I was recently involved in a group discussion in which one of the members of the group noted that when salvation is mentioned in the New Testament, it is only connected with repentance when the audience hearing the message is Jewish, and that other places where it is mentioned in a gentile context, repentance is not mentioned, such as the Philippian jailer who asked Paul "What must I do to be saved?" and his response was not "Repent and believe," but simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your household."
I've always been taught that the New Testament must be taken wholistically, and that the rest of scripture should be interpreted in light of Christ's statement in Matt. 5:17, but it seems that this is a deliberate separation.
Has anyone else heard this, or stumbled across it?
Does the fact that repentance only being mentioned in a Jewish context mean that there is a reference there to the fact that, as a nation, in spite of their being chosen as the people through whom the savior would come, they must repent because they were also the ones who caused his crucifixion?
There are 213 more verses that prove salvation is by believing.
In the Gospel of John ( the most reconized Gospel on how one is saved) "Believe" is mentioned 90 times:"Repent is mentioned....NONE....the same amount of verses the false teachers of "repent unto salvation" have to prove one must "REPENT" to be saved.
The Bible clearly teaches that there are but three reasons one would "repent" in the salvation process....
1.unbelief 2.false gods and 3.good works or the works of the Law:Still,to repent from any of these things one must "Believe" first
(You cannot "Repent" or "confess" unless you first "Believe")
Show me in what verse did the Jailer,the Enuch or the thief "repent" to be saved.....and while your at it explain why "repent" is not mentioned even once in the Gospel of John.
I would say believing and repenting are wrapped up together, and all because of the drawing of God to Christ.
Faith is the gift that God gives us as well as eternal life.
Salvation is by Grace and Grace alone.
I would say that mans response is needed to the grace of being drawn to God through Christ.
Very true JD. You can not have belief without repentance, else what is the person believing in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection for?
Jesus tells us in Luk that unless you repent you shall all likewise perish and also in John that God so love the world..whosoever believes shall not perish..
In both instances we see both the lack of repenting and the lack of believing having the same effect... perishing. And you also have in both instances that to do them results in not perishing (eternal life).
If a person believes in Christ for their salvation, then it must also be true they understand what Christ did for their sins/sinfulness. As such, it necessarily follows that if one believes this then one must have also been convicted of their sins and life styles for which Christ died, and from this conviction that brouth forth faith also manifestes itself at the same time in repentance or a repentant heart.
Salvation and repentence are tightly intertwined and inseparable, but not synonynous.
The short answer to the OP is this:
Repentence is a process, but salvation is an event.
A person who gives his/her life to Christ is saved, but repentance is something not just somethign we do when we get saved, it's an attitude we embrace for the rest of our lives.
I also agree. I recently read Sproul's book, What is Reformed Theology?. The words "repent" or "repentance" are not found anywhere in his book.
Sproul also centers Reformed Theology squarely on God's Sovereignty. Since he seems to view it as the core of all Reformed Theology, he should understand this about that Sovereignty:
God set aside His Sovereignty in Jesus Christ. If Jesus had not been willing to humble Himself in that state, there would be no such thing as Salvation by Grace. I for one am thankful Jesus didn't insist on remaining Sovereign.
The word "tribulation" doesn't appear in the book either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in that either.
Sproul's book, "Reformed Theology" was a specific book written for a specific purpose.
One cannot infer anything based solely on whether a specific word appears in a specific work.
Repentance is the essence of conversion, it is a change of heart, mind, and direction out of a new desire to trust and serve Christ. By desire I dont mean that it is always a smiley event, but a heart that is hungry for forgiveness, sorry for his past, wanting to change, and needing Christ through the whole thing to be able to serve Him and be free. (beattitudes)
If one doesnt have a true heart change, then he doesnt really trust in Christ or see his need. There is most definitely a connection with the two.
If you don't turn from your life to faith and new life in Christ, then there isnt repentance or faith as they are both parts of the other. Now I think where the works part of repentance comes in is when people see it as a person having to stop sinning before they come to Christ. This isnt true, b/c grace takes you as you are and changes you. Because repentance is a change of heart and desire for Christ the person's heart will naturally hate his sin and desire to pursue a life of righteousness and continual repentance. In the Christian life this plays out pretty dirty in my opinion. In other words, our heart doesnt always desire Christ after our conversion.
When I read the Bible and someone says repent or believe I understand that language as meaning that both are included.
Did I say that? Actually I just mentioned that the words were not in the book. Don't misread me. I respect Sproul. His book, however, is not the Word of God but a book on a systematic theology. As such, it contains much human construct, just as a book on dispensationalism or any other systematic theology would. Human construct which purports to be based on Biblical truths is always (and should be) subject to scrutiny from that same Word. It is what made the Bereans noble.