Can you be saved and not know it?

[DHK]

Not true, if you are born and die in sin unless "born again" you will die 2 more times .

Would you like to explain that Bob?
Birth + rejection of Christ = natural death + eternal death + eternal, eternal death?
Where is your third death?

 

[DHK]

If you want to call him a son, then he was a dead son.
.

A son is a son is a son.
The Lord knows them that are his.
Once a son, the father does not disown his own.
In this physical life, you cannot change the facts of life. Your genes that you inherited you can't give back to your parents and ask for another set. You will always be their child. It won't change. Once a child of God; always a child of God. He was a son of his father. You can call him names Bob. Call him dead, prolifigate, a disgrace, an adulterer, a drunk, etc. But he was still his father's son. And that could never change.

 

[Brother Bob]

Would you like to explain that Bob?
Birth + rejection of Christ = natural death + eternal death + eternal, eternal death?
Where is your third death?__________________
DHK

Birth already dying natural death from Adam

Sin = second death

born again= Salvation and escape of second death


I don't believe you are born natural with the second death already pronounced on you.

Jesus said "such is the Kingdom", not going to be. Also, the soul that sinneth shall die. Now if it were already dead when born how could it die.

 

[Brother Bob]

A son is a son is a son.
The Lord knows them that are his.
Once a son, the father does not disown his own.
In this physical life, you cannot change the facts of life. Your genes that you inherited you can't give back to your parents and ask for another set. You will always be their child. It won't change. Once a child of God; always a child of God. He was a son of his father. You can call him names Bob. Call him dead, prolifigate, a disgrace, an adulterer, a drunk, etc. But he was still his father's son. And that could never change.__________________
DHK

The "dead and the lost" are going to hell. Call them what you want. Do you believe the lost are going to Heaven. Why am I asking this of you?

In this physical life, you cannot change the facts of life.

You can't change the fact that because you and all men have life is because God give you breath either.

Jesus held the child and said "such is the Kingdom of Heaven". If that child grew up and sinned then its soul died in sin and Satan became its Father, and if it was never "born again", it would of died and went to hell as an adult. You do know what "born again" is don't you, it means the father you had is no longer your father, but your Father is now the Heavenly Father.

 

[DHK]

Jesus held the child and said "such is the Kingdom of Heaven". If that child grew up and sinned then its soul died in sin and Satan became its Father, and if it was never "born again", it would of died and went to hell as an adult. You do know what "born again" is don't you, it means the father you had is no longer your father, but your Father is now the Heavenly Father.

A child is born in Satan's family.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

We are born into the family of Satan; thus Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Ye must be born again." You must be born into God's family.

To take scripture out of context (such is the kingdom of God) that has nothing to do with this subject, is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. There Jesus was teaching about faith, not salvation.

The son in the parable remained a son of the Father. He never was a son of anyone else. He didn't need another birth.

 

[Brother Bob]

A child is born in Satan's family.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Was the child a part of the conception?

Jesus felt different than you do about the infants.

You are among those who believe children are hell bound, right?

The son in the parable remained a son of the Father. He never was a son of anyone else. He didn't need another birth.

When he was in whoredom, he had an evil spirit which is the spirit of the devil and therefore the devil was his father. Whosoever you lend your members you are the servant thereof. How can you say you have the devil's spirit but a child of God?

God put Israel away. He will also put us away when we sin. "the soul that sinneth shall die". You don't die natural but you are dead to God.

Maybe you can see it but not me God looking at whoredom and saying "those are my children". hogwash.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

A child is born in Satan's family.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

We are born into the family of Satan; thus Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Ye must be born again." You must be born into God's family.

To take scripture out of context (such is the kingdom of God) that has nothing to do with this subject, is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. There Jesus was teaching about faith, not salvation.

The son in the parable remained a son of the Father. He never was a son of anyone else. He didn't need another birth.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "You must be born again?" He meant that becoming a Christian must entail a remarkable change in someone's lifestyle. When Christ told the rich young ruler that he must sell all that he had and give it to the poor he was not saying that money prevents someone from entering the kingdom of heaven, although He did say it made it more difficult. No, Jesus was saying that a true Christian must make Christ the Lord of his life. You cannot serve two masters. Only t5hose who serve the Lord are saved.

 

[EdSutton]

BTW, Scripture never says that the onery, self-righteous, obnoxious, judgmental, pharisaical, elder brother ever got back into fellowship with the father, even though he was to receive his full inheritance, but the so-called 'prodigal' did!

