Advocates
of the RNC (the view that repentance
does not always result in a change of action), in light of the overwhelming
case against them from the lexica and from the uses of metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament, make several arguments for their position that
they hope will overturn the crushing weight of Biblical usage. First, they argue that the RAC (the view that repentance always results in a change
of action) is an affirmation of justification by works. Only on the RNC position is salvation allegedly by faith alone. Faith is affirmed to be an absolute
synonym with repentance, and faith is said to exclude any trust in Jesus Christ
to make one different; one trusts
Christ only to escape from hell, not to get a new heart and life. Christ is divided; He is not received as the Mediator who
is at once Prophet, Priest, and King, one undivided Person who is both Savior
and Lord. Rather, faith allegedly
picks and chooses among Christ’s offices and roles and receives only those of
them that promise escape from hell, not those that promise freedom from the
dominion of sin. However, such a RNC argument is nonsense. The RAC does
not affirm that the sinner is justified through the instrumentality of a
“repentance” that is actually some sort of process of doing good deeds. On the contrary, the RAC affirms that repentance is not good works, but that
repentance results in good works.
The RAC recognizes the
Biblical fact that repentance and faith take place at the same moment in time,
so that a sinner cannot savingly repent without repenting of his sin of
unbelief, and a sinner cannot believe in Jesus Christ without trusting Christ
for both deliverance from hell and a new heart. The New Covenant or Testament promises both the forgiveness
of sin and freedom from sin’s dominion:
“I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not
teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more” (Hebrews 8:10-12). The
New Covenant privilege of forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant privilege of
having God’s laws in one’s mind and heart are indissolubly connected. Justification is certainly by faith
alone (Romans 3:20-28), but saving faith will always lead to a change of heart
and action (James 2:14-26). The RAC is salvation by works only if Paul taught salvation
by works when he included Ephesians 2:10 after Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:8 after
Titus 3:5-7, Romans 6-8 after Romans 3-5, or 2 Timothy 1:9a before 2 Timothy
1:9b. The RNC must not only ignore the New Testament usage of metanoeo and metanoia but also cut out of the Bible the context of many of the precious
declarations in the New Testament that salvation is not based on works. Indeed, the RNC even needs to purge the very promises of the New
Covenant itself (Hebrews 8:10-12).
The RAC is not salvation
by works, but a glorious salvation by faith alone that does not leave the
sinner in his sin but actually saves the sinner from sin by shattering sin’s
dominion. On the other hand, the RNC actually is antinomianism.
of the RNC (the view that repentance
does not always result in a change of action), in light of the overwhelming
case against them from the lexica and from the uses of metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament, make several arguments for their position that
they hope will overturn the crushing weight of Biblical usage. First, they argue that the RAC (the view that repentance always results in a change
of action) is an affirmation of justification by works. Only on the RNC position is salvation allegedly by faith alone. Faith is affirmed to be an absolute
synonym with repentance, and faith is said to exclude any trust in Jesus Christ
to make one different; one trusts
Christ only to escape from hell, not to get a new heart and life. Christ is divided; He is not received as the Mediator who
is at once Prophet, Priest, and King, one undivided Person who is both Savior
and Lord. Rather, faith allegedly
picks and chooses among Christ’s offices and roles and receives only those of
them that promise escape from hell, not those that promise freedom from the
dominion of sin. However, such a RNC argument is nonsense. The RAC does
not affirm that the sinner is justified through the instrumentality of a
“repentance” that is actually some sort of process of doing good deeds. On the contrary, the RAC affirms that repentance is not good works, but that
repentance results in good works.
The RAC recognizes the
Biblical fact that repentance and faith take place at the same moment in time,
so that a sinner cannot savingly repent without repenting of his sin of
unbelief, and a sinner cannot believe in Jesus Christ without trusting Christ
for both deliverance from hell and a new heart. The New Covenant or Testament promises both the forgiveness
of sin and freedom from sin’s dominion:
“I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not
teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more” (Hebrews 8:10-12). The
New Covenant privilege of forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant privilege of
having God’s laws in one’s mind and heart are indissolubly connected. Justification is certainly by faith
alone (Romans 3:20-28), but saving faith will always lead to a change of heart
and action (James 2:14-26). The RAC is salvation by works only if Paul taught salvation
by works when he included Ephesians 2:10 after Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:8 after
Titus 3:5-7, Romans 6-8 after Romans 3-5, or 2 Timothy 1:9a before 2 Timothy
1:9b. The RNC must not only ignore the New Testament usage of metanoeo and metanoia but also cut out of the Bible the context of many of the precious
declarations in the New Testament that salvation is not based on works. Indeed, the RNC even needs to purge the very promises of the New
Covenant itself (Hebrews 8:10-12).
