Why is repentance not in the gospel of John?

Studyman · Oct 17, 2020

GDL said:
The John / repent issue is a free grace dispensationalism argument ever working to over-simplify human faith & salvation, and draw strict divisions in the ages. For them, the no repentance observation is at base re: repentance from sins - a message only to Israel - which they are concerned conflicts with "faith alone in Christ" alone as they interpret it. They also work to isolate each document as a stand-alone, self-contained writing (thus no use of "repentance" seems meaningful). Have you seen the isolated booklets containing only GJohn?

- To repent at root means to think differently, to change your mind
- Just because the word "repent" is not used, does not mean the concept is not there
- The signs in John were written to cause us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God
- Christ & Son of God are titles identifying the absolute authority of Jesus in Heaven & on earth
- To believe Jesus is the Christ is to submit to His absolute authority, whether someone tells the new convert this or not
- To think we can turn to Christ / submit to His authority & continue in sin (lawlessness, unrighteousness, disobedience to God) is an absurdity

One example in John:

NET John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and turn [to me], and I would heal them."

- seeing & understanding is the prelude to repenting / changing the mind > believe & turn

Peter elaborates on the healing:

NET 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed.

There are already some good responses in this thread re: turning, and not isolating GJohn from the remainder of the Bible. Thanks for those.

This is very good. Paul confirms your understanding in Acts 26 when he tells the Jews first and then Gentiles the path to salvation.

fhansen said:
John teaches that we must turn from sin. To do that means a change of heart, contrition for sin and the desire to stop. That change, itself, means repentance.

This is good.

Paul teaches the same thing in Acts 26: ACTS 26:20 KJV "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and..."

And again in Acts 24

ACTS 24:14 KJV "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers,..."

Paul taught salvation from the Law and Prophets. And so did John. It was the Christ who inspired these examples written for our admonition in the first place, before He became a man in the person of Jesus.

Good post

fhansen · Oct 17, 2020

5thKingdom said:
I don't know WHY you say this is "obvious".

I think it's "obvious" to all that Adam and Eve had true "free will"

but there is much controversy about the will of man after the fall.

Yes, there's been much controversy over the centuries on this but the church-east and west- never settled on any version that eliminated the role of man's will completely, as in strict determinism. It's beneficial to read the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange (529), all the way through including the Conclusion. Later the Council of Trent further clarifies by emphasizing the fact that, even at the beginning, at conversion, man's will is involved if only to the extent that he can resist and say no. Man has always been able to say no; if otherwise, then why the drama? Why the need for all the pain and evil and sin that resulted from our exile from Eden? Why even bother giving Adam a choice? Why not just stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest?

But God continued to give man, broken, sick, fallen wounded, lost, asleep, and dead as he was, choices, via commands and covenants and grace. But while man is totally lost such that he cannot possibly find God (He must stir and move us towards Himself), we make a mistake in thinking that man’s "lostness" means that his will is so completely corrupted that he no longer has the power to even resist God’s overtures, to refuse to be found. God wants man’s will involved-for our good- and that’s why He didn’t prevent Adam from sinning, and that’s why He then continued to patiently work with man, drawing him towards the light, maturing humanity to the point where we might begin to accept that light on a larger, worldwide or universal scale beginning some 2000 years ago now.

Man’s basic problem or “flaw” in his fallen condition isn’t a new and changed nature but his exile, itself: his distancing from God, man’s creator and source of his existence. Man was made to know God-and exist in a state of communion with Him. Man’s injustice consists firstly in this disunion from God, no longer possessing the “knowledge of God” that speaks of a direct and personal, experiential knowledge or “knowing”. This is the knowledge Jesus came to reveal and restore. This is the knowledge spoken of in Jer 31:34 and in John 17:3:

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

This knowledge/relationship begins here, and is fully consummated in the next life as per 1 Cor 13:12. This knowledge is something we accept and opt for, and can later opt out of. As we opt for it, as we opt for God, and continue to do so, we grow in that option and the justice or righteousness that is entailed in it. We grow nearer to God and to the image of Him that he wishes to transform us into. This is what man’s purpose and perfection is all about, his teleios. We’re judged at the end of the day by how well we did with what we’ve been given and the criteria for that judgment is summed up by the virtue of love, the love of God and neighbor that naturally motivates right action the right way, fulfilling the law and the commandments and doing for “the least of these”, investing our talents and doing the good we must persist in doing to gain eternal life, all according to Scripture.