I don't remember reading where he was ever out of fellowship with the Father? Help!

Well, bein' as you asked nicely...:laugh: :laugh: I should have added coveteous and on his own "pity parties", to the older brother's 'faults', but unfortunately did not at first. Anyway, Luke 15: 17-32 - NKJV, with the text interspersed with my comments

17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, 19 and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.”’

The 'prodigal' has here repented, i.e. "changed his mind, or thinking". (That is what 'metanoeO' means.) Now he is going to do something further about this, having already "repented". He is going to now confess to his father, and has his speech already worked out. And is going to ask his father to take him in as he would a slave. (Follow, as a slave)

20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring[b] out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.

Did you note that the Father was always looking for the son to return? He could have gone and forcefully brought him back, I guess, but did not. And he did not even let the son finish his speech and offer for slavehood. His position as a son had never changed with the father, even absent the close fellowship, but not so in the eyes of his brother as we will now see.

25 “Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant.

He got his information, second-handed, relying on 'hearsay' rather than seeing for himself. I'd say that is at least a bit onery, to say the least, wouldn't you?

27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’
28 “But he was angry and would not go in.

IOW, "My feelings are hurt, and I'm mad about this, and I ain't having nothing to do with that trash!!" Why was he angry? He had been wronged in no way. He was "angry at his brother without cause", as Jesus said in another place, and you do remember what were the warnings of that, I presume. I'd call that obnoxious; how about you?

Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him.

His father had to come out and personally plead with him. Does that sound like he was in good fellowship with his father to you?

29 So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you;

"I feel like you treat me like a slave!!" Pity party No. 1

I never transgressed your commandment at any time;

"Haven't you noticed how righteous I am and have been??" Well, self-righteous, anyway!

and yet you never gave me a young goat,

"I didn't get anything! Never mind that it is all mine anyway, it still is not enough! I want more!" Would you call that coveteous?? I would, but maybe that is just me.

that I might make merry with my friends.

"I don't get to have any fun with my buddies! " Pity Party No.2

30 But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’

"He ain't MY brother; He's YOUR son!! Oh yeah, and you know how he had to have been living! I've heard stories about that place! Oh yeah, and that dinner you are throwing should have been for me!!" (What he did not voice was, "I don't really care about my brother, I love that calf more than I love that scum!")

Well, third-hand 'hearsay' anyway. (Judgmental, maybe??) He just tripped himself up. (Note that he said he'd always been with the father for all these years in v. 29? And the father will agree, that the older brother was always with him in verse 31.) I'd say that is "bearing false witness". And the attitude that he 'knew' what the absent brother was really doing is certainly pharisaical, IMO, anyway. Would you agree, or not?

31 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. 32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’”

Note that the father said that everything was just as much the older brother's as it was the father's own. It was all his, already! And note the words of grace, love, and forgiveness exhibited by the father to the younger brother, for the benefit of the older brother, as well in verse 32a. just as in verse 24. And the father used the same words to the older brother, that he used himself in v. 24, only he says "your brother" in exactly the same way he said "my son".
But there is no word anywhere that the older son, ever agreed with his father in this. That may not seem to be "out of fellowship" to you, but it sure does to me.
So yes, I say the older brother was out of fellowship with the father, even right under his nose for all those years.

Hope that helps.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Note that the father said that everything was just as much the older brother's as it was the father's own. It was all his, already!

The Father disagreed with you Ed; The older son had not lost anything.
Also, God will receive all back that have went astray if they will repent. As long as we are serving the Devil then we chose who our father is.

I hate to tell you but you crossed yourself several times but that ok, just typical. You can add to the scripture but you sure don't want anyone else to.:laugh: :laugh: You are a blast Ed;

You are posting that the younger son who had chose the devil was still the son of the Father but the older son who stayed home but pouted was LOST. Now that is
Hilarious.

 

[EdSutton]

When he was in whoredom, he had an evil spirit which is the spirit of the devil and therefore the devil was his father. Whosoever you lend your members you are the servant thereof. How can you say you have the devil's spirit but a child of God?

God put Israel away. He will also put us away when we sin. "the soul that sinneth shall die". You don't die natural but you are dead to God.

Maybe you can see it but not me God looking at whoredom and saying "those are my children". hogwash.

Actually, neither Jesus, nor the father, nor the 'prodigal' ever said that "he was in whoredom". Only the older brother, whom by his own admission, could not have known that for himself, made that charge.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The Father disagreed with you Ed; The older son had not lost anything.
Also, God will receive all back that have went astray if they will repent. As long as we are serving the Devil then we chose who our father is.