The RAC is not salvation
by works, but a glorious salvation by faith alone that does not leave the
sinner in his sin but actually saves the sinner from sin by shattering sin’s
dominion. On the other hand, the RNC actually is antinomianism.
Second,
the RNC points out that the word repentance does not appear in the gospel of John. Since, the RNC affirms, John promises salvation simply to belief, and belief does not involve trusting in Christ for deliverance from the dominion
of sin, but only for freedom from hell, the RAC must be an erroneous definition of repentance, all
the lexical and Biblical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. However, John’s gospel is filled with
evidence that saving faith always results in a changed life. For example, the classic presentation
of salvation by faith in John 3:1-3:21 indicates both that salvation is by
faith alone (3:15-18) and that saving faith and regeneration lead to a changed
life (John 3:8, 19-21). When Christ
won to Himself the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-42), He explained to her that
salvation leads one to true worship of the Father (John 4:23-24). Her life also became strikingly
different, as evidenced by her actions (John 4:28-29). In chapter five, John recorded Christ’s
preaching both “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24) and “Marvel not
at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation” (John 5:28-29), almost in the same breath. In John six, Christ preached: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he
hath sent. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life” (6:29, 47), and the chapter concludes with the fact that
those who go back and turn away from Christ (6:66) are people who have not
really believed (6:64, 69). One
could go through practically every chapter and discourse of Christ in John’s
gospel and see both the fact that eternal life is received by the
instrumentality of faith alone and the fact that faith receives Christ both for
salvation from sin’s penalty and salvation from sin’s power, that Christ is
received as a Savior both from sin’s eternal consequences and sin’s inward
corruption. The gospel of John is
filled with the doctrine of the RAC,
and contains no evidence whatsoever for the RNC.
the RNC points out that the word repentance does not appear in the gospel of John. Since, the RNC affirms, John promises salvation simply to belief, and belief does not involve trusting in Christ for deliverance from the dominion
of sin, but only for freedom from hell, the RAC must be an erroneous definition of repentance, all
the lexical and Biblical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. However, John’s gospel is filled with
evidence that saving faith always results in a changed life. For example, the classic presentation
of salvation by faith in John 3:1-3:21 indicates both that salvation is by
faith alone (3:15-18) and that saving faith and regeneration lead to a changed
life (John 3:8, 19-21). When Christ
won to Himself the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-42), He explained to her that
salvation leads one to true worship of the Father (John 4:23-24). Her life also became strikingly
different, as evidenced by her actions (John 4:28-29). In chapter five, John recorded Christ’s
preaching both “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24) and “Marvel not
at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation” (John 5:28-29), almost in the same breath. In John six, Christ preached: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he
hath sent. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life” (6:29, 47), and the chapter concludes with the fact that
those who go back and turn away from Christ (6:66) are people who have not
really believed (6:64, 69). One
could go through practically every chapter and discourse of Christ in John’s
gospel and see both the fact that eternal life is received by the
instrumentality of faith alone and the fact that faith receives Christ both for
salvation from sin’s penalty and salvation from sin’s power, that Christ is
received as a Savior both from sin’s eternal consequences and sin’s inward
corruption. The gospel of John is
filled with the doctrine of the RAC,
and contains no evidence whatsoever for the RNC.
