Featured Why evangelism is important

He also hung out with them.

 

Personally, I have always had a problem with this type of definition of repentance - I consider it as being incomplete and inaccurately stating Godly repentance.

The Scriptures place a premium upon the change that takes place in the very core (heart) of a person that results in an intellectual change (as well as other changes).

Scriptural repentance then is not merely the changed mind that can be changed back, then back again like a ship without a rudder.

The Scriptural repentance results in a complete rudder reversing of the whole vessel (every aspect - no part left unchanged). It is not the change, it is not the rudder, those are but reactionary to the commander of the vessel.

In the humankind, such a command and direction change indicates a new captain is in charge - in effect a certain mutiny has taken place. A new command structure is now in control and has established a complete control over the rudder and every aspect of the vessel are being brought under His control

Despite a favorable wind or not, the destiny of the vessel will track the course established by the rudder under the direction of the new command.

Despite the threats of storm and wave, the vessel will track the course established by the rudder under the authority of the new command.

No matter the ability to see and navigate in the dread of the dark of night, or the withering of energy in the sweltering sun, the vessel will track the course established by the rudder under the authority of the new command.

Repentance - true repentance - leads to salvation.

Repentance by the world standards leads to death.

True repentance does not come by human initiation into a supposed agreement with God, but as a result of the heart (core) being changed (a mutiny taken place). A new command established by work that only the Scriptures and Holy Spirit can accomplish.

Many are those who have been like the ruler saying, "You almost persuaded me." The heart was untouched.

Many are those who out of intellectual concerns desire to repent, but are no better than that ruler. They may shed tears, they may even "change" but Death is the destiny of their charted course.

Few are ones who find a whole new command structure is now in charge of the vessel.

Do not be alarmed, though.

The old command structure still rattles about making all attempts to overthrow the new or at least destroy the vessel, make it unseaworthy, or so impact it with the elements and forces of this world that the vessel is held in ridicule by all who look upon it - even the vessel can put off such offensive odors in objection to itself.

But the new captain remains, the command structure unchanged, the rudder fixed so the vessel will reach the safe harbor call Life.

Such is the impact of true repentance - Godly repentance that results in salvation.

 

While your response was a more detailed understanding of repentance I fail to see that his was incorrect. Can you point out the difference?

 

The greek word meaning is only partial if limited to the "intellectual."

Actually the meaning includes the the purpose that drives the intellectual.

Too often one part of the greek meaning is puffed up to the neglect of the other.

True, intellectual change will take place with the core purpose change.


Intellectual concerns (emotions, business, politics, friends, marriage, children...) all these may be good, but the intellect change without core (heart) purpose does not lead to salvation.

When the change of the core purpose takes place (as in salvation, or a believer convicted) then the intellect will be impacted and impacting direction, values, ... Such is as the Greek would indicate.

I think John the Baptizer was indicating this as a distinct difference between those whom he was baptizing and the religious self righteous who also desired to be baptized.

That was the basic push behind the post.

Who is the motivator?

 

Where did he address either one of those? From where I sit you just expanded on what he said but showed no difference. From what I have seen of his posts, in this thread and in others, you two are in agreement.

 

I've eliminated from the quote what I consider to be the extraneous writing you posted, in order to get to the gist of your point to Rev. I would have to ask you to further clarify, had I asked his question, because I don't believe evangelist6589 would come from a perspective that assumes any motivation in a man to have a "change of mind" or perform an "about face" (as the Greek metanoeo implies in direct translation) comes from within man, but must come from God. Therefore, if we can agree -- or perhaps we can't? -- that his viewpoint must come from Christ's influence rather than our own self-will, how is his post wrong?

 

Again, I bold the part that is incomplete. It is the elementary, easily demonstrated, and popular definition, but it remains incomplete.

For the Greek word also considers the motivating factor - purpose.


Let's review:

I put in bold what was quoted of the definition.

That some may "assume" that the definition is as he gave it was part of the reason (as you apparently do) that I said the definition was incomplete.

I showed how that definition was incomplete.

I clarified how the complete definition contained far more than the meaning of what was given (which I had highlighted).

I used illustration of how the complete definition.
​

Perhaps some on the BB may be satisfied that repentance is defined as intellectual assent that change is necessary and needful, and that some intellectual exercise or worldly motivation "purpose" can be engaged to adapt and sustain demonstrable change.