I hate to tell you but you crossed yourself several times but that ok, just typical. You can add to the scripture but you sure don't want anyone else to.:laugh: :laugh: You are a blast Ed;

You are posting that the younger son who had chose the devil was still the son of the Father but the older son who stayed home but pouted was LOST. Now that is
Hilarious.

I have never claimed the older son was 'lost'. In fact, I have specifically said (although not in this thread, I do not think) that both sons were always sons. And I did not say the older son had lost anything. You unfortunately misread that. It was all the older son's, just as much as it was the father's. But the younger son had lost all his worldly goods.

And I'm not sure that paraphrasing is "adding to the scripture", as I said IOW, or using the vernacular of today, any more than preaching a sermon, or writing a commentary, necessarily is. I am not one that particularly takes any offense to the paraphrases such as the Living Bible, or The Message, to name two, as long as either (or any other) does not contradict the actual Greek language. I do not know any Hebrew or Chaldee, so I do prefer a more 'literal' translation for any OT Scripture.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

He probably was a saint.

I never say where he denied it. Something made him feel unworthy now didn't it.

And I'm not sure that paraphrasing is "adding to the scripture", as I said IOW, or using the vernacular of today, any more than preaching a sermon, or writing a commentary, necessarily is. I am not one that particularly takes offense to the paraphrases such as the Living Bible, or The Message, as long as either (or any other) does not contradict the actual Greek language. I do not know any Hebrew or Chaldee, so I do prefer a more 'literal' translation for any OT Scripture.

Ed

I am sure now that it was you that did it Ed; you probably are right. Why in the world would you accuse others and then do it yourself, now that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

 

[EdSutton]

Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

He probably was a saint.

I never say where he denied it. Something made him feel unworthy now didn't it.


I am sure now that it was you that did it Ed; you probably are right. Why in the world would you accuse others and then do it yourself, now that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Granted, some saints ain't too 'saintly'.

I believe your disagreement, if there is any, with me is founded in three things, actually. First is my rejection of NT "repentance", as meaning "turning from sin". I hope that all do turn from sin, after repenting, but that is not the meaning of the word. And you have also argued the same point with others, as well as me. With little success, though. :laugh:

Secondly is the belief that believers can commit all kinds of sins. Again, I hope any do not, but Scripture never says one can't. Would you have welcomed the Mayor of Sodom into your assembly, and called him a righteous individual, after knowing he offered his daughters to the mob, as another poster mentioned in this thread? I probably would not have called him righteous, either, but God did.

And the third is your listing of a specific group of sins that will cause one to not be saved. There is only one, unbelief, as I see Scripture. So I guess we can and do disagree on this. Does that about cover it? FTR, I don't recall ever labeling anyone on the BB as "hypocritical", although I have strongly disagreed with some (usually over what free grace is), but I could have and could be mistaken in this. Gotta run, for now.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

I believe your disagreement, if there is any, with me is founded in three things, actually. First is my rejection of NT "repentance", as meaning "turning from sin". I hope that all do turn from sin, after repenting, but that is not the meaning of the word. And you have also argued the same point with others, as well as me. With little success, though. :laugh:

What is "repentance" Ed;?

Secondly is the belief that believers can commit all kinds of sins. Again, I hope any do not, but Scripture never says one can't. Would you have welcomed the Mayor of Sodom into your assembly, and called him a righteous individual, after knowing he offered his daughters to the mob, as another poster mentioned in this thread? I probably would not have called him righteous, either, but God did.

You are right here Ed; I believe God's Grace can save us and I also believe God's Grace can keep us until the end.

And the third is your listing of a specific group of sins that will cause one to not be saved. There is only one, unbelief, as I see Scripture. So I guess we can and do disagree on this. Does that about cover it? FTR, I don't recall ever labeling anyone on the BB as "hypocritical", although I have strongly disagreed with some (usually over what free grace is), but I could have and could be mistaken in this. Gotta run, for now.

Ed

I have made no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I do believe that the believers don't commit such actions as homosexuality, adultereous and etc. I believe God's Grace is stronger than that but apparently you don't.

Have a good evening Ed;

 

[DHK]

I have made no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I do believe that the believers don't commit such actions as homosexuality, adultereous and etc. I believe God's Grace is stronger than that but apparently you don't.