GDL · Oct 17, 2020

fhansen said:
Yes, there's been much controversy over the centuries on this but the church-east and west- never settled on any version that eliminated the role of man's will completely, as in strict determinism. It's beneficial to read the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange (529), all the way through including the Conclusion. Later the Council of Trent further clarifies by emphasizing the fact that, even at the beginning, at conversion, man's will is involved if only to the extent that he can resist and say no. Man has always been able to say no; if otherwise, then why the drama? Why the need for all the pain and evil and sin that resulted from our exile from Eden? Why even bother giving Adam a choice? Why not just stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest?

But God continued to give man, broken, sick, fallen wounded, lost, asleep, and dead as he was, choices, via commands and covenants and grace. But while man is totally lost such that he cannot possibly find God (He must stir and move us towards Himself), we make a mistake in thinking that man’s "lostness" means that his will is so completely corrupted that he no longer has the power to even resist God’s overtures, to refuse to be found. God wants man’s will involved-for our good- and that’s why He didn’t prevent Adam from sinning, and that’s why He then continued to patiently work with man, drawing him towards the light, maturing humanity to the point where we might begin to accept that light on a larger, worldwide or universal scale beginning some 2000 years ago now.

Man’s basic problem or “flaw” in his fallen condition isn’t a new and changed nature but his exile, itself: his distancing from God, man’s creator and source of his existence. Man was made to know God-and exist in a state of communion with Him. Man’s injustice consists firstly in this disunion from God, no longer possessing the “knowledge of God” that speaks of a direct and personal, experiential knowledge or “knowing”. This is the knowledge Jesus came to reveal and restore. This is the knowledge spoken of in Jer 31:34 and in John 17:3:

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

This knowledge/relationship begins here, and is fully consummated in the next life as per 1 Cor 13:12. This knowledge is something we accept and opt for, and can later opt out of. As we opt for it, as we opt for God, and continue to do so, we grow in that option and the justice or righteousness that is entailed in it. We grow nearer to God and to the image of Him that he wishes to transform us into. This is what man’s purpose and perfection is all about, his teleios. We’re judged at the end of the day by how well we did with what we’ve been given and the criteria for that judgment is summed up by the virtue of love, the love of God and neighbor that naturally motivates right action the right way, fulfilling the law and the commandments and doing for “the least of these”, investing our talents and doing the good we must persist in doing to gain eternal life, all according to Scripture.

The likes buttons can't do this post justice. Not really knowing what to say, simply: here's my, Amen & Thank You for this. After all the nonsense we can read & speak on such sites, it's beyond refreshing to know that some can communicate like this.

Studyman · Oct 17, 2020

fhansen said:
Yes, there's been much controversy over the centuries on this but the church-east and west- never settled on any version that eliminated the role of man's will completely, as in strict determinism. It's beneficial to read the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange (529), all the way through including the Conclusion. Later the Council of Trent further clarifies by emphasizing the fact that, even at the beginning, at conversion, man's will is involved if only to the extent that he can resist and say no. Man has always been able to say no; if otherwise, then why the drama? Why the need for all the pain and evil and sin that resulted from our exile from Eden? Why even bother giving Adam a choice? Why not just stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest?

