your opinion of me, which I happened to miss until now, under the "Wasn't Christs's Atoning Work enough?" thread. I fully agree with (and proclaim and teach) each and every Scripture you actually posted; I don't happen to agree withthe interpretation you offer on them.

And in answer to a tangential question to this question that you asked in another place

Why must we believe? Isn't Christs (sic) work enough?

Christ's work is certainly sufficient in His atoning work.(Heb.9:28- 10:14) and this atonement is efectively imputed upon us as, and when we must believe, for our salvation/eternal life, because Scripture says so! (Mk. 1:15; Ac. 16:31; Rom. 1:16; I Tim. 4:10), and incidentally, it does not say we are 'given' that believe/faith, for that position is a misunderstanding of Eph. 2:8, (consistent with the Greek language that neither "grace" nor "faith" is the gift of God, but rather that reference is back to "you have been saved" and hence '"Salvation is the gift of God.")which verse is often, IMO, erreoneously cited as suport for this.

BTW, I have never claimed to be any 'expert' nor asked to be (nor even suggested I be) cited as any authority on anything on the BB, or anywhere else, for that matter. That implication, which I consider to be 'a put-down,' is a misguided comment, at best. I am not particularly concerned about it, nor am I upset, in any way. And I guess, if you feel you should report me, for merely emphasizing what you are, in fact, proclaiming, you will just have to do so.

There is nothing 'personal' ever intended in any of my posts. I cannot help it if someone "takes it personal" when and if, I caricature some teaching they are positing. But I vigorously 'fight' what I believe are doctrinal errors and incorrect teachings, anytime, anywhere.

And I believe the insistence that "repentance" in the Bible means 'repent from sins' in order to be saved, just such a doctrinal abberation. Further, I have asked more than half a dozen times on the BB, to those who believe and preach that repent really means 'repent from sins' and now as you, personally have later claimed that "Repentance isnt about all of our specific sins. It is about repenting of a lifestyle of rebellion and sin against God." exactly what sins (or rebellion) you are claiming for God? God is said to 'repent' or not repent' 30 times in Scripture, by count. Only two, count' em, two, individuals areever said to have repented, namely Job and Judas.

I have commented on both these individuals, before, but I still am waiting for anyone to break the thunderous silence about which sins they are willing to accuse God of. Maybe someone else (for I certainly am not) is willing to suggest that God somehow sinned against Himself!

Somehow, I do not expect to have to turn down the volume on my 'spiritual hearing aid,' anytime soon, because of the response.

No, brothers and sisters, the problem arises from a faulty understanding and definition of "repent/repentance", IMO. I suggest that DHK, Lou Martuneac, and webdog, among others, have got it right. and I happen to basically agree with their take, on this particular subject.

Lunch time, and work time coming - Bye.

Ed

 

[Revmitchell]

I take it you (Revmitchell) noticed I was being a bit sarcastic. I deny this as being "ungodly" or "inflamatory" in any manner.

No. You said I added to scripture what is not there. That implied I added words to passages that did not exist. I did no such thing. What it now appears is that you are using disengenuous debate tactics rather than solid arguments.

You are the one who insists that "repentance" really means "repentance from sin," and I quote your post # here, where you answered Lou Martuneac - viz.

As soon as you can acknowledge that repentance for salvation is NEVER about turning from sin...forsaking sin, the resolve to stop committing sin, and implying the intention to start obeying.

I actually insist that repentance is a turning from sin, idols and rebellion against God. You cannot be turned toward God and still have a desire to live in opposition to Him. It just isn not possible whether you see that happening before conversion or after.

When you drop that teaching from biblical repentance because it is not there.

Not likely

This is a definition and wording the Bible never once uses in any of the texts you cited, and as I have already noted at least six times on the BB noted, words that cannot be found in any standard translation of Scripture, although it probably can be found in some of the various 'creeds/Statements of Faith,' such as the Baptist Faith and Message 1963 & 2000. Incidentally, the bolded statement is not found in the BF&M 1925, nor in any of the New Hampshire, Savoy, London, nor Philadelphia Confessions.

