Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

I would like to urge you to read this short article

I wrote concerning that passage.

This is to assume that those people were in a state of “unbelief”. So to repent, was not to forsake their sin, but to turn away from their current state of unbelief.

That passage is only talking about a person doing the will of God. That repentance is another situation where the person had a “change of mind”

Again, there is no indication whatsoever that Peter was referring to “putting away sinfulness” to appease God. Peter was only calling for a “change of mind” toward salvation. This change of mind would be to believe, and have faith by which righteousness is imputed.

It is the righteousness of Christ which justifies us, not repentance of sin.

We are called to be obedient to God though, and “repent” after we are saved, but this is not to recieve justification, we are to repent out of love for Christ.

JohnI read the article and I’m sorry John, but that just doesn’t wash. In every case the repentence spoken of by the Word of God is one of actions which involve ceasing the sinful lifestyle and following Our Lord in faith. Again, you have offered your interpretation instead of what the Bible actually says. Otherwise why would Our Lord have said “sin no more…” (John 5:14 & 8:11)

Even the Greek means to make a paradigm shift in the complete opposite direction.

By your interpretation, one can be saved without ever making a change in one’s sinful lifestyle as a result of new found faith, and that is very seriously wrong. It gives carte blanche to people to live anyway they please and still expect to enter the kingdom of God. How you cannot see the falacy of your own teachings is beyond me.
Pax tecum,

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

John read verse 34 “Then in anger the master handed him over to the torturers UNTIL he should pay back the WHOLE debt.”." Dont sound like he could not have paid him back in this verse now does it. This is another one of your flawed interpritations.

I have read verse 34, and it still doesn’t prove that the wicked servant could have paid the debt… in fact he could not, especially in a position of being tormented.

The fact is, the just penalty for the debt the servant owed was laid out in verse 25…

Mat 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

That mercy was never revoked… we are not told that after he refused to forgive his fellowservant the master sold him, his wife and children, and his possession to regain the debt… we are only told that he was handed over to the tormentors.

When we are saved the whole debt is forgiven, we never need to worry about hell… but, if you refuse to forgive others as you have been forgiven; you will open a door to the tormentors (devils) to do what they will…

Evidence for this can be found in mental institutions where people have allowed a root of bitterness to grow by refusing to forgive, and by doing so are tormented.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

By your interpretation, one can be saved without ever making a change in one’s sinful lifestyle as a result of new found faith, and that is very seriously wrong.

There is a contradiction in your statement quoted above, which illustrates a lack of understanding what salvation is.

You said; “one can be saved without ever making a change in one’s sinful lifestyle”… you are right you can (more on that later).

Then you alluded to repentance as being a change in one’s lifestyle as a result of new found faith… yes, that is what it is.

Repentance of sin is only pleasing to God if it is done out of love for God… and we can’t comprehend the love of God unless we have received grace by faith.

Also, repentance of sin cannot logically be appropriate toward salvation because if we are guilty of sin (offending in the law), we are guilty of the whole law…

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

So, in order to fully reverse your sinful state, you would have to completeley repent of all sin… that is impossible because you are not even aware of the majority of your sins.

But, since we in this sense are totally depraved, God sent Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins, so that if we ACCEPT His payment for our sins, we don’t owe anything to God.

It is from this perspective of understanding God’s love toward us, and being grateful for His love and grace, that we begin to abhor our own sinfulness, and repent to become more pleasing to Him.

Otherwise why would Our Lord have said “sin no more…” (John 5:14 & 8:11)

Jesus told them to “sin no more” because they were still under the law… Jesus hadn’t paid the price for their sins yet, He hadn’t died on the cross yet. And after He was to die on the cross, He was to rise again so that HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS could be imputed to them.

Jesus is the Word of God made flesh (John 1), The Word of God is the Law.

Jesus, being the Law, died on the cross. We are not under the law anymore, but under grace.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Q and A - Repent or Perish

I’ve mentioned it before, but I’ll say it again. In the link above, you stated “The idea that baptism is necessary for salvation came from the teachings of Augustine in the 4th century A.D.”

