Is Repentance an Act that Saves?

Email Question: Is repentance an act that saves? I believe it is.

My Response: The reason that I do not understand repentance as an act that saves or obtains salvation is because of the nature of salvation. The Bible teaches that our condition in sin is so total that God is the only one who can do anything to save us. When we understand how serious our condition is and how holy God is, we would understand that we cannot even respond to God unless His Spirit enables us.I would be interested in how you would answer a couple of questions.

The first is, “Saved from what?” That would tell a lot about what you mean by repentance and where you base your faith. The Bible says that we are saved from God’s wrath. (Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; I Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Rev. 6:16, 17). The depth of our sin against God is so profound that it is impossible for any human to calculate it. When Adam & Eve sinned, they did so not only defying the authority of God, but more seriously questioning the goodness of God. Rather than live in unbounded love and enjoyment of God and living for His glory, they turned their love inward toward themselves, enjoying things other than God and seeking their own glory (Rom. 2). This dishonoring of God shook humanity to its core and corrupted human nature until now (Gen. 11:1; Eph. 4:22; 2 Pet. 1:4). This sin against God’s goodness, glory and sovereignty was so great that it evoked nothing less than righteous anger from God (Rom. 1:18; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; 5:6). Not petty human or emotional anger, but wrath in the sense of God’s justice working to reconcile or restore what the unrighteousness of sin defiled and destroyed (Acts 17:31).

The second question is: “Saved by what?” The Bible does not teach that repentance is salvation itself. It teaches that repentance is “unto” salvation (2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Tim. 2:25), which is accomplished by God. A perfect sacrifice was required under Moses (Ex. 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:19). But Romans and Hebrews tell us that none of the Old Covenant sacrifices were able to forgive sin (Rom. 3: 25; Heb. 10:4). Only the one sacrifice of Jesus upon the Cross quenched the wrath of the Father and remitted our sins (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). Therefore, repentance in itself does not save; it turns us to Jesus, and Jesus saves!

View Is Repentance an Act that Saves? in pdf

Way to enter into Covenant

Image via Wikipedia

September 4, 2006

Email comment: First of all, my belief is that the way to enter into a covenant with God is Acts 2:38, but I believe that God can enter into a covenant with anyone on his terms, apart from Baptism.

My Response: I would like to hear how you understand Acts 2:38 as the way to enter into covenant with God. More, I would be interested in how you handle water baptism in Acts 2:38 as not being part of the way one enters into covenant with God. I would agree that water baptism is not the means for entering the covenant and is rather the sign of the covenant. More explanation would be necessary to talk more profitably about this statement.

You believe that Acts 2:38 is one way to be in covenant with God. But, you also believe there are other ways to be in covenant with God. My response is that there are really only two biblical covenants that God makes with Humanity. Each of these covenants is made by God in mercy and condescension (Isa. 40:13-17) to our human limitations. The first is a covenant of works. The blessings of this covenant – of life and provision – were given to Adam (Gen. 1&2) on the condition that they obeyed God. In Eden they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge or good and evil (Gen. 2:17). When they ate they broke the covenant of works and their punishment was death (Gen. 3:16-19).

The law given to Moses is a further expansion of this covenant. It is a law that will bring life as long as it is obeyed (Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5). But as Adam and Eve disobeyed, sinned and broke the covenant of works, so did Israel and all Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-20). Because this covenant was broken, God made a second called the covenant of grace. In this new covenant, God promises life and salvation to all who believe in Jesus Christ (Mk. 16:15-16; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-9 Gal. 3:11). In this new covenant God gives a new heart and new spirit to make us willing and able to believe in Christ (Ezk, 36:26-27; John 6:44-45).

