Is your church or pastor on the list?

[npetreley]

This is obviously off-topic, but as big a jerk as he may have been, Billy Martin was an incredibly good manager. He took the Yankees when they could do no better than hit line drives and did wonders with them.

 

[EdSutton]

This is obviously off-topic, but as big a jerk as he may have been, Billy Martin was an incredibly good manager. He took the Yankees when they could do no better than hit line drives and did wonders with them.

True, true, true, true, and true! To all five clauses in your post, especially the first two. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

ED;
Just trying to inform you what takes place in Salvation.

Spurgeon:
There must be a true and actual abandonment of sin, and a turning unto righteousness in real act and deed in every day life. Do you say you are sorry, and repent, and yet go on from day to day, just as you always went? Will you now boy your heads, and say, "Lord, I Repent," and in a little while commit the same deeds again? If you do, your repentance is worse than nothing, and shall but make your destruction yet more sure; for he that voweth to his Maker, and doth not pay, hath committed another sin, in that he hath attempted to deceive the Almighty, and lie against God

Last time I checked, there was no book of Spurgeon in any Bible I have, so I'd say his opinion is really not any better nor any worse than yours or mine. I guess I have a somewhat different opinion of what Peter, Paul, David, Moses, Apollos, etc. wrote, than I do of what Spurgeon, Sanderson, Calvin, Whitfield, etc. wrote, but maybe that is just me.

Recently you asked what does a person repent from, if it is not from sin. I thought Scripture made it clear enough, for it states that directly, and I've quoted those verses numerous times. I'll try one more time. It seems to be a basic premise, one of the things that is considered as "helpful", and in fact one of the basic 'foundations', along with others (and a co-equal one with faith, as I read it) on which the Christian life is built.

20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ac. 20:20-21, NKJV)

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 6

The Peril of Not Progressing

1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will[a] do if God permits. (Heb. 5:12- 6:3, NKJV, my emphases)

What is so unclear about the language, with what Luke and Apollos say, here, that so many find it so hard to comprehend, seemingly, even to the point of substituting his or her own 'direction' for repentance (and faith), in the stead of Scripture's direction? Unless one already has decided on another 'direction' that repentance takes, in the matter of salvation, even though Scripture clearly gives these 'directions'?

And I'm pretty sure you do understand, just as I do, the meaning of both "from" and "toward". (Since both you and I are neither a current nor a former US President, you see.) :tonofbricks: So what seems to be the problem with the verses?

Compare that with these verses. (NKJV, my emphases)

16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Gal. 2:16)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (Rom. 8:1-6)
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:14)
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may[a] serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. (Heb. 12:28)

Did you get that? The dead works are the result of the law. And one cannot even acceptably serve the living God on the basis of these dead works, but only on the basis of grace/faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, any more than one can serve Christ with sin, and it is expected (but not automatically guaranteed) that we are not to continue in sin, becuase we don't "have to" any longer. (Rom. 6:1-22) However, it does not conversey follow that a Christian never sins. If that were the case, I John 1 is entirely meaningless, for it talks about just that, and the remedy for it. (I Jn. 1:5-10) One may well be able, in a sense, to question one who is habitually practicing sin. (I Jn. 3:4-11, where the ESV, DARBY, and NASB give a better rendering of the word "poieO", in the continouous/present tense as 'practice') I'll get back to this, but now have to leave. And if I don't post it, my computer may lose what I've done.

I'm back, so editing and adding these thoughts.

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Food for thought. What do you do with a verse like this?

Luke 15:7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

Who are the just persons who need no repentance? Are they just because they never sin?

Which of the following is justified?

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

One more note: Anyone see any similarity between what the Pharisee said and some of the posts in this thread?

 

[EdSutton]

One more note: Anyone see any similarity between what the Pharisee said and some of the posts in this thread?

Yeah, but I'm tryin' to be less Pharisaical, even though it is hard to do, sometimes. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Yeah, but I'm tryin' to be less Pharisaical, enen though it is hard to do, sometimes. :thumbs:

Ed

I think you know I wasn't referring to your posts.

 

[EdSutton]

I think you know I wasn't referring to your posts.