Third,
the RNC advocate will mention that
various Biblical texts speak of God’s repentance (e. g., Genesis 6:6). Since God is sinless and does not need
to turn from sin, the RNC avers,
the RAC view is an error and
repentance is simply a change of mind that may not result in any change of
action. However, the fact is that
just as God has no sin to turn from, so He never changes His mind; He is immutable (Malachi 3:6; 1 Samuel
15:29). Texts that speak of God’s
repentance are examples of the many verses where anthropomorphic language, or
other similar sorts of language from the created order, are employed to
figuratively describe God. When
the prayer of a believer enters into God’s ears (Psalm 18:6), Scripture means
that God hears the prayer of His own, just like a man hears when sounds enter
into his ears. When a believer is
hidden under the shadow of God’s wings (Psalm 17:8; 36:7), the believer is
protected by God, just as baby birds are protected under the wings of a mother
bird. When God rides upon a cherub to deliver His people (Psalm 18:10), he
provides help for His own like a man or an army that ride upon horses to come
to the aid of their friends. When
God is said to repent, He does not cease being immutable, literally change His
mind, or turn from sin, but He people are treated differently as a result of
His repentance—His figurative change of mind results in people experiencing His
acting differently towards them, just as a man who repents acts differently as
a result. When God repented of
making the human race, He changed His gracious ways towards humanity and
destroyed mankind with a flood (Genesis 6:6-7). When the Lord repented of the bondage to foreign powers He
had laid upon Israel for the nation’s sins, He delivered Israel by raising up
judges (Judges 2:18-19). When God
repented of making Saul king, He changed His actions toward Saul, deposed him,
and set up David (1 Samuel 15:35-16:1).
There are no examples in Scripture where God repented and nothing
changed. The anthropomorphic
language predicating repentance in God supports the RAC, not the RNC.
the RNC advocate will mention that
various Biblical texts speak of God’s repentance (e. g., Genesis 6:6). Since God is sinless and does not need
to turn from sin, the RNC avers,
the RAC view is an error and
repentance is simply a change of mind that may not result in any change of
action. However, the fact is that
just as God has no sin to turn from, so He never changes His mind; He is immutable (Malachi 3:6; 1 Samuel
15:29). Texts that speak of God’s
repentance are examples of the many verses where anthropomorphic language, or
other similar sorts of language from the created order, are employed to
figuratively describe God. When
the prayer of a believer enters into God’s ears (Psalm 18:6), Scripture means
that God hears the prayer of His own, just like a man hears when sounds enter
into his ears. When a believer is
hidden under the shadow of God’s wings (Psalm 17:8; 36:7), the believer is
protected by God, just as baby birds are protected under the wings of a mother
bird. When God rides upon a cherub to deliver His people (Psalm 18:10), he
provides help for His own like a man or an army that ride upon horses to come
to the aid of their friends. When
God is said to repent, He does not cease being immutable, literally change His
mind, or turn from sin, but He people are treated differently as a result of
His repentance—His figurative change of mind results in people experiencing His
acting differently towards them, just as a man who repents acts differently as
a result. When God repented of
making the human race, He changed His gracious ways towards humanity and
destroyed mankind with a flood (Genesis 6:6-7). When the Lord repented of the bondage to foreign powers He
had laid upon Israel for the nation’s sins, He delivered Israel by raising up
judges (Judges 2:18-19). When God
repented of making Saul king, He changed His actions toward Saul, deposed him,
and set up David (1 Samuel 15:35-16:1).
There are no examples in Scripture where God repented and nothing
changed. The anthropomorphic
language predicating repentance in God supports the RAC, not the RNC.
The
theological, non-grammatical and non-lexical arguments for the RNC are entirely unconvincing. Indeed, they actually provide further support for the RAC. The
overwhelming grammatical and lexical evidence for the RAC remains untouched, and is actually strongly
supplemented by theological support from invalid RNC argumentation.
theological, non-grammatical and non-lexical arguments for the RNC are entirely unconvincing. Indeed, they actually provide further support for the RAC. The
overwhelming grammatical and lexical evidence for the RAC remains untouched, and is actually strongly
supplemented by theological support from invalid RNC argumentation.
