Anyone else seemed baffled that this is even a debate? Of course repentance of sin is part of the gospel. I never knew there were christians who thought otherwise.
Yea, I think Tommy defeated his own position at the end of Keith's questions. It would be my guess that he believes that you must repent from sinful acts (adultery etc) but not necessarily sinful dispositions (pride etc)... Seems a bit strange
The 'cheap grace' advocates say asking anything more than mental acceptance of the truth of the Gospel is adding works to faith. Some say that one needn't even continue believing; as long as he believed at one time, he is saved forever.
McMurtry's main issue is that repentance of sins can be seen as entire sanctification or a form of Christian perfectionism. Man cannot, by his own effort, totally sanctify himself out of his own volition. Most Christians understand repentance as a work performed by man, and not a work performed by God. Hence, McMurtry has a valid argument.
@@themanincharge6418Actually he doesn't have a valid argument. Matthew 3:8 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance There are 2 different types of work, one meritorious in nature and the other are works produced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit, of which there is NO LAW against. Galatians 5:22-25 [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. [24] And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
You repent because you have faith in Christ. You have faith in Christ therefore you repent of sin. They are intertwined in understanding and not mutually exclusive
Pastor Foskey, you did wonderful in the debate, I appreciated your arguments and agree with you. I went to church as a teenager and got baptised but never understood anything about the Gospel. I believed Jesus was God but never put any thought towards Him until I needed something. Sometimes I'd pray and give thanks on special occasions but that's it. A few years ago, my husband and I moved to rural, off grid land that we homesteaded. No electricity for 4 years - still none to this day. Within the first year homesteading, I realized how absorbed I had always been in the internet, electronics, comfort, and money. As long as we had all of that, I never thought about God. Once we had no running water, no electricity, no internet, no microwave, and no bed, things really set in. (Camping and sleeping in our car 100% until we built our house ourselves with our own hands.) But in that first year, I actually read my Bible. It was a Gideon's ESV that my husband gave me from the resort he worked at here in Hawaii (the hotel was going to throw them away and he found the nicest one for me). I read it and learned something: that I loved comfort more than God. That I loved video games more than God. That I loved a shower and a nice bed more than God. I was sickened by how idolatrous my life had been, and I realized that God should be my ultimate comfort. I knew, from reading in the Gospels, that I needed to repent and completely surrender to the Lord Jesus, because I was not a good person. And just believing that I was a good person and occasionally having a random thought about God would not give me eternal life. Now, 3 years later, we give out Gospel tracts and we talk to people about the Lord Jesus and spread the Gospel. I read the Bible every day and pray to the Lord, thanking Him for His grace and mercy. I can't even imagine how I used to be before the Lord Jesus saved me and I am so thankful. Pastor McMurtry, I ask you to repent. You are leading people to a life of willful ignorance in regards to WHY they even need the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we didn't need to repent, Christ Jesus wouldn't have gave Himself for us. There would be no Hell, and no need for salvation. To be saved from your sins, you need to recognize that you are sinning and understand your need for a Savior. I would leave your church immediately if I knew you were preaching that there is no need to repent of sins. (Also, you stated around the 51 minute mark that if someone was in gross sin, they wouldn't be welcome at your church - why? Because they'd need to repent, and you don't teach repentance.)
I can sympathize with that. I struggled with some sins, and realized computer games were consuming my life. Even when I tried to give them up, I still thought about them a lot. I still think I rely way too much on comfort, and I have a panic/anxiety issue I'm trying to give up to God. Even with victory in some ways, I still feel like something is keeping me from God, like I've not fully surrendered my fear. Though I might even think of that as a work...
I think keith was too kind and didn't want to look rude, but i would have called things by their name, which is heresy. This "Pastor" isn't a believer just like James taught, But someone will say, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (Jas.2:18) Paul taught about these heretics when he said: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal.1:8-9) The fact that you understand that your sins need to be forgiven shows that you are repeating. No one who think his sins are fine will ask for forgiveness, unless you see yourself for what you are a sinful man and despise your sins which carries the concept of repenting
When I was 8 years old I said the "sinner's prayer" and "accepted Jesus into my heart" but I continued on into a life of sin for 24 years of my life until the Lord saved me more than 6 years ago. I never repented of my sins when I was a false convert until the Lord saved me, and I continue to repent of sins that the Lord convicts me of even until now. Now I "believed" for the whole time I was a false convert but that doesn't mean that I was saved, because I did not bear fruit and this means that I didn't have the Holy Spirit. There is such a thing as a genuine and false repentance and saving and dead faith as God's Word says. The Lord truly is good because He could have left me in my state of self deception but for His glory and in His righteousness He forgave me.
@truthseeker5698 No He was not. I was a false convert for more than 24 years. He saved me more than 6 years ago as God is my witness. I have the Holy Spirit. Im not a liar and I know what the Lord has done in me and for me.
@truthseeker5698 Im not saying that nor arguing for that. Dont put words in my mouth. I was born again more than 6 years ago, i was forgiven of all my sins and justified at that very moment. Who is telling the truth here, God or you?
@@CoCo8102. If one/ any person asks Jesus in their heart at 8 , believing I. Him, they are saved. Works be dammed. Who is telling the truth? Are you Gods spokesperson? What a disgusting theology you subscribe to. You think you’re elect to salvation ? I laugh in your face !
Luke 13:3-5 why did Jesus say to repent or you will perish? The gospel is what saves so if you can perish if you don’t repent like Jesus said doesn’t that make it part of the gospel? Keith, once again you nailed the pertinent points. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there to snatch some from the fire. I thank God for you🙏
"Pastor" Tommy thinks there is no need of repentance for salvation. In the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved. Calling him brother is the real heresy here.
I am not a Calvinist, but I certainly believe that repentance from sin is a part of salvation. So did every Baptist up until 1970 by the way. You can read church confessions and sermons by literally hundreds of Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. up until a few decades ago that agree that repentance from sin is essential to salvation.
Hello Nathan. What was it that took place in 1970 that changed Baptists minds about repentance? Btw, I am a Calvinist, although I don't love the label. Prefer Reformed. Thank you.
This issue has come up in history a couple of times in the last few hundred years actually. There was a debate in the church of Scotland over whether one must forsake sin to come to Christ.
Yes, Repentance is necessary. JESUS👑YAHSHUA and John the Baptist both declared "Repent! The Kingdom of GOD is at hand!" And, The Blood of JESUS was not shed to wash our sins away only for us to continue on doing what GOD definitely hates!
So McMurtry thinks it okay to be mean to Calvinists? This debate showed me that he doesn't understand Calvinism, but spends his time attacking a straw dummy.
The Gospel according to Jesus, Luke 24:45 "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Yes, it's the complete opposite heresy of those who advocate works of the law based salvation (Torah followers). Free Grace, or greasy gracers as I'd like to call them. And this belief system is growing on YT I've noticed.
There is no such thing as an impenitent Christian. Yet repentance is not the instrument by which we receive Christ, His merits, and all of His saving benefits. Faith and Faith alone is. Thus the Reformers generally held that faith is logically antecedent to repentance, though true faith would never be present without repentance. Also, as Martin Luther said, repentance is a daily, ongoing affair for a believer. We are continually recognizing our failure to comform to God's Holy Law in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone, and continually confessing this and asking for forgiveness and the grace to be conformed to the image of Christ more and more.
