John Mincy v. Kent Brandenburg on Repentance

There are 7 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I had some thoughts on Mincy's post I wanted to write about as well. Didn't get to it because I'm not done studying it. He cites some passages I want to delve deeper into.

But my initial reaction was that when Jesus preached repentance and the apostles preached repentance, they didn't seem overly concerned that people understand them in a very narrow sense. A disgust and grief toward sin in general or even particular sins--either one or both--is quite harmonious with believing the gospel and turning to Christ.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

DavidO's picture

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-gospel-and-separation-wh...

 

Excerpt:

If the gospel is . . . "the boundary of Christian fellowship," then how does this difference on repentance relate to that boundary.  Men should at least know why the difference on repentance doesn't qualify as a separating issue, even though it is about the gospel.  I haven't heard why not -- ever.  It begs the question, "How much corruption of the gospel merits separation like the Apostle Paul talked about?"

I'd love to hear someone answer that.  

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

DavidO wrote:

Excerpt:

If the gospel is . . . "the boundary of Christian fellowship," then how does this difference on repentance relate to that boundary.  Men should at least know why the difference on repentance doesn't qualify as a separating issue, even though it is about the gospel.  I haven't heard why not -- ever.  It begs the question, "How much corruption of the gospel merits separation like the Apostle Paul talked about?"

I'd love to hear someone answer that.  

I don't think the definition of repentance has been regarded as part of the gospel, any more than the definition of which works are "good works" (Eph. 2:10) has been. Both the repentance aspect of conversion and the good works aspect of the gospel's purpose are connected to the gospel but a step out from the core. For what it's worth, I've been hearing contradictory notions about repentance from pulpits all my life... but nobody was advocating separation over the disagreements.

Those who want to separate over every point of disagreement... Well, I hope they enjoy their lonely little world.But what to do when you disagree with yourself (which is what happens when you can't decide which view is correct on a question)? Time to organize "Independent Baptists for Self-Separation"?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

GregH's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

But what to do when you disagree with yourself (which is what happens when you can't decide which view is correct on a question)? Time to organize "Independent Baptists for Self-Separation"?

In regards to the people being discussed here, I am not sure this is a relevant question. Those people know everything and they know it dogmatically. Just ask them.

DavidO's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

I don't think the definition of repentance has been regarded as part of the gospel

I don't really think you're saying that as long as one uses the word "repentence" and means . . . something by it then the gospel one preaches is that of Jesus and the Apostles.  

How can one repent if one doesn't know what the word means?  Actually, there's a solid theological answer to that, but I'll sidestep it to make the point.  I just think that one must generally understand what repenting is and the need for it and then do it in order to be saved.  

 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

There have been varieties of nuance in people's views of that for a long, long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the first century audience didn't all take it exactly the same way either.

Fortunately, there is built in redundancy in the gospel itself. Even those who deny that repentance is required at all (which amazes me), end up indirectly affirming it by their declaration of the gospel itself. Any genuinely believing response to the following ideas necessarily incorporates repentance.

  1. we're all sinners
  2. we deserve the wrath of a holy God,
  3. our only escape is to accept His own provision for our redemption, and
  4. we can contribute nothing to making things right that God.... everything we do being useless or worse

Although I like to refer to repentance by name, anyone who teaches the above is asking for repentance whether they admit it or not... and the person who truly comes to believe these things accepts what God has provided has repented.

I often use the phrase "repentant faith" because there really is no way to have one without the other.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.