What Does Repent Mean?

[InTheLight]

ITL...do you remember on page one on this thread you said ...you have been on here for 5 yrs and never saw anyone say such things....here you go.....
When we posted it, you called us antagonists....now see for yourself.

I asked about people on this board that say repentance is not necessary for salvation.

https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...ist-and-you-will-be-saved.97511/#post-2193834

In this instance (above) DHK is saying that God does not give faith to unsaved people.

 

[InTheLight]

OK great I understand that is your position. What I am asking for is your biblical support. Thus far what you have provided was a definition of repent devoid of context. Please show me your scriptural support that the biblical context of repent is nothing more than unbelief devoid of any turn from sin.

It's just common sense. Replace the word "repent" with "turn from your sins" in any verse that has repent in it. Does it make sense? No, because anyone can turn from their sins, of their own volition. But no one can change their mind about Jesus without God's intervention.

“Turn from your sins and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not turn from their sins

“The kingdom of God has come near. Turn from your sins and believe the good news!”.

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to turn from their sins."

But unless you turn from your sins, you too will all perish.”

and turning from sins for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now place the phrase "change your mind about the Savior" in those verses and it makes perfect sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's just common sense. Replace the word "repent" with "turn from your sins" in any verse that has repent in it. Does it make sense? No, because anyone can turn from their sins, of their own volition. But no one can change their mind about Jesus without God's intervention.

“Turn from your sins and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not turn from their sins

“The kingdom of God has come near. Turn from your sins and believe the good news!”.

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to turn from their sins."

But unless you turn from your sins, you too will all perish.”

and turning from sins for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now place the phrase "change your mind about the Savior" in those verses and it makes perfect sense.

Actually you have made my point. It in fact does make sense and the way you put turn from their sins is very accurate.

Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

 

[Internet Theologian]

Isn't it an amazing thing that one can point to one page for proof where he knows there is a lack of evidence and where none had been provided at that point, instead of pointing to the place where the evidence and proof actually exist? It is a remarkable thing, this self-deception!

The grandstanding of these types is hypocritical and sickening.

 

[JonC]

Dealing with salvation the primary component to deal with is rebirth (making a child of Adam into a Child of Christ), not sin. Sins are manifestations of our sinful natures. Repentance is not merely to stop sinning, it is to turn from our sinfulness (our sin nature) and turn to Christ (Ezekiel 36:24-27; John 3:3; Romans 8:1-39).

 

[Internet Theologian]

For the record repentance is more than just its technical dictionary definition, just as the term and meaning of Christ is more than just its technical dictionary definition. The former conveys more than merely a change of mind about Christ. How could a person have an encounter with the Christ of God and come away smelling only like the Koinè dictionary definition of 'repentance' alone?

 

[True Puritan]

Don't be deluded with lies of today kissy-poo preachers who are telling you that you trust in Jesus as your Savior for your sins, so you can live like a devil, and you will go to Heaven, because Christ paid for you. His Grace makes you free from going to Hell. Grace of Jesus is not a license to sin ! Word repent not just means to ask God to forgive you on sin He caught you. To repent means to turn away from your sin for life. How can God listen to your pleas for forgiveness, if you continue abiding in your sin. For example, I am a Christian, I trust in Jesus as my Lord, and I love to drink alcoholic drinks. Or here another example, I am a Christian, I trust in Jesus as my Lord, and I love to have sex with little boys. Think about this.

 

[JonC]

Don't be deluded with lies of today kissy-poo preachers who are telling you that you trust in Jesus as your Savior for your sins, so you can live like a devil, and you will go to Heaven, because Christ paid for you.

There are preachers who teach this?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Or here another example, I am a Christian, I trust in Jesus as my Lord, and I love to have sex with little boys. Think about this.

I don't want to think about that and wish I'd never read it. You should learn to use quotation marks and leading statements such as 'Some say, I am a Christian,...' and in addition use other examples to make your point.

Note to yourself: 'Look up dictionary definition of 'tact'.'

 

[True Puritan]

There are preachers who teach this?

We got plenty of these hypocrites in America in our days. Like almost with one foot in Hell, Billy Graham. Also, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, John Hagee, and a lot of wolves preaching lies.

 

[True Puritan]

I don't want to think about that and wish I'd never read it. You should learn to use quotation marks and leading statements such as 'Some say, I am a Christian,...' and in addition use other examples to make your point.

Note to yourself: 'Look up dictionary definition of 'tact'.'

We got plenty of hypocrites. Pedophile pastors, priests, and other individuals claiming to be Christians. We are looking at today's mainstream churches soberly.

