Salvation minus repentance equals salvation?

Nope. I'm against that theory that the Jews only needed to repent of Who Messiah is, and that Gentiles need to repent of sins. I also not accusing anyone of saying this either. Just saying. And hopefully clarifying.

 

If we all think about this...

is repentance also involved in us confessing our sins?
We have to agree with God that it was sin, repent of it, in order to be able to willfully confess it to God?

can there be genuine faith without a form of genuine repentance?

 

Do yall haf to be babtyzed in back-watta in yer parts convicted1? or will iny ol watta be doin it OK fer yall now?

Holler bakk now, ya heer?

 

I'm not saying that. I am saying that the 'change of mind' or repentance for Jews is more personally profound than the repentance for the Gentiles. Does that make sense?

 

Granted

Those who heard, those who listened and learned He granted repentance that leads to life, Without His word you can't do anything.

 

Understand, as it would require them to actually accept jesus as their promised messiah, same way say a Muslim who turns to Christ has to undo Allah and Mohammed from his life in order to receive Christ instead!

Think though God asking for genuine repentance as part of salvation experience, regardless if jew/gentile!

 

Hank understood what you fellows did not understand. In the gospels John the Baptist preached repentance. That is not the gospel message of today. Thus I issued a challenge:
Without using the Gospels or the Book of Acts, show from the epistles that repentance is part of the gospel. Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved.
--Acts 17:30 does not fit that bill. That was on page 9 on the previous thread.

Later, on page 11, post #109, I issued another challenge. Show me anywhere in the NT, in fact in the entire Bible if you please, where a sinner must come to Christ by repenting of all his sins. That is an unbilblical concept nowhere found in the Bible. In fact it is a works-based religion running directly contrary to what Christianity teaches. Yet, it is sad to see that many of our preachers today still give an invitation that is worded very similar to that.
--Acts 17:30 does not fit that either.

In spite of all your arguments, not one of you were able to give a verse of Scripture that answered those challenges.

In his post Hank understood what I was getting at. Belief and repentance (defined correctly) are two sides of the same coin. Although I explained this in the other thread more than once, it seems that many of you did not accept it. If you believe on Christ then you have repented. You can't do one without the other. If I have truly believed on Christ, is not my mind changed toward my rebellious attitude that I formerly had against God. That is what repentance is--a change of mind with respect to one's attitude toward God. It occurs when one believes on Christ as their Savior. The gospel message is to believe on Christ. That is where the emphasis is.

 

Not really.

All of us understand it that you accuse of not understanding.

You were given verses. 2 Peter 3:9 alludes to it in the salvation story. It brings up the Second Coming, and uses this verse given to you to show why God has not sent His Son as of yet. Why not? That all would come to REPENTANCE for salvation. Notice it doesn't say that all will come to belief?

Proof is right there.

Also, there were other arguments given, and other passages.

We don't happen to agree with you, nor your interpretation of these verses given, which I believe you interpret in bias in order to arrive at your theological position. Instead, we let the Scriptures freely speak. By the way, many do intepret in bias and presupposition. It's nothing new.

2 Peter 3:9 is very clear. Many scholars and commentaries agree God awaits repentant ones to receive His Son.

In addition, you asked for one Bible verse in the NT, not just EPISTLES, that shows where God tells sinners to repent in yhet another one of your seperate questions. I gave it to you: Acts 17:30.

I provided it. It's simple really. God commands all men everywhere to repent.

And Peter gives us God's purpose in not sending His Son yet, a truth that remains as His purpose yet today, that is; That He is waiting for persons to repent.

 

I will try to get this answered one final time...

IF the command to repent is given in Gospels and Acts, why is it not binding upon us today as being part of the Gospel message to tell others?

Do we divide up the Bible to have Christians pre Epistles theology, and Epistles Christian theology?

isn't this getting real close to hyper -Dispy, that teaches essentially NOTHING in Gospel/Acts is to/for Church Age, ALL we need is Pauline Epistles only pretty much?

 

When I finally came to God, in tears, desiring salvation, I repented of nothing, I turned fron nothing, and I pomised God nothing.

It was a plain and simply cry for Jesus, salvation and new life.

It was after being saved, as the Holy Spirit started His work, that the reefer and the other drugs, and whiskey, and the self centeredness, sewer language and rebelion, and illicit sex etc etc began to fall out of my life.

Praise God!

You could say that a repented of NOT wanting Jesus to live in me.

I guess I DID repent of something. :thumbs:

 

Good luck with the part I've bolded! :laugh:

 

2Pet.3:9 says "unto repentance;" it does not say one must repent of any sin to be saved. Furthermore, it is God's will and desire for all men to be saved, whereas we know all men will not be saved. It is an expressed desire. There is no "repent from" in order to be saved in that verse.

What many other verses?
[quote[2 Peter 3:9 is very clear. Many scholars and commentaries agree God awaits repentant ones to receive His Son. [/quote]
Not your definition of repentance. I had to define repentance for you, a definition I still don't think you have quite comprehended, and why it is not used in the epistles.

To challenge one, it is not in the epistles.
To challenge two, it doesn't say one must repent of all their sins.
It fails on both counts.

By your definition. It does not meet the challenges that I issued you.

I didn't ask for verse with the word "repent" in it. I asked very specific questions which apparently you are not able to answer and for good reason.

 

Not your definition of repentance. I had to define repentance for you, a definition I still don't think you have quite comprehended, and why it is not used in the epistles.

To challenge one, it is not in the epistles.
To challenge two, it doesn't say one must repent of all their sins.
It fails on both counts.

By your definition. It does not meet the challenges that I issued you.

I didn't ask for verse with the word "repent" in it. I asked very specific questions which apparently you are not able to answer and for good reason.[/QUOTE]

So by your definition of the concept...

Does God ask us to "repent" and turn to Christ, placing faith in Him at all?

Just seeing IF you are saying NO repentance required at all todasy by God, or a different kind than he required early on in Church Age?

 

Yes. That is why we have dispensations. The Church age started with Pentecost, not with John the Baptists who had a ministry of a message of repentance. That is not the message of the gospel today. The message in the gospel was pre-cross. It makes a difference. In Acts we have a book of transition. They were still meeting first in the temple and then in the synagogue. It is a book of history. The epistles are where we get our doctrine from.

No, it is good hermeutical common sense.
Do you know that if you take away the Book of Acts from the Oneness Pentecostals they are unable to present to you the gospel. They can't do it without the Book of Acts. Why? Because of their emphasis on tongues and the filling of the Spirit. Though the entire book of Romans is all about salvation, they must have the book of Acts to present their version of the gospel. One cannot use history to teach doctrine.

 

Yes you did. I believe in repentance. I have said that many times, and have defined it many times. What happened when you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Your attitude toward God changed (repentance). Because He became your Lord, you became obedient to him, whereas before you were rebellious toward him. Repentance is a change of attitude toward God. And that change of attitude caused you to give up your sinful habits. You became a new creature in Christ.

Let's look at it another way. Did you have to repent of your sins in order to be saved. If you did, then you have a works salvation. Salvation is not reformation, but regeneration. It is not doing this and that, and this and that; and cleaning up your life in order to be saved. Do I have to repent of all my sins and get my life all in order before I can be saved. I hope not. I will never be saved if that is true. That is a religion that is based on works. The Bible does not teach: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent and you shall be saved. It simply says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Why are people adding to the word of God?