I encountered the following claim on Facebook recently: “If you are using the term ‘repent of your sins’ for salvation, you need to step down from the ministry for a while and attend my classes before you return. I’m just not really sure at all that you’re saved.”
It’s the kind of statement that doesn’t just disagree. It draws a hard line in the sand and questions a person’s standing before God based on a particular way of expressing the gospel. That should immediately give us pause. Not because precision in doctrine doesn’t matter—it absolutely does—but because Scripture never treats preferred phrasing as the ultimate test of saving faith. When language becomes a gatekeeping tool for salvation itself, something deeper has gone wrong.
What follows isn’t merely a defense of a phrase, but a careful examination of repentance, the gospel, and the kind of humility required when handling both.
What Does “Repent” Actually Mean?
To understand the issue clearly, we have to begin with Scripture itself. The New Testament word translated “repent” (Metanoeite) carries the idea of a change of mind,1 but not in the shallow, modern sense of simply updating an opinion. In the biblical sense, it’s a profound internal transformation that affects how a person sees God, sin, righteousness, and themselves. It’s a reorientation of the entire inner life.
This is why repentance can’t be reduced to mere intellectual agreement. A person may acknowledge that sin exists without ever turning from it. Biblical repentance goes deeper. It involves conviction, sorrow, and a decisive turning, what Scripture elsewhere describes as a turning “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18). It’s not perfection but direction. It’s not sinless living, but a changed relationship to sin.
When Jesus began His ministry with the command, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17), He wasn’t inviting people to adopt a new philosophy. He was calling for a radical realignment of life under the rule of God. Likewise, the apostles didn’t preach repentance as an optional add-on to faith, but as an integral part of responding to the gospel. Paul summarized his entire ministry as calling people to “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21), showing that repentance and faith are distinct but inseparable.
To remove repentance from the gospel is to flatten it into mere intellectual assent. But to misunderstand repentance as a work that earns salvation is to distort it in the opposite direction. Scripture holds both truths together: repentance is necessary, yet it’s not meritorious. It’s the turning of a heart awakened by grace.
Is “Repent of Your Sins” an Unbiblical Phrase?
Some object to the phrase “repent of your sins” on the grounds that it does not appear in that exact wording in Scripture. While it is always wise to ground our language in the Bible, this objection confuses exact phrasing with biblical substance. The absence of a specific English expression doesn’t mean the idea it communicates is unbiblical.
In fact, Scripture consistently connects repentance with sin in both concept and outcome. Acts 3:19 declares, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” The relationship is unmistakable: repentance is directly tied to the removal of sin. Similarly, when Paul describes the repentance of the Thessalonians, he says they “turned to God from idols” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). That’s repentance in action, a turning away from sin and a turning toward God.
To repent “toward God” necessarily includes turning away from whatever opposes Him. Sin isn’t a neutral category; it’s rebellion against God’s authority. Therefore, repentance that doesn’t involve a turning from sin isn’t biblical repentance at all. The phrase “repent of your sins,” when properly understood, simply makes explicit what is already implicit in the biblical command to repent.
The real danger lies not in the phrase itself, but in how it’s interpreted. If someone hears “repent of your sins” and concludes that they must achieve moral perfection before coming to Christ, then clarification is needed. But the solution isn’t to abandon the phrase but to teach it correctly. Scripture doesn’t shy away from calling sinners to turn from sin and neither should we.
The Real Concern Behind the Objection
It’s important to recognize that many who strongly oppose the phrase “repent of your sins” are motivated by a legitimate concern: the preservation of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. They rightly fear any formulation that might suggest human effort contributes to justification before God. That concern isn’t only understandable but necessary. The gospel must be protected from works-based distortions.
However, in attempting to guard this truth, some swing too far in the opposite direction. They begin to treat repentance as if it were either unnecessary or purely intellectual, stripped of any moral or volitional component. In doing so, they unintentionally weaken the very gospel they seek to defend.
Scripture never presents repentance as a human work that earns salvation, but neither does it present faith as mere mental agreement. Saving faith isn’t simply believing that certain facts about Jesus are true; it’s entrusting oneself to Him. And that kind of faith inevitably involves a turning away from sin, not because the sinner has achieved righteousness, but because they’ve come to see sin differently in light of Christ.
The biblical balance is both simple and profound: we’re not saved by turning from sin, but we’re not saved without turning from sin. Repentance isn’t the basis of our acceptance with God; Christ alone is. But repentance is the necessary response of a heart that truly believes.
To deny this connection is to risk reducing the gospel to something less than what Scripture proclaims. Grace doesn’t merely forgive. It transforms. And that transformation begins with repentance.
The Danger of Doctrinal Gatekeeping
Beyond the theological debate lies a deeper concern: the spirit in which such claims are made. To tell someone they should step down from ministry and question whether they are even saved, based on their use of a phrase that aligns with biblical teaching, isn’t a small matter. It reflects a posture that elevates personal interpretation to the level of ultimate authority.
Scripture calls believers to contend for the faith, but it also calls them to do so with humility, patience, and charity. Romans 14:4 asks, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” This isn’t a prohibition against discernment, but a warning against assuming a role that belongs to God alone. Declaring someone unsaved is one of the most serious judgments a person can make, and it must never be done lightly or carelessly.
When doctrinal precision becomes detached from humility, it often leads to division rather than clarity. Secondary issues are elevated to primary status, and fellowship is fractured over matters that should instead invite careful discussion. The irony is that in trying to protect the purity of the gospel, such gatekeeping can obscure it by replacing grace with suspicion and charity with condemnation.
The New Testament model is markedly different. The apostles corrected error, but they did so with a view toward restoration, not exclusion. They distinguished between foundational truths and areas where believers might differ in wording or emphasis. They understood that unity in the gospel doesn’t require uniformity in every expression of it.
We would do well to recover that balance. The goal isn’t to silence disagreement, but to engage it in a way that reflects the character of Christ: firm in truth, yet gentle in spirit.
Repentance in the Gospel: A Full Picture
A faithful presentation of the gospel must include both clarity and completeness. Repentance isn’t an optional extra. It’s woven into the very fabric of the message. But it must be presented in its proper context, not as a prerequisite work that earns salvation, but as the response of a heart that has encountered the grace of God.
When Scripture calls people to repent, it’s not commanding them to fix themselves before coming to Christ. It’s calling them to abandon all false refuges—sin, self-righteousness, and unbelief—and to turn wholly to Him. This turning isn’t partial or conditional; it’s a surrender of trust. It’s the recognition that salvation can’t be found anywhere else.
At the same time, repentance isn’t a one-time event that can be neatly separated from the rest of the Christian life. It marks the beginning of a new direction that continues as the believer grows in sanctification. The same grace that saves also teaches us to deny ungodliness and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11–12).
This is why repentance and faith must never be pitted against each other. They’re distinct, but they operate together. Faith looks to Christ; repentance turns from sin. Faith receives; repentance releases. Both are necessary, and both are gifts of God’s grace.
To preach the gospel without repentance is to offer forgiveness without transformation. To preach repentance without grace is to burden sinners with an impossible task. But when both are held together, the gospel shines in its full beauty: God saves sinners not only from the penalty of sin, but from its power.
Answering the Underlying Question: Does This Phrase Undermine the Gospel?
At its core, the original claim raises an important question: does the phrase “repent of your sins” distort the gospel message? The answer, when carefully considered, is no, provided it’s understood and explained biblically.
The phrase itself communicates a truth that is undeniably present in Scripture: coming to Christ involves a decisive break with sin. It doesn’t suggest that a person must achieve moral perfection before being saved, nor does it imply that repentance earns forgiveness. Rather, it points to the reality that saving faith isn’t compatible with a settled commitment to continue in sin without concern.
The real issue, then, isn’t the wording, but the meaning behind it. Any phrase—no matter how biblical—can be misunderstood or misused if it’s not properly explained. But that’s true of nearly every theological term, including “faith,” “grace,” and even “believe.” The solution isn’t to abandon biblical language, but to teach it faithfully and clearly.
When someone uses the phrase “repent of your sins” to call people to turn from sin and trust in Christ alone, they’re not undermining the gospel. They’re expressing it. The burden of proof lies not on the phrase, but on whether the underlying message aligns with Scripture.
To elevate this issue to the level of a salvation test is to go beyond what the Bible itself requires. It shifts the focus from the substance of the gospel to the specific wording used to communicate it, and in doing so, it risks obscuring the very truth it seeks to defend.
A Better Way Forward
In light of all this, what should our response be? How do we navigate disagreements over language and emphasis without compromising truth or unity?
First, we must commit ourselves to careful, context-driven interpretation of Scripture. Our theology should be shaped by the whole counsel of God, not by isolated phrases or reactions against perceived errors. This requires patience, humility, and a willingness to be corrected where necessary.
Second, we should strive for clarity in how we communicate the gospel. If a particular phrase is prone to misunderstanding, we should take the time to explain it, not simply repeat it. Precision isn’t the enemy of simplicity but its foundation. The goal isn’t to impress, but to ensure that the message of salvation is both accurate and accessible.
Third, we must cultivate a spirit of charity toward fellow believers. Not every difference in wording reflects a difference in doctrine. Before assuming the worst, we should seek to understand what someone actually means. This doesn’t mean ignoring real errors, but it does mean avoiding unnecessary division over issues that fall within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Finally, we should remember that the gospel is ultimately about a Person, not a phrase. Jesus Christ is the center. Our task is to point people to Him: to call them to turn from sin and trust in Him alone for salvation. If we’re doing that faithfully, we’re standing on solid ground.
Final Thoughts
The claim we began with reveals how easily discussions about the gospel can shift from substance to semantics and from truth to tone. It reminds us that even in matters of great importance, how we speak can be just as revealing as what we say.
Repentance is biblical. Faith is essential. Grace is the foundation. These truths don’t compete. They converge in the person and work of Christ. When we hold them together, we preserve the integrity of the gospel and reflect the heart of the One who gave it.
Before we question someone’s salvation over a phrase, we would do well to examine our own posture. Are we handling Scripture with care? Are we extending the same grace to others that we ourselves have received? Are we more concerned with winning arguments or with faithfully proclaiming Christ?
Those are the questions that truly matter.
- Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book Company, 1889), s.v. “μετανοέω,” accessed April 25, 2026, Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/3340.htm. ↩︎
No, it doesn’t mean all of what you wrote. Most literally translated into English would be, to afterwards think. Where you get it’s an entire transformation is not in the word, you made that up. Look at extra biblical usage of that Greek word that is still used today. It literally does mean a change of thinking after something. You hear the gospel, and having not believed it before, now after hearing it, you think a different way in that you believe it. I hate the word repent. It is from French and Latin and they purposely used it to make people believe they had to do penance and feel bad for their sins and quit them before they could be saved. Your definition while not as bad, still is not true. This one word has caused so much confusion. It’s a real shame.
Thank you for your thoughts. You’re correct that metanoeō, considered by itself, has the basic sense of changing one’s mind or purpose. Extra-biblical usage confirms that range of meaning. If my article sounded as though the entire doctrine of conversion were contained within the word’s etymology alone, then my wording was imprecise and could have been clearer.
However, “to think afterward” is an etymological gloss, not a complete definition of the word in every context. Compound words can’t always be defined simply by separating their parts, any more than the English word “understand” means “to stand under.” The standard Greek lexicons recognize changing one’s mind or purpose and repenting among the word’s uses. Modern Greek usage also can’t dictate how a word was used in every first-century context.
More importantly, my description of biblical repentance comes from how Scripture uses the word, not merely from its component parts. The New Testament speaks of “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). It connects repentance with conversion and the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19), calls for “fruits meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8), and says people should “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20). That last passage helpfully distinguishes repentance from both the resulting turn and its works, while still showing that they belong together. Likewise, godly sorrow isn’t repentance itself; it “worketh repentance” (2 Corinthians 7:10).
I’m not suggesting that sinners must perform penance, clean up their lives, stop every sin, or make themselves worthy before Christ will save them. Salvation is entirely by grace through faith in Christ. The works following repentance are its fruit, not its price. My point is that when someone genuinely changes their mind about God, Christ, and the gospel, their judgment of sin and self necessarily changes as well. That inward change doesn’t earn salvation, but neither is it a morally neutral exchange of one opinion for another.
I understand your concern about the English word “repent,” but the claim that translators purposely chose it to promote penance doesn’t fit the translation history. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible used “repent,” while the Catholic Douay-Rheims rendered the same command “do penance.” The historical distinction actually cuts in the opposite direction.
So, I appreciate the lexical correction and would state the matter more precisely: repentance is fundamentally a change of mind, but biblical, saving repentance is a change of mind toward God that accompanies faith in Christ and bears fruit in a changed relationship to sin. It’s not meritorious reformation before salvation, but neither is it mere intellectual assent without spiritual consequence.
This article is superficial at best. I will take issue with but a small part, this:
“Scripture never presents repentance as a human work that earns salvation”.
Scripture absolutely presents repentance as a human work.
Jonah 3v10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Turning from sin is clearly identified as a work.
Moreover, Judaism developed its own doctrine of repenting from sin, which is the origin of the Christian practice of repenting from sin. It is called Teshuva and the practice is clearly identified as part of the law of Moses and as a sacrifice to God.
Teshuvah is a Hebrew term meaning “return,” and it refers to the process of repentance in Judaism, where individuals return to a state of moral and spiritual alignment after having sinned. It involves three key steps: regret for past actions, a commitment to change, and verbal confession of one’s sins.
How does teshuvah relate to Jewish beliefs about sin and forgiveness?
Teshuvah, meaning “return,” is a central concept in Judaism that involves repentance and moral realignment, emphasizing regret for wrongdoing and a commitment to change. It is closely tied to Jewish beliefs about sin, where sins against God can be atoned for through confession and remorse.
Note that word – atoned.
ATONEMENT definition: satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.
Christ is both the atonement and propitiation for our sin. Those repenting of their sin seek to offer an atonement other than Christ – that is they seek to make reparations to God for their sin through their repentance.
How does Teshuva compare to traditional animal sacrifices in religious practices?
Teshuva, or repentance, has replaced traditional animal sacrifices in Judaism as a means of seeking forgiveness and restoring one’s relationship with God. This shift emphasizes personal reflection and moral accountability rather than the physical act of sacrifice, aligning with the evolution of Jewish worship after the destruction of the Temple.
So Teshuva/repentance is a form of sacrifice for sin.
What are the spiritual implications of Teshuva for personal growth and repentance?
Teshuva, or repentance, is viewed as a profound spiritual journey that fosters personal growth by encouraging self-reflection, moral discernment, and a deeper connection with God. It emphasizes the importance of ongoing introspection and the transformative power of returning to one’s true self and values, ultimately leading to spiritual perfection and ethical living.
.
So Teshuva/repentance will lead to spiritual perfection.
How does Teshuva relate to the commandments in the Torah?
Teshuva, or repentance, is considered a commandment in the Torah, emphasizing the importance of returning to God after sinning. It is closely linked to the observance of all commandments, as it allows individuals to rectify their wrongdoings and restore their relationship with God.
So Teshuva/repentance is a commandment – that is a law – and it allows YOU to rectify a wrongdoing with God.
So to sum it up repentance is fundamentally Teshuva and it is;
Returning to the comment from the article; “Scripture never presents repentance as a human work that earns salvation”; of course scripture never presents repentance as a human work that earns salvation – because no human work earns salvation, but repenting of sin is fundamentally a human work intended to earn salvation. Moreover the author of this article cannot be unaware that many professing Christians believe that without continuing to repent of their sins they would lose their salvation, which is clear evidence that they believe it saves them, and thus do not believe Christ alone saves them.
I agree that Jonah 3:10 explicitly describes the Ninevites’ turning from wickedness as their “works.” That’s a fair observation, and I would gladly clarify my original statement to distinguish the outward actions associated with repentance from works intended to merit salvation.
However, the fact that Scripture calls something a work doesn’t automatically mean it constitutes an attempt to earn justification. Jonah 3:5 first tells us that the Ninevites “believed God,” and verse 10 describes their subsequent turning from evil. The immediate context concerns God’s decision to withhold the threatened destruction of Nineveh, not a doctrine of eternal justification through human merit.
I also agree that repentance has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish theology. But we can’t simply import every aspect of later Jewish teachings about teshuvah into the New Testament and assume that Christian repentance functions as an alternative sacrifice or payment for sin.
That conclusion creates a serious problem. Jesus Himself commanded, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Peter proclaimed, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Were they instructing sinners to offer an alternative atonement? Certainly not.
Christ alone provides the atonement for sin. Repentance neither supplements His sacrifice nor earns God’s forgiveness. It’s part of the sinner’s proper response to the gospel, not the meritorious basis of salvation.
Also, your argument that repentance must be a work of the law because God commands it proves too much. God also commands us to believe in Christ (1 John 3:23). Yet believing isn’t thereby transformed into works-based justification. The distinction is between responding to God’s grace and attempting to earn His acceptance.
Finally, I agree that anyone who trusts personal repentance, moral improvement, or religious performance to secure salvation has misunderstood the gospel. But it doesn’t follow that everyone who calls sinners to repent, or believers to continue turning from sin, is trusting in works. First John 1:8–2:1 plainly acknowledges both the believer’s continuing struggle with sin and Christ’s sufficiency as our Advocate.
The essential distinction remains: Christ’s finished work is the basis of our salvation; repentance isn’t a competing atonement.
We should certainly guard against turning repentance into a requirement to achieve moral reform before receiving salvation. But we must be equally careful not to redefine repentance in a way that contradicts the explicit preaching of Jesus and His apostles.
My original point stands: Calling sinners to repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone doesn’t, in itself, constitute a false gospel, much less justify questioning someone’s salvation.
“Jesus Himself commanded, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Peter proclaimed, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Were they instructing sinners to offer an alternative atonement? Certainly not.
It seems you have made a very common implicit assumption that is nonetheless not supported by a close reading of the text. That assumption is to interpret the word ‘repent’ to mean ‘repent of sin’.
If we return to Jonah3:10 we see that God repented. However we know God does not sin, so this repentance of God simply means he changed his mind about something he intended to do and not that he changed his mind about sinning.
Knowing that repent means ‘change your mind’ the instruction ‘repent ye’ has no automatic nexus with repenting of sin. Mark1:15 and Acts3:19 require one to know what it is they are changing their mind about to be correctly interpreted. Most people assume it is sin, but what exactly would one change their mind about with respect to sin? That it is not a good thing? This is already self-evident. That it is an offense to God? This is already self-evident. That we should not sin? This is already self-evident. So what then is one changing their mind about with respect to sin?
Acts20:21 however gives us more information about the repentance required; “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”. So we must repent toward God; we must change our mind toward God. And the outcome of this repentance will be? Not sinning? No. Turning from sin? No. The outcome will be “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”.
So we are instructed to change our mind concerning God and move toward faith in Christ. We have been supplied the outcome we are to arrive at as a consequence of our repentance – faith in Christ.
At the juncture we are examining a transitioned has occurred; from the old covenant (law) to the new covenant (grace). What does this mean with respect to repentance (changing our mind) and what it is we are to change our mind about?
We are being called to repent of pursuing justification by the law and to pursue justification by grace which is through faith in Christ. We repent of living by the law and turn to living by grace. And what does this repentance produce? Amongst other things, the remission of our sins.
The remission of sin is the outcome of repentance, not the object.
“Christ alone provides the atonement for sin. Repentance neither supplements His sacrifice nor earns God’s forgiveness. It’s part of the sinner’s proper response to the gospel, not the meritorious basis of salvation.”. Yet you cannot be ignorant of the multitude of people who identify as Christian and hold to the belief that if they do not repent of ongoing sin they can lose their salvation. If that is what they believe, that without their ongoing repentance of sin they will lose their salvation, then these people are offering their repentance as a sacrifice for their sin and an alternative atonement.
“it doesn’t follow that everyone who calls sinners to repent”. Again, the issue is repent from what to what?
Unbelivers are called to repent (and certainly a prerequisite for recognizing a need to seek reconciliation with God is an acknowledgment that one is a sinner/transgressor), but the repentance required is a repentance from salvation by works to salvation by grace.
Every religion known to man is based on personal performance, except properly understood Christianity. Ask most people what they think qualifies you for heaven and you will invariably be told ‘being a good person’. It is this type of thinking we are called to repent of. We are to repent of salvation by works and turn to salvation by grace.
The practical reality is this – many people who identify as Christian believe they can lose their salvation if they do not repent of their ongoing sin – this belief IS an alternative atonement for sin, offered as a sacrifice for sin.
My question to you is this; do you believe a born again believer can lose their salvation if they do not repent of ongoing sin?
I think we agree on something fundamental: salvation is entirely by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by our moral performance, religious observances, or ability to overcome sin. However, I disagree with your conclusion that repentance, in the context of salvation, refers exclusively to changing one’s mind from justification by works to justification by faith, though that’s certainly part of it.
First, regarding Jonah 3:10, the Hebrew text uses two different words. The Ninevites turned (shuv) from their wickedness, while God relented (nacham) concerning the judgment He had announced. The fact that God relented without having sinned doesn’t establish that repentance, when commanded of sinful human beings, has no connection to sin.
Second, while the Greek word metanoeō involves a change of mind, we can’t determine its full biblical meaning simply by reducing it to that definition. Context matters. Scripture explicitly speaks of repenting of wickedness (Acts 8:22), fornication (Revelation 2:21), and murders, sorceries, fornication, and thefts (Revelation 9:21). Clearly, repentance can concern sin itself.
You might argue that these passages don’t specifically address the initial salvation of an unbeliever. Fair enough. But consider Acts 26:20, where Paul describes his evangelistic ministry to Jews and Gentiles, declaring that they should “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” Notice that Paul distinguishes repentance from the works that appropriately follow it. He doesn’t equate repentance with earning justification through moral reform.
Your interpretation of Acts 20:21 also goes beyond what the passage actually states. Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” The verse doesn’t define repentance exclusively as abandoning works-based justification, nor does it explicitly establish faith as the subsequent outcome of repentance. Rather, Paul presents repentance and faith as closely related aspects of responding to the gospel.
Certainly, someone who trusts personal righteousness for salvation must abandon that false confidence and trust in Christ alone. But what about the Gentiles Paul addressed in Athens? In Acts 17, he confronted their idolatry and ignorance of the true God before declaring that God commands everyone to repent. Their problem wasn’t specifically an attempt to earn justification through the Mosaic law. Their understanding of God, their worship, and their relationship to Him all needed to change.
I also disagree with your suggestion that because forgiveness results from repentance, sin can’t be an object of repentance. Those are different questions. Christ’s sacrifice is the sole basis of forgiveness, while repentance involves a changed response to God and sin. Repentance doesn’t pay for forgiveness, supplement Christ’s sacrifice, or satisfy divine justice.
Now, to answer your final question directly: No, I don’t believe that a genuinely born-again believer loses salvation because they fail to repent of an ongoing or particular sin. Our salvation rests upon Christ’s finished work, not our ability to identify, confess, and repent of every sin. Jesus promises eternal life to His sheep and declares that they shall never perish (John 10:28).
However, I also believe Scripture calls Christians to ongoing repentance, confession, and spiritual growth. First John 1:8–2:1 acknowledges that believers continue to sin while emphasizing that Jesus Christ remains our Advocate. Confessing sin doesn’t mean we’re offering another atonement or attempting to purchase back our salvation. It means we’re acknowledging our wrongdoing before the God whose grace has already provided our redemption.
I agree that some Christians misunderstand repentance and treat their moral performance as though it maintains their justification. That’s a serious theological problem. But it doesn’t follow that everyone who believes in ongoing repentance considers it an alternative sacrifice for sin.
Ultimately, I believe your argument creates a false choice between repentance concerning sin and salvation by grace. Scripture teaches both. We’re saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, and biblical repentance involves a genuine change in our understanding of God, ourselves, and sin. That change doesn’t require achieving moral perfection before salvation (which is impossible), nor does it constitute a competing atonement.
My concern remains the same as in the original article: We shouldn’t accuse someone of preaching a false gospel—or question their salvation—merely because they use the expression “repent of your sins.” We must first establish what they mean by it and evaluate their actual teaching against Scripture.
“The fact that God relented without having sinned doesn’t establish that repentance, when commanded of sinful human beings, has no connection to sin”. Nor does it establish that it does have a connection with sin. What it clearly establishes is that it means ‘change your mind’ not ‘change your mind about sin’.
Nearly everyone, and it seems you also, see the word repent, and like Pavlov’s dog, instantly insert sin as the object of repentance.
“where Paul … declaring that they should “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.””. You should read that more carefully.
The instruction is “repent and turn to God”. At the point a man does this he is saved. Then once he is saved he should do … what? WORKS. So works come after salvation and they are not for salvation.
Now what type of works does Paul exhort us too? Works meet (meaning suitable or appropriate for) repentance. What he does not instruct is that we do ‘the work of repenting’.
Repenting of a works based salvation toward a grace based salvation is not a ‘work’. BUT repenting of sin, which is synonymous with obeying the law, because breaking the law is sin, and thus you are in fact repenting of breaking the law, IS a work, because obedience to the law is works.
“The verse doesn’t define repentance exclusively as abandoning works-based justification, nor does it explicitly establish faith as the subsequent outcome of repentance”. Jesus gave the gospel first to the Jews. How were the Jews pursuing salvation? By obedience to the law. By works of self-righteousness. Of course this is what they needed to repent of. Paul’s entire ministry is spent trying to turn people from self-righteous salvation by obedience to the law to salvation by grace through faith in Christ. This is the central purpose of the new covenant, to bring people to the realization that they cannot be saved by good works and can only be saved by grace. What else do they need to change their mind about?
“But what about the Gentiles Paul addressed in Athens? … Their problem wasn’t specifically an attempt to earn justification through the Mosaic law”. Of course this was their problem. Granted they were not attempting to fulfill Mosaic law but they most certainly were attempting to fulfill other law. Name me any faith or religion that has ever existed that did not have laws requiring obedience. Agreed, the Gentiles needed to also know the correct God, but fundamentally whatever God they were serving they were doing works for; works of sacrifice and offerings, of abstinence or indulgence. All religions are based on man’s works to be acceptable to whatever god they worship – all but one that is.
“Now, to answer your final question directly: No, I don’t believe that a genuinely born-again believer loses salvation because they fail to repent of an ongoing or particular sin”. I am pleased to hear it. However this poses the question; ‘what purpose does repenting of sin serve then’?
What even is repenting of sin?
Is it saying sorry? What good is that to God?
Is it being so sorry you promise not to do it again? I wouldn’t deceive either God or myself by pretending my promise can absolutely be relied on.
Is it telling God I will try really hard not to do it again but I can’t promise not to do it again? Is God interested in such nonsense?
Is it asking God to forgive me of my sin? Why would I blaspheme Christ by suggesting his payment for 100% of my sin was somehow insufficient and I needed to do a ‘top up’ forgiveness request? (This is the reality. Christ paid for all my sins before I was born. All my sins have already been forgiven. When I trusted Christ I trusted all my sins were forgiven. Will I now turn back, as the Hebrews turned back to the Temple sacrifices and put Christ to an open shame by asking to have forgiven that which has already been forgiven, and thereby express doubt in Christ’s completed and sufficient work?).
So that just leaves changing my mind about sin. But what change? Am I realizing sin is sin for the first time? Is it a new revelation that my sin is evil? I already know all this about sin.
“Confessing sin doesn’t mean we’re offering another atonement or attempting to purchase back our salvation”. And it doesn’t mean you are not offering another atonement or attempting to purchase back salvation either. That will depend what is in the mind and heart of the individual doing so.
“I agree that some Christians misunderstand repentance and treat their moral performance as though it maintains their justification. That’s a serious theological problem”. Its much more than merely a serious theological problem. It is potentially a salvific problem.
If a man believes his initial salvation was secured by his repentance of his sin rather than belief in Christ then this can mean he is not saved. So to anyone who believes their conversion needed maintaining by continual repentance of ongoing sin. This is adding works to the gospel, and what you have not addressed but cannot be unaware of is that many professing Christians rely on their ongoing repentance of sin to maintain their salvation.
“We’re saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, and biblical repentance involves a genuine change in our understanding of God, ourselves, and sin”. But we are not talking about a mere change in our understanding of sin when we speak of repentance of sin. A deeper awareness of the absolute affront to God that sin is is part of growth, but that is not what people are referring to when they say ‘repent of sin’.
We are talking about people performing a personal ritual before God which for most involves promises they cannot be relied on to keep, emotional response of some type usually expressed by the term ‘sorry’ and asking to be forgiven for something that is already forgiven in order to be forgiven.
“We shouldn’t accuse someone of preaching a false gospel—or question their salvation—merely because they use the expression “repent of your sins.” We must first establish what they mean by it and evaluate their actual teaching against Scripture”. That is a rather technical approach to a practical problem.
First the onus is on those preaching it explain what they mean. They are the ones advocating for it. They should make sure that (a) they know what they mean by it and (b) those they are instructing understand what they mean by it.
Second we already know what the vast majority mean by it – they mean for you to perform a work to maintain your salvation. You know this. And if you don’t then I suggest you start asking every pastor who preaches it what they mean by it and whether they believe a Christian can lose their salvation if they don’t do it. I have asked many and thus far the response is universal – repent of sin to maintain salvation.