I enjoyed the civil discussion that went on in this debate. You guys illustrate the gold standard for how Christians should behave in conversations where they disagree with each other. It's interesting to hear the Baptist view of saving faith. Being a Lutheran, I mostly identified more with what Pastor Tommy McMurtry said. But it was good to hear the push back and how he responded. The Lutheran perspective on saving faith, in an eternal sense, can be found in what the founder of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther gave a speech to the "Luther Hour" in 1885: “Listen! When you have come to the point where you are hungering and thirsting for the grace of God, you have the contrition which you need… A person must not inquire whether his contrition is sufficient for admitting him to Jesus. His very question about his fitness shows that he may come to Jesus…the Word of God is not rightly divided when...it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance…" Walther’s friend and associate, George Stoeckhardt, in writing against the Reformed "Lordship salvation" (i. e. those who teach that true Christians must necessarily have a so-called "penitent" faith) writes: “... A believing Christian does not make the pulse of his faith-life the criterion of his state of grace… The believer rather makes this conclusion: O, how godless I still am...There is no doubt but that I am a poor, unworthy sinner....But now God’s Word tells me, that God has already declared godless Sinners righteous. Thus I belong without any doubt whatsoever in the number of those whom God justifies..." (Commentary on Romans) Martin Luther once wrote in a letter to Melanchthon: “If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy... It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” (Letter 99, August 1st, 1521) Jesus has more forgiveness than one can possibly have, even with so-called "intentional" sins. There is no threshold of good works that one needs to achieve to prove before God that one's saving faith is genuine. It is simply a matter of the heart believing (Romans 10:8-12). "If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One." (1 John 2:1) To be sure, in Lutheran theology certain practices of sinful behavior (e.g. open sin, as Smalcald Article III:III, 43-45 points out) can lead to the "filling of the Holy Spirit" departing from people and effective intercessory oriented faith can shrivel away. King David writes about his heart relationship with God: "Do not banish me from your presence, and don't take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and make me willing to obey you." (Psalm 51:11) However, at the end of the day it is only having an incorrect understanding/application (i.e. a works righteousness view) of the work of the Holy Spirit & trust in the Divinity of Jesus that can drive away saving faith. Jesus said, "unless you believe who I AM you will die in your sins.” Acknowledging what is ethically right to do is what King David struggled with - e.g. "But who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults" (Psalm 19:12). The community of faith Jesus set up is for those who are broken individuals, even those who may not realize how broken they are. And that includes those who should know better.
I’m confused. You agree, then take the opposite tack. Teaching repentance isn’t heresy since Paul and Peter very clearly preach repentance. See Acts 2:38, Acts 3:26, Acts 20:20-21, Acts 26: 17-20. Repentance was just a regular part of their preaching to the unsaved. That’s just what it says. So I’m not sure if you agree or disagree from your comment.
@@toddstevens9667 what I said is "pastor" Tommy said he puts out of church those who practice gross sin and heresy. I'm sure with "heresy" he ment those who preach repentance from sins, since he says there is no need of it for salvation and in the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved
"Pastor" Tommy thinks there is no need of repentance for salvation. In the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved. Calling him brother is the real heresy here.
Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin and both are the product of regeneration. Works justifies your faith before men. It shows that you walk your talk giving credibility to your message. This is the gist of James’ discourse in his epistle. Jesus as a man observed Zacchaeus’ actions seeing these as being evidence of repentance (a changed life) and with this evidence, declared that salvation had come to his house!
How is this even a debate of course repentance is part of the gospel...Mark 1"15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the Gospel.”
This is my problem with free grace theology, they’re saying some saved people don’t bear fruit and everything about the new life in Christ is possible but not definite. Unbiblical
This debate is very timely, as I am currently listening to a sermon series on the Morrow Controversy. It seems this very issue sparked quite a dust-up, many years ago. This might ultimately be down to semantics, but it seems the most biblically consistent understanding of repentance, as it relates to the gospel, is the idea that turning to Christ as Lord and Savior IS repentance, since this act represents a turning away from serving and relying on yourself, to turning to Christ. If we view it as an added condition for salvation, wherein we have to stop our pursuit of some overt sin, then we've conflated law and gospel.
Regarding repentance and work... Matthew 3:8 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance There are 2 different types of work, one that's meritorious in nature and the other are works produced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit, of which there is NO LAW against. Galatians 5:22-25 [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. [24] And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. All of the fruit generated by the Spirit imply an ACTION being done. It's important to note that these works are not the same as what Paul is talking about (saved apart from works of the law).
Half way into this "debate" and im quitting. The guy keeps going in circles about words, trying to redefine meaning that had the same meaning for the past 2000 years. All he's achieving is contradicting himself. He said Paul called the Athenians 1:07:42 to repent from idolatry and Jesus called the pharisees to repent from self righteousness 1:07:22. Guys the debate is over, he admitted it.
As a Calvinist, what I haven’t heard so far is the exclusivity of THE gospel pertaining to Christ and Christ alone. It’s the “good news” of what Christ has ALREADY done. That said repentance and faith is granted by God, a change of mind to agree with God about our sin and need for Christ. It is the FRUIT of the gospel, as is the desire for holy living which God works in us to produce. The battle comes when the flesh gets involved, which sadly is daily. The solution is confession and continuing to look to Jesus. Not myself.
I'm getting the impression from the comments that Tommy is kind of cheap grace. I don't want to watch a even a 1/4 of a 2 hour debate to find this out for myself. I thought this was going to be an order of salvation debate.
I really feel like Tommy is making an issue out of a non issue. I feel like several times he contradicted his position with the way he explained things, especially when talking about the James passage.
This was really good. I was/am still believe only. But is unbelief a sin? hits hard. This is a really technical topic and I throughly enjoyed it and learned from this.
This also gets to the heart of whether or not unbelief is one of the sins Christ died for on the cross. One could argue that doubt is not the same as unbelief. Doubting God is a sin. Unbelief is the state of the SINNER. We are all born unbelievers. Therefore, Jesus did not technically bear the sin of unbelief, so much as he bore the consequence of dying in a STATE of unbelief as a sinner. This is why Owen's dilemma is not viewed as a particularly strong argument in the eyes of many, including many Calvinists. It treats unbelief as a singular sin like stealing. It's not. It's the spiritual and ontological condition of every sinner.
@@heartofalegendI struggled with this for a while but the sin of unbelief is clear in 2 Kings 7. The fruits of unbelief are credited from the unbelief. Just as the fruits of belief are credited to the belief (Romans 10:14). This also shows why our belief must come from God, our belief is the means God uses to produce everything else in our life including repentance. Saved by faith alone, but that faith is never alone (James 2:17). Hope this helps 🙏🏻
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matt.9:13) Im glad "pastor Tommy" isn't my pastor
I would say that self-righteousness (1:09:07) would be a violation of Commandments 1,2 Self-righteousness elevates you on par with GOD. self-righteousness makes your own good works an altar Thank GOD for HIS grace, and the continuous works of purification and justification! Otherwise I would still be in a lot of trouble since VBS 1988.
My whole life, i believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. I WANTED to be saved so bad. I tried SO hard to do what God wanted, but there was always something missing. I wanted to quit sinning. But i couldn't do anything to find what i was looking for. I was finally saved 5 years ago. I surrendered and repented, and i have NEVER been the same. I do not LIVE in sin anymore, I immediately know that i messed up, and will have to go and confess, but i can't stay in that sin without agony. There is a HUGE difference of believing, and repenting. I am so weirded out that this dude is for real. I feel like he is being satirical. How in the world is he serious? We cannot work or believe our way into salvation, we have become a NEW creation, and we have to SEE our sin, and repent.
I wish debates covered one point at a time rather than 7. Making one point with great clarity and argumentation is more keen than 7 points with little argumentation. I'm aware debates don't function this way, but that is also why I hate them.
Though this debate is on repentance, Arminians have a severe error when it comes to being saved. It is not one's decision whether or not they are saved but the Lord's decision that He made before the foundations of the world. As to repentance, when one is truly saved i.e. elected, hating one's sins and wanting to get rid of them goes hand in hand. One cannot keep getting drunk, fornicating, doing drugs, etc and believe they are saved. The Lord regenerated me on 11/2/2022 after practicing traditional witchcraft and ancestral paganism since 1986.