But God continued to give man, broken, sick, fallen wounded, lost, asleep, and dead as he was, choices, via commands and covenants and grace. But while man is totally lost such that he cannot possibly find God (He must stir and move us towards Himself), we make a mistake in thinking that man’s "lostness" means that his will is so completely corrupted that he no longer has the power to even resist God’s overtures, to refuse to be found. God wants man’s will involved-for our good- and that’s why He didn’t prevent Adam from sinning, and that’s why He then continued to patiently work with man, drawing him towards the light, maturing humanity to the point where we might begin to accept that light on a larger, worldwide or universal scale beginning some 2000 years ago now.

Man’s basic problem or “flaw” in his fallen condition isn’t a new and changed nature but his exile, itself: his distancing from God, man’s creator and source of his existence. Man was made to know God-and exist in a state of communion with Him. Man’s injustice consists firstly in this disunion from God, no longer possessing the “knowledge of God” that speaks of a direct and personal, experiential knowledge or “knowing”. This is the knowledge Jesus came to reveal and restore. This is the knowledge spoken of in Jer 31:34 and in John 17:3:

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

This knowledge/relationship begins here, and is fully consummated in the next life as per 1 Cor 13:12. This knowledge is something we accept and opt for, and can later opt out of. As we opt for it, as we opt for God, and continue to do so, we grow in that option and the justice or righteousness that is entailed in it. We grow nearer to God and to the image of Him that he wishes to transform us into. This is what man’s purpose and perfection is all about, his teleios. We’re judged at the end of the day by how well we did with what we’ve been given and the criteria for that judgment is summed up by the virtue of love, the love of God and neighbor that naturally motivates right action the right way, fulfilling the law and the commandments and doing for “the least of these”, investing our talents and doing the good we must persist in doing to gain eternal life, all according to Scripture.

Yes, the “Way of the Lord”. A “path”, as it is written “That God before ordained that we should walk in them”.

Along with “another” voice in the garden to give us a choice between faith in Him, or others.

As He said about His Friend Abraham:

GENESIS 18:19 KJV "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the..."

Good post.

fhansen · Oct 17, 2020

GDL said:
The likes buttons can't do this post justice. Not really knowing what to say, simply: here's my, Amen & Thank You for this. After all the nonsense we can read & speak on such sites, it's beyond refreshing to know that some can communicate like this.

Whoa! Well I'm sure not all will agree, but I guess I somehow can't help but like this post

. Even though I just realized that it was meant for a different thread :doh:

Thanks in any case

Hazelelponi · Oct 17, 2020

BibleBeliever1611 said:
If you look it up, repentance is never mentioned in the gospel of John. If the people who teach "repent of your sins for salvation" were right and you indeed had to repent before you could be saved, then shouldn't it be there? If you think about the fact that the book of John is written for the purpose of getting lost people saved, you would expect that it would be filled with repentance. In fact you would expect that repentance was talked about the most specifically in the book of John. And yet it's not mentioned even once.

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." - John 20:30-31

John 20:30-31 proves that you can have life through the name of Christ without ever even knowing about the concept of repentance. It also proves that you can preach the gospel to the lost without preaching about repentance. If it was wrong to remove repentance from the gospel (as many people teach), then the gospel of John would be "wrong" because it also removed repentance from the gospel. But of course there's nothing wrong with any book of the Bible. It's all inspired by God and it's all perfect.

Quote:

To say that John called for a faith that excluded repentance is to grossly misconstrue the apostle's concept of what it means to be a believer. Although John never uses repent as a verb, the verbs he does employ are even stronger. He teaches that all true believers love the light (John 3:19), come to the light (John 3:20-21), obey the Son (John 3:36), practice the truth (John 3:21), worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24), honor God (John 5:22-24), do good deeds (John 5:29), eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood (John 6:48-66), love God (John 8:42 , cf. 1 John 2:15), follow Jesus (John 10:26-28), and keep Jesus' commandments (John 14:15). Those ideas hardly concur with no-lordship salvation! All of them presuppose repentance, commitment, and a desire to obey.