Well, I did want to cover all my own bases, you see. One never knows. Especially since my bride :love2: seems to sometimes think I have a wee bit of a strong opinion. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[npetreley]

For the record, I don't think anyone on here is as bad as the Pharisee in the parable. But, like I said, I do see some similarities. I'm not immune. I am certainly tempted now and then to think my so-called good works count for something, even though I know better intellectually.

 

[Brother Bob]

I gave you Spurgeon last time, this time I will give you the Westminster Confession of Faith. You are trying to bring in a new doctrine and the Lord said not to receive it. You have a doctrine I doubt if you can find an early father who agreed with you.

What is repentance? Let me read to you from the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that comes to us from the seventeenth century: "By [repentance] a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments. . . yet [repentance] is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. As there is no sin so small that it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly" (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XV, sections II, III, IV).

As far as Joe Torre, he would be talking about the past as Paul was if he said I am the greatest of managers.

I can give you some of Torre's record and give you some of Paul's record.
Can you give any sin really bad he was committing in the presence when he wrote the passage, or did you just make that part up???

20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ac. 20:20-21, NKJV)

Now just who do you think if you turn from sin, you would be turning to?? (scratch head)

Who is that list again, you said that had came over to your side and now believe you don't have to repent of sin anymore, to receive Salvation??? I remember, Npet: was one of them you said, who are the others?? I guess Npet; does not know that Calvinism embraces the Westminister confession of faith?

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

I gave you Spurgeon last time, this time I will give you the Westminster Confession of Faith. You are trying to bring in a new doctrine and the Lord said not to receive it. You have a doctrine I doubt if you can find an early father who agreed with you.



As far as Joe Torre, he would be talking about the past as Paul was if he said I am the greatest of managers.

I can give you some of Torre's record and give you some of Paul's record.
Can you give any sin really bad he was committing in the presence when he wrote the passage, or did you just make that part up???



Now just who do you think if you turn from sin, you would be turning to?? (scratch head)

Who is that list again, you said that had came over to your side and now believe you don't have to repent of sin anymore, to receive Salvation??? I remember, Npet: was one of them you said, who are the others?? I guess Npet; does not know that Calvinism embraces the Westminister confession of faith?

BBob,

I did not say that Paul was committing any sin when he wrote the verse in question, but rather that he, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used the present tense of "AM" as opposed to the past tense of "was". Read it for what it says, is my suggestion.

And I didn't give any such "list" of anyone I said had "come over to my side", at all. I assume each and every person is 'where they are' completely independent of me, or anything I may have said, for I have never had anyone say that they were 'coming over to my side' in anything on the BB, as far as I can recall.

What I did say was, and I quote

And let's not forget that of all these individuals, from the universally beloved, now banned poster Sanderson (holding my side on this one, as I type one-handed), to carrierwave~, to Tom Butler, to Alcott, to webdog, to Joe, to Npetreley, to the not on this thread DHK, to yours truly, EdSutton - (tinytim is almost there, and mcdirector is part way there, but not yet fully with me here, but both are leaning in the right direction) - not one of them has said that repentance is not necessary, or should not be preached (I have consistently said that repentance is both necessary and should be preached), but have variously said that:

(1) it is not properly defined as "repentance of/from sin(s)", especially in the matter of salvation (for the Bible tells us that 'direction' of repentance/faith in Ac. 20:21 and Heb 6:1b);

(2) that "repent"/"repentance" is the 'flip-side', hence an integral, indivisible part of "believe"/"faith";

(3) that this is often a verson of a "code phrase" or a 'back door' attempt to make grace and faith encompass and include works, by definition;

(4) that it may well be a subterfuge for what is known as "Lordship salvation";

(5) that that phrase ["repent of/from one's sin(s)"] is not to be found in Scripture; and that

(6) a "repentance" (change of mind) from sin, unto holy living should be expected from one when one becomes a Christian, through spiritual growth, Spirit control, and maturity - among other things said in defense of "free grace".

The above is not that difficult to understand, IMO, if one will simply read it for what it actually says.

