What Does Repent Mean?

[Iconoclast]

Agreed!



Yet Paul didn't mention repentance in his Epistles say some when he in fact did here. There is also intent in the balance of the epistles; doctrine and instruction for His sheep. These are not written as a Gospel message to the lost so repentance wouldn't be 'preached', albeit there is ample evidence of what repentance looks like among the sheep and it is in fact turning from sin. Determining repentance as unnecessary by these epistles is to display a profound misunderstanding of Scripture, the Gospel's effect upon man, and their intent.



I agree that the theme of the book of Romans is 'the righteousness of God'. This theme is held by many godly men and commentators.

A Pastor friend of mine sent this to me several years ago;

AN AN INTERPRETIVE OUTLINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS THEME: DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS The theme of Romans is the righteousness of God. Note the development of this theme throughout the epistle:
RIGHTEOUSNESS REQUIRED from humanity (1:18–3:20)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REVEALED in Christ alone (3:21–26)

RIGHTEOUSNESS RECEIVED by faith alone (3:27–5:21)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REALIZED in sanctification (6:1–8:11)

RIGHTEOUSNESS RETAINED in glorification (8:12–39)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REJECTED by non–elect Israel (9:1–11:36)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REPRODUCED in a converted life (12:1–16:27)

 

[agedman]

(in replying to DHK)
...
In NT theology there is repentance necessary for salvation, which takes place at the same time one puts their faith in Christ.

(imo) there is not a case that can be made that one must "put their faith in Christ" to be found in the NT.

Rather, I see that one is to Love the Lord Jesus Christ and within that love is the capacity of "trust." As I shared with DHK, the word "Faith" is also most appropriately used as "faithful" or "faithfulness" throughout the epistles, and Luke uses the same word twice in his account.

He first loved us resulting in our loving Him. One cannot separate trust from that Love.

Besides, "putting one's faith" indicates some manner of human work, when "trust" involves no work but a complete reliance upon what is assured that translates into actions and decision making.

DHK, and I suppose others, may disagree because they consider "faith" and "trust" as synonymous. But as I expressed to DHK, they are not. Faith may fail, for it is powered by human conditions and circumstances. Trust is not so. Trust is that complete confidence of not only what is an assured promise, but is based upon the inability of betrayal.

As I expressed to DHK, the word trust is clearly understood by even a small child, and the word faith is not.

...
Then, what you are describing, their is repentance for the believer, after salvation. Every time we sin we need to confess that sin, repent of it, and keep on going. That is a result of the change that Christ has wrought in our lives, and will keep on changing. As long as we are growing, changing, etc., I look at that as part of the progressive sanctification of the believer--a process of becoming more and more holy; closer to the Lord.

Though I do not personally like the words "progressive" and "sanctification" being put together, I do agree with what most folks mean when they do use the two together.

There is no doubt that the believer will mature in becoming closer (or more "like") or conformed to the image of Christ.

What I don't agree with is the thinking that one becomes more "holy" as if the matter was somehow either earned or on some type of dimmer switch that allows for partial current flow.

Rather, one is or is not holy. There is no inbetween. One cannot progress to more holiness any more than the OT priests could. They either met the standard of being holy, or did not.

This is part of the problem when folks adopt the typical teaching of progressive sanctification, and not understanding that one cannot be "more right with God if..." rather than comprehending one is or is not right with God. That maturing as a believer is not being "more holy."

A Pastor friend of mine sent this to me several years ago;

AN AN INTERPRETIVE OUTLINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS THEME: DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS The theme of Romans is the righteousness of God. Note the development of this theme throughout the epistle:
RIGHTEOUSNESS REQUIRED from humanity (1:18–3:20)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REVEALED in Christ alone (3:21–26)

RIGHTEOUSNESS RECEIVED by faith alone (3:27–5:21)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REALIZED in sanctification (6:1–8:11)

RIGHTEOUSNESS RETAINED in glorification (8:12–39)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REJECTED by non–elect Israel (9:1–11:36)

RIGHTEOUSNESS REPRODUCED in a converted life (12:1–16:27)

Interesting outline.

 

[Iconoclast]

(imo) there is not a case that can be made that one must "put their faith in Christ" to be found in the NT.

Rather, I see that one is to Love the Lord Jesus Christ and within that love is the capacity of "trust." As I shared with DHK, the word "Faith" is also most appropriately used as "faithful" or "faithfulness" throughout the epistles, and Luke uses the same word twice in his account.

He first loved us resulting in our loving Him. One cannot separate trust from that Love.

Besides, "putting one's faith" indicates some manner of human work, when "trust" involves no work but a complete reliance upon what is assured that translates into actions and decision making.