Is your lack of historical accuracy purposeful manipulation or just the result of sloppy scholarship?

 

[Odell]

Odell,
I have read verse 34, and it still doesn’t prove that the wicked servant could have paid the debt… in fact he could not, especially in a position of being tormented.

The verse says UNTIL HE SHOULD PAY BACK THE WHOLE DEBT

Its what the word of God says John. Now we dont know if its simbolic or not but it is obviouse that he has to pay a price for his sins even though he is already his lords servant. Seems to me that there is a just punishment for the sins that we do not repent for. You see he was forgiven when he repented the first time. He didnt have to be punished for the sin, the sin was washed away. So how did he later on be punished for somthing he was already forgiven for? Because you have to show works of your repentance.

There is a just penalty for the sins you comit. You must ask forgivness to avoid the just penilty.

So do you believe this or not God penilizes us for or sins even though we are saved?

Church Militant,
But, since we in this sense are totally depraved, God sent Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins, so that if we ACCEPT His payment for our sins, we don’t owe anything to God.

So we dont pay the price for our sins?

Jesus told them to “sin no more” because they were still under the law… Jesus hadn’t paid the price for their sins yet, He hadn’t died on the cross yet. And after He was to die on the cross, He was to rise again so that HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS could be imputed to them.

So are you telling us Jesus expected them to sin no more then. But after he dies they are ok to sin?

 

[Philthy]

Odell,

Repentance of sin, to the effect of salvation is a work on our part to achieve what Christ already did… He alone atoned for sin.

Hello -

Lets cut to the chase here:

• If Christ has already accomplished the forgiveness of sin by his atonement then why is everyone not saved? **If **your answer is that “Because they dont believe” then I would like to know whether or not Christ atoned for their sins - yes or no, please.
• And if repentance is not a requirement of forgiveness, then why, when asked by the Jews “What are we do to?” did Peter respond with, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS”?

 

[Philthy]

That article was only addressing salvation, and the lack of the need for repentance of sin required for salvation. The only time I addressed repentance “after” salvation was in the final statement in that same article…
John
www.gideonsword.net

Here is the exact material from your website:
bibleapologists website:

Don’t these people have to repent to be forgiven? Julie Ann

The answer is no. This idea that a person must repent of thier sins to be forgiven is intellectually satisfying (it makes us feel like we have done something to "make up" for what we have done wrong). This idea is really only man's philosophy though, it is not an idea that is derived from the Bible.

It is very easy to see that you are specifically addressing whether one needs to repent to be FORGIVEN. And your claim is that one does not need to repent. The article was NOT “only addressing salvation and the lack of the need for repentance” as you claim above. That seems intellectually dishonest to me as is the claim that repentance for sin “is not an idea derived from the bible”.

 

[bibleapologist]

odell,

There is a just penalty for the sins you comit. You must ask forgivness to avoid the just penilty.

So do you believe this or not God penilizes us for or sins even though we are saved?

Although as far as the Father is concerned, as we being in Christ as saved individuals He only sees us as justified.

But, as Paul explains in Romans chapter 7 we still have to deal with sin and it’s effects in our flesh daily. Every sin carries a consequence… first, as contributing to the death of our flesh, and secondly as bringing about “reproof” by God to persuade us to put off sin.

The wicked servant who refused to forgive was not being judged for the sin he had previously been forgiven of, but he was being reproved for the unforgiveness he had toward his fellowservant.

So are you telling us Jesus expected them to sin no more then. But after he dies they are ok to sin?

Of course not, God has never… and will never allow sin because it is damaging to ourselves and others.

As far as how God deals with man before Christ’s death, and after… there are obviously two very different dispensations: The theocracy, and the Church age… but beyond all that, justification has always been by grace through faith… from Abel to Abraham to David and also to us.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

If Christ has already accomplished the forgiveness of sin by his atonement then why is everyone not saved? If your answer is that “Because they dont believe” then I would like to know whether or not Christ atoned for their sins - yes or no, please.

The answer is Yes. All sin has been atoned for… Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

As far as the Father is concerned, when you stand before him on judgment day you will not be charged with all the individual sins you have committed… they are all atoned for. The ONLY thing you will be charged with is REJECTION OF CHRIST.

