Romans 10:9

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. Confessing you are a rotten sinner and then turning your direction might be repentance. But confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord....anyone can do that and not really have repented

From G3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another’s] decision): - repentance.

Well, then, if confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead does not imply that repentance has taken place (that is, that one has turned to God in sorrow), then what does Romans 10:9-10 mean to you, Prax? How do you interpret Paul's directives here?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Well, then, if confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead does not imply that repentance has taken place (that is, that one has turned to God in sorrow), then what does Romans 10:9-10 mean to you, Prax? How do you interpret Paul's directives here?

I didn't say it does not imply repentance has taken place

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't say it does not imply repentance has taken place

Sure you did, let's go to the videotape:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord....anyone can do that and not really have repented

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Sure you did, let's go to the videotape:

That was my post to someone else about what repentance means, not my post to you about this verse. Please go back and review your tape and respond to the rest of my post. Thanks

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Wouldn't confessing with your mouth be repenting?

Her question

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. Confessing you are a rotten sinner and then turning your direction might be repentance. But confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord....anyone can do that and not really have repented

From G3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another’s] decision): - repentance.

My reply to her question about confessing Jesus is Lord. Not believing and confessing, nor confessing your sins. Anyone can confess "Jesus is Lord" and not have repented. However I still did not say that confession and believing does NOT imply repentance.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Well, then, if confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead does not imply that repentance has taken place (that is, that one has turned to God in sorrow), then what does Romans 10:9-10 mean to you, Prax? How do you interpret Paul's directives here?

Notice here you have two things. Confession that Jesus is Lord and belief. True belief I would say implies repentance, but it also implies obedience.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't say it does not imply repentance has taken place

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Sure you did, let's go to the videotape:

The video does not have me saying confession that Jesus is Lord with your mouth AND believing does not imply repentance. However I still assert that anyone can say with their mouth "Jesus is Lord" and not be repented. Even a Muslim and an Athiest can say those words and not mean it.

If a literal insistance on this becomes a works baised faith or salvation by one's own effort. I have seen evangelicals get even atheists to repeat those words and declare they were saved no matter what protests they were to make. Those words are meaningless without the faith and intent of the heart.

My point was then, which nobody addressed...that just as one can say this implies repentance others can claim this must also imply obedience to baptism and other biblical mandates. Not only that, just as confession saves ONLY due to the faith of the heart and not the pronouncments of the words...some here can make the same arguments concerning water baptism...ie the water has no saving property, nor the pronouncments of the words "IN Jesus name" apart from faith.

[augustianian]

By Praxeas,

My point was then, which nobody addressed...that just as one can say this implies repentance others can claim this must also imply obedience to baptism and other biblical mandates.

Actually, I claim the exact opposite. Believing necessarily not only implies the absence of obedience to baptism and other biblical mandates but conspicuously demands the absence of such obedience...or it is not justifying faith. It has to be a faith void of human action. The reason being that human action cannot lead to such obedience that would satisfy the demands of the Law, because human deeds, whether righteous or sinful, cannot warrant or merit the Father's forgiveness nor His declaration of righteousness. It has to be a foreign righteousness.

Not only that, just as confession saves ONLY due to the faith of the heart and not the pronouncments of the words...

Agreed

some here can make the same arguments concerning water baptism...ie the water has no saving property, nor the pronouncments of the words "IN Jesus name" apart from faith.

They absolutely can since baptism holds no causal relationship with justification whether 'with' faith or 'apart' from faith. Only faith justifies even before, after, or without one toe getting wet.

God bless,
a