Repentance and Faith

[webdog]

Web, we're agreed that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. We agree that salvation is by grace through faith.

I'm not quite clear on your statement that an unregenerate person cannot know what turning from sin is. I would expect a Calvinist to make such a statement, adding "without the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit."

Would you elaborate a bit on how you, a non-Calvinist, could make that statement and be consistent with what I think you believe. Or please correct me if I'm off base.

Since RB has not clarified for me yet, I'm assuming he's talking about Lordship Salvation where turning from sin and making Christ Lord of your life is required FOR salvation. An unregenerated person cannot make such commitment. Only someone who has been justified knows what turning from sin and following Christ entails.

 

[Havensdad]

What then is the meaning of "repentance from acts that lead to death?

"Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God" (Heb 6:1, TNIV, emphasis mine).

Exactly What I said> The "Foundation" is ' repentance from "acts that lead to death" ' and 'faith in God'.

Repentance is a change of MIND from "acts that lead to death", not the acts themselves. Although, if the action doesn't follow the repentance isn't real, so it's really a matter of semantics, I guess. But it is an important distinction, cause it eliminates the "what about the thief on the cross" argument.

 

[Havensdad]

Since RB has not clarified for me yet, I'm assuming he's talking about Lordship Salvation where turning from sin and making Christ Lord of your life is required FOR salvation. An unregenerated person cannot make such commitment. Only someone who has been justified knows what turning from sin and following Christ entails.

Lordship Salvation is by Nature Calvinist. Your statement that "an unregeneratd person cannot make such a commitment" is irrelevant. It is ALL a work of God from beginning to end.

As I have pointed to numerous people in the past, Jesus preached to the CROWDS, not just believers, that if anyone wished to follow him, they must deny themselves, pickup the Cross, and follow him. Any division between discipleship and salvation is not only biblical, but it is committing the exact sin mentioned in Galatians.

Both Justification, and sanctification, are gifts from God, beginning to end. God gets all the glory.

 

[webdog]

Lordship Salvation is by Nature Calvinist. Your statement that "an unregeneratd person cannot make such a commitment" is irrelevant. It is ALL a work of God from beginning to end.

So you are saying a spiritually dead person can turn from sin and follow Christ prior to faith?

 

[TCGreek]

Exactly What I said> The "Foundation" is ' repentance from "acts that lead to death" ' and 'faith in God'.

Repentance is a change of MIND from "acts that lead to death", not the acts themselves. Although, if the action doesn't follow the repentance isn't real, so it's really a matter of semantics, I guess. But it is an important distinction, cause it eliminates the "what about the thief on the cross" argument.

I see your point.

Another viable translation of the expression is this: "repentance from dead works."

There's an obvious turning away from "dead works."

 

[Allan]

What about the thief on the cross?

What about the thief??

We know at the first he derided Christ with the other did he not come to realize that Jesus was without fault, and that what He had proclaimed was the truth. If he did not then why would he ask to be remembered when Christ comes into His Kingdom. He confessed that they (the two thiefs) were worthy of their sentence but this man has done no wrong.

According to the fullness of the texts regarding the event I can't help be see the faith and repentence in the thief.

Now what some people misunderstand is that repentence is something verbal. That is not true, it does not have to something verbally done but if it is true repentence it will not be something that is kept secret for it will be made known.

 

[Allan]

Lordship Salvation is by Nature Calvinist.

That may be, but there are Calvinists who don't agree with it also.

 

[TCGreek]

That may be, but there are Calvinists who don't agree with it also.

I'll modify it.

I believe John MacArthur has done an injustice on some texts to make the Lordship case.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Since RB has not clarified for me yet, I'm assuming he's talking about Lordship Salvation where turning from sin and making Christ Lord of your life is required FOR salvation. An unregenerated person cannot make such commitment. Only someone who has been justified knows what turning from sin and following Christ entails.

I don't even know what Lordship Salvation is. If it has anything to do with rejecting the notion that Jesus may be one's Savior and not Lord, or the idea that we may believe on Christ but turning from sin is something that can happen over time in "discipleship" then I may well agree with it.

