The doctrine of biblical repentance

[EdSutton]

I'm going to address the 'summary' of Dr. Ernest Reisinger that was given by ReformedBaptist, to support his views. FTR, Dr. Reisinger identifies these as "errors", not summary points, in the article on the journal site from whence the 'quote' happen to have been lifted, without giving any due credit.

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj14/article3.html

I do not think it is particularly accurate. I happen to personally know two of the three individuals mentioned in this quote, and have conversed with the third, at length more than once, over the phone previously, at the cost of a considerable chunk of change", personally, since I paid for all the somewhat lengthy calls, besides having some things he has written, that touch on the subject, so I will offer a short concise comment on each point made, from where I stand, and what I teach, anyway. I am not endorsing everything any of the three may have said, by any stretch. And I will ignore the pejorative identification of this as "Non-Lordship," for now.

Non-Lordship teaching has a repentance that is not an essential part of salvation. Not true. I teach that repentance is indeed an 'essential part.'

Non-Lordship teaching has a forgiveness of sin that is not necessarily joined with repentance. Not true. I have never said any such thing, nor do I believe such.

Non-Lordship preachers teach that repentance is a call to fellowship with God and has nothing to do with eternal life. Not true. I have never said any such tripe, as is being claimed. (Have any of you noticed that there is no citing for any of these claims, thus far?)

Non-Lordship teaching removes repentance from any concept of turning from sin initially in coming to faith in Christ. This one is partially true, but happens to be worded in a misleading manner. Should I be surprised??

Zane Hodges, one of the front runners for the Non-Lordship position, argues for his position by noting that the word "repentance" is not mentioned in the Gospel of John (I will address this objection below). This statement is true. John does not use the words "repentance" or "repent" in his Gospel, as Prof. Hodges has accurately noted.

Non-Lordship teaching is redefining repentance in such a way as to remove it from any concept of turning from sin. (For information of these assertations see Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free, p. 27 and chapters 9 and 12.) Not true. What Prof. Hodges may believe or not believe and say or not say does not necessarily speak for any or all.

The Non-Lordship position argues that regeneration does not necessarily produce faith and repentance. True. In fact I do not believe it to "produce" it, at all, for the order is reversed. Faith/Repentance "produce" regeneration via the agent of the Holy Spirit, and not the other way around. The best writer for the Non-Lordship position is Robert Lightner. Opinion, only, at best. He is like a good lawyer with a bad case. Cute, but this says nothing. He says, "repentance is almost a synonym for faith" (Sin the Savior and Salvation, p. 167). Obviously a true statement, since it is a quote. Statements like this clearly show that Lightner does not see that regeneration always precedes faith and repentance, and if it does not precede both it does not produce either. Correct logical conclusion given the logic, but not exactly theological 'rocket science.' In fact, what is offered leading to the conclusion may or may not be accurate, but why quibble over facts?? A statement like this also shows that the Non-Lordship teaching does not see that the Bible teaches that there is an inseparable connection between faith and repentance. False conclusion, not to mention this would be and is a complete misrepresentation of what I believe. It is because of this inseparable relationship that I will spend a little more time on this aspect of the differences in the two positions. Thanks for that information, here. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. Now that is what I call taking a verse completely out of context!

One Non-Lordship teacher goes so far as to make the following assertions:

"Any teaching that demands a change of conduct toward either God or man for salvation is to add works or human effort to faith, and this contradicts all Scripture and is an accursed message." An accurate quote, I assume, and I agree with what is being said, here, and I too would call this 'teaching' "another gospel."

"Lordship salvation contradicts Scripture." Again, I assume an accurate quote, and I agree with this conclusion, as obviously do several on these threads.

"This message is accursed of God." See second above.

"The person who preaches such a message [Lordship] is also accursed of God." The Scripture says let one be accursed who preaches another gospel, to be more accurate. (Gal. 1:6-10)

These are all quotes from the book, Handbook of Personal Evangelism, by Dr. Ray Stamford, then president of a large Non-Lordship Bible College. The individual is Dr. A. Ray Stanford. (They reflect antinomianism at its worst.) Opinion, only.

"Non-Lordship" is a complete misrepresentation of what I believe. Where I stand is accurately described as one who is an "Non-Lordship salvation" adherent, a huge difference!

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"Non-Lordship" is a complete misrepresentation of what I believe. Where I stand is accurately described as one who is an "Non-Lordship salvation" adherent, a huge difference!

Ed

I am glad you distance yourself from that non-lordship position. And if you look back at the OP, I wasn't writing what I wrote to you personally.