1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

It is very easy to see that you are specifically addressing whether one needs to repent to be FORGIVEN. And your claim is that one does not need to repent. The article was NOT “only addressing salvation and the lack of the need for repentance” as you claim above. That seems intellectually dishonest to me as is the claim that repentance for sin “is not an idea derived from the bible”.
Reply With Quote

In the context of the question that was asked of me, that person was concerned for her father’s salvation. That he would lose his salvation because he was in a state of sinfulness and had not repented.

My answer to her was regarding repentance and how it relates to salvation… Repentance of sin does not facilitate salvation, neither does it secure salvation once it is obtained… Repentance of sin is only required to be obedient to God, and this obedience to repent is allow God to make us more Christ-like.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Repentance is perfectly illustrated by circumcision…

The Circumcision, as was stated in Genesis 17:11, was a token of the Covenant between God and Abraham. A token, is defined by Webster as: “A sign; something intended to represent or indicate another thing or an event.

So, the circumcision, being a token of the covenant, is a picture of what the covenant was. But, the token doesn’t mean anything to someone who doesn’t understand what the token represents. The token of the circumcision represented a changed heart; it is an illustration of repentance.

Romans 2:29 says: “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God”. Paul is referring to the circumcision of the heart.

The next event that takes place in John chapter 14 is that Jesus says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”. This is following the same pattern that we see in Genesis 17, in that God told Abraham to keep His commandment, “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.”

The commandment that came to Abraham was to repent. God had told him to circumcise himself and every man child. In a New Testament believer’s life, the Holy Spirit is the one who speaks to the heart and gives the commandment to live a pure life, and this leads to repentance.

But this repentance cannot be mustered up by our-selves, it is God that grants repentance (Acts 11:16-18), and it was God who granted the ability for Abraham to administer the circumcision. Abraham could not have known to circumcise himself and his household unless God had given the commandment.

In the New Testament, the commandment works repentance.

Paul writes in Romans 7:7: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

There are a couple of statements I would like to make about the illustration that the book of Genesis gives us in circumcision that I think are relevant: First, the circumcision was a “permanent” mark on the body of the one under the covenant, Second, it was done in a circular fashion to symbolize the eternal or never ending nature of the covenant, and Lastly, it was administered to the reproductive organ of the male.

This is an act to symbolically put away the filth of the flesh, or repentance. The foreskin that was cut away at the time of circumcision symbolized the filth of the flesh. Not only was it an unsanitary and therefore unhealthy part of the organ, and a good health practice to remove it, it was a prophetic act of repentance.

Cont. on next post…

 

[bibleapologist]

cont…

Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male that was born, and this was done as a token of the covenant between God and the seed of Abraham. This was done in the physical sense to typify what was to come when Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets.

In the physical sense, (speaking of the circumcision) it is the male that brings the seed to the woman, and the woman bears the child and nurtures that child. In the New Testament, it is God’s plan that men be the vessels that carry the Gospel and share it with others (Mark 16:15), and it is the Holy Spirit that gives new life to a born-again believer, in the spiritual sense this being fruitful and multiplying (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Cor. 4:17, Phm. 1:10, 1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Pet. 5:13, Titus 1:4).

So, Abraham was not circumcising his male children because they had faith, he was circumcising his male children because he had begotten them by his seed, they were his offspring and they were given life by his wife (and not just he and his wife, but all those who were his posterity).

New life in the Body of Christ is transferred in the same way: a believer shares the Gospel with an unbeliever (the seed), and the Holy Spirit gives life, and nurtures the “babe in Christ” (John 14:26, 1 Cor. 3:1, Heb 5:13, 1 Pet 2:2).