I am not opposed to the idea that repentance and faith is united. One preacher once said, "Repentance will not save you, but the Lord will not save you without repentance."

Christ alone, and HIs grace alone are the cause of salvation. Every man or woman whom Christ saves is brought to repentance. Even the theif on the cross.

I was wondering how many on the boards or in their churches rarely hear repentance from sin and faith toward Christ preached. Or, as one poster may indicate, do not see repentance as essential to the Gospel.

 

[David Lamb]

A Gospel without the preaching of repentance is no Gospel at all. Agree or disagree? Does your church preach repentance and faith in Christ, or is the message more geared towards accepting Jesus with little or no thought to repentance?

I agree, and my church does preach (far from adequately, I am sure) repentance and faith in Christ. "Accepting Jesus" is not a phrase I tend to use, but how does it different in essence from "putting your faith in Jesus"?

 

[Paul Kersey]

This is a very complex and very essential topic. There is a great deal of disagreement on soteriological repentance, especially among Southern Baptists. I have observed that even Past Presidents of the SBC give differing presentations on the matter. I e-mailed a past senior SBC leader that I admire and respect greatly, and he clearly knew what he believed, but he could not articulate repentance plainly, in a detailed fashion.

If you hold to the "turn from sin" or "be willing to turn from sin" view, that is quite difficult to explain to people with no doctrinal understanding. Think of this, have you "turned from the sin" in your life? All of it? Are there any areas that are weaknesses for you? If so, have you really "turned"? The logic follows, if you haven't turned from your sin, how can you ask a lost man to do it? Many will counter that you need to be willing to turn from the sin God reveals to you. I agree with that statement for the believer. However, if you witnessing to a lost man, how willing does he have to be? 80%, 90% etc. This becomes a slippery slope of subjectivism.

I will admit my bias. I am a moderate-free grace proponent in the spirit of Dr(s) Charles Stanley, Ryrie, Ron Rhodes, Dick Seymour, Michael Cocoris, Sumner Wemp etc. I hold to the "change of mind" view. I have also heard Dr. Harold Willmington from Liberty say that soteriological repentance is the turning from one singular sin, the sin of unbelief. I think that's also accurate.

Incidentally, I have written seminary papers against Lordship Salvation. I read on the Way of Master website (this is a paraphrase from memory) that if a person sins "intentionally" after salvation, he is fooling himself - he has never really been saved. The writer said he does sin personally, but it is not intentional. Every sin I have ever committed was intentional - no one forced me to do it. This sort of perfectionism and false teaching from Lordship proponents leads to depressed believers and a sense of hopelessness among those who try to "clean up their lives" for salvation and to prove the validity of their conversion.

 

[Havensdad]

I don't mean to sound offensive, but the FG movement is borderline heresy. They teach that once a person has made a "decision" for Christ, that person can later completely reject their faith, turn to atheism, buddhism, Satanism, etc. and still be saved. There is a plethora of scripture denying this.

In fact, back in the days when I was first saved, I used to watch Charles Stanley on T.V. I actually heard him tell a story of consoling a mother whose son had apostatized "not to worry" because he had already "made a decision" to follow Christ, and so when he died he would go to Heaven.

That is horrific theology. The Bible says if anyone is in Christ he IS (now, presently) a new creation.

Let me give you a background on myself. Before the Lord saved me (I made NO decision, God knocked me to my knees, and I said "Yes sir!"> all Him), I was involved in the occult. I was a "New ager" (specifically Wicca), and knew quite a few actual Satanists.

Did you know, Satanists actually believe the Gospel narrative (most of them)? They believe it back to front. They believe the Bible. They choose to be in opposition to it.

Now, for those who think it is "simple belief", a Satanist can be saved, and remain a Satanist. For that matter, even if you incorporate "trust" into the equation, it still does not rule out the active Satanist from salvation> a patient can believe a doctor has the ability to fix him, and even trust him to do an operation, and still hate the doctor and oppose everything he stands for.

