A Biblical Case For Repentance

Bible Highlighter · Feb 10, 2019

This thread is about the Sinner's Prayer.
Moving on from talking to you (Seeing you are not discussing the topic of this thread).

Just_a_Christian · Feb 11, 2019

Fidelibus said:
Not really, For example, I'll borrow an analogy from apologist Karl Keating at Catholicanswers.com:

"A rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.

The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book."

So again, I stand on the proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.

While I may, or not, have been able to use a more perfect word, I honestly believe you knew what I meant. Infallible because it is created of God. So, for the purpose of a rock, the one I picked up in the driveway was a perfect, infallible rock of God. Inerrant Bible, ok, I also like the solid unchanging rock.

Fidelibus said:
I am very familiar with these passages sola scripturists use to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word, for I too used them before my conversion to Catholicism. let's look at these verses more closely.

In verse 2 Tim. 3:15.... Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

The church being born on pentecost was in it's infancy growing up in the years to come through the inspired apostles and their writings. In the early years the various locations of the Lord's church exchanged the different epistles, to a certain extent, if not wholly. The major difference being the early Christians had the apostles breaking the bread of life to them directly. I can see the compilation of the Bible being a must, as the early church expanded, or grew rapidly. That compilation was brought about and endorsed by God. I say that because He states that it is His desire that all men be saved, if that's indeed the case, His written will or how one can be saved must be available. While the early Christians and people of that time may have had the capability of gleaning enough from the OT for salvation, I could not. Furthermore, there's at least one example, Divinely recorded for us, in which it appears the OT was not sufficient for salvation, at least to the Etheopian eunuch, for he did not understand. It is my opinion one cannot glean the entire gospel of Jesus solely from the Old Testament. Luckily, that has zero applicable doctrine, salvation wise, to me.

Fidelibus said:
In 2 Tim. 3:16.... this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Also, are you familiar familiar with the Greek phrase "pasa graphe"?

I would disagree that scripture is not mandatory for salvation. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. ōphelimos is also "advantages" just because scripture may not say it is exclusive, does not mean it isn't. I believe it is, beyond a shadow of doubt, because through the scripture I am exartizō, or fully equiped. I am familiar with "pasa graphe", I also believe that if I "needed" any further scripture God would have provided such, not just to me but to everyone. The God I worship is the God who is in control, totally. Just as He was when dealing with the Pharaoh

Fidelibus said:
In 2 Tim. 3:17..... St.Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church.

I disagree totally, the greek word for "man" is "anthrōpos" meaning human being. The greek word for "of God" is "theos" meaning the supreme Divinity. In the New Testament there are no distinctions made, greek or otherwise, between the laos. We all are believers only. The idea that there's some that are "higher up" or "more holy" than others is completely unbiblical and manmade. That very "man made" idea could easily be the shot heard around the denominational world.

Fidelibus said:
Further in vs. 17 St.Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So I fail to see how adhereant's to sola scriptura can use this verse in theit arguement for sola scriptura.

I agree that the artios is not talking about the scripture. A fair translation is "....the human being from the supreme Divinity may be artios or complete, fit, perfect or suitable". Clergy is a concept/term foriegn to the Bible. The New Testament hierarchy of the church was each church being completely autonomous. The terms bishop and elders were used interchangeably in the NT. Each church had it's elders or bishops and deacons as offices and the Bible gives the qualifications of each. This fact is precisely why the epistles were "church specific" as were the warnings in Revelation. Why change the hierarchy of the NT church? Why create offices that were not present in the NT church? If the footprint of the NT church had not changed, I dare say Catholicism would not exist today.

Fidelibus said:
Pretty sure, if you beleive in the one Triune God. However, where we disagree is in the doctrine of 'sola scriptrua', the belief that the Bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. For nowhere in the Bible does it state such a thing. One of the main reasons for my conversion to the Catholic faith besides the history of the early church (pre-reformation history of Christianty)..... was the fact that if sola scriptura is the correct doctrine, and that the Bible is self-sufficient word of God, wouldn’t everyone get the same interpretation from it, and wouldn't there not be thousands of different Protestant/non-denominational chueches,sects, and home churches? This thread is a perfect example. Look at all the dis-agreements amongst bible alone believers on what they believe a certain passage means or not means. All supposedly under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Yes everyone would come to the same conclusion from studying the Bible, if they would (or more perfect, if you will) "could" read it without first, already being indoctrinated into the denominational world, at least to some extent and absent "sinful pride". However, pandora has been out of her box a long time. Answer me this hypothetical question. If 3 or 4 people in, let's say Singapore, started studying the Bible and they all three believed in Jesus, as the resurrected, son of God. They confessed that very fact to each other; they had godly sorrow for their sin and decided to repent of sin. They continued studying and soon wanted to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost for forgiveness of their prior sins. Upon baptizing each other God adds them to the body of Christ. If not, why not?