But I am getting to be a bit annoyed at the continued implied implication that I, at least, do not believe in "repentance" for salvation, when I have consistently said that I do believe repentance is necessary for salvation (and have preached and taught it all my Christain life, as well), for two years on the Baptist Board. And I have said that "repenting (changing one's mind) about sins" is a part of the expected Christian life of one who is saved, as well.

What I am not doing (and will continue to not do) is allowing you (or anyone else) to define it in opposition to what I have shown time and again is the Biblical wording and the etymological meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words, as well. Don't feel like you are all alone in any of this. I have had my own pastor use virtually the same questions you have asked. He (who happens to be a longtime friend from our HS days of over 40 years ago) still hasn't understood either, BTW, but I'm still working on him.

For two years, I have asked for one citation of the direct phrase "repent of/from one's sin(s)" or a variation of that, in any 'main-line' version of Scripture. I would say that is a simple enough request. I have not received such citation (nor wqill I ever), for that phrase is not there, unless and until one adds to the Scripture to make it say something it does not say. I have seen a lot of 'dancing with the stars', in an attempt to make it seem to be there (undoubtedly to fit their theology), however, from several individuals. Still that does not make it so.

For the same two years, I have seen a multitude of posts that make claims about various Biblical personalities who supposedly "repented" of one thing or another, in the same implied meaning. I have asked for a Scripture that says this, in most cases. Interestingly enough, I don't recall one person mentioning that Job repented (aside from myself) and that he is the only human individual in Scripture that is ever specifically said about. Seen a lot more of the dancing, though.

I also have noticed very few comments about the Lord repenting, when Scripture says that the Lord did or did not repent 30 times. Why is that? Is there some reason we cannot take Scripture at it's own word, but rather have to 'embellish' or attempt to 'alter' what it says, merely to make it agree with something someone has heard most of our life? I don't see any reason for this, personally, but I try not to approach this with a preconceived theology, and try and make Scripture fit it. Or at least I try not to, even if I do not always succeed. Anyone else will have to speak for themselves on this one.

Since I am a bit annoyed, and I do admit this, I'll give you a bit more to chew on, and no doubt 'dance with'.

Not only can one not find the specific phrase "repent of your sins" in Scripture, one also cannot find the specific phrase "turn from sin" in Scripture, either, in the same 10 major versions. Don't believe me; check it out!

The phrases "turn from their sin" and "turn from his sin" can both be found there in some (but not all these) versions, but the exact words "turn from sin" cannot be found in any of them.

Enough of the 'heartburn dispensing' from me, for the moment, as I have some other things I must now do.

Frankly, I am once again glad to NOT be found on the list of Sanderson.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Since I am a bit annoyed, I'll give you a bit more to chew on, and no doubt dance with. Not only can one not find the specific phrase "repent of your sins" in Scripture, one also cannot find the specific phrase "turn from sin" in Scripture, either, in the same 10 major versions. Don't believe me; check it out!

The phrases "turn from their sin" and "turn from his sin" can both be found there in some (but not all these) versions, but the exact words "turn from sin" cannot be found in any of them.

Enough of the 'heartburn dispensing' from me, for the moment, as I have some other things I must now do.

Ed

If you go to the orginal text of Greek and look up the definition of repent and repentance, you will find it without too much trouble.

I will give you another church fathers sermon on the subject.

George Whitefield : Repentance.

(Since that was such a long post up there, I will select small excepts to show that Whitefield also taught repentance to mean a forsaking of sin.)

" You, therefore, who have been sweaeres and cursers; you, who have been harlots and drunkards; you, who have been thieves and robbers; you, who have hitherto followed the sinful pleasures and diversions of life, let me beseech you, by the mercies of God in Christ Jesus, that you would no longer continue therein, but that you would forsake your evil ways, and turn unto the Lord. For he waits to be grascious to you, he is ready, he is willing to pardon you of all your sins: But do not expect Christ to pardon you of sin when you rin to it, and will not abstain from coplying with the temptations. But if you will be persuaded to absstain from evil and choose the good, to return to the Lord and repent of your wickedness, he has promised he will abundantly pardon you, he will heal your backslidings, and will love you freely. Resolve now this day to have done with your sins FOREVER; let your old ways and you be separated; you must resolve against it, for there can be no true repentance without a resolution to forsake it.... But then take that you do not ground your resolutions on your own strength, but in the strenght of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the way, he is the truth, he is the life; without his assistance, you can do nothing, but through his grace strengthening thee, thou wilt be enabled to do all things.