That is a very hypocritical statement Bob.
"I have no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except...homosexuality, adultery, and etc." The latter part of your statement contradicts the former part of your statement, so why make the statement at all. Either God forgives or he doesn't. You just made a statement showing how the God that you believe in does not forgive sins. That is a dreadfully poor outlook or view of God.
"I believe God forgives sins, except..." There is no exception clause with God. His forgiveness is unconditional. There is no sin that he cannot forgive. Not one. If there was any sin that God could not forgvie then his death would be in vain, for he atoned for ALL the sins of the world not just 50 or 60% of them. Or don't you believe that Christ paid the penalty of all of our sins.

Tell me what you believe:

Is it this:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Or this?
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him 60 % of the iniquity of us all.

Which sins did the blood of Christ not pay for? Perhaps it was that adultery that a Christian committed (as in 1Cor.5). Correct? Or is that list of sins mentioned in Rev.22? Where is your list of unforgiveable sins? Christ's blood is not sufficient to pay the penalty of all of our sins according to your theology is it?

 

[EdSutton]

I believe your disagreement, if there is any, with me is founded in three things, actually. First is my rejection of NT "repentance", as meaning "turning from sin". I hope that all do turn from sin, after repenting, but that is not the meaning of the word. And you have also argued the same point with others, as well as me. With little success, though. :laugh:

What is "repentance" Ed;?

But we are still getting away from the real question of the OP, "Is repentance required for salvation?" I have already answered "Yes, absolutely!" I have believed, 'preached' and taught that it is, and consistently, for almost 40 years. I have just as consistently believed, 'preached', and taught that the "repentance required for salvation" is not "turning from sin" for that "additional requirement" to believe/faith in order to be saved, is not taught in Scripture.

But as I worded it (and a couple more 'followed suit') "repent is the 'flip-side' of believe", as regards eternal salvation. It is not to be a 'backloading', or a 'sneaking in the back door' into faith of works of "turning from sin", first.
I cringe at the number of individuals who attempt this, by loudly proclaiming that this unspoken self-reformation is necessary before one can be saved, and also the number that blithely proclaim that some Biblical character "first" repented (of his or her sin), and then "got saved" when Scripture says no such thing. Let Scripture speak, and let us hear, and then let us proclaim the 'free gift' of salvation by grace through faith, in 'Biblical terminology'. Then these 'false issues' will not even come up, IMO!

Let the Holy Spirit do His job of "convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment"! He does not need our help, in this. Nor does He need our help in what I call the thinking of "You gotta' get 'em 'lost', before ya' get them saved." They are already lost, without any help from any of us. The Holy Spirit reveals that, not us. (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37791&page=4 post #35)

I'll answer these in order. It is/was not necessary to mention it, for "repenting" is part and parcel of "believing". (Note there is a slight difference in the 'force' of a verb form and a noun form which we be expanded on momentarily.)
The lack of mention of "repenting", in the Acts passage does necessarily "mean you don't even have to repent", at all. But the question is unclear, as asked, thus far. The key question is the next one you asked Quote:
And what does repent even mean?
Here is what "repent" means in the NT. There are two words rendered "repent" in the NT, at least in the KJV. The one that is far more common is "metanoeO" (I use the upper case "O" to transliterate 'omega', and the lower case for 'omicron', to differentiate.), and is used some 30 times. This word means to think afterward (or differently), and in fact contains within itself the root word ("nous") for 'mind' hence is associated with the intellect, and is the word the NT uses in every instance as having anything to do with salvation. The second word rendered "repent" is "metamellomai", and is used 6 times. This word means to care (or feel) afterward (or differently), and contains the middle voice of the root word ("melo") hence, a reflexive use for 'concern' or 'to concern oneself', and is associated with the emotions. The word rendered "repentance" in the NT in every case, is the word "metanoia" the noun form of "metanoeO', and thus, refers to "a change of mind".

The OT word is apparently "nacham" (And here I am relying on several others, not understanding neither any Hebrew nor Chaldee.), and appartently carries the force of "to be eased", or of 'reflexive compassion' and is probably closer to 'metamellomai', than to 'metanoeO', although there could be some slight 'blurring' here, IMO. (There are three instances where the KJV renders "shub" as repent, but it would undoubtedly be better rendered as 'turn' or 'return' or something akin, as it is in some 600 other places in the OT, and in fact, the ASV, RV and NKJV all render it in this manner.) The one OT quote in the NT that has "repent" in some form is rendered with 'metamellomai' in Hebrews 7:21.

We often get into trouble, IMO, by attempting to read later English, especially 'church speak' back into Scripture. I've heard more sermons than I can count on my 10 fingers where one has spoken about David 'repenting' after his episode with Bathsheba.