In Him

Just_a_Christian · Feb 11, 2019

Fidelibus said:
I agree, the one visable Holy Catholic Church. (Matthew 16:18.)

Matthew 16:18 Christ states that He will build His church.... The act of calling His church the "holy catholic" church does, to some extent, take the focus off Jesus. Colossians 1:14-20 Says it is God's desire regarding ALL things whether in heaven or on Earth, that Jesus would have THE prōteuō or influence/preeminence. Jesus died for the church and it should carry at least a Biblical name, preferably a name denoting ownership. It is God's will.

Fidelibus said:
You have yet to give an exact date of when the Catholic Chuch supposedly apostatized. If it is your belief this happened in the early centuries of its existence, could you explain to me how an entire Church could apostatize, unless every single member of it agreed to do so, and all apostatized at the same point in time? Could you show using the "bible only", the verse or verses that prove it? Again, as I stated above, you have yet to give a date when this is supposed to have happen. So I'll ask once again, could you give me a firm date of when this great historical event took place?

No, I gave you a date. Paul said the process had already began when he wrote 2nd Thessalonians. I have already tendered a rather lengthy post on the falling away, only to have it deleted. Not to mention a reprimand by the clearly biased admin of this site. The world is in dire need of people who are willing to stand up for the TRUTH, this site is one avenue by which I attemp to do such, via scripture I might add. The offer still stands to take this discussion to a "private conversation". The Bible specifically warns of the falling away, I believe, not by a preponderance of the evidence but beyond a shadow of doubt it occurred. Any Christain family is only one generation away from apostasy and we are approx. 2k years removed from the day of pentecost. Small incremental steps over time and there you go. It is a proven fact, we are way more likely to believe a lie, that's been repeated several times, than the truth we've only heard once.

Fidelibus said:
I'll put it to you this way. (with the help of Catholicanswers.cm) As Catholics, we put the Church before the Bible because the Church existed first and compiled the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on that of the Church. Then we use the Bible to prove the Church; we use it not as an inspired volume, but merely as a historical document. From the Gospels as historical documents we learn that Christ founded a Church, but the authority of the Gospels as inspired writings rests on the word of the Church.

My New Testament church did not put the church ahead of scripture ever. The scripture and or epistles told the early church exactly how it and it's members were to conduct themselves. It is still our only God given direction today.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. - Acts
We can learn from the Old Testament that this is in contradiction with God's nature. How were the children of Israel instructed to handle the Ark of the Covenant? God killed Uzza for simply touching the Ark of the Covenant. The idea that the authority of the scripture rest with the church or whether or not scripture is inspired is completely opposite to the entire Bible. God has always dictated to His people never the opposite.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. - Proverbs 16:25

Fidelibus said:
Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. . . .

The church is the clay and the God/scriptures are the potter in my New Testament church.

Fidelibus said:
Real man? sure. Inspired by God? Well, let me ask you this, with the exception of the author of the book of Revelation....St.John, could you show (from the bible alone) where any N.T. writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct mandate of God?

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: - Romans 16:25-26
Mystery - mystērion - lit a secret
Eph 1:9
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: - Ephesians 1:9 1 Cor 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Cor 4:1
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. -
Stewards - oikonomos or overseer
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think of himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord
(Thx new birth!)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26
While no other author says it verbatim, I believe any rational person can see from these verses that the authors do indeed claim being of Deity.
The Comforter was promised to His apostles, therefore any of them were fully capable.

In Him

New Birth · Feb 11, 2019

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think of himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Kees Boer · Dec 14, 2021

Being a missionary, I'm trilingual. My original language was Dutch, then I moved to the States and I spent most of my time in Florida and now here in South America, it is all Spanish. One thing you learn is that hardly word has a perfect translation, unless it might be a physical word like "Microphone." You are constantly dealing with shades of meaning. So, each word has to be looked at in the original meaning and how it was used to really get a good feel for it.

We need to look at the Greek or Hebrew word that is translated into repentance. For instance most of the time in the New Testament, the Greek word is METANOIA, which all it means is: "Change of mind." The problem with the word is that many times people have taken the meaning of the word out of the Latin Vulgate, instead of the original Greek and then came to a totally different meaning, like turning from sin. METANOIA does not mean that. A good way to illustrate this is Genesis 6:6, where God repents. Of course God does not turn from sin. So, there we would have to look at the Hebrew word that was used.

On the issue of whether a prayer is a requirement for salvation, look at Acts 10:44... The Greek word consistently used in the New Testament for "believe" in the sense of saving faith is: "PISTEUO" which means to trust, to depend upon, or to rely upon.

Bible Highlighter said:
I believe the Sinner’s Prayer is just another way of the Bible saying to “Repent.”

A Biblical Case For Repentance:

At the heart, I believe the Bible teaches that "Repentance" means, "Asking God for forgiveness" (Which of course naturally then leads to the "fruits of repentance", i.e. obedience to the Lord):

Important Note: While I may believe "Repentance" does involve to a certain degree a "change of mind" (like a person changing their mind about their old life of sin), I do not think "Repentance" exclusively means a “change of mind.”

"Asking God for forgiveness of sin" can either refer to: The "Sinner's Prayer" (Initial Salvation) (Romans 10:13), and or the seasoned believer "Confessing one's sin" (Continued Salvation) (See 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1).

Anyways, here are my ten points using Scripture showing that "repentance" means "asking God for forgiveness of sin.”

#1. Acts 2:38,
The New Living Translation says in Acts 2:38 to "repent of your sins."
Douay Reheims says in Acts 2:38 to "Do penance."
New Life Version says in Acts 2:38 to "Be sorry for your sins"

#2. Luke 17:3 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This doesn't make any sense if "repent" means believe in Jesus (as some teach) or to have a change of mind about sin (as others teach) or to exclusively forsake sin. Yes, we are to forsake sin as a part of repentance but that comes later after repentance (Which is to ask God for forgiveness of our sin). For how can we reconcile with a brother if we do not say we are sorry vs. just going on about life as if we did nothing wrong?

#3. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would be able to see in Jonah 3:6-10 that the King of the Ninevites had told his people to:

(a) Cry out to God (i.e. Repentance) (See Jonah 3:8).
(b) Turn from their sins or evil ways (i.e. The Natural Fruits of Repentance).

#4. Matthew 3:6 (which then lines up with Matthew 3:8). Also, in Mark 1:4-5, it says John preached the "baptism of repentance" for the remission of sins (verse 4), and it then defines this "baptism of repentance" by saying they confessed their sins when they were baptized (verse 5).

#5. We see in Acts of the Apostles 8:22 a clear example of Peter telling Simon to "repent" of his wickedness in trying to pay for the Holy Spirit. Peter is telling Simon to make a prayer towards God. For Peter says that he should pray that God might forgive him. In other words, Peter is telling Simon to repent of a one time event of wickedness by way of prayer to GOD. This only makes sense if "repent" means to "ask for forgiveness."

#6. Ezekiel 14:6 says,
"Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols;" Repent makes the most sense here if a person is asking God for forgiveness by way of prayer instead of a person just believing in God. Naturally a person believes in God as their Savior if they are planning on forsaking their idols.

#7. We see repentance is the topic of discussion in Luke 15 (Luke 15:6) (Luke 15:10); This is then followed up by the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" with the son desiring to be reconciled with his father. We learn the WAY the Prodigal Son desired to be reconciled with his father when he said,

"I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15:18-19).

In other words, the Prodigal Son was seeking forgiveness. This ties into the point of repentance in Luke 15:6 and Luke 15:10.

#8. Luke 10:13 says,
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." This rules out the theory that repentance is exclusively forsaking sin. Granted, forsaking sin always follow true repentance (Asking God for forgiveness of one's sins) but forsaking sin is not repentance. The word "repented" here is describing a one time event because they "repented", sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:6 we learn that the King of Nineveh sat in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:8, the King of Nineveh tells people to put on sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God (i.e. repentance): and then turn from their evil way (i.e. the fruits of repentance).

#9. John the Baptist says we are to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). Fruits are deeds (or obedience to God). How can repentance be the same thing as the fruit? Is the fruit the same thing as the tree?

#10. Jeremiah 8:6 says, "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." Here we see the word "repented of wickedness" tied with the words, "What have I done?" This is an acknowledgement of one's sin to God as a part of asking His forgiveness.

Notable Additional Verses that Deal with Repentance
(But They Do Not Use The Word "Repent" or "Repentance"):

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).

13 "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14).

Proverbs 28:13 says whosoever confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 14, 2021

Kees Boer said:
Being a missionary, I'm trilingual. My original language was Dutch, then I moved to the States and I spent most of my time in Florida and now here in South America, it is all Spanish. One thing you learn is that hardly word has a perfect translation, unless it might be a physical word like "Microphone." You are constantly dealing with shades of meaning. So, each word has to be looked at in the original meaning and how it was used to really get a good feel for it.

We need to look at the Greek or Hebrew word that is translated into repentance. For instance most of the time in the New Testament, the Greek word is METANOIA, which all it means is: "Change of mind." The problem with the word is that many times people have taken the meaning of the word out of the Latin Vulgate, instead of the original Greek and then came to a totally different meaning, like turning from sin. METANOIA does not mean that. A good way to illustrate this is Genesis 6:6, where God repents. Of course God does not turn from sin. So, there we would have to look at the Hebrew word that was used.

On the issue of whether a prayer is a requirement for salvation, look at Acts 10:44... The Greek word consistently used in the New Testament for "believe" in the sense of saving faith is: "PISTEUO" which means to trust, to depend upon, or to rely upon.