DHK, and I suppose others, may disagree because they consider "faith" and "trust" as synonymous. But as I expressed to DHK, they are not. Faith may fail, for it is powered by human conditions and circumstances. Trust is not so. Trust is that complete confidence of not only what is an assured promise, but is based upon the inability of betrayal.

As I expressed to DHK, the word trust is clearly understood by even a small child, and the word faith is not.



Though I do not personally like the words "progressive" and "sanctification" being put together, I do agree with what most folks mean when they do use the two together.

There is no doubt that the believer will mature in becoming closer (or more "like") or conformed to the image of Christ.

What I don't agree with is the thinking that one becomes more "holy" as if the matter was somehow either earned or on some type of dimmer switch that allows for partial current flow.

Rather, one is or is not holy. There is no inbetween. One cannot progress to more holiness any more than the OT priests could. They either met the standard of being holy, or did not.

This is part of the problem when folks adopt the typical teaching of progressive sanctification, and not understanding that one cannot be "more right with God if..." rather than comprehending one is or is not right with God. That maturing as a believer is not being "more holy."


Interesting outline.

That was only the tip of the outline...if you want the complete outline, let me know...

 

[JonC]

What conclusion about you? I made no such statement about anything concerning you or what you said.

Apologies. One thing I sincerely appreciate about your posts, even when we disagree, is the integrity of your words........RoflmaoLaughRoflmao....ahhmmm.....sorry, I just couldn't type that with a straight face.....

I see jon c doulus must also agree that men and women have the same power dhk preaches them to have , so he hands the 'dislike' award lol! Roflmao

 

[DHK]

Your post is full of what you do. What we are saying is biblical salvation just all about what God does in and to us not about what we do.
The Judaizers what concerned about what they do. You are in principle suggesting the same thing that the Judaizers offered.
You keep suggesting that the dead sinners just changes his mind on his own, that there is no supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

You will find the same answer dozens of times throughout the scriptures. It denies Calvinism as well as your dearly beloved Augustinianism. Here it is once again:

The Bible uses this language: (that you hate)

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

You don't like Biblical language. The Bible requires one to have faith, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. As Paul said this is what one must DO in order to be saved.

Your belief is described more as a mystical experience akin to a Buddhist monk sitting in his lotus position meditating and awaiting nirvana or for his version of the Holy Spirit to come and magically transform him without ever so much as hearing of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. This is absolute nonsense, and not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.
Regeneration is not born out of passivity.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

You will find the same answer dozens of times throughout the scriptures. It denies Calvinism as well as your dearly beloved Augustinianism. Here it is once again:

The Bible uses this language: (that you hate)

This reminds me of this verse;
Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Your belief is described more as a mystical experience akin to a Buddhist monk sitting in his lotus position meditating and awaiting nirvana or for his version of the Holy Spirit to come and magically transform him without ever so much as hearing of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. This is absolute nonsense, and not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.
Regeneration is not born out of passivity

Once again you deny the biblical revelation of salvation. It is a supernatural work of the Spirit of God,not a natural work of the flesh with all your vain boasting and patting yourself on the back.
If it is okay with you...I will stick with God's grace as revealed in scripture and put no confidence in the flesh as you do.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

I believe Peter...repent and be baptized for the remission of sins

 

[Internet Theologian]

Apologies. One thing I sincerely appreciate about your posts, even when we disagree, is the integrity of your words........RoflmaoLaughRoflmao....ahhmmm.....sorry, I just couldn't type that with a straight face.....

Thanks for the apologies. It is noted you took opportunity again to display your sophomoric nature.

As a closing suggestion, perhaps you shouldn't assume my posts have anything to say about you, especially when they are neither addressed to you, do not quote you, nor concern you. Then you won't experience me 'defining' what it means for you to 'assume'.

 

[DHK]

DHK

This reminds me of this verse;
Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." These are the inspired words of Paul, and you attribute them to Satan. Interesting?

Once again you deny the biblical revelation of salvation. It is a supernatural work of the Spirit of God,not a natural work of the flesh with all your vain boasting and patting yourself on the back.
If it is okay with you...I will stick with God's grace as revealed in scripture and put no confidence in the flesh as you do.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Yet you offer no Scripture, no Biblical answer to what salvation really is. You simply stick to your mystic unbiblical view.

I believe Peter...repent and be baptized for the remission of sins

Repent--something you DO!
Be Baptized--something you DO!

Therefore a gospel of works. That is what you believe??

 

[Iconoclast]

The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." These are the inspired words of Paul, and you attribute them to Satan. Interesting?


Yet you offer no Scripture, no Biblical answer to what salvation really is. You simply stick to your mystic unbiblical view.


Repent--something you DO!
Be Baptized--something you DO!

Therefore a gospel of works. That is what you believe??

I believe what Peter and the apostles preached and taught and we see clearly you are unable to come to these truths.
It is a new year now.....perhaps truth will come your way this year!