RB

 

[Marcia]

Turning away from former beliefs and values includes sin.

Yes, I was referring to sin but I didn't use the term "sin" because many unbelievers do not understand its import. They may intellectually grasp it - if that - but until you know the holiness of God it does not mean much. This was my situation - I did not even believe in sin as a New Ager. Yet the Lord intervened in my life over a period of several months, gradually leading me to give astrology up (all I knew was that God didn't like it - this was an "impression" I had), which was a big deal, believe me, since I considered it my life's calling, I taught astrology, had clients, wrote for magazines, was involved in an astrol. society, etc. I did not think of astrology as "sin." But right before I turned over my life to Christ (I was saved while reading God's word), I realized I had been on a wrong path and was going against God. That is what I understood. I realized Christ was the Savior and I needed him. I did not think, "I've been sinning."

I think understanding at salvation can be very minimal. After all, young children can be saved as young as 5 and 6. Some adult unbelievers are in a similar state as far as understanding things.

It took me over a year and a half to have a beginning realization of what evil was and to understand how evil astrology and the other things I was into were. It's taken me a number of years since to realize it more fully, and I am still realizing it more and more each year. The more one knows Christ, the more evil sin becomes. We can't expect unbelievers - especially if they don't have a Christian background or understanding - to have the understanding of sin a Christian has. They can know it's against God or that God abhors it and that counts, imo.

PS I have seen this in my ministry as well with New Agers and others like that.

 

[Marcia]

One must have faith in order to have true or biblical repentance. However biblcal repentance can not be done without faith since repentance is a change of mind about God and sin.

The only thing that God will accept is that which is done 'in faith' and that includes repentance. Thus repentance is an act of faith not that repentance leads to or establishes faith. IOW - repentance is the manifestation of one's faith in Christ and if there is no repentance there is no faith, period.

I think this is well put. I agree. This is how it seems it happened with me.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, I was referring to sin but I didn't use the term "sin" because many unbelievers do not understand its import. They may intellectually grasp it - if that - but until you know the holiness of God it does not mean much. This was my situation - I did not even believe in sin as a New Ager. Yet the Lord intervened in my life over a period of several months, gradually leading me to give astrology up (all I knew was that God didn't like it - this was an "impression" I had), which was a big deal, believe me, since I considered it my life's calling, I taught astrology, had clients, wrote for magazines, was involved in an astrol. society, etc. I did not think of astrology as "sin." But right before I turned over my life to Christ (I was saved while reading God's word), I realized I had been on a wrong path and was going against God. That is what I understood. I realized Christ was the Savior and I needed him. I did not think, "I've been sinning."

I think understanding at salvation can be very minimal. After all, young children can be saved as young as 5 and 6. Some adult unbelievers are in a similar state as far as understanding things.

It took me over a year and a half to have a beginning realization of what evil was and to understand how evil astrology and the other things I was into were. It's taken me a number of years since to realize it more fully, and I am still realizing it more and more each year. The more one knows Christ, the more evil sin becomes. We can't expect unbelievers - especially if they don't have a Christian background or understanding - to have the understanding of sin a Christian has. They can know it's against God or that God abhors it and that counts, imo.

PS I have seen this in my ministry as well with New Agers and others like that.

Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes, I was referring to sin but I didn't use the term "sin" because many unbelievers do not understand its import. They may intellectually grasp it - if that - but until you know the holiness of God it does not mean much. This was my situation - I did not even believe in sin as a New Ager. Yet the Lord intervened in my life over a period of several months, gradually leading me to give astrology up (all I knew was that God didn't like it - this was an "impression" I had), which was a big deal, believe me, since I considered it my life's calling, I taught astrology, had clients, wrote for magazines, was involved in an astrol. society, etc. I did not think of astrology as "sin." But right before I turned over my life to Christ (I was saved while reading God's word), I realized I had been on a wrong path and was going against God. That is what I understood. I realized Christ was the Savior and I needed him. I did not think, "I've been sinning."

I think understanding at salvation can be very minimal. After all, young children can be saved as young as 5 and 6. Some adult unbelievers are in a similar state as far as understanding things.

It took me over a year and a half to have a beginning realization of what evil was and to understand how evil astrology and the other things I was into were. It's taken me a number of years since to realize it more fully, and I am still realizing it more and more each year. The more one knows Christ, the more evil sin becomes. We can't expect unbelievers - especially if they don't have a Christian background or understanding - to have the understanding of sin a Christian has. They can know it's against God or that God abhors it and that counts, imo.

PS I have seen this in my ministry as well with New Agers and others like that.