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3340 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
metanoevw from (3326) and (3539)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Metanoeo 4:975,636
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
met-an-o-eh'-o Verb

Definition
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins (bolding for emphasis)


King James Word Usage - Total: 34
repent 34

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 5
Mark 2
Luke 9
Acts 5
2 Corinthians 1
Revelation 10

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 32

However, what is the difference, between you claiming this is the usage, when answering the post and question of DHK, and my merely inserting the words you are defining but the Scripture does not use, in any of the instances cited? I believe that Jesus had something to say about making the Word of God of no effect through one's tradition which had been handed down, if I remember correctly.

The problem I have is you falsley accused me of adding to scripture.

(Mk. 7:13) Which one of us is "adding to Scripture," by this definition and application you are attempting to impose on theactual text?? I claim it is not DHK nor actually me- EdSutton, regardless of your opinion of me, which I happened to miss until now, under the "Wasn't Christs's Atoning Work enough?" thread. I fully agree with (and proclaim and teach) each and every Scripture you actually posted; I don't happen to agree withthe interpretation you offer on them.

Then using your logic I must insist you are taking away form scripture. (if I were willing to use such)

And in answer to a tangential question to this question that you asked in another place Christ's work is certainly sufficient in His atoning work.(Heb.9:28- 10:14) and this atonement is efectively imputed upon us as, and when we must believe, for our salvation/eternal life, because Scripture says so! (Mk. 1:15; Ac. 16:31; Rom. 1:16; I Tim. 4:10), and incidentally, it does not say we are 'given' that believe/faith, for that position is a misunderstanding of Eph. 2:8, (consistent with the Greek language that neither "grace" nor "faith" is the gift of God, but rather that reference is back to "you have been saved" and hence '"Salvation is the gift of God.")which verse is often, IMO, erreoneously cited as suport for this.

And here is where some folks have a clear contradiction. If one response to God's offer of salvation is works than any repsonse to God's salvation is works. Man's response and what man places his faith in for salvation are tow separate issues. But if you insist otherwise then to pre- believe is as much works as anything else. On this issue the reformed folks are at least consistant.

BTW, I have never claimed to be any 'expert' nor asked to be (nor even suggested I be) cited as any authority on anything on the BB, or anywhere else, for that matter. That implication, which I consider to be 'a put-down,' is a misguided comment, at best. I am not particularly concerned about it, nor am I upset, in any way. And I guess, if you feel you should report me, for merely emphasizing what you are, in fact, proclaiming, you will just have to do so.

You may not have asked but rather than refute my points himself Lou chose to site you. I was merely repsonding to his post. Since he cited you I spoke to several attempts to attack me in the past about trivial issues when you in fact were proven to be wrong.

There is nothing 'personal' ever intended in any of my posts. I cannot help it if someone "takes it personal" when and if, I caricature some teaching they are positing. But I vigorously 'fight' what I believe are doctrinal errors and incorrect teachings, anytime, anywhere.

You are welcome to vigorously fight all you want. Represnet what I have said in a false manner is problematic. Much like Lou is doing with JM.

And I believe the insistence that "repentance" in the Bible means 'repent from sins' in order to be saved, just such a doctrinal abberation.

As I have shown the lexicon is in disagreement with you.

Further, I have asked more than half a dozen times on the BB, to those who believe and preach that repent really means 'repent from sins' and now as you, personally have later claimed that "Repentance isnt about all of our specific sins. It is about repenting of a lifestyle of rebellion and sin against God." exactly what sins (or rebellion) you are claiming for God? God is said to 'repent' or not repent' 30 times in Scripture, by count. Only two, count' em, two, individuals areever said to have repented, namely Job and Judas.