I can't take time to hear out this complete debate. I want to, and wish that I could. I made it only to opening back and forth stage. It seems that these two men are so close that this debate is baseless. Tommy even used "repent" in the same sense that Keith uses it in his rebuttal time as a Tommy's "trust alone in the effective work of Jesus Christ" is helpful emphasis, but since Keith affirms the same, their differences are hard to understand. I am currently helping a 2 week old convert, completely unfamiliar with the scriptures, to understand these concepts. Available time limits our interaction. I am relying on my favorite scriptures on this topic, though I could use many more. These are Galatians 5, James, 1 John and John. Paul uses evidence of God's salvific work in the fruit produced by contrasting the fruit of the sinful man and fruit of the Spirit. James argues that fresh and salt water can't/shouldn't come from the same spring in his epistle after he completes chapter 1 and 2 focusing on justification and moving on to "how the justified should live". John gives his reason for writing both referenced books "that we might know that we have eternal life". I think that John's prevailing concern is to define what saving belief is, how it is effected, applied and assures the believer that trusts alone in the wor of Jesus Christ. Decades ago, I examined only 1 John and recorded and counted 43 distinct descriptions of how a person ensures his lost estate and his redeemed estate. The concept of "repentance" is so bound up in John's arguments and inseparable from trusting alone in the work of Jesus Christ that this debate and Tommy's concern with Keith baffles me. Certainly "faith", "trust", "repent" can be misapplied per teachings that neither men support. Tommy expressed concern of Calvanism related to the topic without explaining the concern, leaving me to speculate what that might be. I think that John was in a similar camp with me, so I readily resonate with John. I think that John has believed for virtually his entire life, but realized that at some point that belief matured and became salvific belief. I have long wondered if his "then he believed" in the empty tomb on resurrection day is descriptive of the event when John was "converted". I cannot be certain, but John devoted much of his ministry to this singular topic. This devotion was the scripture that God used to convict me of my sin, changed my heart and dragged me into saving faith. I continually testify that God saved my unwilling heart before I could experience feel or express repentance, faith, trust or belief. I expressed, felt, experienced the first fruits of all of these inseparablably related concepts after and in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit on my wicked heart and actions. 50 years later, I am still repenting from sin that I still commit. But the evidence of Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit, was shockingly manifested in the days after my conversion, and by God's grace alone have been increasingly manifested in my life as I have purposed, though struggled, to honor and seve Him. I have no fear of teaching repentance as the Gospel content as understood by either of these men. Tommy seems to teach the same concept yet has fear of the word??? ...challenging concepts, but seemingly unnecessary debate between these two positions...
Repentance is not a cause of salvation, but it’s absolutely an effect of it. I’m not entirely sure how one could read the New Testament and come to another conclusion. There’s so many hurtles (aka verses) to jump.
I really enjoy your podcasts and ministry Pastor Foskey. I don't offer this in a spirit of dissension but I have to ask, Are you a John MacArthur "Lordship" salvation proponent or are you Reformed? You kinda got embarrassed by an IFB pastor in his opening remarks. And your rejoiner on "what is believe" comparing it to demons was pretty low ball. Do you affirm the Auchterarder Creed?: I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ, and installing us in covenant with God." Sinclair Ferguson in "The Whole Christ" speaking of Thomas Boston realized that binary logic was the "fallacy of terbium non datur" - "one or the other" and that, "there is a third way". Namely, "...forsaking sin is an indispensable accompaniment of coming to Christ but not a precedent to faith in Him." (The Whole Christ p.103 note 15). R. Scott Clark responding to J. MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus says, "That we respond appropriately to Christ, however, is not the gospel. The gospel is that Christ obeyed God for us, that He has accomplished our salvation, that He has been raised, and that all His obedience is imputed to us so that it is as if we ourselves had done all that Jesus did." As a former legalist I may be overly sensitive to the collapsing of the law and gospel, but as Justin Perdue and John Moffit of Theocast have pointed out, "Do is law. Done is gospel. The law demands everything and gives nothing. The gospel demands nothing and gives everything. If I'm not understanding your position please forgive me, but it seems essential that we always preserve the gospel as sola gratia and sola fide. As R. Scott Clark says, "True faith is an obedient faith, but faith is not true because it is obedient."
I have issues with some of the teachings of Lordship salvation, so I would not put myself firmly in that camp. But the issue at hand was whether or not faith will necessarily produce a change in a persons life toward sin, which Bro Tommy denied. I would agree with WCF, in particular ch15:3 which says that while repentance is not the cause of pardon, none may expect pardon without it.
Thank you for your video and this clarification. I also hold to the WCF and I would agree with the above comment that repentance is not properly part of the gospel in that it is 'law'. But if God grants faith, He will also grant repentance. If one is elect, he will be regerated and will have faith and repentance. The impenitent are not saved. The heidelblog had a great article on repentance by Daniel Rowlands - 'Faith or Repentance-Which Comes First? God bless you.
Ok if the word “believe” no longer means “to trust”, so why do every reliable English translations use that word? If using the word is misleading people today then a different word should be used.
It's only misleading in its sloppy use. Many folks hear "believe" and they think, because they agree with everything the bible says about Jesus, they "believe." However, if the word TRUST was used more often, like you mentioned, then folks would have more of the accurate picture of one entrusting themselves into the care of another. We just need better teachers and preachers, when it comes to the gospel. This discussion is great training for all of us.
Sacrament of Penance is the liturgical celebration of God's forgiveness of the sins of the Penitent, who is thus reconciled with God and the Church. The acts of the Penitent - contrition,, the confession of sins and satisfaction or reparation, together with the prayer of absolution by the Priest, constitute the essential elements of the sacrament of penance. Acts 2:38 People who say "I am saved" would have to live their life without committing a single sin. The reason why everyone disagrees with one another is the Reformation of the 16 century. Salvation is more than simply believing in Jesus Christ. How come it takes 2 hours to answer a simple question?
I’m not Calvinistic Baptist but do see that scriptures teach repentance is part of the gospel and that someone who abandons the faith was never born again. I don’t know how that got wrapped into Calvinist Baptist. The question is when repentance is being used what is the context of the target of what needs to be repented from. Anything the is keeping the sun we from believing/trusting in the good news of Christ.
Repentance in the context of salvation is always unbelief in the true God to believing (trusting) in God. It is not that hard. If one believes God then they will bear the fruits of the change in faith.
Actually, the Apostle Paul defines repentance for us in Acts 26:18. Paul is giving his testimony to King Agrippa and he recites his commission that came from the lips of Jesus: to go to the Gentiles “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 …” Two verses later, Paul actually defines his ministry as one of repentance: “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” That’s how Paul defines his own ministry towards the end of his life.
@@toddstevens9667 For those of us who aren't lordship salvation types, we hold that to repent is a change of outlook, to change your mind. That's what Jesus & Paul are preaching, to repent (change your mind) towards your sin and believe the gospel. So when Paul gave the gospel to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31, answering what he must do to be saved with "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" - that is not an incomplete gospel message. That is the gospel, and repentance is a change of outlook, which belief requires.
@@tyleroliver6453But that isn’t how Paul defined repentance. It has nothing to do with Lordship salvation. He provided a definition of repentance for us of “turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God.” And he says that his entire ministry is defined by that mission. Complain to Paul and Jesus if that doesn’t fit your theology.