Same thing happened to me. I was using psychedelics as a means to experience God. I was into earth worship (made it up from my revelations) tarot, a little zen buddhism (too painful), some shamanism, collective conscience, et. When the Lord was pleased to make Himself known to me, He also showed me that what I was doing was wrong and I was going in the wrong way. When He revealed Jesus to me, I turned from my wrong doing and began to follow Jesus. I described it as giving my life to Jesus. I did a 180, but this is in no way to imply I was immediately perfect.

 

[Marcia]

Same thing happened to me. I was using psychedelics as a means to experience God. I was into earth worship (made it up from my revelations) tarot, a little zen buddhism (too painful), some shamanism, collective conscience, et. When the Lord was pleased to make Himself known to me, He also showed me that what I was doing was wrong and I was going in the wrong way. When He revealed Jesus to me, I turned from my wrong doing and began to follow Jesus. I described it as giving my life to Jesus. I did a 180, but this is in no way to imply I was immediately perfect.

Wow, you too? I was not into psychedilics or earth worship but had clients and friends who were Pagan and Wiccan. I was very much into Zen Buddhism and also had the Tarot cards, among other things. I practiced forms of Eastern meditation for about 15 years, and I had a spirit guide.

Glad you relate to what I said, ReformedBaptist! :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."

So true! I love this account in the Gospels! :jesus:

 

[Revmitchell]

So true! I love this account in the Gospels! :jesus:

As do I!:godisgood:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Wow, you too? I was not into psychedilics or earth worship but had clients and friends who were Pagan and Wiccan. I was very much into Zen Buddhism and also had the Tarot cards, among other things. I practiced forms of Eastern meditation for about 15 years, and I had a spirit guide.

Glad you relate to what I said, ReformedBaptist! :wavey:

Yes, I can relate. I was into that lifestyle and belief for about a year or so before the Lord saved me. I was about to sell what I had and hook up with the Rainbow Gathering and head to the woodstock event in NY back in 1993-4. I was searching for truth. A friend was going to hook me up at an Indian reservation for a peyote time.

All this ever led me into was severe demonization. I almost lost control of my mind on LSD to what I am still convinced was a demon. The Lord sent his angel to deliver me. What an underserving sinner and wretch I was! There was NOTHING in me worthy of His mercy and grace. Yet He lavished it upon me, poor and ignorant and vile creature I was, and washed me...O for a thousand tongues to sing! :godisgood:

 

[EdSutton]

I don't think someone can truly (in truth) trust Christ and not repent. I think trusting Christ is repentance because in order to believe in Christ, one must turn away from their former beliefs and values, but I think this is part of believing in Christ.

I think repentance and trusting Christ are part of the same process. Some may actually repent before the moment of trusting Christ - that is, see their separation from God, feel the weight of that, understand they have sinned, and see that Christ is the only Way to reconcile with God, understanding that Christ made that possible through his atonement. For others. repentance and trusting Christ may occur so close together they are simultaneous. But both repentance and trusting Christ are from the Lord, so we can't totally comprehend it.

I don't see how man can dissect this, or say that someone must do it a certain way. God is the one who saves and although we are all saved by grace through faith, it is not exactly the same for everyone.

Can an unbeliever repent and not trust Christ?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is yes.

'Repent' in the NT in the usual occurrence, properly means "to think afterwards (or differently)" or to change one's mind or thinking - the Greek word "metanoeO." This happens to be an "outward looking verb", by the way, which is why Scripture sometimes uses the words of direction, such as "repent of this...", etc. And it is always the word rendered as 'repent' where repent is used in association with salvation.

"Repentance" in every instance in the NT, is properly defined as that "change of mind", the noun form of that same word, "metanoia"

In six occurances of repent, in the NT, there is another word used, which properly means "to care afterwards (or differently)" or to change one's emotions, as it were, or "to change one's feelings" - the Greek word "metamellomai." It is also properly a 'reflexive' verb, which refers back to the 'originator' of this emotion. It is the word used concerning Judas, where it is said that "Judas repented himself...", or as rendered in the NKJV, Judas regretted what he had done.

And there is a third word rendered in some versions as a form of 'repent/repentance' in two places, Rom. 11:29 and II Cor. 7:10 - the Greek word ametameletos, which is an adjective, and properly carries the force of irrevocable, with the "a" in the beginning of the word conveying a negative. The gifts and callings of God are irrevocable; likewise salvation is irrevocable, in the two instances, here.