I am not really concerened for what you have asked anyone else in the past about. I do not always jump into these trolling type threads that regurgitate the same issue with different wording. Lou has beat this issue on mroe than one forum and continues to start thread after thread on it. I am not sure if he just wants to beat down people or troll the internet.

Your comparison between God repenting toward man and man repenting toward God falls short of legitimate. The word repent can be used (as many words are) in many contexts.

I have commented on both these individuals, before, but I still am waiting for anyone to break the thunderous silence about which sins they are willing to accuse God of. Maybe someone else (for I certainly am not) is willing to suggest that God somehow sinned against Himself!

No one that I have seen is willing to accuse God of any sin. And Repent does not always have to be in the exact same context. This is the equivilent of some who say that "all" means in every case every person on earth to justify their position on God's desire to save every man woman and child that has ever existed. While I believe this to be true it is a false argument to place any word int eh exact same context every time it is used in scripture. In the NT there are two(2) greek words for repent and it is used in three(3) different contexts. In the OT ther is one single word for repent and it is used in four (4) contexts.

Somehow, I do not expect to have to turn down the volume on my 'spiritual hearing aid,' anytime soon, because of the response.

I am not concerned with this expectation.

No, brothers and sisters, the problem arises from a faulty understanding and definition of "repent/repentance", IMO.

Which falls short of the lexicon as I have show. And it is quite clear that it is only your opinion.

I suggest that DHK, Lou Martuneac, and webdog, among others, have got it right. and I happen to basically agree with their take, on this particular subject.


Ed

Webdog has offered no actual argument outside of "it is common sense." Lou is trolling this issue around the internet and misrepresents quite a few things as you have done.

 

[DHK]

Revmitchell,
Your posted definition of repentance is:

Definition
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins (bolding for emphasis)

My challenge to you was: Show me anywhere in the NT where the Bible teaches that one must repent of all their sins in order to be saved.
You have not shown that, not even in your definition, and certainly not through Scripture.
Having an abhorrence for sin in general is not repentance, is it?
I doubt if anyone here would agree to that definition. We all have an abhorrence for sin. I hate the high rate of abortions in this nation, the high crime rate, the great number of rapes and other sexual crimes, and so on. How is that repentance? I have a great abhorrence for sin. But that is not repentance. Even if I personalize it: I have a great abhorrence for my past sins--the sins before I was saved. That is not repentance, is it?

You have taken only a part of a definition. The definition of repentance is quoted in the first part of what you quoted: "to change one's mind."
Scripture indicates that repentance is toward God. It is a forward movement not a past action.

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is to change one's mind toward God.

Again show me in the Bible where one must "repent of all their sins."

It isn't there.
I can't even remember all my sins, much less repent of them.

 

[Brother Bob]

Revmitchell,
Your posted definition of repentance is:

My challenge to you was: Show me anywhere in the NT where the Bible teaches that one must repent of all their sins in order to be saved.
You have not shown that, not even in your definition, and certainly not through Scripture.
Having an abhorrence for sin in general is not repentance, is it?
I doubt if anyone here would agree to that definition. We all have an abhorrence for sin. I hate the high rate of abortions in this nation, the high crime rate, the great number of rapes and other sexual crimes, and so on. How is that repentance? I have a great abhorrence for sin. But that is not repentance. Even if I personalize it: I have a great abhorrence for my past sins--the sins before I was saved. That is not repentance, is it?

You have taken only a part of a definition. The definition of repentance is quoted in the first part of what you quoted: "to change one's mind."
Scripture indicates that repentance is toward God. It is a forward movement not a past action.

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is to change one's mind toward God.

Again show me in the Bible where one must "repent of all their sins."

It isn't there.
I can't even remember all my sins, much less repent of them.
[/color] [/color]

Seems to me if you are guilty of one, you are guilty of all, would mean that you had to repent of all, if you were still guilty of even "one" of them, you would still be guilty of all of them, so why repent of just some of them at all?

BBob,