So your Pastor is on pretty good ground.

Also, if you want to run a check on John Darby, he believes about the same as I do.

The url that carriewave~ gave on a person named Cloud, he was concerned about QUICK PRAYERISM, and so am I. The only thing about Cloud is he was so concerned about QUICK PRAYERISM, that he went too far the other way. QUICK PRAYERISM is destroying the Baptist people, but repent of your sins the the doctrine of the church from the beginning.

Cloud's true point was: Repentance Is More Than a Sinner’s Prayer, Which I agree with.

I don't want to annoy you Ed, as a matter of fact I like you or I would not kid you as I do, but you are just plain wrong on this one. You need to listen to your Pastor. He probably goes home many of a time, pulling his hair out..........:laugh: :laugh: Are you waiting for him at the door after every sermon....

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

If you go to the orginal text of Greek and look up the definition of repent and repentance, you will find it without too much trouble.
[Snipped!]

Originally posted by Luke, the physician - c. 63 AD, quoting the commander:

“Can you speak Greek?” (Ac. 21:37b1 - NKJV)

:smilewinkgrin:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You need to listen to your Pastor. He probably goes home many of a time, pulling his hair out..........:laugh: :laugh: Are you waiting for him at the door after every sermon....

I do listen to him - usually up to three and sometimes four times a week.

And no, he is usually the one waiting at the door, not only for Peggy and me, but everyone else.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I will give you another church fathers sermon on the subject.

George Whitfield and John Nelson Darby were both great Christians and preachers, one an outstanding evangelist, the other an outstanding teacher and scholar, but neither one of them is known as a "church father", with both having been born a millenium too late for that category.

Hey! How did "millenium" get over into this thread?? :laugh:

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, we certainly refer to them a lot. Feels good to be in such good company.

John Wesley's therapeutic understanding of salvation

In "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," Wesley expands the meaning of repentance to include a host of attitudes and activities (e.g., restitution, seeking forgiveness, and almsgiving).68 This illustrates, I think, that repentance serves as the threshold, or turning point, from sinfulness to godliness. Accordingly, it involves much more than a single act - it involves a transformative process of time. Of course, any "piercing sense of our guilt" originates from God and is indicative of the priority of grace. And certainly, the conviction of our state will grow as we respond. But toward what does this conviction lead?
In terms of the ordo salutis, the answer is justification. "`But must not we put off the filthy rags of our own righteousness before we can put on the spotless righteousness of Christ?' Certainly we must; that is, in plain terms, we must 'repent' before we can `believe the gospel."69 Undoubtedly, problems arise in describing justifying faith as a free gift while at the same time making repen-tance a prerequisite to that faith. Wesley solves this issue by declaring faith the only immediate necessity to justification, with repentance serving as a remote necessity. "Therefore both repentance and fruits meet for repentance are in some sense necessary to justification."70 As Outler's annotation to this line explains, "Else-where, Wesley stresses repentance as the normal prepatory state for the reception of justifying faith and, in that sense, `necessary."'71 We can avoid some of the potential theological impasses associated with this concept of repentance preceding faith by remembering that repentance is essentially knowledge, a gracious epistemological reve-lation of one's condition which orients one toward acceptance (belief and trust) of God's justifying provision in Christ. And in this light, repentance logically belongs before faith because one must first be convicted of sin before receiving the remedy for it.

 

[Brother Bob]

George Whitfield and John Nelson Darby were both great Christians and preachers, one an outstanding evangelist, the other an outstanding teacher and scholar, but neither one of them is known as a "church father", with both having been born a millenium too late for that category.

Hey! How did "millenium" get over into this thread?? :laugh:

Ed

Seems to me they were Fathers to us!!