The lone OT word properly rendered as repent is the Hebrew word "shuwb", properly to be eased or to "breathe a sigh of relief', as we might put it. It actually falls somewhat between the two Greek words in the force it carries, but is closer to the second, "metamellomai". When a quote is brought from the OT into the NT, "shuwb" is rendered as "metamellomai". (Ps. 110:4 & Heb. 7:21) and incidentally, the NKJV does an excellent job in the rendering of "shuwb" as "relent", where the subject is God, hence differentiating between 'relent' where it applies to God, and 'repent' where it applies to man. At least, IMO.

I realize this has been a rather long 'intro' but I laid the groundwork so as to differentiate among uses of "repent' in the English language. In answer to your question you asked, at the close of your post, I repeat, "Yes!"

An unbeliever can repent and not trust Christ. Judas did.
One could repent, and decide to bwecime a Buddhist, or a Muslim, oir who knows what.
And one can repent who is already a believer, hence one who has already trusted Christ and hence, posesses salvation already.

So I would fully agree that one cannot trust Christ, and not repent.

However, one can repent and not trust Christ.

Hope that helps.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I am glad you distance yourself from that non-lordship position. And if you look back at the OP, I wasn't writing what I wrote to you personally.

RB

I am aware that you were not writing to me personally, and in fact, did not even consider that you were. My points were that I believe Dr. Reisinger is completely misrepresenting what he (and you) inaccurately label with the pejorative "non-lordship" label, and which I objected to, in this thread, earlier today.

Second, I know of no one who holds to this "caricatured positon" as offered by Dr. Reisinger. And, FTR, I do personally know some of the individuals whose names have popped up.

Again, as I stated earlier, recently on another thread, if there has been any change of distancing with anyone, it is because they have moved, and not I, for I have effectively been standing in the same place for nearly 40 years, concerning this subject.

Mebbe' I should also write a book, and I can then find out from others, where I actually stand.

Or maybe I should write twenty books, and then no one can 'prove' with any certainty, exactly where I stand.

Ed

 

[RustySword]

Let's cut to the chase...

I have been running into the Lordship controversy off and on for over 30 years now. Sometimes I think it's a matter of semantics. At other times I see it as a reaction to the phenomenon of a professing Christian whose life is as bad, or worse, than that of most non-Christians, but who thinks he/she is saved because at the age of 6 they walked down the aisle of the church and prayed with the Pastor and "asked Jesus into his heart."

If this has been done before, please forgive me and point me to the thread where it was done. But here's what I propose:

Let's say I'm a Roman Catholic (I was, in fact). I approach you and say, "I've listened to you and some of your friends when you talk about religion. You seem to believe that you will definitely go to heaven when you die...that you are already 'saved.' What do I need to do if I want to be saved?"

If you believe in "Lordship Salvation" (or what is often so termed), how would you answer me?

If you DON'T believe in "Lordship Salvation," how would you answer me?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am aware that you were not writing to me personally, and in fact, did not even consider that you were. My points were that I believe Dr. Reisinger is completely misrepresenting what he (and you) inaccurately label with the pejorative "non-lordship" label, and which I objected to, in this thread, earlier today.

Second, I know of no one who holds to this "caricatured positon" as offered by Dr. Reisinger. And, FTR, I do personally know some of the individuals whose names have popped up.

Again, as I stated earlier, recently on another thread, if there has been any change of distancing with anyone, it is because they have moved, and not I, for I have effectively been standing in the same place for nearly 40 years, concerning this subject.

Mebbe' I should also write a book, and I can then find out from others, where I actually stand.

Or maybe I should write twenty books, and then no one can 'prove' with any certainty, exactly where I stand.

Ed

It may be the case. The weakness I saw with Reisingers article was that it did not source in many cases the teaching of non-lordship teachers, although he did source Ryrie concerning the nature of the controversy.

My suggestion is that you subscribe to a creed/confession or write your own. Then all will know where you stand on issues.

 

[webdog]

Yes, I can relate. I was into that lifestyle and belief for about a year or so before the Lord saved me. I was about to sell what I had and hook up with the Rainbow Gathering and head to the woodstock event in NY back in 1993-4. I was searching for truth. A friend was going to hook me up at an Indian reservation for a peyote time.

All this ever led me into was severe demonization. I almost lost control of my mind on LSD to what I am still convinced was a demon. The Lord sent his angel to deliver me. What an underserving sinner and wretch I was! There was NOTHING in me worthy of His mercy and grace. Yet He lavished it upon me, poor and ignorant and vile creature I was, and washed me...O for a thousand tongues to sing! :godisgood:

You have a very cool testimony, RB :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

It may be the case. The weakness I saw with Reisingers article was that it did not source in many cases the teaching of non-lordship teachers, although he did source Ryrie concerning the nature of the controversy.