Sorry, I don’t believe we have to look to the original languages whereby we have to waste our whole lives trying to figure out what God said (having no trustworthy Word) vs. getting busy with loving God and others. I believe God preserved His Word with the King James Bible. I just read the context and that is what makes sense of the actual word used for repent (and it’s related words).

For example: Many think there is just one meaning for the word “repent” in the Bible, but they simply have not done the study on the word “repent.” Here is a snapshot from my study.

Also, if you were to look at my biblical case for repentance, I use the CONTEXT to define the word and not just some dictionary by scholars who think they are experts in the original languages. What definition or meaning makes the most sense with the context? That is how you determine the meaning of the word. It’s not by some original languages dictionary. Yes, they can be helpful sometimes, but Jesus said to beware of the scribes and not to implicitly trust them. The scribes are those who tran-scribe the Scriptures. The scholars are the scribes of our day.

Anyways, you did not refute what I said using the Bible itself in the English language. If what you say is true, then the context would not make any sense. It would be reading a sentence as gibberish nonsense. But if you believe God’s Word must be decoded from some ancient dead language, then prove your case that is how God’s people understood God’s Word. I see God communicating to His people in languages that they understood.

Carl Emerson · Dec 14, 2021

Kees Boer said:
Being a missionary, I'm trilingual. My original language was Dutch, then I moved to the States and I spent most of my time in Florida and now here in South America, it is all Spanish. One thing you learn is that hardly word has a perfect translation, unless it might be a physical word like "Microphone." You are constantly dealing with shades of meaning. So, each word has to be looked at in the original meaning and how it was used to really get a good feel for it.

We need to look at the Greek or Hebrew word that is translated into repentance. For instance most of the time in the New Testament, the Greek word is METANOIA, which all it means is: "Change of mind." The problem with the word is that many times people have taken the meaning of the word out of the Latin Vulgate, instead of the original Greek and then came to a totally different meaning, like turning from sin. METANOIA does not mean that. A good way to illustrate this is Genesis 6:6, where God repents. Of course God does not turn from sin. So, there we would have to look at the Hebrew word that was used.

On the issue of whether a prayer is a requirement for salvation, look at Acts 10:44... The Greek word consistently used in the New Testament for "believe" in the sense of saving faith is: "PISTEUO" which means to trust, to depend upon, or to rely upon.

In just 4 posts - you are 'on the rack' with KJVO...

We have a wide range of opinions here, some harsh, many wise, a melting pot of diverse opinion mostly fueled by good intent but not always inspired.

Welcome to the forum...

Kees Boer · Dec 14, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Sorry, I don’t believe we have to look to the original languages whereby we have to waste our whole lives trying to figure out what God said (having no trustworthy Word) vs. getting busy with loving God and others. I believe God preserved His Word with the King James Bible. I just read the context and that is what makes sense of the actual word used for repent (and it’s related words).

For example: Many think there is just one meaning for the word “repent” in the Bible, but they simply have not done the study on the word “repent.” Here is a snapshot from my study.

Also, if you were to look at my biblical case for repentance, I use the CONTEXT to define the word and not just some dictionary by scholars who think they are experts in the original languages. What definition or meaning makes the most sense with the context? That is how you determine the meaning of the word. It’s not by some original languages dictionary. Yes, they can be helpful sometimes, but Jesus said to beware of the scribes and not to implicitly trust them. The scribes are those who tran-scribe the Scriptures. The scholars are the scribes of our day.

Anyways, you did not refute what I said using the Bible itself in the English language. If what you say is true, then the context would not make any sense. It would be reading a sentence as gibberish nonsense. But if you believe God’s Word must be decoded from some ancient dead language, then prove your case that is how God’s people understood God’s Word. I see God communicating to His people in languages that they understood.

Well, it's similar in any change of language. Context will give you a huge part of the meaning of a word. But it's not totally sufficient. The word "repent" is a good example. If you take the meaning from an English dictionary, you're missing a huge part of what it means. For one there are different original words that are used in the Tanagh (OT) and New Testament. Just like in Greek, there are different words that are used to describe the word "love." You don't want to mix them up. You might end up with not what the original really says. For that reason, I would think it would be a good idea for Christians to both study Hebrew and Greek. (I mean Jewish orthodox children all learn to read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew).

As far as the King James Version. That's a great translation. Heck, it's based on the Textus Receptus put together by my fellow Rotterdamer Erasmus, of course I'm going to like it. But realize this that most of the world doesn't speak English. I'm here in South America. Most in the country that I am at speak Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara, and some other languages.

Study the originals. Reading a translation can be good, but it's sort of like watching black and white television, when the film was made in color.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

Kees Boer said:
Well, it's similar in any change of language. Context will give you a huge part of the meaning of a word. But it's not totally sufficient.

Nowhere did I say context is the sole way to understand a word. But it is one key component to do so.

I was not born again yesterday. I have been a Christian since 1992.
I basically said the following (below) on the Christian forums before a long while back.

“In my walk with the LORD, I have learned:

The Way to Find the Truth of God's Word (That is Different From the Mass Majority) is Doing the Following:

#1. We need to know that we had a genuine experience with Jesus (GOD) by His Word (the Bible) by seeking out His forgiveness and by believing that He died on the cross for our sins and that He rose 3 days later from the grave on our behalf. This reality should be the same as we are sure about the existence of air, gravity, and in knowing we are alive. You have to know Jesus and the Bible are the one and only way (and be able to defend that with others with no doubt).

#2. We need to forsake sin and not justify it (On any level); For example: We cannot say King David was saved while he committed his sins of adultery and murder because the Bible says otherwise (See 1 John 3:15, and Proverbs 6:32). Why? See 1 Timothy 6:3-4, and then read James 4:6.

#3. We have to make a decision by prayer to dedicate our life to following Christ. This is not just going to church on Sundays. This would be seeking to spread the gospel yourself, helping the poor yourself, loving the brethren yourself, and loving your enemies yourself, etc.

#5. Do not be blindly spoon fed and accept everything just because you like a particular church or Pastor, etc.; Seek the truth of God's Word on your own with the LORD; In other words, do not be a blind following sheep, but think for yourself (with the help of God).

#6. Pray for understanding on a Piece of Scripture (And sometimes pray again, and again, and again);

#7. Believe there is one Word of God as our sole authority that is for our day that is nailed down that you cannot alter and twist yourself. Find that particular Bible that you believe is God's perfect and divine Word for our day that is without error and divine. In my experience, I have discovered this to be the King James Bible and I do not believe it conflicts with the original languages. The point here is that God's Word should change us, and we should never change God's Word. There are huge warnings in Scripture if we are to add or take away from God's Word. So I believe it is vital that we accept every word of the Holy Bible, and we do not accept an outside book, or church traditions or beliefs (that would conflict with God's Word).

#8. Context (An interpretation on a Verse or Passage should be based on the surrounding text and what it says.

#9. Cross References (The truth of the verse should be expressed in some other places in the Bible that say the same thing).

#10. Seek out what other believers believe on the topic by reading tons of articles on the topic or verse. While there are times God has showed me something in His Word that I don't believe other Christians widely know, I believe it is healthy to get a second opinion, but we should not let another person's thoughts cloud our thinking. If an article does not sound right (after praying for guidance), move on to another. I remember one time, that I took several days in prayer and read what felt like a hundred articles. I kept knocking, I kept seeking.

#11. Morality or God's goodness. Does your view on this piece of Scripture support basic Morality and or what you know deep down is right and good? Can the belief be illustrated by way of a real world example showing the Moral Superiority of this kind of belief or truth expressed in Scripture? This is why beliefs like Calvinism and Eternal Security seem so odd and or foreign to me. They fail a basic morality test by way of using real world examples and or looking at the fruits of it.

#12. Some things in the Bible we do have to take by faith and not by sight. Some people deny certain miracles in the Bible because they cannot see how that is possible. Others believe that no believer can overcome mortal sin (or sin that leads to death) in this life (Despite verses implying that we can overcome mortal sin; See: 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Peter 4:1-2, Galatians 5:24). We have to walk by faith and not by sight accepting things that are eyes cannot witness to. This is important because without faith, it is impossible to please GOD. We have to believe in His Word and walk by faith.

#13. Have a willingness to see a verse or passage from a new light or perspective (that you have not seen before).

#14. Do Key Word Searches or Studies. God sometimes guides us to search out words that say the same thing and it can be really fruitful in our understanding on what a particular word says in the Bible. For knowing what a particular word says, can help us to understand a verse or passage better. I use BlueLetterBible's website.

15. Love God, and love all others. For if we are not loving like we should, then we are not abiding in God like we should to have a proper understanding on God's Word. We need to check ourselves and make sure that we are following the Lord and His commands instead of seeking to uplift ourselves instead of Jesus (GOD).”

You said:
The word "repent" is a good example. If you take the meaning from an English dictionary, you're missing a huge part of what it means. For one there are different original words that are used in the Tanagh (OT) and New Testament.

Did you look at the examples I gave for the word “repent”?
Do you disagree with them? If so, how do you disagree with them and how does that line up with the surrounding words in context? I say this because it does not seem like you are actually reading what I had actually wrote, but you just want to be correct in your own view, brother.

Take for example my biblical case for repentance (In which you replied).
Did you address a few of the points I made with Scripture in how your definition is a better fit with the context? I don’t believe you have, my friend. See, this is the Modern scholar position or approach to God’s Word that I do not respectfully agree with. While I love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are not KJB, I strongly disagree with their stand on God’s Word. It sounds like my beloved brethren who follow Modern Scholars will just blindly repeat what they have been taught instead of actually addressing what I stated with Scripture and try to make sense out of what the Bible actually says in context. Maybe this is not you. I don’t know. But I do know is that you are not addressing my points with Scripture in context. So my encouragement to you is to go back to the original post you replied to and see if your definition makes more sense in line with the context vs. what I have stated, brother.

Also, how exactly does your definition on the word “repent” differ from the definitions listed in the following Webster’s Dictionary?

Source:
Repent | Definition of Repent by Webster's Online Dictionary

Side Note:

Notice how there are different definitions for the word repent and this makes sense by the point I made in my previous post to you. It was the context that played a key factor in determining the usage of the word. But many appear to imply that repentance has just one particular meaning in the Bible. For if that is what you claim, then we have a contradiction in the Bible because the Bible says God does not repent and yet in the same chapter it says God does repent.

Again, I challenge you to actually address my original first post you quoted on my Biblical case for repentance. Address the actual points I made with Scripture and prove with the context that you are correct.

You said:
Just like in Greek, there are different words that are used to describe the word "love." You don't want to mix them up. You might end up with not what the original really says. For that reason, I would think it would be a good idea for Christians to both study Hebrew and Greek. (I mean Jewish orthodox children all learn to read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew).

You are not telling me anything new here. I am aware of the 4 types of love propagated by Modern Scholars. C.S. Lewis makes a point of this in one of his books. C.S. Lewis is looked upon as a great Christian, but I disagree that he was great because he promoted the sin of witchcraft (without rebuke of such a sin) in his literally works (i.e. the Chronicles of Narnia). C.S. Lewis even said he struggled with the occult. So he is not really a trustworthy source here (Please read 1 Corinthians 5).

Here is a quote from an article to address your claim on the different forms of love:

Words for Love in the New Testament - agapao versus phileo.

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Here is such a letter I received from a moderator at another Christian club on the internet.

" I do not believe that the KJV is ever truly misleading, BUT, we lost a very important matter when the KJV people translated both PHILEO and AGAPE to "love" in John 21:15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

DARBY -

When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. He says to him, Feed my lambs.

16 He says to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. He says to him, Shepherd my sheep.

17 He says to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, ART THOU ATTACHED TO me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ART THOU ATTACHED TO me? and said to him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. Jesus says to him, Feed my sheep.

The Darby is clear here and yet retains the familiar cadence and feel of the KJV. That little difference, between the words that Jesus and Peter used for "love", is worth a great sermon, all by itself. (end of letter)

These "serious scholars" like to think they are privy to special insights and nuances the rest of us peons of the pews cannot fathom. They take great pains to let us know there are subtle meanings found only in "the original Greek" of which we garden variety Christians remain woefully ignorant until they exercise their priestcraft to open these hidden treasures on our behalf.

They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these scholarly types tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or not.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

If it be asked: "Then why did God use two different Greek words (agapao and phileo) to often mean the same thing?", then we answer that God used not just two but six different Hebrew words in the Old Testament to refer to love.

The various Hebrew words translated as love are # 157, 1730, 2836, 5690, 7355, and 7474. Number 157 ah-hehv is used in Deut. 4:37 "because the Lord LOVED thy fathers", and in 1 Kings 3:3 "and Solomon LOVED the Lord", but the same word is also translated as "friends" and "lovers".

The Hebrew word # 1730 dohd is used in Proverbs 7:18 "let us take our fill of LOVE" and in Song of Solomon 4:10 "How fair is thy LOVE", but the same word is also translated as "uncle" in Leviticus 10:4; 20:20, and 1 Samuel 10:14-16 "Saul said unto his UNCLE..."

The Hebrew word # 2836 ghah-shak is used in Deut. 7:7 "The Lord did not SET HIS LOVE upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people..." and in Isaiah 38:17 "but thou has IN LOVE to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption." But the same Hebrew word can also mean "filleted" as in Ezekiel 27:17 "the court should be FILLETED with silver."

Don't let the Greek scholars steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

You said:
Study the originals. Reading a translation can be good, but it's sort of like watching black and white television, when the film was made in color.

There are two lines of thought in one’s approach to God’s Word.

#1. Read the Bible plainly in the English King James Bible and trust that God preserved His Word or at the very least provided us the most purest Word we can possibly have with the English in the KJB (with us trusting all the words in it because we are not God to know which words are pure or not).

#2. Make your own Bible in your own likeness and thinking based on a dead language you really do not know because you don’t have an apostle Paul to correct you on your Biblical Greek, and you don’t really have a Moses to correct you on your Biblical Hebrew. Also, those who hold to the Original Languages as their final word of authority really do not have a final Word of authority because they keep favoring new Modern Translations that come out that keep adding new words (Amongst a sea of Modern English Bibles that do not agree with each other). Many in this line of thinking believe they do not have the Originals anymore and so no perfect Word of God exists today for them. So they have to create one in their own language but this task has been going on for decades now and nobody is in agreement on what God’s Word really says exactly. One can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say with others who are unlearned being none the wiser to knowing dead languages. Plus, they do not know that all Modern Bibles comes from the Critical Text from Nestle and Aland and this NT Greek text was under the direct supervision of the Vatican.