Only one problem with this. The Bible never says this, anywhere, as far as I can tell. Did David 'acknowledge' his sin? Absolutely! Did David 'confess' his sin? Again, the answer is definitely yes. Did David "repent of his sin"? Scripture doesn't say this. In fact, only one individual human in the OT is ever said, in any manner, to repent, and that is Job. (Job 42:6) (And he didn't have to get "cleaned up" to do it, either, for he was already covered "in sackcloth and ashes".) But you might consider that God is said to 'repent' and/or not 'repent' over 30 times. And I assure you, I'm not about to suggest that God was in any way involved with sin.

And the Bible never uses the phrase "repent of (or for) one(s) sins" in any manner whatsoever, let alone, making some supposed distinction between the ones which "are fresh on one's mind' and the ones "which have been forgotten". And I am very leery of (mis)using the Bible in this manner, personally. I'd personally suggest directing repentance in the two ways found in Scripture, "(Edited, here to remove a misprint)...repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21) and "...repentance from dead works and faith toward God,"...(Heb. 6:1), and associating it with the related idea of 'faith' found in the same two passages.

Hope this is a bit informative. ( http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35228&page=3 post #23 You might also check out post # 37 in the same thread.)

That is a start, and I'm sure I could find more posts about this if I took another couple of hours. But that should effectively give a short summary.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

That is a very hypocritical statement Bob.
"I have no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except...homosexuality, adultery, and etc." The latter part of your statement contradicts the former part of your statement, so why make the statement at all. Either God forgives or he doesn't. You just made a statement showing how the God that you believe in does not forgive sins. That is a dreadfully poor outlook or view of God.
"I believe God forgives sins, except..." There is no exception clause with God. His forgiveness is unconditional. There is no sin that he cannot forgive. Not one. If there was any sin that God could not forgvie then his death would be in vain, for he atoned for ALL the sins of the world not just 50 or 60% of them. Or don't you believe that Christ paid the penalty of all of our sins.
DHK

It does not, that is the problem, you can't seem to comphrend what I did write. I was talking about believers and unbelievers if you can figure that out. I really think you misunderstand what my posts say most of the time, because its hard to believe someone believes like you do.

Which sins did the blood of Christ not pay for? Perhaps it was that adultery that a Christian committed (as in 1Cor.5). Correct? Or is that list of sins mentioned in Rev.22? Where is your list of unforgiveable sins? Christ's blood is not sufficient to pay the penalty of all of our sins according to your theology is it?
__________________
DHK

Unforgiven sins. Think about it a while, if all sins were forgiven there would be no LOST.

 

[Brother Bob]

And the Bible never uses the phrase "repent of (or for) one(s) sins" in any manner whatsoever,

Luk 13:4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luk 13:5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


Act 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Repentance is what Jesus asked us all to do Ed; You miss the whole point of who is saved.

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 26:20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

You got yourself all messed up about repentance Ed;

 

[EdSutton]

Luk 13:4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luk 13:5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


Act 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Repentance is what Jesus asked us all to do Ed; You miss the whole point of who is saved.

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 26:20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

You got yourself all messed up about repentance Ed;

No I don't "miss the whole point", at all. I 'preach' repentance, and that it is commanded (Acts 17:30) all the time. I repented toward the Lord many years ago for salvation (Acts 20:21), and repented from dead works in the same manner. (Heb. 6:1) That is what I believe and teach, for that is what the Bible says. I 'preach' that one should certainly 'repent', concerning sin, but that cannot happen to a lost individual. at all, as one who is lost is still "in your sins".

What I do not 'preach' and do not believe, and the Bible does not teach, is some convoluted "turn or burn"; "forsake or bake"; "try and cry, or you will fry" religion. That is what is "messed up", just as is the continuing insistence that the phrase "repent of your sins" is really what is meant, when one sees the word "repent", even though the phrase never occurs in Scripture.

And as I have asked many times before, God is said to "repent" or "not repent" 30 times in the Bible (which is at least 27 times more than any individual), so what sins is the absolutely holy LORD God supposed to have to have "repented of"?

I'm still waiting for a good answer to that one!

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Luk 13:5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


Act 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Repentance is what Jesus asked us all to do Ed; You miss the whole point of who is saved.

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 26:20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

All these people were lost when these scriptures were preached to them Ed;

If repent is to turn:

Jon 3:10¶And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not.

You tell me Ed;????