Frankly, I suggest that Dr. Reisinger has 'cherry-picked' statements by individuals that he disagrees with, when filtered through the lens of his own theological biases, and then reworded them to emphasize this, as representative of what all non-Lordship salvationists believe, which is simply not accurate.

My suggestion is that you subscribe to a creed/confession or write your own. Then all will know where you stand on issues.

The Holy Spirit already beat me to writing this 'creed,' completing His version over 1900 years ago. Here is an example of the long version, and what it looks like, translated into English. I suggest any attempts to 'reduce' that length are misguided, at best.



Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have been running into the Lordship controversy off and on for over 30 years now. Sometimes I think it's a matter of semantics. At other times I see it as a reaction to the phenomenon of a professing Christian whose life is as bad, or worse, than that of most non-Christians, but who thinks he/she is saved because at the age of 6 they walked down the aisle of the church and prayed with the Pastor and "asked Jesus into his heart."

If this has been done before, please forgive me and point me to the thread where it was done. But here's what I propose:

Let's say I'm a Roman Catholic (I was, in fact). I approach you and say, "I've listened to you and some of your friends when you talk about religion. You seem to believe that you will definitely go to heaven when you die...that you are already 'saved.' What do I need to do if I want to be saved?"

If you believe in "Lordship Salvation" (or what is often so termed), how would you answer me?

If you DON'T believe in "Lordship Salvation," how would you answer me?

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,” (Ac. 16:31b)

That's how I would answer you, with this Biblical answer to an already asked Biblical question. I would not attempt to teach any 'Systematics' course, to answer a simple question, at least at this stage in the conversation.

I would expand on this, based on how you responded to this, but I would have no way of forseeing what that would be, in advance.

Ed

 

[Marcia]

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is yes.

'Repent' in the NT in the usual occurrence, properly means "to think afterwards (or differently)" or to change one's mind or thinking - the Greek word "metanoeO." This happens to be an "outward looking verb", by the way, which is why Scripture sometimes uses the words of direction, such as "repent of this...", etc. And it is always the word rendered as 'repent' where repent is used in association with salvation.

"Repentance" in every instance in the NT, is properly defined as that "change of mind", the noun form of that same word, "metanoia"

In six occurances of repent, in the NT, there is another word used, which properly means "to care afterwards (or differently)" or to change one's emotions, as it were, or "to change one's feelings" - the Greek word "metamellomai." It is also properly a 'reflexive' verb, which refers back to the 'originator' of this emotion. It is the word used concerning Judas, where it is said that "Judas repented himself...", or as rendered in the NKJV, Judas regretted what he had done.

And there is a third word rendered in some versions as a form of 'repent/repentance' in two places, Rom. 11:29 and II Cor. 7:10 - the Greek word ametameletos, which is an adjective, and properly carries the force of irrevocable, with the "a" in the beginning of the word conveying a negative. The gifts and callings of God are irrevocable; likewise salvation is irrevocable, in the two instances, here.

The lone OT word properly rendered as repent is the Hebrew word "shuwb", properly to be eased or to "breathe a sigh of relief', as we might put it. It actually falls somewhat between the two Greek words in the force it carries, but is closer to the second, "metamellomai". When a quote is brought from the OT into the NT, "shuwb" is rendered as "metamellomai". (Ps. 110:4 & Heb. 7:21) and incidentally, the NKJV does an excellent job in the rendering of "shuwb" as "relent", where the subject is God, hence differentiating between 'relent' where it applies to God, and 'repent' where it applies to man. At least, IMO.

I realize this has been a rather long 'intro' but I laid the groundwork so as to differentiate among uses of "repent' in the English language. In answer to your question you asked, at the close of your post, I repeat, "Yes!"

An unbeliever can repent and not trust Christ. Judas did.
One could repent, and decide to bwecime a Buddhist, or a Muslim, oir who knows what.
And one can repent who is already a believer, hence one who has already trusted Christ and hence, posesses salvation already.

So I would fully agree that one cannot trust Christ, and not repent.

However, one can repent and not trust Christ.

Hope that helps.

Ed

Ed, thanks for your very informative answer.

I guess we could say that Judas repented but it was not repentance unto salvation; it was mere regret.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, thanks for your very informative answer.

I guess we could say that Judas repented but it was not repentance unto salvation; it was mere regret.

Exactly!

3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”
And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!”
5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. (Matt. 27: 3-7 - NKJV)

You nailed it.

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You have a very cool testimony, RB :thumbs:

We have an awesome God! :thumbs: thanks for the encoruagment.