Faith alone write,
All you've done here is list a few verses about the necessity of repentance, disregarding my position that repentance is a necessary precursor to faith. I have not posted that we can be saved with an ineffectual repentance.
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Perhaps we do not understand each other. It sounds to me as though you are saying that one must repent in order to have faith, and that, therefore, the repentance, even though it may be only a state of mind, is effectual. Is that your position?
Yes. But I imagine our understanding of what constitutes repentance is different. And thank you for your graciousness.
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
When I use the expression, "effectual repentance," I am writing of something very different. I am writing of repentance that is effectual in bringing about the cessation of sin. I do not know of a single instance in the Bible where repentance is spoken of that was not effectual in bringing about the cessation of sin. And I do not know of a single instance in the Bible where repentance was necessary for one to have faith. It most certainly was not my personal experience. I had faith in God long before I knew anything at all about what the Bible teaches or what Jesus did for us, and I did not believe there was any such thing as sin, and I certainly had not repented of it.
Since you've obviously re-read some of my previous posts on repentance, I don't think you'll be too surprised by how I am going to respond here. A genuine repentance will result in a different attitude towards sin, and there will be a change, I agree. But how to quantify it? And I do not agree that a turning from sin is how we are saved.
By effectual repentance I am referring to a genuine change of the mind and heart. IMO it is not possible to come to Christ nor to trust in Him (depend on Him alone for salvation) unless there has been such a change in the seeker. Ed doesn't quite agree with me there, nor do most FGers, saying that he does not see where the Bible teaches that our faith in Christ has anything to do with our reaction to our personal sin. (I'm expressing this in my own words... sorry if this does not represent your position, Ed.) You are objecting for a similar reason, yet requiring repentance toward sin IOT gain eternal life (to be justified).
When we look at a young child who has trusted in Christ, the tendency is to say that a repentant attitude was not necessary, but I think it definitely is. In John 16:8ff Jesus spoke of the Spirit convicting the world of sin. ("...because they do not believe in Me") As I see the drawing process in John 6, it is a recognition of just who Jesus is. And 6:45 says that this drawing occurs as a result of God's Word. Now when we recognize just who Jesus is, what will be our response? I maintain that it will be as Peter who, when Christ caused their nets to become full to breaking, fell on his face and said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man." IMO that is the attitude, the repentant attitude, needed for biblical faith to germinate.
When Jesus was speaking to the woman at the well, He asked her to bring her husband, then He would give her that
living water. Why such a request? She was ready to receive the free gift. By showing that he knew all about her he convinced her that He was the Messiah/Christ. Yet why this particular request? Because that caused her to recognize her sin and admit that she needed to deal with it - that she needed to be saved. I think that she went at noon for water to avoid those who would ridicule her... yet she never really admitted, faced-up-to, her sin.
Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be "born from above." Nicodemus, as most Jews, thought he would gain a high position in the kingdom based on his works. Jesus made it clear to him that entrance into the kingdom depended on his faith alone. So when a person comes to Christ it is based on his faith alone. But we must acknowledge what brought the person to the place where he sees his need and desires to trust in Christ in the first place. One who has the attitude of Revel. 3:17, "I am rich, I have prospered and I need nothing," simply does not see his need for a Savior, and will not trust in Christ.
There are many examples in scripture where Jesus healed someone who was recognized as a sinner and told them to "go and sin no more." (Of the type sin they were involved in.) All of these point out that they were sinners, and their forgiveness of sins was more important than the physical healing. In 1 Thess. 1:5 Paul says that his gospel came with full conviction. IMO when we share the gospel it should convict people of their sins and their need to be saved.
So I will say that in the context of being convicted of sin, which is its most common context IMO, the course of action will be to confess our sin (agree with God that we are sinners) and genuine repentance will result in turning from it - to one degree or another. But we gain eternal life
not as a result of repenting of our sin or of truning from it - that was all paid for by Christ's death. We gain eternal life by faith - alone. Any other attitude is a reliance upon our own efforts.
I think I'm rambling now, so I'll just stop there.
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
My theological background is mostly limited to early Christian theology, Roman Catholic theology, the theology of the Reformers, Wesleyan theology, and the theology of prominent Baptist theologians. There are many contemporary theologies that have evolved or been introduced in the last several decades, and there are a number on them which I have not studied. The teaching that you are presenting in your posts appears to be one of these, and I am trying to understand precisely what you believe and what the basis of your beliefs is.
I have found some of your statements shocking, to say the least, and perhaps I over reacted. If that is the case, please accept my apologies and I will try harder to be respectful of you in my posts.
I'm surprised that you find any of them "shocking." I did attempt to support them logically and with scripture. And I have no doubt that my view regarding the gospel may need some tweaking. But what concerns me is that so many Christians see repentance as turning from sin, and see no contradiction between telling someone OTOH that they must trust in Christ, and then OTOtherH that they must at the same time turn from their sin.
Repentance is involved with the mind. Forgiveness of sins is often tied to it in the NT. That's not surprising because it is more often used regarding Christians than unbelievers.
I've read many positions on "repentance." I then look at the lexicons and compare what has been said, and I see a misuse of the term, to some degree. I also see some views on the gospel essentially the same as my own - "faith alone." Yet the people who espouse them often treat repentance as simply a change of mind about Christ. Well, IMO it is used in the NT mostly about sin.
I'm rambling again. My position is as my user name - "
faith alone in Christ alone." That is the motto of a group called "free grace." There are many Baptists with that soteriological position, and some posting on this thread with that position.
It has been around at least since the reformation, yet growing in popularity in the past 50 years. Chafer, Ryrie, Z. Hodges and Radmacher are a few with that position. I do not align fully with any of them, so if you are familiar with their stance, you probably recognize that I handle things a bit differently... mainly regarding repentance. Most in that camp see repentance as not relevant to the gospel. I agree with them that we are saved by faith alone, but cannot ignore the several verses in Luke (14 times, though he uses faith/believe about twice as often) that "repentance"/"repent" is used.
In 2 Timothy 2 Paul says that they must "...instruct [their] opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them
repentance to come to know the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the Devil's trap, having been captured by him to do his will."
Most FGers would not view this text as I do. This text above describes how repentance is necessary IOT recognize the truth. And we do not really
choose to believe something, do we? I cannot choose to believe that Pi is approximately = 3.1415927... I must become convinced of that, then I believe it. I can tell myself that something is true, but if I am not genuienely convinced of it, I will not believe it. Now I realize that "trust" is a little different aspect of PISTIS/PISTEUW. But we will not trust in something that we consider to be a sham.
Why would Jesus refer to "repentance and forgiveness of sins" being preached in Luke's description of the great commission if repentance has nothing to do with the gospel?
So a recognition that Jesus has died for my sin, and a realization that I am a sinner and deserve spiritual death may bring about trust in Christ. Repentance is what the Spirit brings about in people - confronting them with their sinful state, but it is their response of faith that saves them.
Most FGers say that repentance may or may not be present when someone trusts in Christ. IMO it is always there, in varying degrees. I could be wrong, as Ed sites. But at this time, it enables me to reconcile those verses in Luke with the fact that repentance is never mentioned in John's gospel, though "believe" (mainly in a participial form) is used 98 times.
Hope that makes things a bit more clear. You are right that as I see it, repentance is not how we are saved - we are saved by faith alone. But without a repentant mindset brought about by the drawing of the Spirit we will not trust in Him. I am surprised that more people who do not hold to faith alone have not made similar arguments.
But the result of a "repentance = turn from sin" soteriology is to turn salvation into our works. Romans 11:6 says that it is either grace or it is works. A little works makes grace no longer grace.
I have heard JI Packer refer to a "free gift that costs everything." According to Paul, such a
grace is no longer
grace. As I see it that is just plain ridiculous and patently illogical. My reaction is, "make up your mind." Why doesn't he just admit that he doesn't really believe salvation is a gift at all? He's playing word games. Uh, what am I supposed to do, then, when witnessing? Am I supposed to give him a list of things he must no longer do, oh, and a list of things he must start doing now? We are not saved by any such nonsense. We are "born from above" - we become a child of God - by faith. John 1:12, 13 is very clear on that. John 3:14-17 gives an illustration of Christ on the cross compared to the snake on that pole in the wildreness. The person who was bitten by a poisonous snake need only look at the snake on the pole. His faith, which led him to go to that pole, saved him. We have been bitten by sin, and are dying. A look is not any sort of work. It expresses simple unadulterated faith.
Romans 4:2-8 If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to brag about--but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. [People who agree with Packer should think about this last statement] But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness. Likewise, David also speaks of the blessing of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: How happy those whose lawless acts are forgiven and whose sins are covered! How happy the man whom the Lord will never charge with sin!
Our faith is credited to our account as righteousness, not our repentance or our repentance and our faith, or our works and our faith... Yes, repentance has a critical part in our coming to trust in Christ. But salvation is a gift. When one trusts in Christ he becomes a new creation. He is changed. So we will see differences in how he lives... but let's not get the cart in front of the horse. (Ephesians 2:8-10 makes the order clear.)
Thx,
FA
Below is a quote I once saved... I'm no longer sure who said it.