Perhaps some of the world will continue to explore the hows and whys some folks change and others do not seem to change (relating to troubling items in the world - alcohol, drugs, cigarets, sex, lies, ...) but (in my opinion) few do not recognize that behind the "purpose" is a catalyst.

As it relates to this thread, then the question is of the catalyst that changes the "purpose" and therefore the intellect - all rolled up into the word repentance. Which was illustrated in the post.

The Scripture difference of repentance is not if there is a purpose but the author behind that purpose - as shared by the illustration given in the post.

Godly sorrow works repentance to salvation is contrasted with the sorrow of the world that works to death.

Unless there is "Godly sorrow" the repentance (both purpose and intellect) really has very little to offer in this thread on evangelism.

The definition that leaves out the purpose, and in application to the thread the motivator to that purpose, then is incomplete.

I wonder if the Greeks would argue with me about it not being a heart (core) purpose change, but a change in the bowels?

 

What you have not shown was that he intended the definition of repentance to be an intellectual assent. Just because your post was more detailed does not make his wrong.

What we are addressing is that you seem to be asserting something about his post that you have not proven to be true. You seem to have made an assumption of his use of "repentance" that cannot be supported until her give further explanation.

And based on what I have seen of his posts he would agree with your more detailed definition.

 

I don't know if you think you're a Greek scholar, or what, but what you posted after this comment is wasted effort. Metanoeo necessarily requires Godly sorrow; that is, inspired by God because the one feeling the need to "repent" according to the meaning of this word belongs to God. Metanoeo never is used of one who is not a child of God. The word metamelomai, for example, is human regret, i.e., sorrow for getting caught, more than a true regret for the act. It is used of Judas, in his casting the silver at the feet of the Sanhedrin. If you want to try to invent some fanciful definition for Godly repentance vs. human regret, feel free to waste your time. But the fact the word metanoeo is used is indicative of the Source, whether you choose to see that or not.

 

Preaching the gospel with no intent to disciple your converts afterward is not evangelism or the Great Commission.

 

Actually your view is only half of what scripture teaches. You do not get to ignore Matt 28 just because of Mark 16. Also, I do not believe you really know what preaching is. Most likely your definition is far to narrow.

 

At times I really wonder why you are trying to present an argument with me.

Sure, I didn't go into the forms of speech (μετάνοια and orμετανοέω the noun-feminine and the verb, in comparison to μεταμέλλομαιis) and the usage of the Greek words, but showed by illustration the difference. I also showed the catalyst behind the word must always be God.

I really see no disagreement in your post, and my illustration driven post(s).


I should suggest that you might be assuming that the English audience has some understanding of the catalyst purpose when they hear over and over that repent is "a change in one's mind."

I dare say that, in my experience, the most problematic teaching on repentance is some "intellectual ascent" without folks understanding the only true repentance is Godly purposed - brought on not by intellectualizing, but conviction of the Holy Spirit. Preachers are known to use the phrase, "repentance is a complete about face" or "a change of direction." Rarely have I heard accompanying those intellectual results that without the work of the Holy Spirit the intellectual change is worthless.

THAT was why I indicated the weakness of the definitions given - by two posters - for they did NOT include in it the "purpose" and in particular that the "purpose" is from God - Hence the use of "Godly sorrow" by Paul distinguishing the exact catalyst for the purpose of a change in the mind.

That you find my post a waste of your time isn't a issue or problem on my end.

What is a problem is that often I see that we agree, and you have given over to some desire to show disagreement.

As illustrated in the above quote from you, the post actually supports everything that I have posted on this topic and does not refute any part. But you couch it in terms that would seem to make some huge disagreement.

You also attempt to bring some disparagement to my educational background.

I have often and openly called for the Greek scholars of the BB to review every post I make when doing translation work. I may become more frail than I realize and inappropriately post a translation work that isn't correct.

As such, I also welcome your input - though couched in some degrading terms.

It doesn't bother me to be corrected, but at least do try to not use words leading the reader in thinking you disagree - unless you actually do disagree - when, you are merely restating and adding more proof to what I post, as you did above.

 

First I have never claimed to be reformed. In fact it is clear from many of my posts that I am not. I have no idea where you got that from.


As for the rest of your post, it says more about your understanding of this issue than I could ever bring to light. Good luck with that.

 

There you go. You said it. Reformed people cannot agree with anyone on anything who is not reformed. Sound like a Democrat.