Advocates
of the RNC also frequently abuse or
misuse Greek lexica to support their heresy on repentance.[i] The kind of shallow abuse of lexica
that is sadly characteristic of “Baptist” advocates of the RNC heresy could appear were a RNC to note BDAG definition 1 for metanoeo, “change one’s mind,” and the fact that, while metanoia is defined as “repentance, turning about,
conversion,” the words “primarily a change of mind” are also present in the
lexicon. The RNC, assuming that the lexical definition of the word as
“change of mind” proves that the word means only a change of mind, and a particular kind of change of
mind, one that may result in nothing, could then pretend to have support from
BDAG for the RNC position. Such a conclusion represents an extreme
misreading of the lexicon, for:
1.) The lexicon places none—not a single one—of the 34 New Testament
uses of metanoeo underneath the
definition in question. It gives
no indication that this is a use that is found in the New Testament at
all. 2.) References listed under
definition #1 in BDAG in extrabiblical Greek, whether to the Shepherd
of Hermas, Diodorus Siculus, Appian,
Josephus, and so on, actually refer to a change of mind that results in a
change of action—the RAC
position—as is evident if one actually looks at the passages. The RNC needs to demonstrate that at least one of the texts
referenced in BDAG actually is a clear instance of its doctrine—which has not
been done.
of the RNC also frequently abuse or
misuse Greek lexica to support their heresy on repentance.[i] The kind of shallow abuse of lexica
that is sadly characteristic of “Baptist” advocates of the RNC heresy could appear were a RNC to note BDAG definition 1 for metanoeo, “change one’s mind,” and the fact that, while metanoia is defined as “repentance, turning about,
conversion,” the words “primarily a change of mind” are also present in the
lexicon. The RNC, assuming that the lexical definition of the word as
“change of mind” proves that the word means only a change of mind, and a particular kind of change of
mind, one that may result in nothing, could then pretend to have support from
BDAG for the RNC position. Such a conclusion represents an extreme
misreading of the lexicon, for:
1.) The lexicon places none—not a single one—of the 34 New Testament
uses of metanoeo underneath the
definition in question. It gives
no indication that this is a use that is found in the New Testament at
all. 2.) References listed under
definition #1 in BDAG in extrabiblical Greek, whether to the Shepherd
of Hermas, Diodorus Siculus, Appian,
Josephus, and so on, actually refer to a change of mind that results in a
change of action—the RAC
position—as is evident if one actually looks at the passages. The RNC needs to demonstrate that at least one of the texts
referenced in BDAG actually is a clear instance of its doctrine—which has not
been done.
The
RNC could also appeal to the
Liddell-Scott lexicon of classical or pre-Koiné Greek for alleged evidence,
noting the definition in the lexicon of “perceive afterwards or too late.” Here again the entire lack of any
evidence for this meaning in the New Testament must be ignored. It is also noteworthy that, with one
exception, the listed examples of this definition are from the Greek of the 5th
century B. C. (Epicharmus, Democritus).
Similarly, the examples for “change one’s mind or purpose,” which, in
any case, suit the RAC position,
as one who changes his purpose will actually act differently, are all from the
5th or 4th century B. C., while the definition “repent,”
which the lexicon presents as that of the “NT,” and which includes a good
number of examples from Koiné Greek that is contemporary with the New
Testament, is certainly an affirmation of the RAC position.
Liddell-Scott defines metanoia as “change of mind or heart, repentance, regret,” placing the New
Testament examples in this category, and categorizing the meaning
“afterthought, correction” as one restricted to rhetoric and cited as present
only in an extrabiblical rhetorical treatise. The history of the development of metanoeo and metanoia is traced in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel;
cf. also Metanoeo and metamelei in Greek Literature until 100
A. D., Including Discussion of Their Cognates and of their Hebrew Equivalents, Effie Freeman Thompson, pgs. 358-377 of Historical
and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament Issued Under
the Direction of the Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, 2nd series, vol. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1908. Thompson, who made a “[d]iligent search . . . for all the
instances of the words under consideration, with a view to including all the
works of all the known authors in each period” (pg. 353), noted that metanoeo and metanoia moved away from a purely intellectual sense that was present, although
not exclusively so, in early Greek.
In relation to Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, he
notes: “[In] non-Jewish
post-Aristotelian writers to about 100 A. D. . . . passages continaing metanoeo show that . . . there is no instance of . . . purely
intellectual action. The change is that of feeling or will . . . In the Old
Testament Apocrypha and other Jewish writings to about 100 A. D. . . . metanoia means change of purpose . . . this change is (a)
moral; (b) from worse to better; (c) internal; (d) necessarily accompanied by
change of conduct” (pgs. 362, 368-9).