 

[carrierwave~]

George Whitfield and John Nelson Darby were both great Christians and preachers, one an outstanding evangelist, the other an outstanding teacher and scholar, but neither one of them is known as a "church father", with both having been born a millennium too late for that category.

Hey! How did "millennium" get over into this thread?? :laugh:

Ed

Ed,

An interesting thing about the colonial and early American preacher's was the grave error many fell into regarding the "millennium". Jonathan Edwards in particular deciphered the unprecidented response (conversions) to the (his) preaching was God himself was "bringing in the millennium" by the awakening of souls for the coming Kingdom on Earth. Unfortunitely, as great a preacher as he was, the passing of time refuted his doctrine that the millennium was "at hand". Godly men make mistakes: using quotes from their writings or even preaching to define doctrine is not very wise, especially when we have divinely inspired writings of godly men who were moved by the Holy Ghost in God's Word.

He (Edwards) neglected to figure into the equation however that smallpox and a variety of other deadly ailments and afflictions had reduced life expectancy to under 40 years, aiding to the sensitivity that one's life was in constant jeopardy. Having to stare out eternity's window on a daily basis was good incentive to believe God's message. God's message of Grace through faith alone in Christ Jesus became very attractive then as it is to lost sinners today if we don't send them mixed messages.

Carrierwave~

 

[carrierwave~]

I did not say that Paul was committing any sin when he wrote the verse in question, but rather that he, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used the present tense of "AM" as opposed to the past tense of "was". Read it for what it says, is my suggestion.

And I didn't give any such "list" of anyone I said had "come over to my side", at all. I assume each and every person is 'where they are' completely independent of me, or anything I may have said, for I have never had anyone say that they were 'coming over to my side' in anything on the BB, as far as I can recall.

What I did say was, and I quote The above is not that difficult to understand, IMO, if one will simply read it for what it actually says.

But I am getting to be a bit annoyed at the continued implied implication that I, at least, do not believe in "repentance" for salvation, when I have consistently said that I do believe repentance is necessary for salvation (and have preached and taught it all my Christain life, as well), for two years on the Baptist Board. And I have said that "repenting (changing one's mind) about sins" is a part of the expected Christian life of one who is saved, as well.

What I am not doing (and will continue to not do) is allowing you (or anyone else) to define it in opposition to what I have shown time and again is the Biblical wording and the etymological meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words, as well. Don't feel like you are all alone in any of this. I have had my own pastor use virtually the same questions you have asked. He (who happens to be a longtime friend from our HS days of over 40 years ago) still hasn't understood either, BTW, but I'm still working on him.

For two years, I have asked for one citation of the direct phrase "repent of/from one's sin(s)" or a variation of that, in any 'main-line' version of Scripture. I would say that is a simple enough request. I have not received such citation (nor wqill I ever), for that phrase is not there, unless and until one adds to the Scripture to make it say something it does not say. I have seen a lot of 'dancing with the stars', in an attempt to make it seem to be there (undoubtedly to fit their theology), however, from several individuals. Still that does not make it so.

For the same two years, I have seen a multitude of posts that make claims about various Biblical personalities who supposedly "repented" of one thing or another, in the same implied meaning. I have asked for a Scripture that says this, in most cases. Interestingly enough, I don't recall one person mentioning that Job repented (aside from myself) and that he is the only human individual in Scripture that is ever specifically said about. Seen a lot more of the dancing, though.

I also have noticed very few comments about the Lord repenting, when Scripture says that the Lord did or did not repent 30 times. Why is that? Is there some reason we cannot take Scripture at it's own word, but rather have to 'embellish' or attempt to 'alter' what it says, merely to make it agree with something someone has heard most of our life? I don't see any reason for this, personally, but I try not to approach this with a preconceived theology, and try and make Scripture fit it. Or at least I try not to, even if I do not always succeed. Anyone else will have to speak for themselves on this one.

Since I am a bit annoyed, and I do admit this, I'll give you a bit more to chew on, and no doubt 'dance with'.

Not only can one not find the specific phrase "repent of your sins" in Scripture, one also cannot find the specific phrase "turn from sin" in Scripture, either, in the same 10 major versions. Don't believe me; check it out!