Christ does not ask for some abstract "belief", nor in some loveless "trust"> we must submit to him as Lord and savior, as the one able to pay for our sins, in order to be saved.

Is this a work? No. Is faith a work? No. Of course, if ANY of this is something of ourselves, then it would be a work. But it is all of God. The Holy Spirit convicts us, and drives us to repentance. The Holy Spirit indwells us, giving us a new outlook, and making us a "new creature". All God.

Long and short? Jesus preached "Repent AND Believe". He preached to the cities "If anyone would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me!" Was Jesus preaching the wrong message to these unsaved individuals?

 

[Paul Kersey]

Havensdad

Charles Stanley's ministry has taken the Gospel to every nation on Earth. With all due respect to you, I don't think it fair to him to quote a portion of a comment, with no context, from years ago to smear him. This is an extreme example, but if you believe in the eternal security of the believer, you must explore this kind of possibility. By the way, Stanley and the GES / Hodges approach are not normally interchangeable in their views, though there is some overlap. I reject much of the Hodges/Wilkin/GES system.

As for your remark about taking up your cross to follow Jesus, I see a distinction between disciples and believers. A disciple, in the biblical sense, is simply one who follows. The Bible often speaks of false "disciples", i.e. Judas Iscariot, among many others. Your method discounts the possibilty of "carnal Christians", a category Paul certainly believed in. How much submission is required at the point of salvation? How does a new convert know if he has submitted enough? What if he fails to submit the week after he is saved? Where does he stand then? Lordship salvation offers no assurance, only morbid introspection.

John's Gospel contains the term "believe" 99 times in relation to salvation. The term "repent" does not appear. Either repentance is synonymous with belief, or John gave a half-Gospel.

As for the satanists, that is a straw man argument. The practicing satantist that is content in his satanism will not trust Christ. If he does sincerely trust Christ, he is saved.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Havensdad,
I forgot to mention one thing. I disagree with your assertion that most satanists accept the Gospel narratives. Most Satanists don't believe in the Devil of the Bible. I am not just referring to Anton Lavey or Michael Aquino. The vast majority of people under the "Satanist" label worship a lifestyle of self-indulgence with no rules. Are there some who worship the literal Lucifer of the Scriptures? Yes, though they are far outnumbered by the hedonist-types.

Blessings.

 

[Havensdad]

Charles Stanley's ministry has taken the Gospel to every nation on Earth. With all due respect to you, I don't think it fair to him to quote a portion of a comment, with no context, from years ago to smear him. This is an extreme example, but if you believe in the eternal security of the believer, you must explore this kind of possibility. By the way, Stanley and the GES / Hodges approach are not normally interchangeable in their views, though there is some overlap. I reject much of the Hodges/Wilkin/GES system.

Charles Stanley preaches that one can reject the Gospel at a later date, and still be saved. That goes against the teaching of Scripture. The context was exactly what I said it was> he reffered to a young man being saved because of a simple "decision". As far as the "every nation on earth" comment, this is even more true of the Catholic church. Shall we then accept their erroneous teaching as well? A false gospel, is no Gospel at all.

As for your remark about taking up your cross to follow Jesus, I see a distinction between disciples and believers.

Yet there is no such distinction in the Bible. Christ preached to the unsaved masses to"Take up their cross". Is that how you evangelize, or do you simply say "believe"?

A disciple, in the biblical sense, is simply one who follows. The Bible often speaks of false "disciples", i.e. Judas Iscariot, among many others. Your method discounts the possibilty of "carnal Christians", a category Paul certainly believed in.

A false disciple, when it is described in scripture, is one who professes belief in Christ, but their actions do not back it up. This reinforces my argument> Every time someone is called a false disciple, it is based on their lack of works. It NEVER says "They are doing everything they are supposed to but they don't "believe" on the inside. Why? Because what someone TRULY believes, and their actions, will always agree..

