RE: [TruthTalk] Repentance and Unilateral Gospel

[ShieldsFamily]

Hi Izzy,   As you have taken the time to create discussion on this topic you are deserving of a response.  This is the kind of thing I want to see from you.  Thank you.  I am at work right now and may get a chance in my break this afternoon to sketch out something more complete but from looking at my backlog this may be it for today :)   The Greek meaning of Repentance is to 'change one's mind' in a radical way.  This is like a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction.  It is not just mental assent.  We must keep in mind the Biblical (Hebraic) sense of the person, the body animated.  There is no split between body, mind, and spirit.  When we repent it is all of us that faces a new direction.  So this is the word that Jesus and Paul used.  You and I may now add additional things to what repentance means but the biblical term only involves the changing of one's orientation.  With this in mind, only point two of your outline is Christian repentance.  Point one is confession, and point three is a mixture of penance and restoration.  In other words one can leave 1 and 3 out and have repented in a Christian way just fine.  On top of this John's gospel never uses the greek word for 'repent'.  It does however ask us to believe, to have faith.  To say that repentance is needed for salvation one would be wrong unless one equated repentance with belief and faith.   The idea of the unilateral covenant (where God does it all and we do nothing in response) is a dangerous gospel.  You are correct.  The problem is that is never how Lance, Bill, or I have defined the unilateral covenant.  You see, you are criticizing something you have created instead of what we have attempted to state.  In actual fact we have always highlighted the need for RESPONSE to God's call on our lives.  Where we differ is that most on this forum view what we call responses as conditions.  Our portrayal of the gospel does value (and value highly) repentance, rejection of sin, and a Godly lifestyle.  However, we do these in response to God, not as a condition for God to accept us.  God dedicates Himself unilateraly to us.  We, being fallen continually break this covenant from our side of the fence.  God, who is faithful never breaks His side of the covenant.  One key difference between a covenant and a contract is whether it is broken by one or both parties.  There is no mental assent to living a daily sanctified life in our view of the gospel; our salvation is worked out day by day by indwelling God's Word.  To know God is to be changed by Him, daily.   I hope this helps clarify some things.  In our constant need to misconstrue what each other is saying we need to ensure that when we comment on other people's beliefs we comment on their actual beliefs instead of our parodies. Jonathan Hughes    Jonathan, Thank you for your calm response, which makes me much more inclined to venture to discuss such issues. J You are helping me to see just what you are trying to say.  Question: If a person does not “respond” to God’s Unilateral covenant, do you think the non-responder (ie: continual sinner) is still saved? Is that person going to heaven when he/she dies? Has that person entered into The Kingdom of God? Does “the changing of one's orientation” necessarily involve living a holy life? And what is it that you mean by a person “indwelling God’s Word”? Since this is not a Biblical term, I find it foreign. It can mean any of a number of things if you don’t clearly define it. I don’t think anyone here has a “need to misconstrue what each other is saying”.  To think so is uncharitable. And I was definitely not trying to “parody” your beliefs.  I hope that assuages your misconception on such issues. I would appreciate comments from other TT’ers on these topics. Izzy