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

Reponse to "Saddened"

Dear [Anonymous],

I appreciate your concern about my spiritual welfare. That is one of the main reasons for my web site. I am concerned about the faith and spiritual welfare of folks who need to understand the biblical meaning and power of the Gospel. I understand when you say you are sad over my testimony. Please let me humbly say that you need not be sad for me. I am resting in Jesus and trusting him completely with all my soul. I know it is disturbing to read about someone who used to believe what you presently believe. However, rest assured that I am not in spiritual trouble. Christ is all and all to me and I look to him alone.

Many of the comments you made I have address with articles on my web site. Many people just read part of my testimony, written 10 years ago, and they write me to give me a piece of their mind, without looking further into the answers that I have already written and made available. I ask that you understand my faith in the whole journey, and not from reading one part of it.Also, I say this kindly, and not to argue, but it is patronizing and impolite as a Christian to tell them "First of all, you are wrong and deep down you know it. You do not fully believe what you are teaching now, there is no way you possibly can when you know truth." No, I don't know I am wrong deep down. Yes, I do fully believe what I am teaching. You judge my motives without doing the hard work of reading my articles and pointing out with Scriptural study why I am wrong. I guess that means I am wrong because you say so. That's a frail reason for saying I am wrong. We could argue 'round and 'round in an immature way saying, "You're wrong," "no, you're wrong." But the test is whether we speak what Scripture teaches. I am confident that the Bible teaches that I am right with God by trusting in the life, death and resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. I believe that is what Scripture teaches. If I am wrong, then show from Scripture where that is wrong.

View Response to Deeply Saddened in pdf

"Deeply Saddened"

Dear Mr Bernie Gillespie, I have put "deeply saddened" in the subject heading because that is how reading your "testimony" has made me feel. I felt a sorrow for you the whole time I was reading it. I feel sorrow for you and for your family. And for the members of your church who must be mourning for you right now.

My name is _____ _____, I attend the UPCI church in __________. It is a daughter work of the ___________ church where I used to attend. My youth pastors in that church were greatly respected and the youth adored them. Including myself. I was very deeply hurt when I found out that they were given a "revelation" from God that what we were preaching is not right and that they didn't have to do what they'd been doing and that life didn't have to be so "difficult". They no longer go to a church at all, they are hurting and trying to fulfill the emptiness with alcohol and tasteless music. Because God never really did give them that revelation. If we aren't careful we may think that we are being spoken to by God, but we are quickly deceived and listen to the wrong voices. If satan knows we are vulnerable that is when he will make us question our faith. And he will use whatever it takes to do so. Whether it be a trip to the holy land or simply deciding that this way of life is "unnecessary" He did it to me once through Greek Mythology. We must be careful.

I am deeply bothered at what you said in your testimony, "Before I had to go to great lengths to explain how these passages really did not mean what the obvious reader could see they did mean". I have been in church 8 years, and have never had to do that. The thing is (and being a previous bible school teacher you should know this) is that you do have to look farther into it than what it simply says. For example the Bible tells us that God wants us to be perfect. So should we take that as it is and say that we will never be saved because no one will ever obtain perfection? no, we can't do that because then we would be taking the word out of context when you look at the strongs original meaning of the word perfect, it simply means complete. whole. that's all, if we were to take it as it "simply says" we would think we had to be flawless.

You are right we are saved by grace and faith, but that is not all. You can't just take one thing out of the bible and decide that's all there is to it. There is more to it than that. But it's easier to think that's it. It sounds to me from what you are interpreting that it was YOUR personal views that were prideful and self righteous and it sounds as though you are blaming that on the upci but the upci is not prideful and self righteous, though it has members that are as in any church. I thank God that my pastor does not just read us the Bible. He does in depth studies into the meanings of the words so that we really do understand it from the original greek and hebrew texts. I also do studies as such and do not come across things that are contrary to upci doctrine.

As for your conclusion "If I am wrong God have mercy on me, If I am right...what will be your response, my brothers and sisters?" First of all, you are wrong and deep down you know it. You do not fully believe what you are teaching now, there is no way you possibly can when you know truth.

Secondly, I don't have to worry about "if" you are right. The simple fact that you say "If" you are right, and "if you are wrong shows that you are unsure. I don't think for one second what my respose would be if you are right because I know you are not, because I read and study the scriptures to show myself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth. I hope God does have mercy on you, for not only have you left truth but you have led your wife and your very own children that God blessed you with into the wrong path. I pray you come to a realization real soon and come back to truth b4 it is too late. we don't have time to play games and I find it a shame to lead people so close and know the real thing is out there and keep it from them. and actually teach against it. I am adding you to my prayer list and your wife and children.

My prayers are with you,

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the In Christ Alone! Ministries eMail Blog

I receive many precious and important emails from those who visit my web site. The number of emails and the time it takes to adequately answer them is more than the time I have every week.

My heart goes out to each and every person who writes. Yet, before I can respond there are three or four more. This cycle repeats itself every week and sometimes every day. I have prayed about how that I might provide some help, friendship, and support for each and every person who contacts me.

Since blogging is becoming more common, I thought that I would try to use a web log as a way to share my anwers to "composite" emails. That is, I can take the common questions that many people ask and then answer them, on this web log, as though I am speaking to one person. (In reality, the "one person" is many people represented by their emails). So, friends, that is what I going to attempt. There will be trial and error along the way, but I believe it will be enjoyable and fun. This is an experiment. The goal is to keep in touch in a way that time allows. Through this ICA! eMail web log I can talk with you about various and random subjects related to the Gospel, theology, culture, Biblical studies, church life, grace & legalism, or important issues in living the Christian life.

I ask that you have patience with me as I learn the best way to serve you. Please feel free to write me with you suggestions, observations, or encouragements(!!) at my email address icamin@ameritech.net.

Enjoy and be blessed in Jesus!

Bernie