@@toddstevens9667 Peace Beaver! Friendly fire bro, we're on the same team. This is like my third time ever commenting on a youtube video, I'm just explaining as most people in this thread don't seem to understand why this is an issue. When John says in Mark 1:15 "repent and believe the Gospel", those are two different things, repentance is one thing and the Gospel is another thing. Salvation is by faith, not by repenting of sin, I'm not saying don't repent, I'm saying what you do with your sin is not salvific. What Jesus did for our sin is salvific for us when paired with faith. God bless ya
The Apostle Paul defines repentance for us in his testimony to King Agrippa about the mission Jesus set for him: Acts 26:17-18 KJV Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, [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. And then the Apostle Paul defined his ministry as one of repentance: Acts 26:20 KJV But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. I just want to point out that Paul interprets his mission statement from Jesus as repentance. He is defining his ministry of repentance as opening eyes, and turning Gentile sinners from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. That’s how Paul is defining it, and how we should define it as well.
Need to change the title of the debate (not necessarily the content). The gospel is the message of what Christ has done for us. There is no “do” in the gospel. Repentance is a response to the gospel but not the gospel or a part of the gospel itself.
Honestly part of the problem is that prominent voices have at times been uncareful and talked about faith as if it includes repentance in some form, leading to all this confusion. Indeed this would be a violation of Romans 4:5. But the reformed confessions are careful in distinguishing the two, just as we distinguish justification and sanctification. To confuse faith and repentance will just lead to the Catholic view of their sacrament of confession. I am personally on the Marrow's side on this. And I do agree with Tommy's point at the end that we need to be careful in judging people's salvation.
Would you then agree with "Polite Leader" (attends Grace to You) _You seem to be a little confused and therefore it is not a surprise that you hold to a heretical anti-Lordship salvation view. The gospel includes both justification and sanctification. We are justified by grace alone but it is not a faith that is alone. Faith produces good works. For women that piety is primarily through being godly housewives, house mothers and household managers. But since you have the gospel wrong, you also get this wrong. Once again I pray that you would repent and turn to the true gospel._ This was in response to him saying single women in the church who pursue the top 20% of men and date unbelieving men are most likely unregenerate. I asked for his solution, and he gave a list of actions and scripture they should meditate on. My response was if such women are unsaved, they need the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation. After many years thinking John Mac knew it all, I have been watching Theocast - Calvinists who do agree a Christian will become more like Christ the longer they believe, but that we should not look in the mirror, to pietism, for our security. The fact "Polite Leader" thinks one needs to hold a certain theological view to be saved ... is this not another Gospel!
I don't sin; mine were all washed white as snow. If I start begging God for forgiveness of sins after salvation, that means He needs to go back on the Cross every time. This is why the RCC displays Christ on a Crucifix, they don't believe His Sacrifice was once for all time, nor that they are forgiven once for all time. If Jesus didn't condemn me, but saved me, why should I now condemn myself? I see a gross habitual sin being practiced on the panel, but I believe he's still saved. Again, why is he condemning himself, when Christ isn't? I do what the Apostle Paul did, I keep a clear conscience before God and all men.
Christians sin but if you say you have no sin then you make God a liar and prove you're not in Truth. 1 John 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. Christians dont practice nor live a life of sin like those that are not saved. Galatians 5:19-21 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20. idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21. envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@@CoCo8102. You posted Scripture supporting exactly what I stated. I didn't say I never sinned. I came to know I was a sinner through the Gospel, I confessed my sins, and He has cleansed me of ALL my sin. I have passed from death to eternal life, and I will never ever come into judgment.
@@DontYouWantToLiveForever Well you did say "I don't sin" and that implies and means that you don't sin. This is why I replied what I did. Maybe you misspoke, but Its important to understand God's Word and express ourselves accordingly. Like I said, Christians still sin and we'll continue to do so until we die or the Lord comes back in glory as His Word says. But your testimony is awesome and the Lord is glorified in it. 1 John 2:1-6 speaks about what Christians are to do when we do commit sin before the Lord.
John is the only book written to unbelievers? Aren’t all the Gospels sort of written to unbelievers? Aren’t all the Gospels making an argument that Jesus is the Messiah? I suspect that John’s Gospel, as the last Gospel written, was stressing doctrines that the other 3 Gospels did not. Two points: 1) John does talk about repentance in his other NT epistles. He does not mention it by name but describes its impact on church life in 1 John. And it is mentioned very frequently in Revelation, in context to both believers and unbelievers. And 2) one needs to look at the four Gospels as a whole. Each Gospel has a different focus, but we need all four to put together the story of Jesus that God wants us to have. That’s why God put all four Gospels in the Bible, and not just the Gospel of John. Luke, which is the Gospel of Repentance, focuses much more on Repentance than the other three Gospels. For instance, compare Luke’s recitation of the Great Commission with both Matthew’s and Mark’s. John doesn’t even include the Great Commission. Why? Because it was already covered by the other three Gospels. That’s why John’s Gospel is so different. He is covering material that the others didn’t cover. But Luke very clearly shows in Acts that all the Apostles preached and required repentance in their evangelistic sermons and outreaches. For instance, Peter preaches repentance for salvation in both chapters 2 and 3. Paul mentions it often. For example, see Acts 20:20-21. In fact, Paul actually DEFINES his ministry as the preaching of repentance to the Gentiles (See Paul’s testimony in Acts 26:18 where Jesus specifically tells him to open the eyes of the Gentiles and “turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God [that’s Paul’s definition of repentance]” and then 26:20 where Paul specifically says that his ministry was about telling Gentiles “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”).
Because John's gospel was written after the other 3. He was writing in light of the context that his audience had already heard the other gospels. Where did you get this idea that John is the only book written to unbelievers? Sounds like you heard some half truths from a free grace extremist.
Calvinists, I hold you all personally responsible for your ungodly spawn off called Free Grace. There was no pervasive belief in OSAS until the perverse logic of Calvinism. Without the logic of yelling at Arminians that their free will is "works" and all attempts at holiness are "works salvation," the idea of Free Grace would never even have been born.
@@matth571 I'm not lying. Did you notice the word "Arminians" there, and then you changed what I said to "Calvinists." It seems you are the one who should "please don't lie."
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
Anyone else seemed baffled that this is even a debate? Of course repentance of sin is part of the gospel. I never knew there were christians who thought otherwise.
My thought exactly! and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the Gospel.”
Yea, I think Tommy defeated his own position at the end of Keith's questions. It would be my guess that he believes that you must repent from sinful acts (adultery etc) but not necessarily sinful dispositions (pride etc)... Seems a bit strange
The 'cheap grace' advocates say asking anything more than mental acceptance of the truth of the Gospel is adding works to faith. Some say that one needn't even continue believing; as long as he believed at one time, he is saved forever.
McMurtry's main issue is that repentance of sins can be seen as entire sanctification or a form of Christian perfectionism. Man cannot, by his own effort, totally sanctify himself out of his own volition. Most Christians understand repentance as a work performed by man, and not a work performed by God. Hence, McMurtry has a valid argument.
@@themanincharge6418Actually he doesn't have a valid argument.
Matthew 3:8
8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance
There are 2 different types of work, one meritorious in nature and the other are works produced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit, of which there is NO LAW against.
Galatians 5:22-25
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. [24] And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
You repent because you have faith in Christ. You have faith in Christ therefore you repent of sin. They are intertwined in understanding and not mutually exclusive
Jesus first preached - Repentance... Repentance and faith are the gift of the Holy Spirit. Game over antinomians.
Pastor Foskey, you did wonderful in the debate, I appreciated your arguments and agree with you.
I went to church as a teenager and got baptised but never understood anything about the Gospel. I believed Jesus was God but never put any thought towards Him until I needed something. Sometimes I'd pray and give thanks on special occasions but that's it.
