Do we need to be sorry to be saved?

[GodBeMercifulToMeASinner]

You have given some good examples of repenting and sorrow together. Are there examples of repenting in the bible where there is no sorrow?

Not that I see partner. I included that verse from Genesis 6 because it seems to illustrate that the biblical definition of repentance includes sorrow. Then came the great flood of course. God washing away all that sin from the earth. So there is a sorrow, which leads to change, and a bit of ‘cleansing’ so to speak. Putting away the old, in with the new (Ephesians 4:22-24).

That was my own experience as well. Never was an atheist or believer in any other religion. Always believed the God of the Bible was real, what Christ did was real. Wasn’t until He convicted me that I was able to put away the old man (Ephesians 4:22) and have true desire to follow Christ. It resulted in deep sorrow, that conviction of sin. Before then, I honestly did not ever feel comfortable referring to myself as a Christian. Surely was not one in those days.

 

[timothyu]

Surely was not one in those days.

But in those days you fit the mold of what the world expected you to be as a Christian. The concept of the Kingdom has remained long hidden by the very religion that is supposed to expose it. Instead Christianity resembles the governments and world of man and refuses to let go of it's backwards nature.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[1Tonne]

I do not feel the eunuch felt sorrow at his baptism or happiness from what he was taught, so what do you think?

I do think the eunuch felt sorrow. First, Phillip would have explained to the eunuch the meaning of the verses he was reading which was,
"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.
Phillip would have explained to the eunuch the reason that this person was led to the slaughter (This is in verse 35 where Phillip shares the Gospel). It was for the sins of the world. Then once the eunuch realised his own sin, the Gospel would have made sense. So, I believe that the eunuch still felt sorrow.

That is because conversion from the self serving ways of man to the otherness of the Kingdom is not an emotional decision but an intellectual one. Emotional decisions are a convenient tool during human elections, effective but unwise.. One must understand why God thinks our world is backwards and will then better appreciate the alternative.

2 Corinthians 7:10 says that emotion produces repentance, leading to salvation.
"For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death."
In saying this, I believe that you are correct in saying it is also an intellectual decision. So, conversion is both intellectual and emotional.

 

[timothyu]

So, conversion is both intellectual and emotional.

Jesus' earliest followers were slaves, servants and women who well understood the oppression created by the selfish nature of mankind,. So yes they were emotionally involved, both as the oppressed and again when finding there was an alternative to the traditional self absorbed ways of mankind.

 

[bling]

I do think the eunuch felt sorrow. First, Phillip would have explained to the eunuch the meaning of the verses he was reading which was,
"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.
Phillip would have explained to the eunuch the reason that this person was led to the slaughter (This is in verse 35 where Phillip shares the Gospel). It was for the sins of the world. Then once the eunuch realised his own sin, the Gospel would have made sense. So, I believe that the eunuch still felt sorrow.

OK, The eunuch would have been really sorry for Jesus' cruel, torture, humiliation and murder, but would he have seen that as his personal responsibility and cause? Would he be sorry for what he personally caused? Would the eunuch have been sorry; he had not been there to jump in and try to stop this tragedy? Yes, sorrow for what happened, but was there more to it?

 

[1Tonne]

OK, The eunuch would have been really sorry for Jesus' cruel, torture, humiliation and murder, but would he have seen that as his personal responsibility and cause? Would he be sorry for what he personally caused? Would the eunuch have been sorry; he had not been there to jump in and try to stop this tragedy? Yes, sorrow for what happened, but was there more to it?

It says in Acts 8:35, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him." So, the eunuch was told the reason why Jesus died. In 1 Cor 15:3-4 it tells us what Paul said when he preached Jesus to others. It says, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day". If it was preached that Christ died for the eunuch's sins, then he would have felt contrition for his sins. He may not have been one of the people putting nails in His hands, but he was still responsible because of his sin.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is because conversion from the self serving ways of man to the otherness of the Kingdom is not an emotional decision but an intellectual one. Emotional decisions are a convenient tool during human elections, effective but unwise.. One must understand why God thinks our world is backwards and will then better appreciate the alternative.

According to the parable of the sower, it depends on the honesty of the heart of the hearer of the word.

 

[Laodicean60]

You have given some good examples of repenting and sorrow together. Are there examples of repenting in the bible where there is no sorrow?

I've grown slower than others in changing my mind about life and when I reflect on my past, I'm the most sorrowful.

 

[timothyu]

According to the parable of the sower, it depends on th/e honesty of the heart of the hearer of the word.

You mean will they admit how backwards we are in nature to the will of God?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I was listening to a sermon and within it, the pastor said that we do not need to be sorry when repenting. In Acts 3:19 it says, "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;" So no mention of being sorry. All we need to do is believe and turn from our sins.
I know that there are verses that say how "Godly sorrow brings about repentance", and "God desires a broken and contrite heart", but the way these verses are worded, contrition is not compulsory.

I believe we need Godly sorrow. This is like falling on the mercy of the Judge.
For instance, you had robbed a bank and then after 10 years they finally caught you and you were now before the Judge. You say to the judge without any sorrow, "Judge be lenient with me. I know I robbed the bank, but I have not done it since." The Judge is not going to be lenient. There was no sign of contrition. You were not sorry for what you had done. You are going to get the book thrown at you.
But let's say you had robbed a bank and then after 10 years they finally caught you and you were now before the Judge. You say to the judge with tears in your eyes, "I am really sorry. I know what I did was really wrong, and I wished I had never done it. It was a foolish thing to do. I am so sorry." So, you fall on the mercy of the Judge. The judge seeing your contrition will be more inclined to the possibility of a lesser sentence.

