Berean Church Of Christ
Berean Church Of Christ Blog Post
Looking to the past for direction to the future
Proposition 1 Repentance
Is "Repentance of sin" a Prerequisite Before Salvation
It is interesting to me that Martin Luther began his 95 Thesis with the topic of rep- pentance. Today if you ask people to define this word most would say that one should be "sorry for ones sins" and to "ask for forgiveness." Another answer would be to "turn away from ones sins" or "stop sinning." From the Biblical perspective neither is correct, despite repeated attempts to teach otherwise. This idea was foreign to the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit into the mysteries of "truth" and "grace." After Acts Chapter two the word (in English) "repent" is used 32 times in its various forms in the New Testament. The etymology of the word in English originated between 1,150 and 1,500 AD. It grew out of the Latin, 'poenitire' meaning to make sorry, or to feel regret. From the French we have the word, 'repenten' (c. 1,300 AD) meaning to be grieved over ones past and to seek forgiveness or regret of sins, crimes, or omissions as produces amendment of life. From this we also get the word 'penitentiary' and the Catholic word for 'penance,' (voluntary self punishment for having done wrong). This is how the word "repent" has come to carry the meaning that it does today. For the student of the Bible the problem is that the original Greek word translated 'repent' meant no such thing. The Greek word in question is the word "metanoia.' The classical definition of metanoia (Strong's / Vines) is; To change ones mind, from 'meta', to think, and 'nous,' mind. To understand the "who" or the "what" one is to change ones mind about can only be determined by the context where the word metanoia is used. I give a few examp- les in my PDF titled "To Repent or Not to Repent" from ancient Greek sources. That there is a distinction of the use of the word from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant seems to evade many people's notice. Under the Law of Moses, a works oriented system, 'turning from ones sins' was an integral part of receiving God's temporal blessings. "Keep my commandments, and I will bless you, break My commandments and I will curse you." When the man who violated God's laws turned away from the evil he was doing God accepted him back. This is why under John's baptism he baptized people "unto repentance." The Law required it. Of course all of this preceded what Jesus did for us on the cross. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8) Now, baptism is for the remission of sins. REPENT!, It's printed in all of our literature (Church of Christ) and it is cited every Sunday from the pulpits; believe, confess, repent of ones sins, be baptized, and re- main faithful until death. If questioned the preacher will most likely quote Acts 2:38; "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, repent, and let each of you be baptized for the remission of your sins....." And there you have it. The way it is understood and taught today is that before one can come to Christ one must first "repent of ones sins." Isn't that what Peter just said? There is never any discussion or explanation of what this means, or what is required regarding the word "repent." Preachers are afraid that any discussion of this topic would lead them to find that there was a divorce and a remarriage without "just cause" and this would prevent them from baptizing the candidate(s). The assumption is made that everyone knows what the word repent means and therefore there is no need for further discussion. So what did the word 'repent' actually mean 2,000 years ago? The actual Greek word for 'repent' is metanoia (repent in English) and it meant to "change ones mind." (Strong's # 3340). In the context that Peter is using this word based upon the nature of the question, "what shall we do," one must examine the context of the sermon which begins in verse 14 through to verse 36. Only from this context can one determine what the Jews in Jerusalem needed to "change their minds about." These were the same people who had grown up with Jesus and who knew Him personally. They had been eye witnesses of His 3 1/2 year ministry having seen many miracles, yet they rejected Him as being the long awaited Messiah. They did not "believe" in Him. Peter uses one prophecy after an other to persuade them that Jesus was the Messiah. There is not one single mention of "sin" in the entire recorded sermon. Based on their "marching orders," (Mt. 28:19-21 / Mk. 16:15-16), the first and most important step to answer their 'question' was to get them to "believe." "he that believeth, and has been baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not is condemned already." Peter's job was to get them to "believe." They had to 'metanoia' (repent, change their minds) about who this man Jesus really was. All later acts of conversions in the book of Act's do not use the term metanoia (repent) because those people had not known Jesus and rejected Him, as had the Jews to whom Peter was speaking. Under the conditions of the New Covenant, people were no longer baptized "unto repent- ance" but "unto the remission of sins." Why, because 'repentance of sin' was no longer a requirement. Jesus did not tell the apostles, "he that believeth, and who repents of sin, and has been baptized, shall be saved....." Had that been Peter's int- ention, he would have been found guilty of "transgressing the doctrine of Christ" (2 Jn.9), adding something for which there had been no command or instruction given. So the question is, does one need to "repent of ones sins" (whatever that actually means) as a prerequisite before one can be saved? The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO! In fact, it is antithetical to what Jesus did for us on the cross. What is being implied by this is that what Jesus did by going to the cross was not quite enough for us to make it to heaven. The idea being that we have to take steps to "clean up our acts" before we can receive God's free gift of grace, eternal life. (Rom. 6:23) For a complete take on this topic you can go to my PDF titled "2 Repent or not 2 Repent." At the top banner, go to "what we offer" and click on the PDF page. Before you choose to let the attack dogs out to get me, be sure to read the entire document all the way through. I am available for questions or discussion and would entertain doing a debate on this topic if anyone would be interested in hosting such an event. Maranatha!