How much submission is required at the point of salvation? How does a new convert know if he has submitted enough? What if he fails to submit the week after he is saved? Where does he stand then? Lordship salvation offers no assurance, only morbid introspection.

Same can be said for faith. How much does one have to have "faith" (pistis is not simple belief. In fact, in my Greek textbook it is actually listed as "faithfulness")

A first century man, that heard "pistis" would not think of some abstract belief. In fact, if you look at the cross referenced words used for "pistis" in the Septuagint (the matching Hebrew words), you will notice that that is exactly what it means> faithful, (in the sense of a Husband is "faithful" to his wife). There is in fact not even a word for "faith" in Hebrew at all. Instead it is "faithful".

"How much submitting is enough" is a straw man argument. It takes this much submitting> "Lord, Save me, I am a wretch!!". Submission is not obedience> it is a heart issue.

Example> How do you have faith and trust in an elevator? Why, you have faith and trust in it, by getting in and submitting to it! What if it is broken and takes you to the wrong floor? Can you just stick your foot out the door and stop it? Once you get in nd push the button, you are in submission to where it will take you.

John's Gospel contains the term "believe" 99 times in relation to salvation. The term "repent" does not appear. Either repentance is synonymous with belief, or John gave a half-Gospel.

Talk about a straw man. So your saying unless something is mentioned in every book of the bible it is not true? When Jesus said "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish" was he lying?

The Greek words "metanoia" and "pistis" are not the same words, not by a long shot. They are two separate things.

BTW, although "metanoia" is not used specifically, Jesus speaks several times of the necessity of repentance in John, using different words:

How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

This construction, in the Greek, indicates that NO> one cannot believe if they are seeking glory from one another rather than from God.

As for the satanists, that is a straw man argument. The practicing satantist that is content in his satanism will not trust Christ. If he does sincerely trust Christ, he is saved.

Unless you add the element of submission to anothers will , then YES a Satanist could be saved under the' "Faith and trust minus repentance' view of salvation, and remain a Satanist.

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad,
I forgot to mention one thing. I disagree with your assertion that most satanists accept the Gospel narratives. Most Satanists don't believe in the Devil of the Bible. I am not just referring to Anton Lavey or Michael Aquino. The vast majority of people under the "Satanist" label worship a lifestyle of self-indulgence with no rules. Are there some who worship the literal Lucifer of the Scriptures? Yes, though they are far outnumbered by the hedonist-types.

Blessings.

As one who has actually been in such crowds, BALONEY.

The only ones who believe as you are saying, are the Satanic apologists who write most of the books. And several of those have admitted, within the group, that they believe as well. This is a ploy by Satanists to draw people in. I personally, in the years of my involvement in the occult, never met one Satanist who did not believe in the literal Satan of the Bible, and who was actively working against Jesus Christ. I know there are a few, but they are in the minority.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Havensdad,

One final point, I assume you are referring to Eph. 2:8-9 when you state that faith is a gift. I disagree. In this passage, I see salvation being the gift and faith being the conduit of delivery of God's grace. If faith and repentance are gifts from God, and we cannot respond savingly unless He grants us faith and repentance, why does the New Testament implore men to "repent" and believe in Christ? How can you comply if He doesn't decide to give you these components? Wouldn't it make more sense, if those assertions were true, to implore us to allow God to work His gifts of repentance/faith through us? I agree with you that we are plainly told in the Bible to repent and believe. I also will grant that there is a tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. However, the fact remains we are told to repent and believe with the understanding that we have the ability to comply with these demands. To place everything on God, including responsibility for our response, is inconsistent with the NT.

By the way, some of this material is not my original work. I have pulled from my weak personal memory some points Dr. Charlie Bing made in his doctoral dissertation at DTS.

Blessings

 

[Paul Kersey]

Havensdad,
As for your assertions on Satanism, we will have to agree to disagree. There are many who hold a belief in the "left hand path" and do fully intend to engage in evil practices. However, I too have knowledge in this field, and the majority of individuals I have knowledge of in Satanism have no desire to submit to the literal Lucifer. They dabble with the concept of evil in a general sense, almost in a "universalist" sense, focusing primarily on their personal gratification.
They also have no desire to trust Christ.