The phrases "turn from their sin" and "turn from his sin" can both be found there in some (but not all these) versions, but the exact words "turn from sin" cannot be found in any of them.

Enough of the 'heartburn dispensing' from me, for the moment, as I have some other things I must now do.

Frankly, I am once again glad to NOT be found on the list of Sanderson.

Ed

Ed,

Here is an excerpt from David Cloud's own writings against Curtis Hutson. He begins here by attempting to redefine the Greek word "metanoia" to change the mind which is a benign term neither denoting by itself a change of thinking for good or evil. However he says that it is "error" to translate it as "merely" a change of mind. Any honest Greek student would not approach God's Word by first denying it's correct definition by a pre-conceived interpretation of the word out of it's context. This is blatant deception and is mishandling the scriptures. If you follow his reasoning through, he and Ray Comfort are like two peas in a pod. The only difference is that Cloud is attempting to teach reformation "BEFORE" salvation, thus thrusting human effort into the free gift of God. Ray Comfort teaches this same thing.



THE ERROR OF DEFINING REPENTANCE MERELY AS A CHANGE OF MIND (David Cloud)

"Another man who has widely influenced the doctrine of repentance held by independent Baptists is the late Curtis Hutson, former editor of the Sword of the Lord. His 1986 booklet “Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach?” has been distributed widely. Hutson boldly denied that repentance means to turn from sin (p. 4). He denied that repentance is sorrow for sin (p. 8). He even denied that repentance means “a change of mind that leads to a change of action” (p. 16). He claimed that repentance simply is “to change one’s mind” and that it did not necessarily result in a change of life. In an attempt to build his doctrine of repentance, Curtis Hutson quoted Scripture that appears to support his position but he ignored the Scriptures that plainly denounce his position. He misquoted the writings of men like his predecessor John R. Rice. He also mixed in a heavy dose of human reasoning."


Any Greek student can assure you that the word "METANOEO" does not mean "to turn from sins". Dr. Hutson is correct! You simply cannot take a benign word and make it mean something that the context never intends. Especially about repentance in regard to Salvation. His approach is all wrong. Dr. Hutson is not denying anything--Cloud is upset because Hutson's teachings refute his private interpretation of what "repentance" means. The real issue is what is one changing his mind about. It is impossible to make "metenoeo" mean "turn from sins", as Cloud seems to claim, in any given instance where word is used. (God repents too) This is where Cloud get himself into trouble.

"He even denied that repentance means “a change of mind that leads to a change of action” (Cloud)

Instead of Cloud here trying to prove his own argument he chooses a clever tactic of self-supremecy; that is, his view is the confimed stance of all good men everywhere; to even consider any other explanation is intolerable! Scripture does not support this exclusive view of repentance at all. In God's plan of redemption repentance always leads to "SALVATION" first in the scriptures; not a change of action as Cloud claims. This is the consistant Bible pattern--The Holy Spirit changes your mind, you believe on Christ Jesus, then the life and actions change! (2Corinthians 7:10 and many others). The idea of "turning from sins" prior to salvation is not anywhere taught except in Cloud's false teachings and is nigh unto the heresy of works salvation, if not altogether so.

(Cloud) "If repentance and faith are the same, why does the Bible make such a plain distinction between them? “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). In reality, repentance and faith are two different actions though they are intimately connected and cannot necessarily be separated in time. Repentance is to acknowledge one’s sin and rebellion against God and to change one’s mind about sinning against God. Faith is to trust the finished work of Christ for forgiveness. Repentance and faith are the two aspects of man’s response to God’s offer of salvation.

Sadly, Cloud falls short of 2 Timothy 2:15. Acts 20:21 does not teach two separate actions at all! Repentance and faith are shown as the same thing in this verse. Here is why;

“Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”.



Any time two singular Greek nouns appear in a sentance and are connected by the conjunction "and" (kai Greek) and the definite article "ho" precedes the first noun and none before the latter, they both mean the same person. This means that the appositive, our Lord Jesus Christ, is referring to "God" in the first clause! Rendering this into the sentance it is read as follows:



Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, ("EVEN") or ("that is") faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”.