Philo is cited as affirming:
“[T]he man has lost his reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth,
says that he has changed his purpose
(metanenohkenai [a form of metanoeo,
“to repent,” in this tense and sentence, “says that he has repented”] when he
is still doing wrong” (pg. 369)—the RAC exactly. In contemporary
“Palestinian writers, there is no instance of the intellectual simply; but
there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action” (pg.
375). Coming to the New Testament
usage, Thompson writes: “An
examination of the instances of metanoeo shows that . . . the verb is always used of a change of purpose which
the context clearly indicates to be moral . . . this change is from evil to
good purpose . . . is never used when the reference is to change of opinion
merely . . . is always internal, and . . . results in external conduct . . . metanoia reveal[s] a meaning analogous to that of the verb .
. . metanoia does not strictly
include outward conduct or reform of life . . . [but] this is the product of metanoia . . . lupe [sorrow] is not inherent in metanoia, but . . . it produces the latter[.] . . . The New
Testament writers in no instance employ [repentance] to express the action
solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use it exclusively to
indicate the action of the will” (pgs. 372-373). Thompson concludes:
“In the New Testament, metanoeo and metanoia . . . are
never used to indicate merely intellectual action. . . . [T]hey are always used
to express volitional action . . . the change of purpose . . . from evil to
good. . . . [T]hey always express internal change . . . [and] they require
change in the outward expression of life as a necessary consequent . . . [t]he
fullest content [is] found in the . . . radical change in the primary choice by
which the whole soul is turned away from evil to good” (pgs. 376-377). The RAC is obviously validated by a historical study of the
development of the meaning of metanoeo and metanoia, while the RNC is obliterated.
RNC could also appeal to the
Liddell-Scott lexicon of classical or pre-Koiné Greek for alleged evidence,
noting the definition in the lexicon of “perceive afterwards or too late.” Here again the entire lack of any
evidence for this meaning in the New Testament must be ignored. It is also noteworthy that, with one
exception, the listed examples of this definition are from the Greek of the 5th
century B. C. (Epicharmus, Democritus).
Similarly, the examples for “change one’s mind or purpose,” which, in
any case, suit the RAC position,
as one who changes his purpose will actually act differently, are all from the
5th or 4th century B. C., while the definition “repent,”
which the lexicon presents as that of the “NT,” and which includes a good
number of examples from Koiné Greek that is contemporary with the New
Testament, is certainly an affirmation of the RAC position.
Liddell-Scott defines metanoia as “change of mind or heart, repentance, regret,” placing the New
Testament examples in this category, and categorizing the meaning
“afterthought, correction” as one restricted to rhetoric and cited as present
only in an extrabiblical rhetorical treatise. The history of the development of metanoeo and metanoia is traced in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel;
cf. also Metanoeo and metamelei in Greek Literature until 100
A. D., Including Discussion of Their Cognates and of their Hebrew Equivalents, Effie Freeman Thompson, pgs. 358-377 of Historical
and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament Issued Under
the Direction of the Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, 2nd series, vol. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1908. Thompson, who made a “[d]iligent search . . . for all the
instances of the words under consideration, with a view to including all the
works of all the known authors in each period” (pg. 353), noted that metanoeo and metanoia moved away from a purely intellectual sense that was present, although
not exclusively so, in early Greek.
In relation to Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, he
notes: “[In] non-Jewish
post-Aristotelian writers to about 100 A. D. . . . passages continaing metanoeo show that . . . there is no instance of . . . purely
intellectual action. The change is that of feeling or will . . . In the Old
Testament Apocrypha and other Jewish writings to about 100 A. D. . . . metanoia means change of purpose . . . this change is (a)
moral; (b) from worse to better; (c) internal; (d) necessarily accompanied by
change of conduct” (pgs. 362, 368-9).