 

[JonC]

We got plenty of hypocrites. Pedophile pastors, priests, and other individuals claiming to be Christians. We are looking at today's mainstream churches soberly.

You know....I am starting to wonder if there is really such a thing as "today's mainstream churches." But I think that perhaps in American Christianity the issue is less pedophile pastors and more ungodly "Christians." Your example of pedophilia takes away from what is the issue - and that is unsaved people believing that they are saved people because someone's tradition has told them so. Sometimes this is blamed on the preacher, but we all know that the lost can twist the gospel into their own righteousness. Wheat and tares are growing together, have been growing together, and will grow together until the harvest is complete. The problem is not so much the tares - those who genuinely believe they are saved - but those who are obviously bearing fruit of the flesh finding comfort within the Church itself. We don't know the tares, God does. Let them be. But why on earth we tolerate sin and embrace the world is beyond me. That is the issue. Pedophiles know they are wrong, the congregations know they are wrong, but somehow we forget that our culture carries with it its own values, it is not benign. And we fling the doors of our assemblies open wide and invite the lost in, and make them comfortable, and suit ourselves to their liking.....all so that they can see that we are really not very different after all. And sometimes it seems that we are not.

 

[DHK]

We got plenty of hypocrites. Pedophile pastors, priests, and other individuals claiming to be Christians. We are looking at today's mainstream churches soberly.

Who is "we"? I am not part of the "we" you speak of. In that collective "we" you have included priests. There are no priests in my world of biblical Christianity. There are in the world of Christendom which I believe you are referring to but I am not part of that world. They have priests, pedophiles, etc. We, at least the "we" that I know, do not. But then I don't know who you are and the churches that you associate yourself with are. Just who is the "we" that you include yourself in?

 

[True Puritan]

Who is "we"? I am not part of the "we" you speak of. In that collective "we" you have included priests. There are no priests in my world of biblical Christianity. There are in the world of Christendom which I believe you are referring to but I am not part of that world. They have priests, pedophiles, etc. We, at least the "we" that I know, do not. But then I don't know who you are and the churches that you associate yourself with are. Just who is the "we" that you include yourself in?

We means a common name. It means us sheep among wolves.

 

[Internet Theologian]

We got plenty of hypocrites. Pedophile pastors, priests, and other individuals claiming to be Christians. We are looking at today's mainstream churches soberly.

Bro we get the fact of that. But there is more sin in churches than the one you have been grinding your ax on. Drunkards, LIARS, thieves, idolators, covetous, hatefulness, rivalries, strife, anger (all under 'prasso')...name all of it. My point is many focus on what you are using because many do not practice that sin but they do make allowance for their other practice listed above, and these will suffer the same eternal punishment being themselves unconverted. There are some that come to the knowledge of their lost state of deception so there may be some sheep in that group.

 

[agedman]

Indeed it is. You take the reformed position and I do not.
Faith is faith. It is not something that is mystical. It is not something that is tangible that is given to man. Nowhere in Scripture do we find God giving faith to unsaved man. However, we find God commanding man to "believe" many times throughout the Bible. Why would God believe on behalf of man (i.e., give him the faith to believe). It doesn't make any sense at all.
What is important is the object of man's faith. That is what is important. If the object of his faith is Christ and his atoning work on the cross then he can be saved.

Yes, I suppose I do take the reformed position in this matter.

But there is a reason for taking that view (imo).

I take the word "believe" or "belief" to be of the same meaning as "trust."

When one believes, it is the same as trust in the manner of total reliance upon that which is believed/trusted.

Faith has always the element of hope, and faith may fail as faithless.
Even the Scriptures point this out that God remains faithful in unfaithfulness.

Trust does not fail, for the trust is not dependent upon the one trusting; rather, trust is in the promise made certain by the one trusted. Trust may be betrayed, but trust remains true until the betrayal where faith does not.

Because such a strong, bold, secure confidence (trust) in the Lord is not a part of the natural person, there must be present that catalyst of change implanted in that person so trust and the expression of that trust as faith may be realized.

What then is faith?

It is Forsaking All I Trust Him. Trust is the focus.

Faith does not nor can it generate trust. Trust generates faith.

There is also the matter of the sequence presented in the Scriptures. The sequence seems to be God first and then the response by humans.

God loved us first - then we respond.
God sacrificed first - then we respond.
God establishes the law - then we respond.
God judges - then we respond.
God saves - then we respond.

I don't recall a place in the scriptures were humankind initiated something righteous and then God responded. There are times when humankind did evil and God responded, but not that which was righteous. There are times when God used the righteous men, but that righteousness was imputed by Him, not part of the natural make up of them. Both Mosses and Abram are prominent in the Scriptures and yet Christ said that unless righteousness exceeds that example, heaven is not realized.

Certainly, one may give that which is good, but good is not synonymous with righteous. And in every instance that I recall in the Scriptures were human "good" is expressed, it ultimately fails.

 

[DHK]

Yes, I suppose I do take the reformed position in this matter.

But there is a reason for taking that view (imo).

I take the word "believe" or "belief" to be of the same meaning as "trust."

When one believes, it is the same as trust in the manner of total reliance upon that which is believed/trusted.

Faith has always the element of hope, and faith may fail as faithless.
Even the Scriptures point this out that God remains faithful in unfaithfulness.

Trust does not fail, for the trust is not dependent upon the one trusting; rather, trust is in the promise made certain by the one trusted. Trust may be betrayed, but trust remains true until the betrayal where faith does not.

Faith and trust are synonyms. How can one not fail and the other fail when they are the same thing?
Faith is trust, confidence in the word of another, specifically in the word or promise of God, as Abraham had.
Look in Romans 5
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Rom 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Hope is quite a ways down the list from faith. It is faith by which a man is saved. We are justified by faith. We rejoice in hope.

Because such a strong, bold, secure confidence (trust) in the Lord is not a part of the natural person, there must be present that catalyst of change implanted in that person so trust and the expression of that trust as faith may be realized.

The catalyst is two-fold.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit is in John 16:8-11.
--The Holy Spirit convict of sin as the gospel is presented. It is very plain and clear in 1Pet.1:23,
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
--The Word of God here is specifically the gospel. One is saved through the gospel message. He must have faith or confidence that it is true, that it will save him. The Holy Spirit will work in his heart and convict him of sin and his need for a Savior.
Paul said:
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
--This is the only means by which a person is saved: faith in the gospel message--that message which Paul preached.

What then is faith?

It is Forsaking All I Trust Him. Trust is the focus.

Faith does not nor can it generate trust. Trust generates faith.

--A needless differentiation. They are the same--synonyms.

There is also the matter of the sequence presented in the Scriptures. The sequence seems to be God first and then the response by humans.

The gospel is always first.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

God loved us first - then we respond.
God sacrificed first - then we respond.
God establishes the law - then we respond.
God judges - then we respond.

All in the gspel message.

God saves - then we respond.

One must respond in faith. Salvation is a gift to be received by faith. It is God's free gift to mankind.

I don't recall a place in the scriptures were humankind initiated something righteous and then God responded.

First the gospel.
Faith comes by hearing the gospel.
The Holy Spirit brings conviction.
The response comes from man by faith.
--There is no magical regeneration that can happen without the hearing of the Word of God that some here believe.

There are times when humankind did evil and God responded, but not that which was righteous. There are times when God used the righteous men, but that righteousness was imputed by Him, not part of the natural make up of them. Both Mosses and Abram are prominent in the Scriptures and yet Christ said that unless righteousness exceeds that example, heaven is not realized.

Man must respond to the gospel by faith. Paul clearly taught that in Scripture.

Certainly, one may give that which is good, but good is not synonymous with righteous. And in every instance that I recall in the Scriptures were human "good" is expressed, it ultimately fails.

I never said that good saves.

 

[Iconoclast]

"DHK,

--There is no magical regeneration that can happen without the hearing of the Word of God that some here believe.

Regeneration is not magical...it is the super natural work of the Spirit of God.

 

[DHK]

"DHK,

Regeneration is not magical...it is the super natural work of the Spirit of God.

Without hearing the Word of God it is nothing but magical, mystical, mysterious, experience not taught in the Word of God. Perhaps one believing in this type of experience should look into Hinduism instead.
1Pet.1:23 says that we are born again by the Word of God.
Regeneration without the Word of God is impossible. Do you believe in magic?

 

[agedman]

Faith and trust are synonyms.
.

Here is another area in which we can disagree.

The Scriptures record the word "Trust" in some 54 passages.

Faith is generally related in some manner to "faithfulness" such as what the apostles may say when complementing the "faith" of an assembly.

Luke, is the only writer giving the account of the Lord to use the word "faith" and again the word is also to be taken as "faithfulness."

So, although in the modern church one might want to consider them synonyms, they are not.

A child will understand the word "trust" and understand the commitment aspects associated with that word far better than the word "faith."

So will adults. (in my experience).

Ask yourself if the two questions below are synonymous in all aspects?

Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Do you trust the Lord Jesus Christ?

The two are not synonymous for the second is far stronger and not open to diminished value of halfheartedness.

Trust is an either or not word. One either trusts completely, or they do not.

Which is why the Lord said "Trust the with the whole heart." Not have faith with the whole heart.