Anyways, I say this as a fellow brother in Christ, and I say this all in love and not to offend you. I am merely sharing my experience with you. You can take it or leave it, my friend.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

Carl Emerson said:
In just 4 posts - you are 'on the rack' with KJVO...

We have a wide range of opinions here, some harsh, many wise, a melting pot of diverse opinion mostly fueled by good intent but not always inspired.

Welcome to the forum...

Source:
On the rack definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I believe the King James Bible is my final Word of authority and I have been defending that within this thread.

So I take it to mean you are saying that seeing I hold to the doctrine of Divine Preservation of God’s Word that I am somehow causing our friend either physical or mental suffering in someway. Just because I hold to a particular belief in the Bible, and I am passionate about that belief like you may be for your beliefs in the Bible does not mean I am seeking to cause them physical or mental suffering. For have you never defended beliefs of your own with a passion? Does not disagreement between beliefs lead to a divide sometimes? But should it change our love? Does that mean we truly are causing physical and mental suffering for those who do not agree with a truth we find to be biblical? I imagine some beliefs that are not biblical can cause a mental distress or anxiety to a degree, but I would not come right out and say that such a group of people are doing so (unless they are blatantly justifying known sin). I strive to point to the weakness in the belief itself and not the person or individual that is merely an opinion that is not tied to the belief itself.

Anyways, if you disagree, we can simply agree to disagree in love and respect and move on. But I just don’t think your statement was exactly true or nice, my friend. Not all King James Only folk are the same. There are some who can come across as very unloving and others who are loving and yet strive to speak the truth in love. While I am not perfect, I strive to be perfect in loving all the brethren (even if we may not agree on all doctrines).

In any event, peace be unto you in the Lord Jesus Christ, and may your day be greatly blessed.

timothyu · Dec 15, 2021

Yes repent means change, not just oops, sorry until next time.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

timothyu said:
Yes repent means change, not just oops, sorry until next time.

Nowhere am I suggesting that a believer just says they are sorry and they do not intend to forsake their sin. That would mean they are not really sorry if they never intend to stop. Does a man who seeks forgiveness with his wife on cheating on her say he is sorry? Sure he does. It’s only natural. Imagine if the husband just started to have a change of mind and he never said he was sorry. He could go about life in being loyal to her and yet, if he never said he was sorry, she would think he could still be cheating on her. Saying we are sorry is the first step. If a husband who says he is sorry to his wife for cheating on her, and yet he has no intention of ever stopping, he is not really sorry.

Anyways, I made my biblical case of repentance in that it ultimately means to seek forgiveness with the Lord in post #2. It is up to you to go back and prove that your definition is correct by showing the context with the usage of that word (repent). So far, nobody has been doing that. Just saying you are correct does not mean anything. We have to look at the Word practically and see how it makes sense in light of the context and the real world. So far, people are just enforcing a definition upon a word and not looking at the context and so it renders the text in many cases as being illogical nonsense. Can the word “repent” be defined as “change of mind” in certain cases in the Bible? Yes, it can, but I don’t believe that is the case for when God tells man to repent. How so? Again, I provided many verses to prove my case. But most just want to cling to what they have been taught. I prefer what the Bible says and not what scholars always say.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

timothyu said:
Yes repent means change, not just oops, sorry until next time.

1 John 1:9, Luke 18:9-14, and Psalms 51 is biblical.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

Many say the Sinner’s Prayer is not biblical. Yet, I say this in love: They are simply ignorant of the Scriptures have to say plainly. Romans 10:13 says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Luke 18:9-14 talks about the Tax Collector crying out to God in seeking forgiveness over his sins. 1 John 1:9 tells us to confess of sin so as to be forgiven of sin. Nobody can cleanse themselves of their own sins by good deeds alone. Only God’s grace can cleanse past sin and that is why we boldly come before the throne of grace as it says in Hebrews 4:16. We go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and we confess our sins to Jesus to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). This is why we are initially and foundationally saved by God’s grace without works. But that does not mean Christians can refuse to enter the Secondary Aspect of Salvation in entering the Sanctification Process by the Spirit, though. Believers have to also live holy lives by the power of the working of the Spirit within them, too. For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

A_Thinker · Dec 15, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I believe the King James Bible is my final Word of authority and I have been defending that within this thread.

So I take it to mean you are saying that seeing I hold to the doctrine of Divine Preservation of God’s Word that I am somehow causing our friend either physical or mental suffering in someway. Just because I hold to a particular belief in the Bible, and I am passionate about that belief like you may be for your beliefs in the Bible does not mean I am seeking to cause them physical or mental suffering. For have you never defended beliefs of your own with a passion? Does not disagreement between beliefs lead to a divide sometimes? But should it change our love? Does that mean we truly are causing physical and mental suffering for those who do not agree with a truth we find to be biblical? I imagine some beliefs that are not biblical can cause a mental distress or anxiety to a degree, but I would not come right out and say that such a group of people are doing so (unless they are blatantly justifying known sin). I strive to point to the weakness in the belief itself and not the person or individual that is merely an opinion that is not tied to the belief itself.