As those terms suggest, the apostle was careful to describe conversion as a complete turnabout. To John, becoming a believer meant resurrection from death to life, a coming out of darkness and into light, abandoning lies for the truth, exchanging hatred for love, and forsaking the world for God. What are those but images of radical conversion?

Loving God is the expression John uses most frequently to describe the believer's demeanor. How can sinners begin to love God apart from genuine repentance? What does love imply, anyway?

Finally, remember that it is the Gospel of John that outlines the Holy Spirit's ministry of conviction toward the unbelieving world (John 16:8-11). Of what does the Holy Spirit convict unbelievers? Of "sin, righteousness, and judgment" (John 16:8). Wouldn't it seem that the Holy Spirit's ministry of convicting people of sin and its consequences has the specific purpose of laying the groundwork for repentance?

Repentance underlies all John's writings. It is understood, not necessarily explicit.

Repentance in the Gospel of John

GDL · Oct 17, 2020

It's nice to see others put to rest this argument against there being no repentance in GJohn. If one just focuses on all that is said about Jesus & who He is between all the "believe" verses, to consider Him apart from repentance of sins & bowing to Him in awe, is just not comprehensible.

GDL · Oct 17, 2020

Studyman said:
This is very good. Paul confirms your understanding in Acts 26 when he tells the Jews first and then Gentiles the path to salvation.

Thank you for this. And you're absolutely right re: some of the verses in Acts26 - repent & turn - especially 26:20.

Freedm · Oct 17, 2020

BibleBeliever1611 said:
The point is that you only need the book of John to know how to be saved. You don't need anything else. The book of John alone is sufficient. Otherwise John 20:30-31 would make no sense.

I think you make a good point. The book of John was not written as an addendum to other books. It was written as a standalone proclamation of the good news, and as such it should be complete.

However, this does raise the question, why do the books of Acts, Matthew, Peter and Romans all preach repentance? And perhaps in order to find the answer to that we need to ask a different question; what is repentance? Growing up I was always taught that repentance was basically praying the sinner's prayer and asking for forgiveness, but isn't it just simply changing your ways? And if it's simply a matter of changing your ways, then doesn't John also speak about that, as some of the others have pointed out?

GDL · Oct 17, 2020

BibleBeliever1611 said:
The point is that you only need the book of John to know how to be saved. You don't need anything else. The book of John alone is sufficient. Otherwise John 20:30-31 would make no sense.

Freedm said:
I think you make a good point. The book of John was not written as an addendum to other books. It was written as a standalone proclamation of the good news, and as such it should be complete.

Freedm caused me to go back to the top quote above. The OP was about repentance in GJohn. Unless I'm missing something, the top quote here is making an associated point "The point" w/o the repentance issue.

I think the repentance issue has been dealt with well in this thread & I do see the topic of repentance in GJohn. As for GJohn being sufficient to bring an unbeliever to belief (with the necessity of belief being abiding), I would agree.

John 20:30-31 is simply summarizing the case that John has made that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is the same information that Paul calls in 1Cor3 the only foundation, which ties back to Acts18:5 & Acts13 that shows us Paul's in-depth proclamation of Jesus being the Christ & the Davidic King - something John also tells us Jesus said about Himself in His theological battles.

One of the issues I've noticed is how we go from all the amazing detail in GJohn about who Jesus is, including His deity, His being the Christ & Son of God, His absolute authority, and so much more instruction, and all this being sufficient as a salvation proclamation, and then many of the same people (maybe or maybe not here???) oversimplify John's information or go to 1Cor15 as the Gospel. 1Cor15 is a portion of Paul's Gospel as it is a portion of John's information & it does not explain who & what the Christ is.