A few years ago, my husband and I moved to rural, off grid land that we homesteaded. No electricity for 4 years - still none to this day. Within the first year homesteading, I realized how absorbed I had always been in the internet, electronics, comfort, and money. As long as we had all of that, I never thought about God. Once we had no running water, no electricity, no internet, no microwave, and no bed, things really set in. (Camping and sleeping in our car 100% until we built our house ourselves with our own hands.)
But in that first year, I actually read my Bible. It was a Gideon's ESV that my husband gave me from the resort he worked at here in Hawaii (the hotel was going to throw them away and he found the nicest one for me).
I read it and learned something: that I loved comfort more than God. That I loved video games more than God. That I loved a shower and a nice bed more than God. I was sickened by how idolatrous my life had been, and I realized that God should be my ultimate comfort. I knew, from reading in the Gospels, that I needed to repent and completely surrender to the Lord Jesus, because I was not a good person. And just believing that I was a good person and occasionally having a random thought about God would not give me eternal life.
Now, 3 years later, we give out Gospel tracts and we talk to people about the Lord Jesus and spread the Gospel. I read the Bible every day and pray to the Lord, thanking Him for His grace and mercy. I can't even imagine how I used to be before the Lord Jesus saved me and I am so thankful.
Pastor McMurtry, I ask you to repent. You are leading people to a life of willful ignorance in regards to WHY they even need the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we didn't need to repent, Christ Jesus wouldn't have gave Himself for us. There would be no Hell, and no need for salvation. To be saved from your sins, you need to recognize that you are sinning and understand your need for a Savior. I would leave your church immediately if I knew you were preaching that there is no need to repent of sins. (Also, you stated around the 51 minute mark that if someone was in gross sin, they wouldn't be welcome at your church - why? Because they'd need to repent, and you don't teach repentance.)
I can sympathize with that. I struggled with some sins, and realized computer games were consuming my life. Even when I tried to give them up, I still thought about them a lot. I still think I rely way too much on comfort, and I have a panic/anxiety issue I'm trying to give up to God. Even with victory in some ways, I still feel like something is keeping me from God, like I've not fully surrendered my fear. Though I might even think of that as a work...
I think keith was too kind and didn't want to look rude, but i would have called things by their name, which is heresy. This "Pastor" isn't a believer just like James taught, But someone will say, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (Jas.2:18)
Paul taught about these heretics when he said:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal.1:8-9)
The fact that you understand that your sins need to be forgiven shows that you are repeating. No one who think his sins are fine will ask for forgiveness, unless you see yourself for what you are a sinful man and despise your sins which carries the concept of repenting
When I was 8 years old I said the "sinner's prayer" and "accepted Jesus into my heart" but I continued on into a life of sin for 24 years of my life until the Lord saved me more than 6 years ago. I never repented of my sins when I was a false convert until the Lord saved me, and I continue to repent of sins that the Lord convicts me of even until now. Now I "believed" for the whole time I was a false convert but that doesn't mean that I was saved, because I did not bear fruit and this means that I didn't have the Holy Spirit. There is such a thing as a genuine and false repentance and saving and dead faith as God's Word says. The Lord truly is good because He could have left me in my state of self deception but for His glory and in His righteousness He forgave me.
What convoluted ridiculousnesses you’ve been exposed to. Jesus has been with you since you were 8.
Very simple.
@truthseeker5698 No He was not. I was a false convert for more than 24 years. He saved me more than 6 years ago as God is my witness. I have the Holy Spirit. Im not a liar and I know what the Lord has done in me and for me.
@@CoCo8102. justification is not sanctification CoCo. You’re being duped and deluded by religious Calvinists reformers.
@truthseeker5698 Im not saying that nor arguing for that. Dont put words in my mouth. I was born again more than 6 years ago, i was forgiven of all my sins and justified at that very moment. Who is telling the truth here, God or you?
@@CoCo8102. If one/ any person asks Jesus in their heart at 8 , believing I. Him, they are saved. Works be dammed.
Who is telling the truth? Are you Gods spokesperson?
What a disgusting theology you subscribe to. You think you’re elect to salvation ? I laugh in your face !
Luke 13:3-5 why did Jesus say to repent or you will perish? The gospel is what saves so if you can perish if you don’t repent like Jesus said doesn’t that make it part of the gospel?
Keith, once again you nailed the pertinent points. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there to snatch some from the fire. I thank God for you🙏
This is the strangest debate I have seen. McMurtry’s “bouncy” position accomplished some interesting scriptural gymnastics…
"Pastor" Tommy thinks there is no need of repentance for salvation. In the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved. Calling him brother is the real heresy here.
😅
I am not a Calvinist, but I certainly believe that repentance from sin is a part of salvation. So did every Baptist up until 1970 by the way. You can read church confessions and sermons by literally hundreds of Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. up until a few decades ago that agree that repentance from sin is essential to salvation.
Hello Nathan. What was it that took place in 1970 that changed Baptists minds about repentance? Btw, I am a Calvinist, although I don't love the label. Prefer Reformed. Thank you.
It's the fruit of the free grace extremists.
This issue has come up in history a couple of times in the last few hundred years actually. There was a debate in the church of Scotland over whether one must forsake sin to come to Christ.
Yes, Repentance is necessary. JESUS👑YAHSHUA and John the Baptist both declared "Repent! The Kingdom of GOD is at hand!"
And, The Blood of JESUS was not shed to wash our sins away only for us to continue on doing what GOD definitely hates!
So McMurtry thinks it okay to be mean to Calvinists? This debate showed me that he doesn't understand Calvinism, but spends his time attacking a straw dummy.
I love how you framed your opening statement. Very clear and thought out…
Good debate guys
Both sides represented very well
Thank you
So those who practice such things… Will inherit eternal life?
The Gospel according to Jesus, Luke 24:45 "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Is this truly a topic for debate? Has Christianity sunk this far?
Just seen your comment after I posted something similar. I thought the same exact thing!
@@Hartman0914 It's getting to the point where im questioning if these people are reading their bibles honestly.
Yes, it's the complete opposite heresy of those who advocate works of the law based salvation (Torah followers). Free Grace, or greasy gracers as I'd like to call them.
And this belief system is growing on YT I've noticed.
There is no such thing as an impenitent Christian. Yet repentance is not the instrument by which we receive Christ, His merits, and all of His saving benefits. Faith and Faith alone is. Thus the Reformers generally held that faith is logically antecedent to repentance, though true faith would never be present without repentance. Also, as Martin Luther said, repentance is a daily, ongoing affair for a believer. We are continually recognizing our failure to comform to God's Holy Law in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone, and continually confessing this and asking for forgiveness and the grace to be conformed to the image of Christ more and more.
I enjoyed the civil discussion that went on in this debate. You guys illustrate the gold standard for how Christians should behave in conversations where they disagree with each other.
It's interesting to hear the Baptist view of saving faith. Being a Lutheran, I mostly identified more with what Pastor Tommy McMurtry said. But it was good to hear the push back and how he responded.