 

[DHK]

I believe what Peter and the apostles preached and taught and we see clearly you are unable to come to these truths.
It is a new year now.....perhaps truth will come your way this year!

You believe what? You say you agree with the apostles, but can't demonstrate it. All you post is some mystical esoterical metaphysical message unlike any message in the Bible whatsoever. What Biblical gospel do you believe in?
You do err not knowing the scriptures...

 

[Iconoclast]

You believe what? You say you agree with the apostles, but can't demonstrate it. All you post is some mystical esoterical metaphysical message unlike any message in the Bible whatsoever. What Biblical gospel do you believe in?
You do err not knowing the scriptures...

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
That would be why some see it clearly with an anointed eye that looks in the spiritual realm for the answer.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the apologies. It is noted you took opportunity again to display your sophomoric nature.

As a closing suggestion, perhaps you shouldn't assume my posts have anything to say about you, especially when they are neither addressed to you, do not quote you, nor concern you. Then you won't experience me 'defining' what it means for you to 'assume'.

To correct your assumption, brother, those “apologies” were directed at the OP in general for disrupting the flow of conversation in order to address your childish comments. Contrary to what you seem to believe, narcissism is not a spiritual gift. When a post names me, and quotes me, it is not an assumption to respond as if it concerned me.

You have a bad habit of insulting people with whom you disagree. You may start arguing a point, but when you stop gaining ground you start attacking people. This can be seen in several threads. When you do this it appears as if you cannot defend your position or you simply cannot comprehend the opposing view in such a way as to debate positions. You never actually arrive at the point of genuine debate and argument because you never let it get that far. I point this out to you only to bring it to your attention. And yes, I often respond in kind (which may be something I need to work on ). But instead of insults, why not just stick to the discussion at hand (the topic of the OP) and I'll go back reading. When you feel the need to insult, just PM me instead of subjecting the entire BB to such foolishness.

In fact, Icon has even resulted to insult when he claimed of his position that "some see it clearly with an anointed eye" (implying that those who disagree lack spiritual discernment). When Icon gets to this level, it is typically time to realize the topic has descended into personal attack. If the purpose here is debate, moderators need to do a better job moderating.

 

[DHK]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
That would be why some see it clearly with an anointed eye that looks in the spiritual realm for the answer.

"Prove your ownselves..."
If you are spiritual you would be able to describe the simplest message in all the Bible--the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but you can't. Yours is a mystic message. What does it mean to be saved? What is the gospel? You are not even sure. This is truly sad.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Prove your ownselves..."
If you are spiritual you would be able to describe the simplest message in all the Bible--the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but you can't. Yours is a mystic message. What does it mean to be saved? What is the gospel? You are not even sure. This is truly sad.

I and others have answered you on this many times you just are unable to welcome it.
Jesus saves sinners. He saved them from their sins.
He doesn't leave them in the sins.
they are translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of his dear Son. ...the kingdom of light .
That kingdom exists right now.

 

[DHK]

(imo) there is not a case that can be made that one must "put their faith in Christ" to be found in the NT.

This is a matter of semantics. It is easier to say as a command that one need to "put their faith in Christ," or "have faith" or simply "believe" in Christ. They all mean the same thing. The command is given in many places such as Acts 16:31; 10:43; etc. And many times in the gospels as well does Christ command the same thing such as in John 5:24.

Rather, I see that one is to Love the Lord Jesus Christ and within that love is the capacity of "trust." As I shared with DHK, the word "Faith" is also most appropriately used as "faithful" or "faithfulness" throughout the epistles, and Luke uses the same word twice in his account.

In the NT the word "trust" is used very little. Your argument holds no water here.
Let me demonstrate.

Here is a comparison of the words that are used for faith, believe, and trust:

Pisteo (verb)
Believe (239); commit unto (4); commit to (1); be committed to (1); to be put in trust with (1);

Pistis (noun)
Faith (229); assurance (1); belief (1); them that believe (1); fidelity (1)

Pistos (adjective)
Faithful (53); believe (6); believing (2); true (2); faithfully (1); believer (1); sure (1)

Elpis (noun)
Trust (18); hope (10); hope for (2); brings hope for (1)

Peritho (verb)
Persuade (22); trust (8); obey (7); have confidence (6); believe (3); be confident (2)

Note that in the NT the word pistew along with its two derivatives is used over 500 times. It is used as an adjective about 60 times where it is often translated faithful. All of the other times it is translated as faith or believe.

The word that is used to translate "trust" comes only from two words. It is used only 10 times as a primary translation from elpis which is in noun form, and 8 times from peritho in its verb form for a total of 18 times, the latter not even being its primary translation. But that is just 18 usages of the word compared to about 450 for faith and believe. Your argument holds no water.
Trust is used more often in the OT, but very little in the NT. Paul and John use faith and believe almost exclusively compared to the word "trust."