This is what Paul was preaching. Repentance toward God using the Granville Sharpe's rule of Greek exegesis, is synonomus (means the same) as faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Faith and repentance are the same thing according to Greek grammatical rendering of this verse. However, David Cloud does not follow good biblical interpretation, and ends up with a false interpretation to support his false claims. If we need to be right about anything in the Bible, it is SALVATION. If we are wrong here we will be wrong everywhere else, not to mention our destination if we believe a false Gospel.

Taken from the same article: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/repentancelordship.htm


Carrierwave~

 

[Gwen]

"Faith and repentance are the same thing according to Greek grammatical rendering of this verse. However, David Cloud does not follow good biblical interpretation, and ends up with a false interpretation to support his false claims. If we need to be right about anything in the Bible, it is SALVATION. If we are wrong here we will be wrong everywhere else, not to mention our destination if we believe a false Gospel."

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Amen! Good post, Carrierwave~

 

[Brother Bob]

If you are walking down the broad road of sin and repentance leads you in a different direction towards God, how can one not know you have to "turn from sin" and go a different way.

It is hard to overcome all the earlier theologians like Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Westminister confession of faith.

George Whitefield : Repentance.

(Since that was such a long post up there, I will select small excepts to show that Whitefield also taught repentance to mean a forsaking of sin.)

" You, therefore, who have been sweaeres and cursers; you, who have been harlots and drunkards; you, who have been thieves and robbers; you, who have hitherto followed the sinful pleasures and diversions of life, let me beseech you, by the mercies of God in Christ Jesus, that you would no longer continue therein, but that you would forsake your evil ways, and turn unto the Lord. For he waits to be grascious to you, he is ready, he is willing to pardon you of all your sins: But do not expect Christ to pardon you of sin when you rin to it, and will not abstain from coplying with the temptations. But if you will be persuaded to absstain from evil and choose the good, to return to the Lord and repent of your wickedness, he has promised he will abundantly pardon you, he will heal your backslidings, and will love you freely.

John Wesley's therapeutic understanding of salvation
Encounter, Summer 2002 by Ayers, Jeremy
<< Page 1 Continued from page 11. Previous | Next
.In "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," Wesley expands the meaning of repentance to include a host of attitudes and activities (e.g., restitution, seeking forgiveness, and almsgiving).68 This illustrates, I think, that repentance serves as the threshold, or turning point, from sinfulness to godliness

Spurgeon
This one is from Spurgeon's sermons, Volume II.
Turn Or Burn

I.In the first place, my hearers, let me endeavor to explain to you the nature of the turning here meant.....

Ah! My hearer, it is not thy promise of repentance that can save thee; it is not thy vow, it is not thy solemn declaration, it is not the tear that is dried more easily than the dew-drop by the sun; it is not the transient emotion of the heart, which constitues a real turning to God. There must be a true and actual abandonment of sin, and a turning unto righteousness in real act and deed in every day life. Do you say you are sorry, and repent, and yet go on from day to day, just as you always went? Will you now boy your heads, and say, "Lord, I Repent," and in a little while commit the same deeds again? If you do, your repentance is worse than nothing, and shall but make your destruction yet more sure; for he that voweth to his Maker, and doth not pay, hath committed another sin, in that he hath attempted to deceive the Almighty, and lie against God that made him. Repentance, to be true, to be evangelical, must be a repentance which really affects our outward conduct.

John Calvin;.
IN WHAT SENSE IS REPENTANCE THE PRIOR CONDITION OF FORGIVENESS? a Now the hatred of sin, which is the beginning of repentance, first gives us access to the knowledge of Christ, who reveals himself to none but poor and afflicted sinners, who groan, toil, are heavy-laden, hunger, thirst, and pine away with sorrow and misery b(a) [ Isaiah 61:1-3; Matthew 11:5, 28; Luke 4:18]. Accordingly, we must strive toward repentance itself,

Westminster Confession of Faith
What is repentance? Let me read to you from the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that comes to us from the seventeenth century: "By [repentance] a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments. . . yet [repentance] is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. As there is no sin so small that it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly" (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XV, sections II, III, IV).