        The evidence of a “Born again” believer is the act of obedience of putting off the filth of the flesh.  This is the circumcision of the heart that the Prophets were earnestly looking for (Duet. 30:6,  Jer. 4:4).  It was this circumcision of the heart that the Apostle Paul was referring to in Romans 2:29,  “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

        Likewise the evidence of one under the Old Testament covenant was the circumcision.  But if a child was failed to be circumcised (or anyone else), that person would be cut off from his people (Genesis 17:14).  This is no different than salvation in the New Testament.  In John 15:6 we also see that one who refuses separate themselves as one of God’s people will be cut off.  This does not mean that they will lose their salvation; we have already established that the act of the circumcision was not salvation itself, but a token of it.  If a person failed to be circumcised, he was illustrating the failure to accept the grace of God.  Those people are those who never had the faith of Abraham to begin with (1 John 2:19a “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:”) ["The Theocracy Conspiracy" Gideon's Sword Publications](http://www.gideonsword.net/publications)

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Milliardo]

As far as the Father is concerned, when you stand before him on judgment day you will not be charged with all the individual sins you have committed… they are all atoned for. The ONLY thing you will be charged with is REJECTION OF CHRIST.

This does not make any sense at all; so, what is your definition of sin? As most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, acknowledge, sin is a rejection of Christ. What you say then is very strange, since you seem to be redefining sin, so I am interested what your view of sin is. Or, in a more direct way, do you or do you not agree that sin is a rejection of Christ?

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
The answer is Yes. All sin has been atoned for… Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

I agree. So why are people punished in Hell? Didn’t God take his wrath out already on Christ? Is God “double dipping”?

bibleapologist:

As far as the Father is concerned, when you stand before him on judgment day you will not be charged with all the individual sins you have committed… they are all atoned for. The ONLY thing you will be charged with is REJECTION OF CHRIST.
John
www.gideonsword.net

But John thats what sinning is - it is rejecting Christ. When you sin you reject Christ. This is perhaps the most fundamental reality of the Christian walk. To claim otherwise would be to say that God lied in his promise that “he will provide a way out” so that we can avoid sin (1Cor10:13) and that we are, therefore justified in our sinning. Paul addressed this specific issue when others twisted the Gospel message. “Shall we sin so that grace may abound?” they wondered, and his reply was unequivocal -“Of course not!” But he went further than that. He said that adulterers, drunkards, murderers, thieves and liars will not enter the kingdom of heaven. He’s talking about sins, and he says that they wont be saved if they persist in their sin and therefore reject the gift of forgiveness offered in Christ. You need to start dealing with reality.
On another level you appear to be oblivious to the fact that if Christ has accomplished the salvation of all and the only thing that prevents someone from being saved is “rejecting Christ” then you have everyone who has never heard of Christ saved! You cannot reject someone you dont know and since Christ’s atonement applies to them, they are saved! It would seem you are missing some big pieces of the picture.

 

[Odell]

odell,
Although as far as the Father is concerned, as we being in Christ as saved individuals He only sees us as justified.

why does he not see those in Hell justified? There sin is atoned for.

The wicked servant who refused to forgive was not being judged for the sin he had previously been forgiven of, but he was being reproved for the unforgiveness he had toward his fellowservant.

The problem is he was being punished for a sin Jesus already atoned for.

Of course not, God has never… and will never allow sin because it is damaging to ourselves and others.

But is it really damagin to us if Jesus atoned for it?

As far as how God deals with man before Christ’s death, and after… there are obviously two very different dispensations: The theocracy, and the Church age…

You will have to explain this further because you really lost me here.

As far as the Father is concerned, when you stand before him on judgment day you will not be charged with all the individual sins you have committed… they are all atoned for. The ONLY thing you will be charged with is REJECTION OF CHRIST.

Not one JUDGEMENT acount in the bible talks about being judged by only our faith. Thats assuming that when you say rejection of Christ you are not pertaining to sin also, but just faith.

(Rom 5-8) “By your stubbornnes and impatiant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just **JUDGEMENT **of God, who will repay everyone according to his works eternal life to those who seek glory.”

(Rev20:13) “The sea gave up its dead: then Death and Hades gave up there dead. ALL the daed where JUDGED acording to there deeds.”

(Mt12:36) " I tell you, on the day of judgement people will render an account for EVERY CARELESS WORD the speak."

Again why is all the **JUDGEMENT ** acounts in the bible about what we do and dont do. But you are telling us different.

more verse to look up on judgment
(Rev22:12) (Mt16:27) (Mt25:31-41) (1Pt1:17) (2Cor5:10)

 

[bibleapologist]

Milliardo,

This does not make any sense at all; so, what is your definition of sin? As most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, acknowledge, sin is a rejection of Christ. What you say then is very strange, since you seem to be redefining sin, so I am interested what your view of sin is. Or, in a more direct way, do you or do you not agree that sin is a rejection of Christ?

Sin is not exclusively a rejection of Christ, sin is a rejection of God’s commandment… or “the law”. Romans chaper 7 gives a good explanation of repentance…

“Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

True repentance of sin, to be Biblical, is not because of a worldly sorrow; ie (my wife will leave me if I don’t quit drinking)… but out of a Godly sorrow; ie (if what I’m doing hinders my relationship with Christ, I don’t want it in my life).

This “true repentance” cannot be to gain salvation, or justification because the law isn’t given to us by the letter anymore as it was in the Old Testament times… the law is now written in our hearts…

“Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

I agree. So why are people punished in Hell? Didn’t God take his wrath out already on Christ? Is God “double dipping”?

Christ did pay the price for the sins of the whole world (to which you agree), but unless the individual sinner accepts Christ, and the free gift of salvation they will stand before God as guilty.

“Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

Righteousness is not gained by repentance and adherance to the law… but by faith in Christ… which is how we acquire the righteousness of God. No-one who has that righteousness will be judged because they are “in Christ”.

But John thats what sinning is - it is rejecting Christ. When you sin you reject Christ.

No, sinning is rejecting the letter of the law (the commandment). A person can attempt to keep the law, and still reject Christ and His atoning sacrifice… the Pharisees did.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Al_Masetti]

I get the feeling that it is not necessary for a sinner to write a book about repentence and sorrow.

All he (or she) has to do is say that they’re sorry.

And to do the best they can to avoid backsliding.

And if they do backslide, to again say they’re sorry.

And to repeat the process until they finally quit backsliding.

On more than a few occasions, Jesus sort of indicated that an expression of sorrow was all that was needed.

I’m thinking of St. Dismas … and also the fellow who just stayed at the back of the synagoge and begged for forgiveness. And the Roman soldier who simply said “I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof” … The Church thought so much of that unknown soldier that his words were part of the rubrics of the Mass until just recently.

 

[Milliardo]

Sin is not exclusively a rejection of Christ, sin is a rejection of God’s commandment.

This explanation does not negate the fact that sin is a rejection of Christ, and in fact acutally only bolsters that notion. It’s a nice try, but it doesn’t cut it.

True repentance of sin, to be Biblical, is not because of a worldly sorrow; ie (my wife will leave me if I don’t quit drinking)… but out of a Godly sorrow; ie (if what I’m doing hinders my relationship with Christ, I don’t want it in my life).

That is true; does that then negate anything about repentance?

This “true repentance” cannot be to gain salvation, or justification because the law isn’t given to us by the letter anymore as it was in the Old Testament times… the law is now written in our hearts…

What you say here is contradictory, since you say that first that true repentance is Godly sorrow, which then must come from the heart, or should be sincere, then you come around and say it isn’t because it isn’t like that of the Law. So which one is it?

 

[Odell]

Milliardo,
True repentance of sin, to be Biblical, is not because of a worldly sorrow; ie (my wife will leave me if I don’t quit drinking)… but out of a Godly sorrow; ie (if what I’m doing hinders my relationship with Christ, I don’t want it in my life).

And believe it or not this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

You also realize that the sin hinders your relationship with Jesus. In which true repentance brings us back to a true relationship with Jesus.

One other thing. How does it hinder your relationship if Jesus already atoned for it and all God sees is Jesus not the sinner?

This “true repentance” cannot be to gain salvation, or justification because the law isn’t given to us by the letter anymore as it was in the Old Testament times… the law is now written in our hearts…

True repentance brings us back into a full relationship with Jesus. If you comit a mortal sin and sever your relationship with Jesus you are on your way to hell if you do not repent. You can not get anymore biblical than that.