It is interesting to me that Martin Luther began his 95 Thesis with the topic of rep- pentance. Today if you ask people to define this word most would say that one should be "sorry for ones sins" and to "ask for forgiveness." Another answer would be to "turn away from ones sins" or "stop sinning." From the Biblical perspective neither is correct, despite repeated attempts to teach otherwise. This idea was foreign to the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit into the mysteries of "truth" and "grace." After Acts Chapter two the word (in English) "repent" is used 32 times in its various forms in the New Testament. The etymology of the word in English originated between 1,150 and 1,500 AD. It grew out of the Latin, 'poenitire' meaning to make sorry, or to feel regret. From the French we have the word, 'repenten' (c. 1,300 AD) meaning to be grieved over ones past and to seek forgiveness or regret of sins, crimes, or omissions as produces amendment of life. From this we also get the word 'penitentiary' and the Catholic word for 'penance,' (voluntary self punishment for having done wrong). This is how the word "repent" has come to carry the meaning that it does today. For the student of the Bible the problem is that the original Greek word translated 'repent' meant no such thing. The Greek word in question is the word "metanoia.' The classical definition of metanoia (Strong's / Vines) is; To change ones mind, from 'meta', to think, and 'nous,' mind. To understand the "who" or the "what" one is to change ones mind about can only be determined by the context where the word metanoia is used. I give a few examp- les in my PDF titled "To Repent or Not to Repent" from ancient Greek sources. That there is a distinction of the use of the word from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant seems to evade many people's notice. Under the Law of Moses, a works oriented system, 'turning from ones sins' was an integral part of receiving God's temporal blessings. "Keep my commandments, and I will bless you, break My commandments and I will curse you." When the man who violated God's laws turned away from the evil he was doing God accepted him back. This is why under John's baptism he baptized people "unto repentance." The Law required it. Of course all of this preceded what Jesus did for us on the cross. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8) Now, baptism is for the remission of sins. REPENT!, It's printed in all of our literature (Church of Christ) and it is cited every Sunday from the pulpits; believe, confess, repent of ones sins, be baptized, and re- main faithful until death. If questioned the preacher will most likely quote Acts 2:38; "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, repent, and let each of you be baptized for the remission of your sins....." And there you have it. The way it is understood and taught today is that before one can come to Christ one must first "repent of ones sins." Isn't that what Peter just said? There is never any discussion or explanation of what this means, or what is required regarding the word "repent." Preachers are afraid that any discussion of this topic would lead them to find that there was a divorce and a remarriage without "just cause" and this would prevent them from baptizing the candidate(s). The assumption is made that everyone knows what the word repent means and therefore there is no need for further discussion. So what did the word 'repent' actually mean 2,000 years ago? The actual Greek word for 'repent' is metanoia (repent in English) and it meant to "change ones mind." (Strong's # 3340). In the context that Peter is using this word based upon the nature of the question, "what shall we do," one must examine the context of the sermon which begins in verse 14 through to verse 36. Only from this context can one determine what the Jews in Jerusalem needed to "change their minds about." These were the same people who had grown up with Jesus and who knew Him personally. They had been eye witnesses of His 3 1/2 year ministry having seen many miracles, yet they rejected Him as being the long awaited Messiah. They did not "believe" in Him. Peter uses one prophecy after an other to persuade them that Jesus was the Messiah. There is not one single mention of "sin" in the entire recorded sermon. Based on their "marching orders," (Mt. 28:19-21 / Mk. 16:15-16), the first and most important step to answer their 'question' was to get them to "believe." "he that believeth, and has been baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not is condemned already." Peter's job was to get them to "believe." They had to 'metanoia' (repent, change their minds) about who this man Jesus really was. All later acts of conversions in the book of Act's do not use the term metanoia (repent) because those people had not known Jesus and rejected Him, as had the Jews to whom Peter was speaking. Under the conditions of the New Covenant, people were no longer baptized "unto repent- ance" but "unto the remission of sins." Why, because 'repentance of sin' was no longer a requirement. Jesus did not tell the apostles, "he that believeth, and who repents of sin, and has been baptized, shall be saved....." Had that been Peter's int- ention, he would have been found guilty of "transgressing the doctrine of Christ" (2 Jn.9), adding something for which there had been no command or instruction given. So the question is, does one need to "repent of ones sins" (whatever that actually means) as a prerequisite before one can be saved? The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO! In fact, it is antithetical to what Jesus did for us on the cross. What is being implied by this is that what Jesus did by going to the cross was not quite enough for us to make it to heaven. The idea being that we have to take steps to "clean up our acts" before we can receive God's free gift of grace, eternal life. (Rom. 6:23) For a complete take on this topic you can go to my PDF titled "2 Repent or not 2 Repent." At the top banner, go to "what we offer" and click on the PDF page. Before you choose to let the attack dogs out to get me, be sure to read the entire document all the way through. I am available for questions or discussion and would entertain doing a debate on this topic if anyone would be interested in hosting such an event. Maranatha!
Proposition 2, 7 days of creation
Seven Days of Genesis, Symbolic or Real
I recently got into an online squabble with a brother in the church over this topic. It did not end well, but it showed me just how invested people are in this area of re- search. It also showed me just how unwilling people are to do any research that might poke a hole in their polarized position.