Anyways, if you disagree, we can simply agree to disagree in love and respect and move on. But I just don’t think your statement was exactly true or nice, my friend. Not all King James Only folk are the same. There are some who can come across as very unloving and others who are loving and yet strive to speak the truth in love. While I am not perfect, I strive to be perfect in loving all the brethren (even if we may not agree on all doctrines).

In any event, peace be unto you in the Lord Jesus Christ, and may your day be greatly blessed.

Why would the KJV be the only version of the Bible to be trusted .... when it's an English translation ... and vast numbers of Christians don't speak English ?

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

Some make the mistake of making faith all about a belief alone Jesus.
Others make the mistake of making faith all about doing good works alone.
Faith is like two sides of a coin. It can sometimes be in reference to a belief alone in Jesus, and at other times it can be in reference or context to living holy or being faithFUL.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

A_Thinker said:
Why would the KJV be the only version of the Bible to be trusted .... when it's an English translation ... and vast numbers of Christians don't speak English ?

The same can be said for when the New Testament Scriptures only existed at one time in the Greek or when the Israelites had the Scriptures only in the Hebrew language. Why would God single out just those languages at those periods of time and why did God not make available right away His Word to be available to all languages?

Let me answer.

As for the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures (existing prior to NT Greek Scriptures):

God chose a special nation to be His holy representatives to be a light unto the Gentiles. So with the exception of the Ninevites, one had to become a Jew and follow the Hebrew language inspired Scriptures. There was no Scriptures available in tons of languages at that time among the dog language (i.e. the Gentile tongue) during the time of the Old Testament.

As for the New Testament Greek Scriptures:

God has the power to make His New Testament Scriptures instantly available in all languages all over the world. We know God has the power to perfectly translate many languages at Pentecost. But why did God choose not to do that with the NT Scriptures? Why were the NT Scriptures first only available perfectly in the Greek? I say this because many who hold to no perfect Bible in our language today will say that the originals were perfect (of which we do not have today). So where is their Bible that is perfect? They have none.

But my point here is that we see God is consistent in the way He operates. He appears to have chosen one language to preserve His Word perfectly in the past (i.e. Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek). So what language would that be today? Well, it cannot be Greek because Greek is not the world language today. Greek used to be the world language at one time, but not anymore. Today it would be English because English is the world language of today. For God does want people to know of His Word in it’s purest form.

World language - Wikipedia

The most spoken languages in the world | Berlitz

Also, a world language is not just in how many speak it, but it is in reference to it’s influence as a language. English is spoken in International airports, and it’s entertainment (movies, music) is globally recognized and used by many non English speaking countries. To give you an example: Back in the day when I dated my other half (my fiancé at the time, now my wife), I went to a video rental store in her country. Many of the movies were from Hollywood and translated into their language. But the movies are ultimately English speaking films.

Also, I know it seems absurd to you that the King James Bible could be God’s Holy Word for today, but many things of God are miraculous and don’t always make sense to us. We cannot explain how God does miracles. So just because we cannot rationalize miracles, we should not discount the possibility that the doctrine of Divine Preservation is without any merit. I would encourage you to check out…

The 30 reasons for the King James Bible.

timothyu · Dec 15, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Saying we are sorry is the first step.

Yes we must first regret ever being protective of the sorry will of man and the world we have made in it's image, or else we wouldn't reject it and move away, feeling regret we ever put our will ahead of the will of God but joy now at being outcasts within this society we made in our old image.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 15, 2021

timothyu said:
Yes we must first regret ever being protective of the sorry will of man and the world we have made in it's image, or else we wouldn't reject it and move away, feeling regret we ever put our will ahead of the will of God but joy now at being outcasts within this society we made in our old image.

It’s more than regret, friend. Judas regretted what he did but he did not seek forgiveness with the Lord by way of prayer while he was alive. He had a worldly sorrow and not a godly sorrow that leads to repentance or seeking forgiveness with God (whereby they are desiring to make good on that promise).

timothyu · Dec 15, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
It’s more than regret, friend.

I say call it what you will. If you reject the will of man over the will of God, the job is done. It is finished. God forgives the minute we put His will first. So now people who have rejected the old ways can focus on what Jesus' true gospel was, that God would be returning to rid the world of the governance of man and Himself rule. It is about Him first, not us. Too bad things got diverted back onto what is in it for us, our will more important to build a religion on than God's.

A Biblical Case For Repentance

Is The Sinner’s Prayer Biblical?

Yes.

No.

I don’t know.

It is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is still valid.

Other (Please explain).

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads