In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year. Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land. Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting. So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross? > Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2) According to the RCC.

There are objections made that scripture does not explicitly state that 'Jesus Christ is God' and I see many arguments to and fro about this matter. However it *was* preached, by Paul as soon as he started preaching, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And this was the reason that Jesus was crucified because it was claimed (but not proved) that he, himself, stated this in public. Of course, Peter said, privately, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God ; and was not rebuked for so saying, rather Jesus said that this was the rock on which his church would be built. That Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son is clearly stated in the bible and that he is equal to God, being in form, God. And that he is God manifest in flesh. And that the eternal life which was with the Father was manifested. And that God was the Logos who was also in the beginning with God. But some do not see these things, in scripture, and arguments are constantly raised against such scriptures being used to express Trinitarian faith. I notice that Peter's faith was only confirmed after he had, first of all, been under the ministry (a ministry of repentance) of John the Baptist. He it was to whom Jesus came and those disciples (John and Andrew at the time) who followed John, first, were then told to Behold the Lamb of God ; and the only way to do that was to follow the one who was walking onwards, further. (John 1-3.) Thus those who do not submit, first, to the words of John the Baptist, in a baptism of repentance, will not actually follow Jesus, the Lamb of God, the one who will voluntarily be sacrificed. They will follow what they call 'jesus' but it will not, actually, be the Son of God. Note what 'Son' clearly means : only begotten and equal. For if one does not perceive the depth of one's sins ; the profundity of transgressing against the Almighty ; the absolute necessity that sins against the Eternal warrant an eternal response ; that crimes against the Most High cannot possibly be eradicated by other than Divine means . . . . . then they will simply not appreciate the need of a Divine Saviour, a Mediator between Deity and humanity, who possesses all the attributes of Deity and all the attributes of humanity that he might resolve eternal justice against mortal human beings. So I ask of Protestant Trinitarians, in their expressing the doctrine of Christ, whether they think they should continue to argue a point that scripture does, not, as such, state. And whether they should not dig deeper and see that the problem is one of lack of repentance and not one of religious argument ? My question is asked of Protestant Trinitarians who wish to enlighten others regarding the doctrine of Christ.

I believe the Holy Spirit can make you feel guilty for an actual sin while the enemies of God can make you feel guilty for an alleged sin that isn't one or keep you feel guilty for a sin you repented from. What are ways to discern if a feeling of guilt is from the Holy Spirit or from the enemy? Do any Catholic or Orthodox saints or Pentecostals provide insight on how to discern?

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

Joseph Prince (Worldwide speaker and author of *Destined to Reign*) and Andrew Wommack (Andrew Wommack Ministries and author of many books) teaches this with the Grace (hyperGrace) message, as does my local Pastor. They say we are already forgiven for our past, present, and future sins, and because of that our sins are overlooked. So there's no need to confess our sins, ask forgiveness, and repent. What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

I previously asked this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101789/is-the-holy-spirit-a-necessary-presupposition-for-repentance What became apparent from that question, however, is that there are many opinions or views on what "repentance" exactly means. So we need find out: 1. What is repentance? 1. What are the various types of repentance? Here are what I can come up with, but feel free to correct me or provide your own definitions. 1. **Repentance as a Non-Believer/Separated from God** To declare a new-found faith in God, confess sins, express genuine remorse, seek God's forgiveness, and commit to transforming one's life according to God's will. - *Example:* A person who has lived without faith comes to believe in God, acknowledges their past wrongdoings, asks for divine forgiveness, and begins to live in accordance with biblical teachings. - *Biblical Example:* The Sinful Woman Anointing Jesus' Feet (Luke 7:36-50) A sinful woman, known in the city, comes to Jesus, weeps at his feet, anoints them with perfume, and wipes them with her hair. Jesus acknowledges her many sins and forgives her, indicating her repentance and sorrow. 2. **Repentance as a Believer with the Holy Spirit** To be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, confess it, express sincere remorse, seek forgiveness, and cease the sinful behavior, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen the transformation. - *Example:* A believer feels the Holy Spirit's conviction about a specific wrongdoing, confesses it, feels deep sorrow, asks for forgiveness, and relies on the Holy Spirit to overcome the sin. - *Biblical Example:* Peter's Repentance After Denying Jesus (Luke 22:54-62) Peter, a believer and a disciple of Jesus, is convicted by the Holy Spirit after he denies Jesus three times. He remembers Jesus' prediction, feels deep remorse, and weeps bitterly. Peter's repentance leads to a transformation guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately strengthening his faith and resolve to follow Jesus more faithfully. 3. **Repentance as a Believer on One's Own Initiative** To personally recognize a sin, confess it to God, show genuine remorse, ask for forgiveness, and make a conscious effort to stop the sinful behavior, seeking God's help and strength. - *Example:* A believer realizes they have sinned, confesses it privately to God, feels deep regret, asks for forgiveness, and takes deliberate steps to avoid repeating the sin. - *Biblical Example:* The Conversion of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) The prodigal son recognizes his sinful ways after leaving his father and squandering his inheritance. He declares his newfound resolve to return to his father, confesses his sins, expresses genuine remorse, and seeks forgiveness. Upon his return, he is welcomed and forgiven by his father, symbolizing the transformation of his life under God's will. **Other Notes:** 1. Repentance is **not** forgiveness! Humans repent; God forgives and convicts. 2. For each of the provided definitions above, is there another word than "repentance" whose meaning has a better fit with the definition? 3. To repent all sins (particularly those that one is usually not aware of), conviction of the Holy Spirit is necessary. 4. In my opinion, repentance after receiving the Holy Spirit is still necessary. The Holy Spirit does not prevent you from sinning and you can still leave God. 5. I don't mind opinions and definitions from other denominations. While reaching consensus is difficult, we still can learn from other denominations. The accepted answer will be the one that has the most precise and the most biblically well-founded definitions. My question: **Are my definitions accurate? What other definitions of the word "repentance" are there and how valid are they?**

**Background**: I had a discussion with my church leadership and their position is that without the Holy Spirit there can be no repentance. **The issue in more detail**: My proposal was to do a service where a big chunk of the service is dedicated to writing down your sins, asking God for forgiveness, and throwing that paper in the fire afterwards. I know it's a bit confrontational but I thought, given how important repentance is for the relationship with God, I thought dedicating a service with a special event might be a good idea. - Their objection was that repentance is something that cannot be planned in a service, because to do repentance you need the Holy Spirit, which you cannot control. - My position is that repentance is an act that you as a person do by confessing your sins and asking God for forgiveness. If the Holy Spirit is active and convicts one of sin, then that is nice but it still starts with oneself. I would even go so far as to say that for a full repentance you *do* need the Holy Spirit because one is blind to one's own sin, but I don't think you need the Holy Spirit to start repenting. **Biblical examples**: - In the story of the prodigal son I don't see a passage where the Holy Spirit convicted the son. He found himself in the dirt, went back to his father and showed remorse, and asked for forgiveness. (Luke 15:14-21) - David, when confronted by the prophet Nathan, asked for forgiveness for killing Uriah, which he did without the Holy Spirit. (2 Samuel 12:13) - The Parable of the Tax Collector does not mention the Holy Spirit or anything similar. The important part here is having a remorseful and a humble heart. (Luke 18:9-14) - The guy next to Jesus at the cross also only asked to think of him when Jesus goes to heaven. (Luke 23:40-42) To repeat: I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not convict people of sin but I do not think He is necessary for repentance. Hence my question: **Is the Holy Spirit necessary for starting repentance?** ----- Edit (since I was asked about the denomination for this question): We are a small church that would classify as Charismatic. However, I am open to and I value the opinions of all denominations, since I think that is one good way to find the actual truth. Furthermore, I think this topic should be basic enough that we can find a consensus beyond a single denomination.

Is there any verse of Scripture anywhere that says that God has not changed? Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the LORD, I change not". This is present tense, and also there are verses which denote His unchanging nature in the present and infinitely into the future: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8) However, this same verse places a potentially time-bound retrospective on His unchanging status. All other verses I have found convey this same directionality: That in the present and future without end God is unchanging and unchangeable, but with respect to the past, there is no indication of never having changed. All of us are tempted at some points to wish that God would change, but we know He won't. There can be no question about the integrity or steadiness or absolute virtue of God. This is not a question about His integrity or virtue. This is not the same as the question of whether God does currently change . This is a question about whether God has ever changed in the past. It is a non sequitur of course to say that if He has changed in the past then He is capable of changing in the present or in the future. The Scriptures explicitly and categorically rule out such a notion. What I am having difficulty finding, however, is any indication that He never changed. Do the Scriptures say that God never changed? If so, where?

**"God is perfect"** is often used as a justification for the belief that God never became God, but that rather, He never changed, but simply always was God, and **always was perfect**. What is the Biblical justification for the claim that "perfect" means that God always was God and never changed, seeing as Jesus commands us to be perfect, "even as our Father in Heaven is perfect"?

In the following quote from the Catechism, it seems to imply that you can repent of a mortal sin after death. How does that fit with the standard "Once damned always damned after death" view that the Catholic church teaches elsewhere? > Suicide > > 2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it > to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are > obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and > the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life > God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. > > 2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to > preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just > love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly > breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human > societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is > contrary to love for the living God. > > 2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, > especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. > Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. > > Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, > suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one > committing suicide. > > **2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who > have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can > provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for > persons who have taken their own lives.** I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance". Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

My question isn't so much about reconciling specific Scripture passages as it is about reconciling two teachings supported by Scripture, so I'm asking here rather than on Hermeneutics. I'm wondering how to reconcile these two thoughts: 1. Christians can know they have eternal life (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 4:7-8), so much so that they can be excited for Jesus's return rather than fearful (Heb. 9:28; 1 Thess. 5:2-5; Rev. 22:20). 2. Those who sin, even unknowingly, are still guilty (Leviticus 5:17; Matthew 15:14; Luke 12:48) and are "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" until they repent and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:20-24, NKJV; c.f. 1 John 1:9). When Jesus comes, if I can still be punished for things I've done without knowing they're sinful (Luke 12:48) and am "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" (Acts 8:23, NKJV) until I discover the sin and repent, then how can I know I "**have [present tense]** eternal life" (1 John 5:13, NKJV, emphasis added), so much so that I can be excited for Jesus' return (Heb. 9:28; 1 Thess. 5:2-5; Rev. 22:20)? Instead, wouldn't I lack certainty as to whether I have eternal life? Also, if sins of ignorance can condemn, shouldn't I hope Jesus' coming will delay so that I can study as long as possible to learn of any sins I need to repent of? How are the two thoughts bulleted above reconcilable? I'd like the range of acceptable answers to be broad, but if I must limit answers to that of a group, I'll choose answers considered orthodox within Christianity. If you'd like to list multiple possible ways to reconcile the two thoughts, that's fine as well. My main desire is for answers consistent with the Scriptures I presented.

Gaining eternal life through faith in the Lord is the longing of many Christians. But is it true that we can attain the way of eternal life by accepting the Lord’s salvation, repenting and confessing our sins to Him? What is the difference between the way of repentance and the way of eternal life?

I heard that if martyrs denied Christ when forced under the punishment of death, the sin would not count since it was not freely chosen. Basically, they wouldn't commit a mortal sin since the mortal sin requires freedom of choice. But some theologians disagree and supposedly they would still have to repent and confess their sin. What is the Catholic perspective on this? If it's not a sin why were the martyrs willing to die if denying wouldn't be even considered rejection of their faith under this circumstance?

Did any [medieval](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity? I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible. > "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - [Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.](https://caccioppoli.com/Close%20encounters%20of%20Padre%20Pio%20with%20deceased%20souls%20in%20Purgatory,%20Guardian%20Angel,%20devil.%20His%20own%20words%20on%20temptation,%20virtues,%20life..html) This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!” The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously. Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this [pious belief](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35592) during the Middle Ages?

>Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. 49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way. [John 4:48-50 KJV] The nobleman, as recorded by John, expressed his need when Jesus said to him 'Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe'. His importunity responded to the test, the trial, that Jesus makes upon the man. 'Go thy way ; thy son liveth.' And he believed. Without seeing anything, the man responded, out of importunity, and he believed the word that Jesus spoke. >... without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. [Hebrews 11:6 KJV] The writer to the Hebrews makes it clear that one must first have faith before coming to God. And not only faith in his existence, his being, but faith in that God will respond, and God will reward one's seeking after him. Therefore the 'proof' of God's existence and the 'proof' of real Christianity (the having a relationship with God by the mediatorial work and ministry of his Son, Jesus Christ) is available to faith and to faith alone. And more so, for the gospels teach the necessity of repentance, a baptism of repentance without which none can come to Christ. A pentinence that precedes faith. What does Trinitarian Protestantism teach regarding the possibility of 'proving' anything about Christianity without repentance, first, and genuine faith ?

In Luke chapter 23, there is an interaction between Jesus and two thieves on the cross. One of the thieves mocks the Savior, telling him to save himself. The other thief rebukes the first, and confesses that he deserves to be on the cross, but Jesus doesn't: > “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, > If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. > > “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear > God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. > > “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy > kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39–43, KJV ). This passage is frequently referenced (sometimes along with others) as evidence that baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. However, it's not clear to me how this passage can be used to make that assertion. What evidence is there that the penitent thief was not baptized? (He already knew who the Savior was, so it would make sense that he had followed him at some point during his ministry.)

I am trying to find a reference which contains an actual quote from Ven. Leo Dupont, which, as I recollect, can be paraphrased as *"... but I have never made peace with my sins."* Is anyone familiar with the complete and actual quote, and can tell me where to find it? Related to this question is https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74067/how-does-the-catholic-church-tell-us-to-do-reparation-for-our-sins-according-to/79902#79902 in which a reference to Ven. Leo Dupont is made.

Some (for example, Pat Donahue, the owner of bibledebates.info ) contend that unintentional sins separate a person from God just as much as deliberate sins will. By contrast, others (such as Bob Myhan and others Donahue debated) argue that an unintentional sin will only separate someone from God if the individual discovers it's sinful but does not repent. This distinction is important, so I would like to read more about the subject. What are the names of these two contrasting positions? The website calls Myhan's position "continual cleansing," but is this a precise term? Also, if other positions exist, what are their names?

Christ talks a lot about repentance, and how we must repent and believe to be saved, he asks the woman caught in adultery to sin no more (John 8:11). But if we are unable to do any good as Paul says in Romans (Romans 7:18), how can we repent of anything? And also, can we truly say we live a life of "repentance" if we will sin for the rest of our lives, sort of "the old Adam still haunting us", when in contrast we should be as "dead to sin" (i.e. sin no more)?

We read: > “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, > you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. ***Be miserable > and mourn and weep***; let your laughter be ***turned into mourning*** and your > joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He > will exalt you.” ‭‭James‬ ‭4:8-10‬ ‭James seems to be getting at repentance without using the word μετανοέω (metanoeó). Not all passages of repentance in Scripture seem to imply “mourning”. **Q: According to Protestantism, is godly mourning(with tears) always required when repenting?** **NOTE**: James 4:8-10 seem to imply mourning alongside turning from bad behavior (cleanse your hands). Inserted major edits.