What is Biblical, genuine repentance? (Video removed. Download Greg's word study on repentance: Download Repentance Word Study)
Clarification:
Let me (Melinda) clarify the point Greg tried to make in the video blog yesterday: "Repentance Has Nothing to Do with Sin." The title was an overstatement meant to make a point, but instead led to misunderstanding.
Greg did not say or mean to imply that repentance is not necessary for salvation, as some have taken his meaning. His point was to clarify how the New Testament uses the word "repent," not the full theology and nature of repentance. That's what word studies do so we've changed the title to that more apt description.
The word "repent" is not a synonym for "repent from sin," which seems to be a common use of the word among Evangelicals. The word study demonstrates that "repent" in the New Testament means only "change of mind," and the context indicates whether it's a change of mind from something or a change of mind to something, and what that something is.
The habit we sometimes get into is that we don't use Biblical words in their accurate Biblical sense. So when we read the word in the Bible the tendency is to read the non-biblical meaning into the text, thus getting a false understanding of the passage. It's important to check our assumptions by studying words in their Biblical sense.
The point was that the word "repentance" itself has nothing to do with sin. It's the word used in context that might have to do with sin - or several other objects that we must change our mind from or change our mind to. We need to let the text tell us how to change our minds instead of reading meaning into the text.
The way the word study shows that "repent" is used in the New Testament indicates that the Gospel is not only an offer to repent from sin, but also to repent to God, that is change our minds to God. Repentance from sin is part of what the New Testament tell us to do, but not the whole message. Yet if we start with a misunderstanding of what "repent" means, we can easily miss the full meaning of the text.
From Greg:
A great number of people responding misunderstood my point, it was clear, and in hindsight I would state my case differently. The confusion, then, was partly my fault. Even when properly understood, though, my point will be controversial for some.
Therefore, we've decided to pull the video. I have no interest in causing unnecessary ill will, or possibly being perceived by some as being needlessly iconoclastic.
[UPDATE: Greg gives more detail in this audio clip.]
>>When it is something as important and confusing as this, Greg should be the one explaining and defending his position.
Knowhat, Melinda responded because she's the person who mainly contributes to this particular forum. Greg isn't very often involved with the blog because he's doing so many other things. This really isn't about hiding anything. The truth is, we're just limited people here, and we simply can't all do everything. This is why Melinda responded on the blog as part of her job. The video was taken down because, after realizing where Greg had been misunderstood, it would take some time to explain the point he was making, and he wasn't able to respond right at this moment (these things take more time than you might think), so there was no need to needlessly stir people up with a video that was causing people to think Greg believes things he doesn't believe. Right now, unless something else comes up, he's planning to discuss it on the radio show (his usual forum), so you'll get more information there. But in a nutshell, after discussing this with him, here is my understanding of what he was trying to say:
1. The word "repent" means merely to turn, and what we're to turn to and away from in any given verse is dependent on the context of the passage. So when we're interpreting passages, we need to keep in mind what "repent" means and not read into it something that isn't in the word and isn't stated in context. That part is simply a hermeneutical principle.
2. A person doesn't need to completely stop sinning before he can be saved. Here is where I think the biggest misunderstanding happened. Greg was reacting against anyone who would hear "repent," translate it as "turn from sin," and then translate "turn from sin" as "you must cease from all your sins in order to be saved, and if you still sin, you're not really saved." He did not specifically state that he had this in mind, however, and this is part of what caused the problem. What Greg does believe is that repent means "turn," and we're to recognize our sinfulness and our need for God's mercy, turn away from our state of sinful rebelliousness, and turn towards God. He does not believe that we must cease from all our specific sins before we can be saved, which is why he made the comment about God catching His fish before He cleans them.
As Greg said above, the way he expressed himself off the cuff on the time-pressured video did not communicate these things, and he should have expressed himself differently. So since the video failed to communicate these things, keeping it up on the blog would only cause harm, and for no good purpose.
Posted by: Amy | September 03, 2009 at 12:10 PM
What about 2 Corinthians 12:21 ?
"I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.
Posted by: Ken Temple | September 03, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Amy's explanation at the end is very helpful.
Greg should do a new video when he has time.
It seems he was meaning to say "the word repentance by itself" does not have "from sin" in it; but it is change of mind or turning directions that involves judging my old thoughts and ways as wrong and sinful and turning away from them.
But it does not mean I have to actually completely stop all sinning before trusting Christ. It means I realize I am a sinner and my sins are an affront to God and under His judgment/wrath and I want to leave them behind.
Proverbs 28:13 is a good OT verse that describes repentance, although the word is not there.