He first loved us resulting in our loving Him. One cannot separate trust from that Love.

The verse is found here:
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
CONTEXT:
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
--The context is one of faith and belief, not trust.

Besides, "putting one's faith" indicates some manner of human work, when "trust" involves no work but a complete reliance upon what is assured that translates into actions and decision making.

Besides "having faith" which is not a human work.
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The one that believeth on him (not worketh) is justified. Believing (having faith; putting faith; believing; etc.) is the one that is justified. You are simply playing a game of semantics. Faith is not a work.

DHK, and I suppose others, may disagree because they consider "faith" and "trust" as synonymous. But as I expressed to DHK, they are not. Faith may fail, for it is powered by human conditions and circumstances. Trust is not so. Trust is that complete confidence of not only what is an assured promise, but is based upon the inability of betrayal.

Faith in Christ never fails for Christ never fails.
I can put faith in my car (the object of my faith here changes). But a few days ago my car didn't start. It failed (minus 30 windchill outside). Why? My car is man-made. Man fails; God never. When the object of my faith is the Lord, I know he never fails. His promises are true. They never fail.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

As I expressed to DHK, the word trust is clearly understood by even a small child, and the word faith is not.

Again, semantics. Jesus taught that one must have faith as a child. That was the context of his teaching. The Bible uses the word faith, not trust. I have demonstrated that. We are saved by faith. How can faith fail. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Sola fide! not sola trust.

Though I do not personally like the words "progressive" and "sanctification" being put together, I do agree with what most folks mean when they do use the two together.

There is no doubt that the believer will mature in becoming closer (or more "like") or conformed to the image of Christ.

What I don't agree with is the thinking that one becomes more "holy" as if the matter was somehow either earned or on some type of dimmer switch that allows for partial current flow.

As far as a believer is concerned Jesus said lay your treasure up in heaven.
Paul spoke of rewards in heaven.
He said there awaits for me a crown of righteousness. There are many crowns and rewards that one can earn. There is also reward that one may lose at the Judgement Seat of Christ. See 1Cor.3:11-15.

Rather, one is or is not holy. There is no inbetween. One cannot progress to more holiness any more than the OT priests could. They either met the standard of being holy, or did not.

That is positional holiness. It happens at salvation.
What did Jesus mean when he said:
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
--Can one be as perfect as God is perfect? Of course not. But it is a goal to work toward, a goal of holiness and maturity in the Christian life. We aren't there yet. But every day should be a new day full of new challenges and new walk with the Lord, hopefully "sweeter than the day before."

This is part of the problem when folks adopt the typical teaching of progressive sanctification, and not understanding that one cannot be "more right with God if..." rather than comprehending one is or is not right with God. That maturing as a believer is not being "more holy."

The word holy literally means "set apart," which initially happened at salvation.
Those Christians who dabble in the world are yet saved but not set apart as far as their walk with God is concerned. Their lives are not holy. God constantly calls us to a life of holiness.

Be ye holy as I am holy. We will never attain it, but we must work toward it in our walk with God.

 

[Internet Theologian]

To correct your assumption, brother, those “apologies” were directed at the OP in general for disrupting the flow of conversation in order to address your childish comments. Contrary to what you seem to believe, narcissism is not a spiritual gift. When a post names me, and quotes me, it is not an assumption to respond as if it concerned me.

Oh, my bad, you quote me and then offer an apology, and address me throughout. How could I have ever figured that a period separated the conversation into two recipients.

Yes, it was foolish of me to have taken you off ignore to see why you reacted to a post that didn't mention or concern you. My bad, I'll remember to obey Proverbs 26 concerning answering your type henceforth. Thumbsup

 

[DHK]

I and others have answered you on this many times you just are unable to welcome it.
Jesus saves sinners. He saved them from their sins.
He doesn't leave them in the sins.
they are translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of his dear Son. ...the kingdom of light .
That kingdom exists right now.

And how does he do that?

 

[JonC]

Oh, my bad, you quote me and then offer an apology, and address me throughout. How could I have ever figured that a period separated the conversation into two recipients.

Yes, it was foolish of me to have taken you off ignore to see why you reacted to a post that didn't mention or concern you. My bad, I'll remember to obey Proverbs 26 concerning answering your type henceforth. Thumbsup

Yes, brother. The ignore button is there for people like you. And there is no shame in having to use it.

 

[Iconoclast]

And how does he do that?

Psalm 110 explains His Kingdom rule is in the MIDST of His enemies

 

[DHK]

Psalm 110 explains His Kingdom rule is in the MIDST of His enemies

An OT Psalm is the answer of how one should respond to the gospel and be saved? Really?
I am still not sure you know what the gospel is.