Derail thread: Is repentance necessary for salvation?

[foudroyant]

That's incorrect. It teaches that belief plus confession is sufficient for salvation. There is a difference



Because if you teach someone to believe, the person will repent (change beliefs) regardless of whether you teach the person to repent.

1. This is why I wrote "also". It's not confession alone.
2. Then why did Paul and Peter even say to repent if it was so clearly understood as inherent in belief?

[Obsidian]

1. Your main problem was that you confused sufficiency with necessity.
2. I already explained that the purpose of mentioning repentance is to mention, and thus emphasize, the need for change. And it isn't the case that Paul frequently used the word.

[foudroyant]

1. What do you mean?
2. Why is it recorded in Acts 17:30 that Paul mentioned about their need to "repent" without "belief" being recorded? The same with 2 Peter 3:9?

[Obsidian]

You don't know the difference between something that is sufficient to achieve a goal, and something that is necessary? A one hundred dollar bill is sufficient to buy a meal at Wendy's. But a one hundred dollar bill is not necessary.

Paul did not give the full gospel in Acts 17. He didn't specifically tell the people how to be saved. All he said was that they needed to stop pursuing their pagan superstitions and turn to a real God who was coming to judge them. He may not have given the full gospel because he was planning to split the message into two sermons from the beginning, or it may be because the audience began mocking him and told him to come back later.

[foudroyant]

If one does not confess they are not saved.
Paul did give the full gospel.

[Obsidian]

Well, if just saying it makes it so...

[foudroyant]

Well, if just saying it makes it so...

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

or

For whosoever shall not call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[Obsidian]

Do you adopt the same type of interpretation in Mark 16:16, to teach baptismal regeneration?

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[foudroyant]

Mark 16:9-20 is too disputed to base any doctrine on.
---------------------------
And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10b)
1. Danker: Citing Romans 10:10 "for salvation" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, swteria, page 986).
2. Thayer: Citing Romans 10:10 "unto (the attainment of) salvation" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, swteria, page 612).

Also from Danker concerning "εἰς" in Romans 10:10:
confess to salvation = so as to receive salvation (Ibid., page 290).

[tabibito]

1. Your main problem was that you confused sufficiency with necessity.
2. I already explained that the purpose of mentioning repentance is to mention, and thus emphasize, the need for change. And it isn't the case that Paul frequently used the word.

Not every word spoken in Paul's addresses was recorded - but we do know that Paul declared the need to repent, and to produce works in keeping with repentance, as among the key points of his gospel.

Act 26:19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 “but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

[Obsidian]

Bad example. In the verse right before, he mentions forgiveness, inheritance, and being washed by faith. Those are the key points. Repenting, or turning to God, are just other ways of saying those more important concepts.

Acts 26:18
to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

[tabibito]

Mark 16:16 isn't necessary to demonstrate the need for baptism.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That "for" might be ambiguous in English, but not in Koine Greek: εις signifies that baptism has an aim - the remission of sins.

And then the record of 2 Peter 3 declares that baptism saves:

[tabibito]

Acts 26:18 changes what Paul said he was preaching? How exactly?

That is to say, what did Paul do to achieve the aims outlined in Acts 26:18?

[foudroyant]

Mark 16:16 isn't necessary to demonstrate the need for baptism.


That "for" might be ambiguous in English, but not in Koine Greek: εις signifies that baptism has an aim - the remission of sins.

And then the record of 2 Peter 3 declares that baptism saves:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1745[/ATTACH]

Cornelius and the Gentiles with him were clearly saved before their water baptism.
Acts 2:38 does not apply to them in regards to being water baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3:21 - Water baptism simply pictures our salvation.

[Obsidian]

The point is that "If p then q" only implies "If not q, then not p." It doesn't imply "If not p then not q." If someone confesses (without deception) then he is saved. But not being baptized, or not confessing, does not imply a lack of salvation.

Tabibito, I already stated that "repent" usually implies a change in beliefs. But the gospel is always clearer when the need for faith is stated more explicitly.