The Lutheran perspective on saving faith, in an eternal sense, can be found in what the founder of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther gave a speech to the "Luther Hour" in 1885:
“Listen! When you have come to the point where you are hungering and thirsting for the grace of God, you have the contrition which you need… A person must not inquire whether his contrition is sufficient for admitting him to Jesus. His very question about his fitness shows that he may come to Jesus…the Word of God is not rightly divided when...it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance…"
Walther’s friend and associate, George Stoeckhardt, in writing against the Reformed "Lordship salvation" (i. e. those who teach that true Christians must necessarily have a so-called "penitent" faith) writes:
“... A believing Christian does not make the pulse of his faith-life the criterion of his state of grace… The believer rather makes this conclusion: O, how godless I still am...There is no doubt but that I am a poor, unworthy sinner....But now God’s Word tells me, that God has already declared godless Sinners righteous. Thus I belong without any doubt whatsoever in the number of those whom God justifies..." (Commentary on Romans)
Martin Luther once wrote in a letter to Melanchthon:
“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy... It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” (Letter 99, August 1st, 1521)
Jesus has more forgiveness than one can possibly have, even with so-called "intentional" sins. There is no threshold of good works that one needs to achieve to prove before God that one's saving faith is genuine. It is simply a matter of the heart believing (Romans 10:8-12). "If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One." (1 John 2:1)
To be sure, in Lutheran theology certain practices of sinful behavior (e.g. open sin, as Smalcald Article III:III, 43-45 points out) can lead to the "filling of the Holy Spirit" departing from people and effective intercessory oriented faith can shrivel away. King David writes about his heart relationship with God: "Do not banish me from your presence, and don't take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and make me willing to obey you." (Psalm 51:11)
However, at the end of the day it is only having an incorrect understanding/application (i.e. a works righteousness view) of the work of the Holy Spirit & trust in the Divinity of Jesus that can drive away saving faith. Jesus said, "unless you believe who I AM you will die in your sins.”
Acknowledging what is ethically right to do is what King David struggled with - e.g. "But who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults" (Psalm 19:12). The community of faith Jesus set up is for those who are broken individuals, even those who may not realize how broken they are. And that includes those who should know better.
The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the Gospel.
Repentance and belief are two sides of the same salvation coin. In every true conversion they go together.
51:00 Why would gross sin put you out of the church if repentance is not part of the Gospel?
Absolutely right. He said also those who preach heresy. I'm sure with that he ment those who preach repentance
I’m confused. You agree, then take the opposite tack. Teaching repentance isn’t heresy since Paul and Peter very clearly preach repentance. See Acts 2:38, Acts 3:26, Acts 20:20-21, Acts 26: 17-20. Repentance was just a regular part of their preaching to the unsaved. That’s just what it says. So I’m not sure if you agree or disagree from your comment.
I know, he contradicts himself and doesn't back it up with Scripture.
@@toddstevens9667 what I said is "pastor" Tommy said he puts out of church those who practice gross sin and heresy. I'm sure with "heresy" he ment those who preach repentance from sins, since he says there is no need of it for salvation and in the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved
"Pastor" Tommy thinks there is no need of repentance for salvation. In the introduction he argued that isn't part of the Gospel. In short he's deceived and deceive others and probably does not allow the sound teachings of repentance in his church because he sees it as "heresy". He's preaching another gospel which is not another but a mear man's made foolish self reassurance that all you need to do is close your eyes, tap your heels and say three times I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. to be saved. Calling him brother is the real heresy here.
Simple and quick answer: YES. See Matthew 4:17-18. Drop mic.
Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin and both are the product of regeneration.
Works justifies your faith before men. It shows that you walk your talk giving credibility to your message. This is the gist of James’ discourse in his epistle. Jesus as a man observed Zacchaeus’ actions seeing these as being evidence of repentance (a changed life) and with this evidence, declared that salvation had come to his house!
How is this even a debate of course repentance is part of the gospel...Mark 1"15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the Gospel.”
This is my problem with free grace theology, they’re saying some saved people don’t bear fruit and everything about the new life in Christ is possible but not definite. Unbiblical
This debate is very timely, as I am currently listening to a sermon series on the Morrow Controversy. It seems this very issue sparked quite a dust-up, many years ago. This might ultimately be down to semantics, but it seems the most biblically consistent understanding of repentance, as it relates to the gospel, is the idea that turning to Christ as Lord and Savior IS repentance, since this act represents a turning away from serving and relying on yourself, to turning to Christ. If we view it as an added condition for salvation, wherein we have to stop our pursuit of some overt sin, then we've conflated law and gospel.
Just reading Sinclair Lewis book on Thomas Boston
Regarding repentance and work...
Matthew 3:8
8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance
There are 2 different types of work, one that's meritorious in nature and the other are works produced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit, of which there is NO LAW against.
Galatians 5:22-25
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. [24] And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
All of the fruit generated by the Spirit imply an ACTION being done. It's important to note that these works are not the same as what Paul is talking about (saved apart from works of the law).
@@noybiznatch That's nicely and helpfully put. Agreed.
Half way into this "debate" and im quitting. The guy keeps going in circles about words, trying to redefine meaning that had the same meaning for the past 2000 years. All he's achieving is contradicting himself. He said Paul called the Athenians 1:07:42 to repent from idolatry and Jesus called the pharisees to repent from self righteousness 1:07:22. Guys the debate is over, he admitted it.
What is repentance? A turning your hope from one thing to another because of persuasion
Ephesians 2:10 and Phillipians 1: 29 completely prove pastor Foskey's position.
How is this a debate? What did the Apostles say? Repent and believe. What did Jesus say? Repent and believe.
They said repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
As an Assembly of God congregant… repentance is ABSOLUTELY necessary
As a Calvinist, what I haven’t heard so far is the exclusivity of THE gospel pertaining to Christ and Christ alone. It’s the “good news” of what Christ has ALREADY done.
That said repentance and faith is granted by God, a change of mind to agree with God about our sin and need for Christ. It is the FRUIT of the gospel, as is the desire for holy living which God works in us to produce.
The battle comes when the flesh gets involved, which sadly is daily. The solution is confession and continuing to look to Jesus. Not myself.
I'm getting the impression from the comments that Tommy is kind of cheap grace. I don't want to watch a even a 1/4 of a 2 hour debate to find this out for myself. I thought this was going to be an order of salvation debate.
McMurtry said neither Calvinists nor IFB's have any credibility yet here he is debating and listening to a Calvinist...
I really feel like Tommy is making an issue out of a non issue. I feel like several times he contradicted his position with the way he explained things, especially when talking about the James passage.
This was really good. I was/am still believe only. But is unbelief a sin? hits hard. This is a really technical topic and I throughly enjoyed it and learned from this.
This also gets to the heart of whether or not unbelief is one of the sins Christ died for on the cross. One could argue that doubt is not the same as unbelief. Doubting God is a sin. Unbelief is the state of the SINNER. We are all born unbelievers. Therefore, Jesus did not technically bear the sin of unbelief, so much as he bore the consequence of dying in a STATE of unbelief as a sinner. This is why Owen's dilemma is not viewed as a particularly strong argument in the eyes of many, including many Calvinists. It treats unbelief as a singular sin like stealing. It's not. It's the spiritual and ontological condition of every sinner.
@@heartofalegendI struggled with this for a while but the sin of unbelief is clear in 2 Kings 7. The fruits of unbelief are credited from the unbelief. Just as the fruits of belief are credited to the belief (Romans 10:14). This also shows why our belief must come from God, our belief is the means God uses to produce everything else in our life including repentance. Saved by faith alone, but that faith is never alone (James 2:17). Hope this helps 🙏🏻
@@haydenhillas808 Oh. Yeah-thank you; it does help my understanding.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matt.9:13)
Im glad "pastor Tommy" isn't my pastor
I would say that self-righteousness (1:09:07) would be a violation of Commandments 1,2
Self-righteousness elevates you on par with GOD.
self-righteousness makes your own good works an altar
Thank GOD for HIS grace, and the continuous works of purification and justification! Otherwise I would still be in a lot of trouble since VBS 1988.
My whole life, i believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. I WANTED to be saved so bad. I tried SO hard to do what God wanted, but there was always something missing. I wanted to quit sinning. But i couldn't do anything to find what i was looking for. I was finally saved 5 years ago. I surrendered and repented, and i have NEVER been the same. I do not LIVE in sin anymore, I immediately know that i messed up, and will have to go and confess, but i can't stay in that sin without agony. There is a HUGE difference of believing, and repenting.
I am so weirded out that this dude is for real. I feel like he is being satirical. How in the world is he serious?
