Reconciled to God while enemies !

[Cameron143]

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.

In like manner, repentance too is for all, but only some will repent.

 

[brightfame52]

In like manner, repentance too is for all, but only some will repent.

I disagree with you. sounds like you putting it in the hands of men to repent, thats works.

 

[Cameron143]

I disagree with you. sounds like you putting it in the hands of men to repent, thats works.

I already posted that it is a godly sorrow that works repentance, so I haven't placed repentance in the hands of men. But God has never despised a humble and contrite heart.

What do you make of God's response to Cain after He refused his offering?

 

[brightfame52]

I already posted that it is a godly sorrow that works repentance, so I haven't placed repentance in the hands of men. But God has never despised a humble and contrite heart.

But you posted something about availability. Thats works

You said:

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

 

[Roger316]

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

Where does it say that Jesus limited his call to those the Father had already given him? It doesn't say anything like that. We must be careful not to read our systematic theology into the text.

One of the persistent challenges in serious biblical study is recognizing how much our interpretive frameworks shape what we think we’re seeing in the text. It’s remarkably easy — for all of us — to approach Scripture with categories and expectations already in place, often inherited from theological systems we absorbed long before we realized it. When that happens, the text can end up functioning more like a mirror than a window: we hear what we’re prepared to hear. I’m trying to stay attentive to that dynamic in my own study, because the more I allow the text to speak on its own terms, the more it surprises me.

The Gospel account says that Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." Some repented, others didn't.

 

[Cameron143]

But you posted something about availability. Thats works

You said:

Again, what do you make of God's response to Cain after refusing His offering?

 

[brightfame52]

Where does it say that Jesus limited his call to those the Father had already given him?

No where is it said. But its still true. He calleth His Sheep so they shall hear Jn 10:16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The Gospel account says that Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." Some repented, others didn't.

His call to repent was to His Sheep and they repented, because He gave it to them 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.

 

[biblestudent78]

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?

It makes perfect sense if you are Arminian or a Catholic but not to a Calvinist.

 

[brightfame52]

Again, what do you make of God's response to Cain after refusing His offering?

God said what He said t him, if he doeth well he will be accepted. Do you think God saves people for doing well ?

 

[Cameron143]

God said what He said t him, if he doeth well he will be accepted. Do you think God saves people for doing well ?

No. I'm saying God didn't tell him that he wasn't elect so give up. And that you shouldn't find works under every post.

 

[biblestudent78]

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,

Another Armenian vs Calvinist fight. Both get generation theological wars to draw from.

 

[GWH]

Another Armenian vs Calvinist fight. Both get generation theological wars to draw from.

Yes, a better/more specific way to frame the disagreement is TULIP vs. MFW.

 

[Roger316]

Wrong. As the verses I posted clearly and unambiguously state, repentance is only given by God. How do you not see that?

I appreciate that you quoted the scriptures for me. And I see what they appear to say, but I know that repentance cannot be given. Therefore, I know that Luke didn't mean to say what the English translation says. It is not wrong to question a translator's interpretation if the translation is absurd.

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.

If I understand what you are saying then I agree. And I made this exact point in one of my previous posts. Forgive me for repeating myself, but there is a difference between what God does in our heart -- our inwardness, and how we give expression to that inwardness.

Let’s go with your terminology. If we say that God ‘grants’ repentance, then what He grants must be an inward disposition — a readiness, willingness, or orientation toward turning. But an inward disposition, by its very nature, seeks outward expression. Otherwise, it isn’t a disposition at all; it’s just a concept. So if God truly grants the inwardness of repentance, what we should expect to see is the person actually repenting — acting, choosing, speaking, and responding in ways that correspond to that inward reality. The inner and outer belong together: the inwardness is the root, the outward expression is the fruit.

“And this is precisely why outward expression matters. If an inward transformation has truly been granted, it will inevitably disclose itself in the lived reality of the person. Outward actions are not an optional add‑on to inward repentance; they are the verification of it. Anyone can claim an inward change, but only the embodied expression of that change shows whether the inwardness is genuine or imagined. The outward life doesn’t create the inward reality, but it does reveal it — the way fruit reveals the nature of the tree.”

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.

“I still don’t quite see what you’re getting at. I think you may be attributing to my words something I’m not actually saying. If by ‘God granting repentance’ you mean that God transforms the inner person, creating the possibility and orientation toward repentance, then my point is entirely consistent with that. I’m simply saying that if such an inward disposition has truly been granted, it will necessarily express itself outwardly. That isn’t adding works to salvation; it’s recognizing that inward realities are only genuine when they manifest in lived behavior. A merely claimed inward transformation, with no outward correspondence, is indistinguishable from no transformation at all.”

Do you understand the following verses?

Yes, but notice that Paul immediately follows the phrase ‘that God may grant them repentance’ with the clause ‘leading them to a knowledge of the truth.’ That’s not insignificant. Paul isn’t describing a bare internal moment of ‘changing one’s mind.’ He’s describing an inward work of God that results in a concrete, observable outcome — a coming to know, embrace, and live in the truth. In other words, the repentance God grants is not a static inner feeling but an inward transformation that necessarily moves outward into recognition, confession, and alignment with the truth. Simply claiming that such a transformation has occurred is not the same as the transformation itself.

In 2 Timothy, Paul is dealing with people trapped in false teaching. When he says God may ‘grant repentance,’ he immediately defines it as something that *leads to a knowledge of the truth*. In other words, the repentance God grants is an inward change that necessarily expresses itself outwardly in a person’s relationship to truth. It’s not enough to claim an inward change; Paul expects to see its effects.

This is not a bare inward moment. It is a **movement**:
- from error to truth
- from captivity to freedom
- from deception to clarity
- from opposition to alignment

Repentance here is **epistemic, moral, and behavioral** — not merely internal.

I know we want to give glory to God for doing it ALL but it isn't that simple. He transforms us internally but we live it out everyday.

 

[brightfame52]

. I'm saying God didn't tell him that he wasn't elect

And ?

t so give up. And that you shouldn't find works under every post.

You are promoting works, just dont know it. But a faithful witness will tell you.

 

[brightfame52]

I appreciate that you quoted the scriptures for me. And I see what they appear to say, but I know that repentance cannot be given.

You contradict yourself, you criticize me and others for not giving a verbatim scripture, then turn right around, when you are given one, you flat out deny it.

 

[Cameron143]

And ?

You are promoting works, just dont know it. But a faithful witness will tell you.

No, I'm not promoting works. I believe it is God who is the cause of salvation from first to last. You have simply become so jaded by your interaction on the subject, you find works under every post.

 

[Roger316]

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;

What is false about it? There is nothing in the Bible that says God must give people repentance. People repent everyday without God's help.

What we need help with are the HARD truths. The HARD truths are the facts that challenge our existence, telling us something about ourselves that we don't want to hear. We all make honest mistakes. And we can easily repent of those errors whenever we want. But tell us we are sinners in need of salvation and then see what we say.

 

[Roger316]

It makes perfect sense if you are Arminian or a Catholic but not to a Calvinist.

I don't even know what those terms mean anymore.

 

[brightfame52]

*. In other words, the repentance God grants is an inward change that necessarily expresses itself outwardly in a person’s relationship to truth.

Thats what happens when God gives repentance, He gives the inward change, it gives the new disposition to the Truth, and facilitates conversion. Thats what you denying He does

 

[brightfame52]

What is false about it?

Everything you say is false and denies the truth

There is nothing in the Bible that says God must give people repentance.

He gives repentance to them He saves and brings them to a knowledge of the Truth.

People repent everyday without God's help.

False, one of the most idiotic comments I heard . All men elect or non elect are dependent on God for each breath they take. Are you a undercover atheist

What we need help with are the HARD truths. The HARD truths are the facts that challenge our existence, telling us something about ourselves that we don't want to hear. We all make honest mistakes. And we can easily repent of those errors whenever we want. But tell us we are sinners in need of salvation and then see what we say.

Lol you way out there my friend, may God have mercy on you
?