Philo is cited as affirming:
“[T]he man has lost his reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth,
says that he has changed his purpose
(metanenohkenai [a form of metanoeo,
“to repent,” in this tense and sentence, “says that he has repented”] when he
is still doing wrong” (pg. 369)—the RAC exactly. In contemporary
“Palestinian writers, there is no instance of the intellectual simply; but
there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action” (pg.
375). Coming to the New Testament
usage, Thompson writes: “An
examination of the instances of metanoeo shows that . . . the verb is always used of a change of purpose which
the context clearly indicates to be moral . . . this change is from evil to
good purpose . . . is never used when the reference is to change of opinion
merely . . . is always internal, and . . . results in external conduct . . . metanoia reveal[s] a meaning analogous to that of the verb .
. . metanoia does not strictly
include outward conduct or reform of life . . . [but] this is the product of metanoia . . . lupe [sorrow] is not inherent in metanoia, but . . . it produces the latter[.] . . . The New
Testament writers in no instance employ [repentance] to express the action
solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use it exclusively to
indicate the action of the will” (pgs. 372-373). Thompson concludes:
“In the New Testament, metanoeo and metanoia . . . are
never used to indicate merely intellectual action. . . . [T]hey are always used
to express volitional action . . . the change of purpose . . . from evil to
good. . . . [T]hey always express internal change . . . [and] they require
change in the outward expression of life as a necessary consequent . . . [t]he
fullest content [is] found in the . . . radical change in the primary choice by
which the whole soul is turned away from evil to good” (pgs. 376-377). The RAC is obviously validated by a historical study of the
development of the meaning of metanoeo and metanoia, while the RNC is obliterated.
Conclusion
The
Bible clearly teaches that repentance is a change of mind that always results
in a change of action (the RAC
position). The idea that
repentance is a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of
action, the RNC position, is
totally unbiblical. The RNC is a very serious, very dangerous, and Satanic
corruption of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Its advocates should consider the warning of Galatians
1:8-9, and tremble: “But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Anyone who seeks to bring the RNC heresy into one of Christ’s churches should be
immediately confronted. Believers
should not give place to such false teachers, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue” (Galatians 2:5).
Christians who are being led astray and confused by attacks on the gospel
such as the RNC should be
immediately confronted, and those who are making room for such error by their
teaching should be immediately, specifically, strongly, pointedly, publicly,
and directly confronted by name (Galatians 2:4-14; Acts 15:1-2). True churches must warn against
assaults on the gospel such as the RNC and maintain strict and total ecclesiastical separation from its
advocates (Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11). They must also boldly preach repentance
and faith to every creature, so that they not only negatively oppose error, but
by their true doctrine and practice adorn the truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark
16:15; Luke 24:47).
Bible clearly teaches that repentance is a change of mind that always results
in a change of action (the RAC
position). The idea that
repentance is a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of
action, the RNC position, is
totally unbiblical. The RNC is a very serious, very dangerous, and Satanic
corruption of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Its advocates should consider the warning of Galatians
1:8-9, and tremble: “But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Anyone who seeks to bring the RNC heresy into one of Christ’s churches should be
immediately confronted. Believers
should not give place to such false teachers, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue” (Galatians 2:5).
Christians who are being led astray and confused by attacks on the gospel
such as the RNC should be
immediately confronted, and those who are making room for such error by their
teaching should be immediately, specifically, strongly, pointedly, publicly,
and directly confronted by name (Galatians 2:4-14; Acts 15:1-2). True churches must warn against
assaults on the gospel such as the RNC and maintain strict and total ecclesiastical separation from its
advocates (Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11). They must also boldly preach repentance
and faith to every creature, so that they not only negatively oppose error, but
by their true doctrine and practice adorn the truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark
16:15; Luke 24:47).
-TDR
[i]
The
following paragraph appeared in a footnote in part #1 of this series, but it
was important enough to reproduce in the text here.
The
following paragraph appeared in a footnote in part #1 of this series, but it
was important enough to reproduce in the text here.
Mr. Ross….(ala Larry Hafley)…we got you covered, you didn't think we did, we got you programmed huh Mr. Ross…hmm! (read again with bitter spite)
Some really think that the "turning" done in repentance is work. If that's the case then shouldn't the "believing" done in faith be classified as work, too? Absurd.
Thanks, Billy.