We cannot work or believe our way into salvation, we have become a NEW creation, and we have to SEE our sin, and repent.
I wish debates covered one point at a time rather than 7. Making one point with great clarity and argumentation is more keen than 7 points with little argumentation. I'm aware debates don't function this way, but that is also why I hate them.
Though this debate is on repentance, Arminians have a severe error when it comes to being saved. It is not one's decision whether or not they are saved but the Lord's decision that He made before the foundations of the world. As to repentance, when one is truly saved i.e. elected, hating one's sins and wanting to get rid of them goes hand in hand. One cannot keep getting drunk, fornicating, doing drugs, etc and believe they are saved. The Lord regenerated me on 11/2/2022 after practicing traditional witchcraft and ancestral paganism since 1986.
Amen praise the Lord that He saved you!
I can't take time to hear out this complete debate. I want to, and wish that I could. I made it only to opening back and forth stage.
It seems that these two men are so close that this debate is baseless. Tommy even used "repent" in the same sense that Keith uses it in his rebuttal time as a
Tommy's "trust alone in the effective work of Jesus Christ" is helpful emphasis, but since Keith affirms the same, their differences are hard to understand.
I am currently helping a 2 week old convert, completely unfamiliar with the scriptures, to understand these concepts. Available time limits our interaction. I am relying on my favorite scriptures on this topic, though I could use many more. These are Galatians 5, James, 1 John and John. Paul uses evidence of God's salvific work in the fruit produced by contrasting the fruit of the sinful man and fruit of the Spirit. James argues that fresh and salt water can't/shouldn't come from the same spring in his epistle after he completes chapter 1 and 2 focusing on justification and moving on to "how the justified should live". John gives his reason for writing both referenced books "that we might know that we have eternal life". I think that John's prevailing concern is to define what saving belief is, how it is effected, applied and assures the believer that trusts alone in the wor of Jesus Christ.
Decades ago, I examined only 1 John and recorded and counted 43 distinct descriptions of how a person ensures his lost estate and his redeemed estate. The concept of "repentance" is so bound up in John's arguments and inseparable from trusting alone in the work of Jesus Christ that this debate and Tommy's concern with Keith baffles me. Certainly "faith", "trust", "repent" can be misapplied per teachings that neither men support.
Tommy expressed concern of Calvanism related to the topic without explaining the concern, leaving me to speculate what that might be.
I think that John was in a similar camp with me, so I readily resonate with John. I think that John has believed for virtually his entire life, but realized that at some point that belief matured and became salvific belief. I have long wondered if his "then he believed" in the empty tomb on resurrection day is descriptive of the event when John was "converted". I cannot be certain, but John devoted much of his ministry to this singular topic. This devotion was the scripture that God used to convict me of my sin, changed my heart and dragged me into saving faith. I continually testify that God saved my unwilling heart before I could experience feel or express repentance, faith, trust or belief. I expressed, felt, experienced the first fruits of all of these inseparablably related concepts after and in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit on my wicked heart and actions. 50 years later, I am still repenting from sin that I still commit. But the evidence of Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit, was shockingly manifested in the days after my conversion, and by God's grace alone have been increasingly manifested in my life as I have purposed, though struggled, to honor and seve Him.
I have no fear of teaching repentance as the Gospel content as understood by either of these men. Tommy seems to teach the same concept yet has fear of the word???
...challenging concepts, but seemingly unnecessary debate between these two positions...
Im still not sure what Keith's criteria for measuring what is and is not part of the gospel.
Repentance is not a cause of salvation, but it’s absolutely an effect of it.
I’m not entirely sure how one could read the New Testament and come to another conclusion. There’s so many hurtles (aka verses) to jump.
I really enjoy your podcasts and ministry Pastor Foskey. I don't offer this in a spirit of dissension but I have to ask, Are you a John MacArthur "Lordship" salvation proponent or are you Reformed? You kinda got embarrassed by an IFB pastor in his opening remarks. And your rejoiner on "what is believe" comparing it to demons was pretty low ball. Do you affirm the Auchterarder Creed?: I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ, and installing us in covenant with God." Sinclair Ferguson in "The Whole Christ" speaking of Thomas Boston realized that binary logic was the "fallacy of terbium non datur" - "one or the other" and that, "there is a third way". Namely, "...forsaking sin is an indispensable accompaniment of coming to Christ but not a precedent to faith in Him." (The Whole Christ p.103 note 15). R. Scott Clark responding to J. MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus says, "That we respond appropriately to Christ, however, is not the gospel. The gospel is that Christ obeyed God for us, that He has accomplished our salvation, that He has been raised, and that all His obedience is imputed to us so that it is as if we ourselves had done all that Jesus did." As a former legalist I may be overly sensitive to the collapsing of the law and gospel, but as Justin Perdue and John Moffit of Theocast have pointed out, "Do is law. Done is gospel. The law demands everything and gives nothing. The gospel demands nothing and gives everything. If I'm not understanding your position please forgive me, but it seems essential that we always preserve the gospel as sola gratia and sola fide. As R. Scott Clark says, "True faith is an obedient faith, but faith is not true because it is obedient."
I have issues with some of the teachings of Lordship salvation, so I would not put myself firmly in that camp. But the issue at hand was whether or not faith will necessarily produce a change in a persons life toward sin, which Bro Tommy denied. I would agree with WCF, in particular ch15:3 which says that while repentance is not the cause of pardon, none may expect pardon without it.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Thanks for your reply and comments. I certainly respect your position.
Thank you for your video and this clarification. I also hold to the WCF and I would agree with the above comment that repentance is not properly part of the gospel in that it is 'law'. But if God grants faith, He will also grant repentance.
If one is elect, he will be regerated and will have faith and repentance.
The impenitent are not saved.
The heidelblog had a great article on repentance by Daniel Rowlands - 'Faith or Repentance-Which Comes First?
God bless you.
Ok if the word “believe” no longer means “to trust”, so why do every reliable English translations use that word? If using the word is misleading people today then a different word should be used.
Changing definitions of words is the beginning of confusion. I truly believe it's a tactic of Satan.
It's only misleading in its sloppy use. Many folks hear "believe" and they think, because they agree with everything the bible says about Jesus, they "believe." However, if the word TRUST was used more often, like you mentioned, then folks would have more of the accurate picture of one entrusting themselves into the care of another. We just need better teachers and preachers, when it comes to the gospel. This discussion is great training for all of us.
Sacrament of Penance is the liturgical celebration of God's forgiveness of the sins of the Penitent, who is thus reconciled with God and the Church. The acts of the Penitent - contrition,, the confession of sins and satisfaction or reparation, together with the prayer of absolution by the Priest, constitute the essential elements of the sacrament of penance. Acts 2:38
People who say "I am saved" would have to live their life without committing a single sin.
The reason why everyone disagrees with one another is the Reformation of the 16 century.
Salvation is more than simply believing in Jesus Christ.
How come it takes 2 hours to answer a simple question?
I’m not Calvinistic Baptist but do see that scriptures teach repentance is part of the gospel and that someone who abandons the faith was never born again. I don’t know how that got wrapped into Calvinist Baptist. The question is when repentance is being used what is the context of the target of what needs to be repented from. Anything the is keeping the sun we from believing/trusting in the good news of Christ.
Great point
Repentance in the context of salvation is always unbelief in the true God to believing (trusting) in God. It is not that hard. If one believes God then they will bear the fruits of the change in faith.
Actually, the Apostle Paul defines repentance for us in Acts 26:18. Paul is giving his testimony to King Agrippa and he recites his commission that came from the lips of Jesus: to go to the Gentiles “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 …” Two verses later, Paul actually defines his ministry as one of repentance: “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” That’s how Paul defines his own ministry towards the end of his life.
@@toddstevens9667 For those of us who aren't lordship salvation types, we hold that to repent is a change of outlook, to change your mind. That's what Jesus & Paul are preaching, to repent (change your mind) towards your sin and believe the gospel. So when Paul gave the gospel to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31, answering what he must do to be saved with "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" - that is not an incomplete gospel message. That is the gospel, and repentance is a change of outlook, which belief requires.
@@tyleroliver6453But that isn’t how Paul defined repentance. It has nothing to do with Lordship salvation. He provided a definition of repentance for us of “turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God.” And he says that his entire ministry is defined by that mission. Complain to Paul and Jesus if that doesn’t fit your theology.
@@toddstevens9667 Peace Beaver! Friendly fire bro, we're on the same team. This is like my third time ever commenting on a youtube video, I'm just explaining as most people in this thread don't seem to understand why this is an issue. When John says in Mark 1:15 "repent and believe the Gospel", those are two different things, repentance is one thing and the Gospel is another thing. Salvation is by faith, not by repenting of sin, I'm not saying don't repent, I'm saying what you do with your sin is not salvific. What Jesus did for our sin is salvific for us when paired with faith. God bless ya
@@tyleroliver6453My apologies lol. Let us pray …
How is this even a discussion?
I’m not sure how this is a question.
The Apostle Paul defines repentance for us in his testimony to King Agrippa about the mission Jesus set for him:
Acts 26:17-18 KJV
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, [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.
And then the Apostle Paul defined his ministry as one of repentance:
Acts 26:20 KJV
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
I just want to point out that Paul interprets his mission statement from Jesus as repentance. He is defining his ministry of repentance as opening eyes, and turning Gentile sinners from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. That’s how Paul is defining it, and how we should define it as well.
Need to change the title of the debate (not necessarily the content). The gospel is the message of what Christ has done for us. There is no “do” in the gospel. Repentance is a response to the gospel but not the gospel or a part of the gospel itself.
Well said. Title of the debate could have been " Can the impenitent be saved? Or, "Are good works necessary as fruit and evidence of justification?"
Honestly part of the problem is that prominent voices have at times been uncareful and talked about faith as if it includes repentance in some form, leading to all this confusion. Indeed this would be a violation of Romans 4:5. But the reformed confessions are careful in distinguishing the two, just as we distinguish justification and sanctification. To confuse faith and repentance will just lead to the Catholic view of their sacrament of confession.
I am personally on the Marrow's side on this. And I do agree with Tommy's point at the end that we need to be careful in judging people's salvation.
Fat Pharasee will of course give his heretical view.
Would you then agree with "Polite Leader" (attends Grace to You)
_You seem to be a little confused and therefore it is not a surprise that you hold to a heretical anti-Lordship salvation view. The gospel includes both justification and sanctification. We are justified by grace alone but it is not a faith that is alone. Faith produces good works. For women that piety is primarily through being godly housewives, house mothers and household managers. But since you have the gospel wrong, you also get this wrong. Once again I pray that you would repent and turn to the true gospel._
This was in response to him saying single women in the church who pursue the top 20% of men and date unbelieving men are most likely unregenerate. I asked for his solution, and he gave a list of actions and scripture they should meditate on. My response was if such women are unsaved, they need the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.
After many years thinking John Mac knew it all, I have been watching Theocast - Calvinists who do agree a Christian will become more like Christ the longer they believe, but that we should not look in the mirror, to pietism, for our security.
The fact "Polite Leader" thinks one needs to hold a certain theological view to be saved ... is this not another Gospel!
*skip
I don't sin; mine were all washed white as snow. If I start begging God for forgiveness of sins after salvation, that means He needs to go back on the Cross every time. This is why the RCC displays Christ on a Crucifix, they don't believe His Sacrifice was once for all time, nor that they are forgiven once for all time.
If Jesus didn't condemn me, but saved me, why should I now condemn myself?
I see a gross habitual sin being practiced on the panel, but I believe he's still saved. Again, why is he condemning himself, when Christ isn't?
I do what the Apostle Paul did, I keep a clear conscience before God and all men.
Christians sin but if you say you have no sin then you make God a liar and prove you're not in Truth.
1 John 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
Christians dont practice nor live a life of sin like those that are not saved.
Galatians 5:19-21 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20. idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21. envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@@CoCo8102. You posted Scripture supporting exactly what I stated. I didn't say I never sinned. I came to know I was a sinner through the Gospel, I confessed my sins, and He has cleansed me of ALL my sin. I have passed from death to eternal life, and I will never ever come into judgment.
@@DontYouWantToLiveForever Well you did say "I don't sin" and that implies and means that you don't sin. This is why I replied what I did. Maybe you misspoke, but Its important to understand God's Word and express ourselves accordingly. Like I said, Christians still sin and we'll continue to do so until we die or the Lord comes back in glory as His Word says. But your testimony is awesome and the Lord is glorified in it.
1 John 2:1-6 speaks about what Christians are to do when we do commit sin before the Lord.
How come the book of John never once says to repent of your sins???? John is the only book written to unbelievers????
John is the only book written to unbelievers? Aren’t all the Gospels sort of written to unbelievers? Aren’t all the Gospels making an argument that Jesus is the Messiah? I suspect that John’s Gospel, as the last Gospel written, was stressing doctrines that the other 3 Gospels did not. Two points: 1) John does talk about repentance in his other NT epistles. He does not mention it by name but describes its impact on church life in 1 John. And it is mentioned very frequently in Revelation, in context to both believers and unbelievers. And 2) one needs to look at the four Gospels as a whole. Each Gospel has a different focus, but we need all four to put together the story of Jesus that God wants us to have. That’s why God put all four Gospels in the Bible, and not just the Gospel of John. Luke, which is the Gospel of Repentance, focuses much more on Repentance than the other three Gospels. For instance, compare Luke’s recitation of the Great Commission with both Matthew’s and Mark’s. John doesn’t even include the Great Commission. Why? Because it was already covered by the other three Gospels. That’s why John’s Gospel is so different. He is covering material that the others didn’t cover. But Luke very clearly shows in Acts that all the Apostles preached and required repentance in their evangelistic sermons and outreaches. For instance, Peter preaches repentance for salvation in both chapters 2 and 3. Paul mentions it often. For example, see Acts 20:20-21. In fact, Paul actually DEFINES his ministry as the preaching of repentance to the Gentiles (See Paul’s testimony in Acts 26:18 where Jesus specifically tells him to open the eyes of the Gentiles and “turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God [that’s Paul’s definition of repentance]” and then 26:20 where Paul specifically says that his ministry was about telling Gentiles “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”).
Because John's gospel was written after the other 3. He was writing in light of the context that his audience had already heard the other gospels. Where did you get this idea that John is the only book written to unbelievers? Sounds like you heard some half truths from a free grace extremist.
Believe in Jesus The Messiah and reject the christ of Calvinism .
Very different beings. Choose wisely.
Believers should repent of their sins but that’s not the message to an unbeliever
Gosh, if only the Apostle Paul had known that …
As well as Jesus and John the Baptist.
Reread the Bible. The first words of Jesus ministry were "Repent and believe"
Calvinists, I hold you all personally responsible for your ungodly spawn off called Free Grace. There was no pervasive belief in OSAS until the perverse logic of Calvinism.
Without the logic of yelling at Arminians that their free will is "works" and all attempts at holiness are "works salvation," the idea of Free Grace would never even have been born.
@@matth571 I'm not lying. Did you notice the word "Arminians" there, and then you changed what I said to "Calvinists." It seems you are the one who should "please don't lie."
Ok. Maybe I didn’t understand what you are saying. Maybe you could maybe expound on it a little bit. If I misrepresented I apologize.
@@matth571 It's not a problem. You may be unaware of the long history Calvinists have of accusing Arminians of trying to be saved by their works.