IMO this isolation or separating of Scripture is not a good message. Boiling John down to his purpose statement in ch.20 - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God - is certainly a crucial piece of information, but what does Christ mean - who & what is this Christ - and why does John use 21 chapters to speak of Him, beginning like this:

NKJ John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

I guess my point is this: John does provide a tremendous amount of information about Jesus Christ. Please don't follow too closely those who would boil it down to a few points and strip out things like repentance. John is quite comprehensive & 1John elaborates & explains some vital issues from John's Gospel.

hedrick · Oct 21, 2020

In the other three Gospels, Jesus uses "repent" for a major change in life direction. He doesn't speak about repenting from individual sins very often. Indeed Jesus doesn't seem that concerned about sins. He cares that people support the Gospel and treat each other right.

In John, I would argue that the passage about being born again (or more likely, born from above) is John's version of this. This is the same kind of overall change in direction as repentance in the other Gospels.

But even with this equivalence, I agree that there seems to be a different focus. Jesus speaks of people changing to follow him. In John Jesus certainly speaks of followers, an he also speaks of those who don't follow, but there's no as much explicit discussion of change. Is it because John has more of a predestinarian understanding of how people get to be followers?

GDL · Oct 21, 2020

hedrick said:
Indeed Jesus doesn't seem that concerned about sins.

!!!

NKJ Matt. 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

Apparently our Father was concerned enough about sin to name His Son a name that says He saves His People [from sins]. This whole human adventure is about overturning sin. Coming to Faith in Jesus Christ is about turning from sin to the living God. How can Jesus not be concerned about sins?

The Gospel is about turning to Christ/God from a lost-in-sin, worldly life.
Treating people right is about being obedient to God, which is the opposite of sin.
Jesus was so unconcerned about sin that He hated it & loved righteousness.

hedrick · Oct 21, 2020

GDL said:
!!!

NKJ Matt. 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

Apparently our Father was concerned enough about sin to name His Son a name that says He saves His People [from sins]. This whole human adventure is about overturning sin. Coming to Faith in Jesus Christ is about turning from sin to the living God. How can Jesus not be concerned about sins?

The Gospel is about turning to Christ/God from a lost-in-sin, worldly life.
Treating people right is about being obedient to God, which is the opposite of sin.
Jesus was so unconcerned about sin that He hated it & loved righteousness.

Use a Bible search program. He mentions it a couple of times. But sin as a category isn't a major emphasis in the Gospels, except for forgiving it. That's simply a fact. Make of it what you want.

My personal theory: The Pharisees had gotten people focused on personal purity. This is a different approach than focusing on how your behavior affects others. I think the term "sin" was probably associated with the Pharisees' approach, and so Jesus avoided it in favor of talking about specific actions that caused harm.

I'm aware that there are modern Christian cultures for which personal purity is a focus. But they don't have Jesus behind them. For Jesus, if you obey you're just doing what you're told. You don't gain any personal credit. You don't become pure or holy.

hedrick · Oct 21, 2020

One other point about the use of sin in the Gospels: The Pharisees considered people who didn't (and often couldn't for economic reasons) comply with all their rules as "sinners." Thus when the Gospels refer to sinners, and in particular Jesus consorting with sinners, you shouldn't imagine them necessarily as immoral people, but as people who were called sinners by the religious leaders. Jesus did certainly get people to repent from genuine bad behavior, but I think "sin" was at least in part a partisan term.

GDL · Oct 21, 2020

A quick search on: sin(s)(er)(ers); repent*, forgiv* & I'm up to about 200 +/- mentions. Good enough for now.

Your facts are your facts & it's easy to see you make of it what you want, so thanks, I will do the same.

Thanks for noting your thoughts as "theory."

I'm not prepared to accept your facts or theories, because they immediately raise red-flags against Scripture. It's by Grace that we're becoming an obedient people becoming more & able to Love God & Neighbor (Rom6; Titus2). FYI, this is aka overcoming sin & this is what our Father sent His Son to accomplish in us - this is what Jesus name means & pertains to.

Our First-Born Brother & Lord obeyed our Father perfectly. And our Salvation is for those who obey Him (Heb5:9). I can only hope & expect under Grace that I'm doing more & more of what I'm told to do. Our Father calls this Love for Him & for one another (J14, 15, 1J5, Jude). I'll accept every bit of this Grace He provides & will be ever thankful for it - and likely more experientially righteous, pure & holy as Christ is being formed in me...

