Statements on Repentance - Do you agree?

[Lukasaurus]

"Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and the Lord will remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins--behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

"Our Father in heaven does not sin, and He does not allow people who sin to live with Him. To live with Him, we must repent of our sins. To repent means to feel sorry for our sins and stop doing them."

"The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again"

"There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin"

"…incomplete repentance never brought complete forgiveness"

"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin"


Some interesting quotes from some men who lived quite moral lives. The identities of the men are not relevant at this time. I want to know who agrees or disagrees with the statements.

Agree/Disagree? What say ye?

 

[swaimj]

I'll take a shot.

"Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and the Lord will remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins--behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

So, if a person has to repent of all his sins before he gets saved, and if forsaking them means he never commits any of them again the rest of his life, then sinless perfection is required of the true believer. I disagree with this.

"Our Father in heaven does not sin, and He does not allow people who sin to live with Him. To live with Him, we must repent of our sins. To repent means to feel sorry for our sins and stop doing them."

Disagree. My standing before God is based upon Christ's righteousness which is imputed to me, not my own righteousness. If "feeling sorry for my sins" and "stop doing them" is the requirement for salvation, then no one is saved and no one ever has been.

"The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again"

As long as a person is in human flesh they are capable of committing a sin no matter how sincerely they have repented of it in the past.

"There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin"

This statement seperates repentance from faith. I repent of my sin and then I live by faith. However, I am not always strong in faith and am apt to sin again. So, salvation is necessarily by grace. If salvation depends upon my ability to repent of my sin to such a degree that I never repeat it than I am hopelessly lost for I am apt to repeat it.

"…incomplete repentance never brought complete forgiveness"

There is no such thing as incomplete repentance and there can be no such thing as incomplete forgiveness.

"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin"

Trying is not only "not sufficient" it is completely inadequate. I am saved by grace through faith, not by "trying".

 

[sag38]

Good job swaimj. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Let it be stated that I disagree with the statements made. I am curious as to whether Lordship Salvation proponents would agree though in regards to their teaching of WHAT REPENTANCE IS (since they tend to seperate it from the act of faith), or are the statements too strong?

EDIT: And God bless you and your family swaimj - I just checked out your blog, and you have some adorable children What a gift from God Praise Him I can't wait until my wife and I have children, but I guess I'll just have to

 

[LeBuick]

I believe sin is a product of the law. That was the whole purpose of the law.

I believe there is no transgression (sin) where there is no law

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Now does that mean we should go around doing sinful acts?

Ro 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Yes, but do you agree with the statements above. I have no discrepancy with living holy lives.

 

[Tom Butler]

Who said all those things in the OP?

I'm with swaimj, and disagree with all of them. I tend to look favorably on Lordship Salvation, but those statements are not it.

 

[LeBuick]

Yes, but do you agree with the statements above. I have no discrepancy with living holy lives.

You use to many non-definitive words like "trying"... I can't agree to trying in God's service. You are either saved or lost. There is gray or middle ground.

I am saying those who are saved a dead to the law. The law is not made for the righteous...

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

 

[Lukasaurus]

Those aren't my statements brother.

I'll take it you disagree with the statements.

 

[Lukasaurus]

The first one is from Doctrines and Covenants by Joseph Smith

The rest of them are from other mormon sources.

I was just interested in seeing whether any lordship proponent would agree, and am pleasantly surprised to see that they don't.

God bless

 

[LeBuick]

So, if a person has to repent of all his sins before he gets saved, and if forsaking them means he never commits any of them again the rest of his life, then sinless perfection is required of the true believer. I disagree with this.

If you mean commit the act I agree. I believe once saved one is dead to sin so to say can a saved person sin??? I would say it is not called sin to God but I strongly believe in eternal security.

With this stipulation I agree 100% with the rest of your responses...

 

[Lukasaurus]

What you are saying LeBuick is close to belief of soul circumcision

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


The soul circumcision view of this verse is that God, via a spiritual operation, cuts away the soul of a person from the flesh, cleasing their soul in the process.

So, our soul is sinless from the moment we believe, and is cut away from the flesh. We are however, still in this body of flesh until we die, but our soul is sinless, despite that fact the flesh keeps sinning.

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

In other words, it is not Paul (the soul) that sins, but the sin that remains in his flesh.

God bless

 

[LeBuick]

What you are saying LeBuick is close to belief of soul circumcision

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


The soul circumcision view of this verse is that God, via a spiritual operation, cuts away the soul of a person from the flesh, cleasing their soul in the process.

So, our soul is sinless from the moment we believe, and is cut away from the flesh. We are however, still in this body of flesh until we die, but our soul is sinless, despite that fact the flesh keeps sinning.

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

In other words, it is not Paul (the soul) that sins, but the sin that remains in his flesh.

God bless

Sorta I don't believe the soul separates from the flesh. I believe we die in the flesh and are recreated a "new creature", born of Christ, pleasing and righteous to God (righteous by proxy). We are buried with Christ and rise in the "newness" of life with him and are then dead to sin.

Circumcision was a symbol of "belonging" and not salvation. Paul used it in the above analogy to explain to the xJews how these others belong to Christ though not physically circumcised. Christ being a Jew, we know he was circumcised physically.

There is one other point to soul circumcision where I differ but I don't recall it now.

 

[swaimj]

Lukasaurus,

Thanks for checking out my blog and thanks for the kind comments about my family. I hope God blesses you with children if you desire them. They are a joy!

 

[Salamander]

I believe sin is a product of the law. That was the whole purpose of the law.

I believe there is no transgression (sin) where there is no law

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Now does that mean we should go around doing sinful acts?

Ro 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Um, the law was before the giving of the commandment of the law.

I believe sin is a product of the law. That was the whole purpose of the law.

The law does not produce sin, but it reveals sin in us, that is God's purpose of giving the law.

Sin still slew us before the giving of the law, just ask Adam and Eve.

 

[EdSutton]

"Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and the Lord will remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins--behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

"Our Father in heaven does not sin, and He does not allow people who sin to live with Him. To live with Him, we must repent of our sins. To repent means to feel sorry for our sins and stop doing them."

"The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again"

"There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin"

"…incomplete repentance never brought complete forgiveness"

"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin"


Some interesting quotes from some men who lived quite moral lives. The identities of the men are not relevant at this time. I want to know who agrees or disagrees with the statements.

Agree/Disagree? What say ye?

I absolutely disagree with every one of the above statements.

Further, I suspect this comes as no 'biggie' to many BB readers, as to surprises, especially if they have ever read any BB threads on the subject of 'repentance' in the last three years.

That said, I also have little doubt that I can find some individuals, both on and off the Baptist Board, who would agree with every one of those statements, and many more who would agree with at least some of them, who would all be considered to be entirely orthodox, which is someting I will not and cannot possibly say about the teaching of Mormonism, overall.

How can these two positions - the 'free grace' position I have advocated for three years, here, and this one that you are citing, albeit not agreeing with, both be considered as 'orthodox', when they obviously are not saying the same thing, as Dr. Charles C. Ryrie has noted and has been quoted on the Baptist Board where he effectively says this?

When A = A, but A is unequal to B; and B = B; and B = C, it is simply impossible for A to equal C!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

I absolutely disagree with every one of the above statements.

Further, I suspect this comes as no 'biggie' to many BB readers, as to surprises, especially if they have ever read any BB threads on the subject of 'repentance' in the last three years.

That said, I also have little doubt that I can find some individuals, both on and off the Baptist Board, who would agree with every one of those statements, and many more who would agree with at least some of them, who would all be considered to be entirely orthodox, which is someting I will not and cannot possibly say about the teaching of Mormonism, overall.

How can these two positions - the 'free grace' position I have advocated for three years, here, and this one that you are citing, albeit not agreeing with, both be considered as 'orthodox', when they obviously are not saying the same thing, as Dr. Charles C. Ryrie has noted and has been quoted on the Baptist Board where he effectively says this?

When A = A, but A is unequal to B; and B = B; and B = C, it is simply impossible for A to equal C!

Ed

I never thougth of it that way before and can't understand why you did either!:laugh: The A=A thing.

 

[EdSutton]

I never thougth of it that way before and can't understand why you did either!:laugh: The A=A thing.

It's basic logic, which might explain why you never thought of it before.

Ed

 

[canadyjd]

When A = A, but A is unequal to B; and B = B; and B = C, it is simply impossible for A to equal C!

The question has always been, IMM, to be whether "A" and "B" are being honestly and accurately evaluated prior to placing the "=" to them.

That said, I do like logical equations.

peace to youraying:

 

[Salamander]

It's basic logic, which might explain why you never thought of it before.

Ed

Now you're tempting me to backslide to the basics!:wavey: