Why the "Repent of sins" Gospel is Unbiblical

 The "repent of sins" gospel is popular in modern Christianity, and it has been taught by very major figures within Evangelicalism like John McArthur, Wyane Grudem, Billy Graham, R.C Sproul alongside many other Evangelicals. It refers to the view that to be saved, one must make the decision to turn from their sins and submit to Jesus Christ. The advocates of this view however still pay lip service to faith alone by saying that "turning from sins is not a work". However, this article will demonstrate how this view abuses the meaning of the word "repentance" and that turning from sins is not necessary for salvation.

Firstly, it is evident that turning from sins is a work, as the book of Jonah clearly says:

Jonah 3:10

10 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.

However, the Bible often repeats that loving God and your neighbour fulfils the law (Matthew 5:17-20, Romans 13:8-10) and it is undeniable that submitting to God is an act of love. Thus, for one to make the claim that turning from sins in submission to God is a prerequisite of being saved, one is saying that one must keep the law to be saved. This is obviously in contradiction to Galatians 2:16, which reads:

Galatians 2:16

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It is biblically impossible to maintain thus that turning from sin is necessary for salvation. However, then the question arises, what is repentance? The Bible clearly makes repentance a condition of salvation (Acts 3:19), thus what does it mean?

Well, looking at the very basic definition, repentance (metanoia) comes from two Greek words which literally mean a "change of mind". The context determining what one is changing their mind about, and in a salvific context it is a change of mind about the gospel, going from unbelief to belief. This is supported by many Bible passages such as:

2 Timothy 2:25

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

Luke 16:30-31

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 

This is also supported by the usage of the term "metanoia" (repentance) within other Greek writings:

Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.): "And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance, to see whether they would change their minds…" (The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 3, transl. William Whiston)

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 A.D.): "These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and go back again after their evil desires." (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, chapter 7, transl. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers)

Polycarp (69-155 A.D.): "The Proconsul said unto him, 'I have wild beasts ready; to those I will cast thee, unless thou repent.' He answered, 'Call for them, then: for we Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change [i.e. not to repent] from good to evil." (A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, transl. Temple Chevallier)

Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220 A.D.): "Now in Greek the word for repentance is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of The Writings of The Fathers Down to A.D. 325., vol. 7, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, transl. Peter Holmes, Against Marcion)

Thus, repentance is merely a synonym for believing, and not an additional requirement of turning from sins for salvation, as Charles Ryrie writes:

"This is what Peter meant by repentance when he was asked by the people what they should do in the light of his message (Acts 2:38). The word repent means, of course, to change one's mind about something. But what that something is is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context. . . . The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 175-176.)

 

So we should reject the "repent of sins" gospel, whic his a disguised form of works salvation. 

If you want more information on the same topic, I recommend these videos:

• What is Repentance for Salvation? (Turning From Sins v. Faith Alone)
• The "Repent of Your Sins" False Gospel EXPOSED
• Repentance and Salvation | Soteriology 1
• What does REPENT mean in the Bible?
• What is Repentance 01 | Calvary of Tampa with Trent Dudley

A Critique of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The oldest painting of Mary

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life even after Jesus was born. This teaching is emphasized in the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church and the Assyrian church of the East, however it is also taught by some Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed individuals, with however less emphasis on it. 

However, this doctrine is explicitly contradictary to the bible itself, and has lead into the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage", which is a practice in direct violation to God's purpose in marriage. This doctrine has also been used to justify endless ascetism and to devalue marriage.

Scripturally, it is clearly said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:

Matthew 13:55-57

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

However, those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary often have a sneaky way around this by arguing that the Greek word translated brother "adelphos" can refer to some other relatives, like cousins. However, although they may cite some Greek places where this usage did exist, it was an exceptionally rare usage of the word. In fact, the word "adelphos" literally means 'from the same womb'.

Additionally, there are extra details which suggest that Mary did indeed have children after Jesus, such as Matthew 1:25:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

The word "till" means that a change happened after this time, aka, after Jesus was born she and Joseph had a totally normal marriage. Additionally, the usage of the term "firstborn" may imply that Mary had children later on, as with a "first" it is often implied that a "second" also exist. Though admitedly the usage of the term "firstborn" is a more implicit argument.

Nevertheless, they will object that the Greek word "heos" does not necessarily mean "till" in the same way as in English, however again, this view relies on a non-normative use of the term. The most basic and normal usage of the word is to be used to refer to a change in a point of time, such as in the following verses:

Matthew 2:9

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Matthew 2:13

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Matthew 2:15

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

One could provide many more examples, but these three verses all use the same Greek word "heos", where it is used clearly to denote a change in time. One must read a very unusual usage of the word to support the claim that Jesus never had genetic brothers and sisters.

But as a third point, and the most dangerous point is the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage" which this doctrine has created. The claim is that since Joseph and Mary abstained within their own marriage, it serves as an example people can follow. However, this is in the most explicit terms condemned by the Bible, where Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The Bible in the most direct terms says that abstinence in marriage cannot be done except for a time with prayer and fasting, because that opens doors for Satan to tempt you and destroy that marriage, and as Paul previously wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:3 "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.", there is no room for permanent and absolute abstinence. The "Josephite marriage" is not a virtue, but it is directly condemned by Paul the apostle as something that cannot be done. This also serves as a strong reason why the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, as it would be condemned by Paul's writings.

The perpetual virginity of Mary also directly attacks Jesus' full humanity, due to the doctrine of "virginitas in partu", which is the claim that Jesus did not exit the womb of Mary in the same manner humans do, but instead existed the womb miraculously so that Mary's hymen was not broken and so she did not experience labour. This however distances Jesus from the ordinary human experience of human birth, and thus seems to diminish Jesus' human experience, which seems to conflict with the emphasis on Jesus' full human experience in the Bible:

Philippians 2:7

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Hebrews 2:17-18

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually first found in Gnostic and heretical pseudo-gospels such as the gospel of James. Among early heretical writings to mention the doctrine are:

1. The Gospel of James (Made by the Encratites, who believed that marriage is sin)
2. The Gospel of Peter (Made by an unknown sect, but is known to be heretical)
3. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Made by an unknown Gnostic sect)

In fact, the earliest non-Gnostic person to explicitly mention this doctrine (Tertullian) rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary in his writings:

Tertullian (155 AD – c. 220 AD)

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. (On the Flesh of Christ)

 However, due to the influence of these pseudographical gospels, ascetic philosophy and the growth of the monastic tradition, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary became mainstream.