GDL · Oct 21, 2020

hedrick said:
One other point about the use of sin in the Gospels: The Pharisees considered people who didn't (and often couldn't for economic reasons) comply with all their rules as "sinners." Thus when the Gospels refer to sinners, and in particular Jesus consorting with sinners, you shouldn't imagine them necessarily as immoral people, but as people who were called sinners by the religious leaders. Jesus did certainly get people to repent from genuine bad behavior, but I think "sin" was at least in part a partisan term.

What any group of people refer to as sins is of no meaning unless they are sins in God's viewpoint. These would be the sins Jesus came to save His people from - as His name identifies.

hedrick · Oct 21, 2020

GDL said:
A quick search on: sin(s)(er)(ers); repent*, forgiv* & I'm up to about 200 +/- mentions. Good enough for now.

Your facts are your facts & it's easy to see you make of it what you want, so thanks, I will do the same.

Thanks for noting your thoughts as "theory."

I'm not prepared to accept your facts or theories, because they immediately raise red-flags against Scripture. It's by Grace that we're becoming an obedient people becoming more & able to Love God & Neighbor (Rom6; Titus2). FYI, this is aka overcoming sin & this is what our Father sent His Son to accomplish in us - this is what Jesus name means & pertains to.

Our First-Born Brother & Lord obeyed our Father perfectly. And our Salvation is for those who obey Him (Heb5:9). I can only hope & expect under Grace that I'm doing more & more of what I'm told to do. Our Father calls this Love for Him & for one another (J14, 15, 1J5, Jude). I'll accept every bit of this Grace He provides & will be ever thankful for it - and likely more experientially righteous, pure & holy as Christ is being formed in me...

You need to do more than count. Look at what they say. The references in the gospels are almost all about forgiving sins, in general terms. There are very few places where Jesus condemns sin, calls something a sin, or condemns people as sinners.

GDL · Oct 21, 2020

How many times does something need to show up before it's qualified in your mind to be meaningful?

The first point I responded to you about is as far as I'll pursue this discussion. Anyone who can't understand the issue of sin vs. righteous obedience to God under subjection to His Grace, IMO should go back to the basics.

Last word is yours, if you'd like to provide it.

Justified_By_Christ_Alone · Oct 26, 2020

hedrick said:
You need to do more than count. Look at what they say. The references in the gospels are almost all about forgiving sins, in general terms. There are very few places where Jesus condemns sin, calls something a sin, or condemns people as sinners.

Unfortuantely there is no point in trying to argue with them. Reading this thread made my stomach churn how so many people believe in a false gospel. They actually think their repenting of sins is making them saved, rather than what Jesus did for their sins on the cross. In my spirit I have a combination of righteous anger and sadness for their souls. Because they will continue to harden their heart and not listen (I am speaking to the posts who refute what OP said, only looked through a few of them on the first page of this thread).

They are prideful and think they are more righteous than others because they are repenting of their sins. God will show them the hard way on judgement day if they don't repent of their false gospel.

All we can do is pray for them. But remember, anyone who adds repent of your sins to the gospel is an enemy of the cross. We are not to fellowship with them or associate them as brothers and sisters, we can only pray for them and give them the real good news of the gospel. Broad is the way that leads to destruction which is religion. Narrow is the way which is Jesus that few find.

windwhistler · Oct 26, 2020

My mind is no longer sharp enough to follow theological thinking. At this point in life the deeper I grasp the love of Jesus in what he did for me, the more I hate things in me that grieve him and pray to put them behind me, and the more I want my love to increase. In my simple thinking, life after salvation, whatever is left of it, can't help but change for someone who becomes new in Christ. For some, change may be faster and deeper than for others. But it will happen.

Why is repentance not in the gospel of John?

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

:sighing:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads