Reconciled to God while enemies !

[rogerg]

In English, repentance means either the act of repenting or the state of having repented; if God literally “gave repentance,” then Israel must have already repented, which is impossible, so the phrase must mean God gave the opportunity to repent, not the repentance itself.

I think that what @brightfame52 said about you is correct- that the problem you have is you still trust in a works salvation and not in God's grace through Christ, and so you see repentance as something man must accomplish.
I was going to go through a lengthy explanation but as I agree with @brightfame52's reply, and as he said it as well or better than I could have, I'll just let it go at that.

 

[Roger316]

When wasn't the opportunity for repentance available? People from the onset of sin could repent. God said as much to Esau.

A person can repent any time he likes, of course — but opportunities to repent are not abstract possibilities floating in the air. Biblically, an ‘opportunity’ is an occasion, a summons, a moment of confrontation when the call of God actually reaches you. The opportunity is created when the gospel is preached, when the truth is laid before you, when the Spirit convicts, when the evangelist puts the question to your heart. That moment — when you hear the call — is the opportunity. Outside of that moment, the possibility remains, but the occasion has not yet arrived.

Possibility -- always present
Opportunity -- when the call actually comes.

This view of opportunity makes sense of Acts 5 because Peter is not describing some abstract, timeless possibility of repentance. He is creating the occasion for repentance by preaching the gospel to Israel. The opportunity is the moment when God’s call actually reaches the hearer. When Peter stands before the Sanhedrin and declares that God exalted Jesus ‘to give repentance to Israel,’ he is not saying repentance was previously impossible. He is saying that this proclamation — this confrontation with the risen Christ — is the God‑given moment in which Israel is summoned to turn.

Make sense?

 

[Roger316]

If all men (and women) are "born in sin" than Jesus was born in sin.

And of course, Jesus wasn't born in sin, and neither were we. Each man (and woman) is held responsible for his or her own sin, not for the sin of Adam. Jesus, of course, never sinned but we do.

 

[Roger316]

Yes you are disagreeing with scripture in the guise of it being merely my interpretation

Too bad you can't or won't demonstrate your objections to my posts with reasons.

Israel isnt ethnic national israel, its the Church the Body of Christ, and God has a set time when each person of that elect body will be converted, some may not yet be born yet.

This is part of your problem. The road to clarity is paved with calling things by their right name. And you are not calling things by their right name. Israel is a country in the Middle East. The Church is an assembly of all those who are followers of Jesus Christ.

Its not national israel in view

It is always national, ethnic Israel that is in view.

 

[Roger316]

I think that what @brightfame52 said about you is correct- that the problem you have is you still trust in a works salvation and not in God's grace through Christ, and so you see repentance as something man must accomplish.
I was going to go through a lengthy explanation but as I agree with @brightfame52's reply, and as he said it as well or better than I could have, I'll just let it go at that.

Since @brightfame52 didn't give examples of what I said that can be construed as a works-based salvation, then how do you say you agree with him about something he never said?

Of course, repentance is something we must do. When Jesus preached, "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand," what else can it mean if NOT a call to action? How is answering the call to repent a work? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Cameron143]

A person can repent any time he likes, of course — but opportunities to repent are not abstract possibilities floating in the air. Biblically, an ‘opportunity’ is an occasion, a summons, a moment of confrontation when the call of God actually reaches you. The opportunity is created when the gospel is preached, when the truth is laid before you, when the Spirit convicts, when the evangelist puts the question to your heart. That moment — when you hear the call — is the opportunity. Outside of that moment, the possibility remains, but the occasion has not yet arrived.

Possibility -- always present
Opportunity -- when the call actually comes.

This view of opportunity makes sense of Acts 5 because Peter is not describing some abstract, timeless possibility of repentance. He is creating the occasion for repentance by preaching the gospel to Israel. The opportunity is the moment when God’s call actually reaches the hearer. When Peter stands before the Sanhedrin and declares that God exalted Jesus ‘to give repentance to Israel,’ he is not saying repentance was previously impossible. He is saying that this proclamation — this confrontation with the risen Christ — is the God‑given moment in which Israel is summoned to turn.

Make sense?

Again, you spend alot of time on arguments not under consideration. The fact is, since the onset of sin, forgiveness has been available. That's the promise of Genesis 3:15.

Does forgiveness need to be appropriated through repentance? That's another subject that can prove complicated. You simply explore one aspect of this and only partially. But the fact remains...repentance has always been available.

 

[Roger316]

Again, you spend alot of time on arguments not under consideration.

I don't understand. Can you be specific? I don't see how your response follows from my post.

The fact is, since the onset of sin, forgiveness has been available. That's the promise of Genesis 3:15.

I thought we were talking about repentance?

Does forgiveness need to be appropriated through repentance?

“I think part of the difficulty here is that the question itself is framed in a way that doesn’t quite fit how forgiveness works. Forgiveness is never something we seize or appropriate; it is always something that is given, extended, or allocated by the one who forgives. So when we talk about repentance, we’re not talking about grabbing forgiveness or activating it. Repentance is simply the appropriate response when forgiveness is offered. Sometimes we get ourselves into conceptual boxes that make the whole idea sound more complicated than it really is.

In my view, repentance is something a person ought to do whether forgiveness is being offered or not. Turning toward what is good has intrinsic value; it’s the right thing to do simply because goodness is good. Repentance isn’t a technique for obtaining forgiveness, and it isn’t a way of seizing anything from God. It’s the proper moral response whenever we recognize that we’ve gone wrong. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is always something given, never something we appropriate for ourselves. Sometimes our categories can make these ideas feel more complicated than they really are.

 

[Cameron143]

I don't understand. Can you be specific? I don't see how your response follows from my post.

I thought we were talking about repentance?

“I think part of the difficulty here is that the question itself is framed in a way that doesn’t quite fit how forgiveness works. Forgiveness is never something we seize or appropriate; it is always something that is given, extended, or allocated by the one who forgives. So when we talk about repentance, we’re not talking about grabbing forgiveness or activating it. Repentance is simply the appropriate response when forgiveness is offered. Sometimes we get ourselves into conceptual boxes that make the whole idea sound more complicated than it really is.

In my view, repentance is something a person ought to do whether forgiveness is being offered or not. Turning toward what is good has intrinsic value; it’s the right thing to do simply because goodness is good. Repentance isn’t a technique for obtaining forgiveness, and it isn’t a way of seizing anything from God. It’s the proper moral response whenever we recognize that we’ve gone wrong. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is always something given, never something we appropriate for ourselves. Sometimes our categories can make these ideas feel more complicated than they really are.

I have been lazy in my wording. And this is a good post. My point was that repentance has been available since the onset of sin.

Forgiveness for sin is accomplished by the suffering of Christ on the cross. That's why there is no longer any condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

 

[rogerg]

Since @brightfame52 didn't give examples of what I said that can be construed as a works-based salvation, then how do you say you agree with him about something he never said?

Of course, repentance is something we must do. When Jesus preached, "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand," what else can it mean if NOT a call to action? How is answering the call to repent a work? That doesn't make sense.

Wrong. As the verses I posted clearly and unambiguously state, repentance is only given by God. How do you not see that? What do you think repentance represents? How can someone, of themselves, ever be able to satisfy the requirement for repentance in order to have truly repented? They can't.

I don't want to speak for @brightfame52 but your statement that repentance is man's responsibility to satisfy is one example. However, when repentance is correctly understood which is the repenting from man's works for salvation unto a trust in Christ as the Savior -your definition of it turns it into a works-based salvation -your post #482 is an example, here it is, I made it easy for you.

"The idea that “repentance can be given” is linguistically and conceptually absurd. Repentance is, by definition, a human act, a human posture, a human turning. It cannot be transferred, handed over, or bestowed like an object. What can be given is the opportunity, space, summons, or conditions that make repentance possible."

Do you understand the following verses? They come from multiple different. independent, translations, yet all are effectively saying the exact same thing - that repentance is, and must be, given as a gift from God. Do you see the "grant" and "give" from God in those verses as the method by which repentance is given and not by man? Do you see the "them" of the verses contributing any part of it except to be its recipients? No, you don't. So, the question then becomes, should we trust your interpretation which sounded to me like gobbledygook, and which (to the degree I could understand it) is in direct conflict with them, or instead trust them as written - with none supporting nor agreeing with you. Your interpretation flies in the face of what those verses state and thereby, you place yourself at odds with clear Scripture.


In no particular order:

[2Ti 2:25 ESV] 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

[2Ti 2:25 LSB] 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may give them repentance leading to the full knowledge of the truth,

[2Ti 2:25 CSB] 25 instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth.

[2Ti 2:25 AMP] 25 He must correct those who are in opposition with courtesy and gentleness in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and be led to the knowledge of the truth [accurately understanding and welcoming it],

[2Ti 2:25 NKJV] 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

[2Ti 2:25 NIV] 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

 

[brightfame52]

A person can repent any time he likes, of course

Thats false, God must give them repentance 2 Tim 2:25

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

 

[brightfame52]

A person can repent any time he likes, of course — but opportunities to repent are not abstract possibilities floating in the air. Biblically, an ‘opportunity’ is an occasion, a summons, a moment of confrontation when the call of God actually reaches you. The opportunity is created when the gospel is preached, when the truth is laid before you, when the Spirit convicts, when the evangelist puts the question to your heart. That moment — when you hear the call — is the opportunity. Outside of that moment, the possibility remains, but the occasion has not yet arrived.

Possibility -- always present
Opportunity -- when the call actually comes.

This view of opportunity makes sense of Acts 5 because Peter is not describing some abstract, timeless possibility of repentance. He is creating the occasion for repentance by preaching the gospel to Israel. The opportunity is the moment when God’s call actually reaches the hearer. When Peter stands before the Sanhedrin and declares that God exalted Jesus ‘to give repentance to Israel,’ he is not saying repentance was previously impossible. He is saying that this proclamation — this confrontation with the risen Christ — is the God‑given moment in which Israel is summoned to turn.

Make sense?

False teaching

 

[brightfame52]

Too bad you can't or won't demonstrate your objections to my posts with reasons.

You have rejected it

This is part of your problem. The road to clarity is paved with calling things by their right name. And you are not calling things by their right name. Israel is a country in the Middle East. The Church is an assembly of all those who are followers of Jesus Christ.

Wrong

It is always national, ethnic Israel that is in view.

Wrong

 

[brightfame52]

Since @brightfame52 didn't give examples of what I said

You giving the examples lol

 

[brightfame52]

Since @brightfame52 didn't give examples of what I said that can be construed as a works-based salvation, then how do you say you agree with him about something he never said?

Of course, repentance is something we must do. When Jesus preached, "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand," what else can it mean if NOT a call to action? How is answering the call to repent a work? That doesn't make sense.

Jesus call to repent is or was limited to them the Father had already given to Him, and they would have been already quickened by Him

 

[brightfame52]

Forgiveness for sin is accomplished by the suffering of Christ on the cross.

Christ gives both as a Gift to them He saves Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

 

[Cameron143]

Christ gives both as a Gift to them He saves Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

It is a godly sorrow that works repentance.

I wasn't arguing the source of repentance; merely its availability.

 

[HeIsHere]

A person can repent any time he likes, of course — but opportunities to repent are not abstract possibilities floating in the air. Biblically, an ‘opportunity’ is an occasion, a summons, a moment of confrontation when the call of God actually reaches you. The opportunity is created when the gospel is preached, when the truth is laid before you, when the Spirit convicts, when the evangelist puts the question to your heart. That moment — when you hear the call — is the opportunity. Outside of that moment, the possibility remains, but the occasion has not yet arrived.

Possibility -- always present
Opportunity -- when the call actually comes.

This view of opportunity makes sense of Acts 5 because Peter is not describing some abstract, timeless possibility of repentance. He is creating the occasion for repentance by preaching the gospel to Israel. The opportunity is the moment when God’s call actually reaches the hearer. When Peter stands before the Sanhedrin and declares that God exalted Jesus ‘to give repentance to Israel,’ he is not saying repentance was previously impossible. He is saying that this proclamation — this confrontation with the risen Christ — is the God‑given moment in which Israel is summoned to turn.

Make sense?

Hmm..

 

[brightfame52]

It is a godly sorrow that works repentance.

I wasn't arguing the source of repentance; merely its availability.

Its availability ?? That doesnt sound biblical to me friend. Either God gives it which causes it, or not.

 

[Cameron143]

Its availability ?? That doesnt sound biblical to me friend. Either God gives it which causes it, or not.

Is the gospel message for all people?

 

[brightfame52]

Is the gospel message for all people?

Not as a word of Salvation, to some its a word of death 2 Cor 2 14-16

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Its preached to all everywhere, but for different purposes, its only a good purpose to them that are saved.