Jesus announced this new covenant at his last supper (Lk 22:20). He is the mediator of this new covenant because it is by his death that the new and better covenant is confirmed (Heb. 7:22). It is a new covenant in the blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:25). These are the only two covenants given to us in Scripture. One is either right by covenant (covenant righteousness) through their own personal, perfect works; or, one is right with God through faith in Jesus Christ (Christ's covenant righteousness). Everyone will stand before God one day. Each will stand before God in either their own righteousness or the righteousness of Jesus, given by grace.

View article "Way to Enter Into Covenant" in pdf

What does "For" (eis) in Acts 2:38 Mean?

Image via Wikipedia

From a recent email:

I recently began a discussion with a guy concerning eis in Acts 2:38. ... After offering the approach I have been using in the past that baptism is eis (with a view toward) repentence [Matthew 3:11], eis (with a view toward) Christ [Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3], and eis (with a view toward) the remission of sins [Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38] I offered another possible view using the UPC definition of eis, i.e., "in order to obtain." It's the approach which recognizes the command to "repent" in Acts 2:38 to be in the 2nd person plural, the command to "be baptized" to be in the 3rd person singular, and the phrase "for the remission of [your] sins" to again be in the 2nd person plural seeming to connect the 2nd person plurals, repentance and remission of sins, while making baptism a parenthetical insertion. The verse would thus show an emphasis on repentance being "eis [in order to obtain] the remission of sins."

I find this interesting because my Nestle Aland Greek New Testament has the phrase "repentance and remission" found in Luke 24:47 as "metanoia eis aphesis." It has Christ saying that "repentance eis remission of sins" was to be preached in his name. We also know John the Baptist preached the baptism of "repentance eis the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). I've presented the argument that, if grammatical nuances of Acts 2:38 are taken into consideration, Peter preached the same thing.... that the remission of sins is to be connected to repentance and not to baptism. Meaning, like John the Baptist and Christ, Peter preached repentance eis the remission of sins. If eis is to be accepted as "in order to obtain," then we have John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Peter teaching that man was to repent eis (in order to obtain) the remission of sins. Then again, the argument is stronger if the grammatical argument of the plurals vs singular holds water.

My response:

I have been working on a paper on eis for several years, but never have been able to finish it. Obviously, we agree on the general idea that baptism does not cause remission in Acts 2:38. Getting at how eis functions in Acts 2:38 is what is challenging. I think it is good to show that eis is used in Matt. 3:11 "baptize you in water unto repentance." When you parallel Matt 3:11, Mk. 1:4 and Lk. 24:47 it is apparent that the connection is between repentance & the remission of sins and the stress is on repentance. Baptism is associated with repentance and remission because it is the sign of repentance as found in Jewish proselyte washing/baptism. The simple comparison of these passages should be enough to keep the UPCI from an exclusive baptismal remission. But, of course it isn’t.

The issue of baptismal remission cannot be solved by simply determining the usage of eis. This is a major point for interpreting Acts 2:38. The finest Greek scholars have disagreed over this. Most of them don’t believe that eis intends a baptismal remission, even those who say eis is purposive or causal. It can be noted that one could hold to an interpretation that eis is causal without concluding that Peter teaches baptismal remission. For example, G. Campbell Morgan [The Birth of the Church, p. 156.] believes that epi in "in the name of Jesus" means "upon", which would connotes "upon the name of Jesus." Campbell (and others) says that to repent and be baptized "upon" the name of Jesus would mean to repent and be baptized resting upon or DEPENDING on the name of Jesus. In essence, to depend on the name is a Jewish way of saying trusting or believing in that person. So if Peter exhorts the people of the Jewish nation to repent of killing their very Lord and Christ, he means for them to repent, and be converted, or come over to Christianity, signified by baptism, as they trust in or depend on Jesus to remit or take away their sins. So then eis could be causal, with the cause being trusting in the Jesus (upon the name of Jesus) for the forgiveness of their sins.

View "What does 'For' (eis) in Acts 2:38 Mean?" in pdf

To read my paper go to Does the Word “For” in “For the Remission of Sins" in Acts 2:38 Signify that Water Baptism Remits Sin?1