Blessings

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad,

One final point, I assume you are referring to Eph. 2:8-9 when you state that faith is a gift. I disagree. In this passage, I see salvation being the gift and faith being the conduit of delivery of God's grace. If faith and repentance are gifts from God, and we cannot respond savingly unless He grants us faith and repentance, why does the New Testament implore men to "repent" and believe in Christ? How can you comply if He doesn't decide to give you these components? Wouldn't it make more sense, if those assertions were true, to implore us to allow God to work His gifts of repentance/faith through us? I agree with you that we are plainly told in the Bible to repent and believe. I also will grant that there is a tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. However, the fact remains we are told to repent and believe with the understanding that we have the ability to comply with these demands. To place everything on God, including responsibility for our response, is inconsistent with the NT.

By the way, some of this material is not my original work. I have pulled from my weak personal memory some points Dr. Charlie Bing made in his doctoral dissertation at DTS.

Blessings

In what way is it inconsistent with the NT? Romans 3:10 is clear that no one does any good whatsoever. That everything that comes from Man, is evil and corrupt.

Is faith evil and corrupt? NO> then it must come from somewhere OTHER than man. Hence, Ephesians 2:8-9.

Can you boast that you were wiser or more prudent than the unbeliever? Of course not. BUT only if it is all from God. If faith is of us, it becomes a work, and is therefore something of which we can boast.

BTW: I don't understand how a FG'r can be anything BUT a Calvinist>

2Ti 2:24 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of that one.

Didn't you say repentance and faith were the same thing??

Also the besides the fact that Scripture flat out says no man actually has faith (therefore it must come from God) , look:

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith

he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, (what is the work of God>) that ye believe on Him whom he hath sent."

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure(specific amount of) of faith."

What is "foreign to the NT" is anything at all coming from Man. The call goes out to all, for the benefit of the elect, and the condemnation of the non-elect. As Jesus says, when he calls his "sheep" hear his voice, and come to him.

Regardless, this is not supposed to be a Calvinism thread...

 

[Paul Kersey]

Havensdad,

In an attempt at keeping this short, I going to address jsut a few of your points.

2 Tim 2:25 is a clear application of repent in the "change of mind" application. Conviction brough about through hearing of the Word and the intervention of the Holy Spirit can certain result in a change of mind. This passage is not supportive of God giving soteriological repentance, "turning from sin", as in the Lordship Salvation position.

As to free grace proponents being Calvinists, I simply don't follow. If anything, free grace proponets are more commonly neither Calvinists nor Arminian. Since the origin of the Lordship salvation position, it has been intertwined with strict Calvinism. The two groups define key terms in the same way and simply hold virtually the same position. I reject strict Calvinism personally, though, as previous stated there is a tension in Scripture between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

Also, I did not say faith and repentance are the same thing - I said they were synonymous, as in John. Incidentally, even the most hardened Lordship proponent would grant that, while the Bible is the cohesive and unbreakable Word, certain books have been written for specific purposes. In other words, Ezra is not considered the most evangelistic book in the Bible. With that understanding, I think you were too quick to dismiss the absence of the term repent in John's Gospel. John 20:31 states, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (NIV) While Romans certainly addresses soteriology, no other book in the Bible has this clearly stated evangelistic purpose, as John does. If John's intent was to see people receive eternal life, by your definition, he didn't provide enough material. I realize you will disagree, but also consider Acts 16:30-31. I can think of no other place in Scripture where a man directly asks what to do to be saved (don't include the rich young ruler, it is not the same thing). Paul and Silas' reply is "believe". Did Paul teach "Gospel-lite", along with John?

Finally, since you hold to the Way of the Master approach, do you care to comment on the "If you sin intentionally after salvation, you're lost" view they hold? How can anyone have assurance in that view? Is Kirk Cameron above sin?

Blessings