Posted by: Ken Temple | September 03, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Amy-
I know Greg is busy and I now know “Melinda responded because she's the person who mainly contributes to this particular forum.” I get that he is busy. I know this. My point is “When it is something as important and confusing as this, Greg should be the one explaining and defending his position.” If he simply ended his brief comments by saying he would address it on the show, then that would have been great.
I did not say this was about hiding anything. (ref. “This really isn't about hiding anything.”) I said “It comes off as a duck and run situation….” It looks like someone is trying to hide something by changing the title of the blog and taking down the video. You don’t see that?
“The video was taken down because, after realizing where Greg had been misunderstood, it would take some time to explain the point he was making, and he wasn't able to respond right at this moment (these things take more time than you might think), so there was no need to needlessly stir people up with a video that was causing people to think Greg believes things he doesn't believe.”
You say “…Greg had been misunderstood…” then you say the “…video was causing people to think Greg believes things he doesn’t believe.” It may be both, but my point was that he needed to respond. And yes, Greg via the video (sounds like the name of a movie) “…was causing people to think…” That’s my point! Also, if “…after realizing where Greg had been misunderstood, it would take some time to explain the point he was making….”, then maybe he should have just taken the time to do it right in the first place.
Now you are explaining it for him. We need to hear from him. Just state ( as you now have) that Greg will respond on his program and then attach a link to it after he clarifies. That is much more direct.
We know he is a great guy, and his heart is for the Lord, but more importantly to the situation this could have been handled better.
Posted by: Tony L. aka knowhat | September 03, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Thanks, but the Spirit of what's being said is confirmed by Scripture upon Scripture. One verse does not doctrine make. So, I get the Spirit of what's being said.
Why should I ask Him for what He has already given me? He has already given me everything. Must I ask Him to die on the Cross again?
In Exodus 14:15, Moses goes running back to God, after God already told him what to do. God asks, "Wherefore criest thou unto Me?" Essentially, "I already told you what to do and how to do it. Why are there any more questions? Just go and do what I told you to do!"
Reliance on His Word. Faith in what He has already told me through His Word. There is nothing new to add. There is nothing for Him to say other than what He has already said. We all have enough on our plates with that.
Without Who? If Christ, you are correct. Christ is the Word.
Without Who? God sent His Son, that, through Him, we might understand. We are to rely on Christ Who is the Word.
Again, without Who? Christ Who is the Word?
So, we're back to how do we understand the Word of God?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | September 05, 2009 at 03:45 PM
You mean to tell us that you can trust Christ AND continue to sin?? You're either hot, or cold. Lukewarm, and He spits you out.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | September 05, 2009 at 03:50 PM
I'm sorry but what Greg Koukl said and what folks are now saying he said are two different things. This is why the removal of the video is a problem, for it is now impossible to compare/contrast.
Posted by: M Burke | September 05, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Example of the above:
"A person doesn't need to completely stop sinning before he can be saved." - Amy
"Greg did not say or mean to imply that repentance is not necessary for salvation, as some have taken his meaning." - Melinda
"There is no biblical requirement for turning from sin before you receive Christ, it's not there." - Greg
These are three, very different concepts all attributed to Greg Koukl, yet only one came from his own lips. Now, either the video should be reposted, and/or Greg needs to clarify himself when he returns from Saddleback.
Posted by: M Burke | September 05, 2009 at 05:42 PM
So, you can now see the problem with so many versions, variations and translations of the Word of God.
Which one BEST matches the Spirit of the Word of God? That is -- which one is the physical manifestation of THE ONLY Word? Is anyone of them the One, or do we look for another?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | September 05, 2009 at 06:34 PM
I agree that neither the word, "repentance," nor, "repent," by themselves, have anything necessarily to do with sin.
However, in the context of the Word of God, they have everything to do with sin.
In the context of, say, a courtroom, they don't necessarily have anything to do with sin.
Context is everything.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | September 05, 2009 at 07:00 PM
"So, you can now see the problem with so many versions, variations and translations of the Word of God. "
Uh, no. This has nothing to do with versions or translations of the Word of God and especially has nothing to do with a 17th century Anglican translation, which contained the apocrypha and many errors, that some people today mistake as some how being inspired in and of itself.
Posted by: M Burke | September 05, 2009 at 11:50 PM
>>These are three, very different concepts all attributed to Greg Koukl, yet only one came from his own lips.
M. Burke, he will clarify on the upcoming radio show. As I said above, Greg was using the phrase "turn from sin" to mean "stop all your sins." This is a major reason for the confusion because I don't think that's how people hear the phrase. The problem was different people using and/or hearing the same words differently. To the best of my ability to understand, after clarifying with Greg and having him define all his terms, my summary is what he was saying. But again, he will clarify for himself, and you'll have the opportunity to call the show and ask further questions, if you wish.
Posted by: Amy | September 08, 2009 at 12:38 PM