What are other people's thoughts on this? Do we need contrition? Is it a false teaching to tell others they simply need to leave their sins without any contrition?

When I was first saved I did not understand the concept of repentance, I was grateful that God had extended me mercy. I believe I knew internally I needed to turn from sin, and I initially attempted to. But when a hard time came, I grumbled against God. Which led me to around 10 years of walking through a deep wilderness. When God restored me, I saw that repentance, walking away from sin was consistently needed, He gave me a daily respect for His word. As for whether was I sorry for my sin, to a degree, it was more of a regret. Although it would be good to have a sorry feeling for sin, it would be good for the person, I doubt wether everybody has such a feeling.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You mean will they admit how backwards we are in nature to the will of God?

I would not use the word backwards. The two great sins are pride and rebellion. That is Satan's nature, which man took in when he disobeyed in Eden. Every sin has its root in either of those sins. Yes, man instinctively rejects God's will. The honest person will say, "God be merciful to me, a sinner". The dishonest attempt to justify themselves.

 

[linux.poet]

I do not think we can tie repentance to a specific emotion, but rather a specific set of actions. This includes forsaking the sinful action, confessing the sin to God and other people, and asking the Church to hold them accountable. This changes the status of the sinful action from something the person thinks is okay to a blight they wish to shun and despise.

Without social accountability to stop the sin, how do we know that their desire to stop sinning is legitimate? How do we know that they aren’t supporting it? We don’t. So it is not the emotion, but the honesty and transparency with God and others which marks true repentance.

 

[1Tonne]

I do not think we can tie repentance to a specific emotion, but rather a specific set of actions. This includes forsaking the sinful action, confessing the sin to God and other people, and asking the Church to hold them accountable. This changes the status of the sinful action from something the person thinks is okay to a blight they wish to shun and despise.

Without social accountability to stop the sin, how do we know that their desire to stop sinning is legitimate? How do we know that they aren’t supporting it? We don’t. So it is not the emotion, but the honesty and transparency with God and others which marks true

The question then becomes. Has this person really had a heart change? If there is no emotion to repentance, so they are not sorry that their sin put Jesus on the cross, then, there must be another motive to leave their sin. I guess that it is to save their own skin. So, a selfish, prideful reason to leave their sin.
If this is the reason, then the bible says, "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6.

 

[timothyu]

and asking the Church to hold them accountable.

Who holds the institutional churches accountable when it is they themselves that set the example and rejected the Kingdom to realign themselves with the empires of man 1700 years ago and never looked back after their betrayal?

 

[timothyu]

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

Of course. He has no use for those who think they are smarter and play their side hustles. It is those who see the foolishness in doing so that are truly repentant. They may feel remorse for their previous foolishness but it is their new found wisdom that will sustain them now that they and the self serving world of man have turned against each other. No sense confessing and saying sorry sorry to the very institutions designed to keep them in line with worldly authority.

 

[1Tonne]

I just read something, and it pointed out that if you do something wrong and then later you wish you never did it, then you have a feeling of repentance. In this case, repentance is not simply an action, but also a feeling of remorse.

 

[timothyu]

In this case, repentance is not simply an action, but also a feeling of remorse.

But does the person learn their lesson or do they repeat the reason for the action (self interest) in other ways?

 

[linux.poet]

Has this person really had a heart change? If there is no emotion to repentance, so they are not sorry that their sin put Jesus on the cross, then, there must be another motive to leave their sin. I guess that it is to save their own skin.

The motive to save one’s own skin isn’t enough to end a train of sinful actions, however. A selfish narcissist will simply lie about their repentance and continue willfully in their sinful actions. They will not ask for accountability to avoid that sin in the future.

To ask for accountability from the church, from your brothers and sisters in Christ, requires humility. You are subjecting yourself to other people’s judgment and declaring it superior to your own in particular area.

Conversely, a narcissist is likely to put on a big show of repentance “I’m so sorry! I’ll never do that again!” Don’t be fooled. They will. What matters is the willingness to change, to check in, to be accountable for sin committed, and to do the work of restoration and rebuilding trust.

As for heart change, don’t worry about it. Emotion drives actions and words. Also, only God can change the heart and gives the desires of the heart. That’s not your responsibility.

What I have found over the years is that you cannot judge people by their emotions. The amount of times I have had to fight my own emotions to follow God’s commands is staggering, and the amount of times I have been judged for having a specific emotion or not having it has made my journey of spiritual healing worse. Don’t fall into this trap. Examine what people say and do in light of Scripture and hold them accountable for that instead.

The person who has to fight their emotions to subject themselves to Christ is just as much a believer as one who accepts the Gospel with emotional intensity and devotion. C.S. Lewis, the “most unhappy convert in all of England”, wrote numerous scholarly works that show that his faith was genuine. Romans 10:9 requires belief in the truth and submission to Christ’s authority. It does not require a feeling. Belief is not a feeling. It is an intellectual assent that something is true. This leads to feeling, but it is not feeling of itself.

 

[linux.poet]

Who holds the institutional churches accountable when it is they themselves that set the example and rejected the Kingdom to realign themselves with the empires of man 1700 years ago and never looked back after their betrayal?

Christ, who will condemn them for their actions at His glorious return.

This post is a loaded question that contains a lot of assumptions that I disagree with. If it helps, I am more referring to asking for accountability from fellow individuals in the body of Christ, a la “accountability partners”, rather than from an amorphous institution. Accountability from a local pastor could also suffice.

 

[1Tonne]

But does the person learn their lesson or do they repeat the reason for the action (self interest) in other ways?

Well, that simply depends on how repentant they are. If they are truly repentant, then they will not want to do it again.