Fallacies and Errors of Repentance — A Report, and Review of a Repentance Discourse Between Pastors Tommy McMurtry and Charlie Haddad

March 31, 2025

Updated April 3, 2025

This report covers the errors, heresies and egregious teachings commonly given on the critical subject of repentance today, intertwined with a review of the discourse (not debate unfortunately, which was needed) that took place on the subject between pastors Charlie Haddad of Australia (Grace Bible Believing Church), and Tommy McMurtry of the USA (Liberty Baptist Church), titled Misconceptions on Repentance. The discussion took place in January of this year (2025) on Tommy's "The Spirit of Prophecy" podcast, at the request of Charlie. In this particular case we decided to listen through the entire conversation before digging deeper into what Tommy believed. We did this on purpose so as to decipher the position he would promote in a public discussion without any external influence versus his true position on the doctrine outside of this discourse proclamation. All to often there is a difference because of compromise and unwanted concessions. As for Charlie, his position we were already familiar with.

We are always interested in what people are teaching about the gospel, especially areas that are controversial or corrupted commonly. Our intent is to earnestly contend for the faith, to fight for the faith, for the truth, for the gospel, with all of our being, knowing all too well whats at stake. Repentance and Christ’s Lordship are the two most obvious ones, and they are under severe satanic attack, directly by their omission, and then also indirectly by their replacement with easy believism and quick prayerism.

The ignorance over repentance and errors related to the doctrine today is absolutely mind blowing but plausibly explainable. Rejection of Biblical repentance is the illegitimate child of Jack Hyles, Curtis Hutson, Steven Anderson and many others, and I wish to treat it with all the dignity it deserves. Sadly majority of people are man-followers, and very obviously do not read or study the Bible, that much is clear, mostly blind followers of the blind, noted on its own by the comments section of this discussion on youtube, never mind the millions of other illustrations one could dig up through sermons, bogs, articles, books, video and so on. Some interaction with this deadly heresy quickly discovers that we ain’t dealing with the sharpest tools in the tool shed. Many hover somewhere on the idiot-o-meter between a poached egg and a bread crust. It’s actually not a difficult subject at all, only false teachers and false “believers” have made it so. And that right there is the biggest issue. False believers and teachers corrupting the gospel to fit their false profession and counterfeit “Christian” life. They don't have the new birth, so they force their experience to fit the doctrine, and with that always comes the perversion of doctrine and corrupting of Scripture. All spiritual confusion comes from Satan. He is the father of spiritual confusion, and its not difficult to perceive why either when we consider the critical importance of the truth to the souls of man.

Though Tommy McMurtry claims "of course you have to repent to be saved," he sure does a lot of beating around the bush and speaking out of both sides of the mouth in his position on repentance, which contradicts Scripture, as will be documented here in this report. Trying to follow his argument is like trying to trace the flight path of a sparrow. Rhyme and reason made a dramatic escape from the prison of his mind many moons ago. In reality he does not actually embrace the biblical doctrine of repentance, considering the plain fact that he doesn't even mention the subject when he preaches on the gospel (his church gospel presentation is a good example), even though repentance is a major component of the gospel (further discussed below) and the very foundation of salvation (Matt 4:17; Mk 6:12; Lk 24:44-48; Ac 20:21). Charlie Haddad is much closer to the genuine Biblical doctrine but presents a weak and somewhat compromised position.

We will now cover the discussion, essentially in a chronological format as it went, a review of their discourse on repentance while simultaneously replying to some of the errors and fallacies of repentance.

Error and Fallacy: Both Sides Could Be Wrong, and It’s Okay to Fellowship with Either Side

Pastor Tommy McMurtry begins the discussion, not with what he believes repentance is or a refutation of distorted repentance, as one would expect, but rather his astute observation on the alleged semantics and issues on both sides of the spectrum. Rather than giving and proving his position and point, he does what deeply compromised and false preachers do: construct red herrings in an attempt to debunk a Biblical Lordship position. As he proceeds to consistently beat around the bush in this discussion as to what his true beliefs on repentance really are, speaking out of both sides of the mouth, this introduction came as no surprise. Throughout the 1 and 3/4 hrs conversation he divides repentance into two sides or camps but he never clearly defines what the two sides actually are. Ones perception arrives at a possible explanation, with one side being "no repentance of sin" (the "free grace" camp), and the other being "repentance of sin" (camp never labelled with a name). In reality the division is much more ambiguous than that, with many nuances and further compromises and denials concerning repentance, but for the purpose of this report and for simplicity sake, we can go with his alleged division. In reality the true division of the two groups is more like this: Free Grace and Lordship Salvation. The inbetweeners are typcially only inbetweeners by deception, with their true position either one or the other.

Both sides are foaming at the mouth supposedly according to Tommy. Both sides are heretical. "Both sides waiting to nail the other side to prove they are heretics and unsaved and things like that." The carnality he sees is pretty repulsive on both ends. He says not just "often very carnal" but "often very, very carnal." Especially the "hard core you don't have to repent of your sins crowd" he says, and as a result "they have no spiritual discernment, they have no grace." That part is true, yet they are still saved people according to Tommy, which reflects his own absence of spiritual discernment and compromised allegiance to God's truth. These are his observations but they are severely skewed and represent logical fallacies, from an extremely distorted position. As bad as he says both sides are, it doesn't stop his fellowship with them. He is "someone who has fellowship closely with what you could say both sides when it comes to this thing." How sweet. Not semi-sweet but milk-chocolate sweet. He is such a caring jolly old fellow, walking around blindly with his eyes shuttered and the wool drapped over them, yet just enough vision to show how much he cares for heretics and wolves in sheep's clothing. This "thing" by the way that he treats in such a disrspectful, irreverant, lowly and by the wayside manner is "repentance." That is how much value repentance really is to Tommy. It is just "this thing." Thats about right, the doctrine severely undermined in his sermons and teachings.

Furthermore, he is a blatantly blinded hypocrite. He rails on the "hard core you don't have to repent of your sins crowd," yet in his feigned estate, he hypocritically fails to see that be belongs to the very same camp according to his very own words in his sermons, such as his gospel presentation on their church website (not one mention of repentance), but even more clearer from his statement of faith where he states,

"WE BELIEVE salvation is received when a person honestly, sincerely, consciously, and deliberately repents (changes their mind about God, Acts 20:21, not, “turns from their sins”, Acts 16: 30-31)..." (full quote below).

Do these kind of issues exist in both camps, whatever those camps really are? Yes they do, but almost entirely of the unregenerate and false gospel camp of no repentance of sin. But more than likely he is actually being exposed to two heretical camps, according to what he says during the discussion. The "repentance of sin" camp is vaguely labelled as the calvinist camp according to various mentions during the discussions, while the other side is "free grace," and in reality both are heretical, though the latter is defintiely the worser. Somewhere around minute 30 and 40, he speaks of being accused by Calvinists of denying repentance and being antinomian, hence the "repentance of sin" side mostly directed at that group. In this case I would agree with the Calvinists. I am no Calvinist and yet believe he is certainly denying repentance, which is very clear in this discussion. As for being antinomian, I think that is beside the point since the gospel itself is perverted and corrupted, and false (cf. Gal 1:8-9). Anyone can say they believe in "repentance," even use the word "repentance" (which I think is fairly rare as it is in Tommy's preaching, unless forced) but when they say things and do things that are in complete opposition to the actual Biblical Doctrine of Repentance, they are lying. Which then means he is bearing false witness and taking people to be fools in believing his tales and duplicity.

Tommy doesn't seem to know on which side of this debate he falls, unless he is purposefully deceptive. That could well be. He rails against the "free grace" side, but in reality that is his side, clearly. Nothing in the discussion indicates he is on the other side that believes in "repentance of sin." The only "repentance of sin" that he believes in is the repentance of a believer, which he makes abundantly Furthermore, in the church he pastors statement of faith, under "Soul-Winning" he makes this analysis even more sure:

"WE BELIEVE salvation is received when a person honestly, sincerely, consciously, and deliberately repents (changes their mind about God, Acts 20:21, not, “turns from their sins”, Acts 16: 30-31) and places their faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour (Acts 20:21, Rom. 10:9-10, Eph. 2:8-9, John 1:12)."

This is very plain as to his beliefs and his rejection of Biblical repentance. It is of course also a very clear false definition and false description of repentance, and thus false gospel. He is also wilfuly perverting and wresting Acts 20:21, which doesn't say "repentance about God," but rather "repentance towards God" (Ac 20:21a), a seriously massive difference. True Biblical repentance is directed towards God, just like faith is directed towards Christ: "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ac 20:21b). This is no minor "mistake," but a wilful perversion of a passage to fit a preconcieved heretical belief, which is condemned by God as an "error of the wicked" (2 Pet 3:16-17). Further errors of the wicked in this one paragraph which really says so much about the man and is so condemntory of his false and unregenerate nature, is his perversion of Ac 16:30-31 (the Philippian jailer did in fact repent of his sins when he turned from self-murder and in fear and trembling before God begged to know how he could be saved), and of course the false and heretical repentance that he is purveying here. Repentance is NOT just a change of mind or absent of turning from sin. This will be discussed in greater detail farther on.

Why start with this and not in what his position truly is, rather than being so deceptive about it? These are distractions purposefully given by Tommy to set his foundation that both sides are actually wrong because of the "carnality," because of Tommy's problems with the messenger, even when one is right or certainly closer to the truth than the other. Its just a logical fallacy which the discussion is loaded with (as is always the case when it comes to false teachers), and this is a subtle and deceptive form of lying, which is an abomination to God.

We repeat the following oft mentioned disclaimer, without coming across as a broken record. If someone rejects repentance or embraces a false version of it, that person is not believing in the true gospel. He is embracing and propagating a false gospel which means he or she is a false teacher that has never been truly regenerated. That is the sure and steadfast position of Scripture. We will maintain that position here.

Are both sides wrong? Not if the "repentance of sin" side actually embraces the true biblical doctrine according to Scripture, doesn't separate it from the gospel and teaches it in truth considering all three faculties of man, and that sinful man in broken contrition and godly sorrow turns from his sins, self, stuff and people. If they believe this to be repentance, as Scripture so clearly teaches, then both sides are not wrong concerning this doctrine, even if there are personalties amongst the camp that Tommy doesn't like and are allegedly "carnal" according to Tommy ("carnal" in Scripture by the way is always unsaved, discussed towards the end, so he is misusing the word here). Most likely Tommy labels the true side with "carnality" because they reprove him of his unregenerate nature and accuse him of being a false teacher, both of which is true (because God says so, not because I think so). But its "only" repentance, the gainsayers cry. Repentance is not only an element of the gospel (as we will demonstrate next point), its a critical aspect of it. The "free grace" side, the actual side of Tommy even though he doesn't appear to admit it, is not only wrong concerning this doctrine but absolutely heretical concerning other elements of the gospel (Lordship, true faith, fruit and evidence of salvation). The easy and Biblical explanation for this doesn't fly over our heads — they are false teachers pushing a false gospel. Period. Paul blasts out the warning in Gal 1:9,

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

As you will see in this report, Tommy is "accursed." He not only doesn't believe in Biblical repentance, he actually outright rejects it, which Charlie should have clearly known prior to the discussion (which he initiated) had he done even a superficial investigation of his beliefs, since Tommy's statement of faith spells it out crystal clear and his gospel preaching avoids the doctrine altogether, yet Charlie says what Tommy and his congregation believes concerning repentance is exactly the same as his own church:

"...preaching you say statements, your congregation simply has the capability to understand what I am saying because they obviously believe what we believe as a church regarding the subject."

Does Charlie actually believe in genuine true Biblical repentance, or is he deceiving his audience and congregation? What Tommy believes about repentance and what the Bible teaches on repentance are polar opposites. Tommy does not believe that a sinner must repent of his sins to be saved, though he attempts to make people--like Charlie--believe that he believes in "repentance of sin." He does not. He only believes that believers repent of their sins after salvation, not unbelievers for salvation. This is 100% heresy, unBiblical repentance and a false gospel. If there is any repenting of sin in Scripture, and there is, it is only in the context of salvation. In a gaslighting and heretical sermon titled "The Doctrine of Repentance for Salvation," he shows his true colors, though his true colors would eventually come out even in this discussion. In that heretical sermon he makes the fallacious claim that though repentance of sin is found in Scripture, its always for those that are already saved (there was a lot of heresy in this sermon, including the ridiculous and illogical claim that Israel's call to repent of sins was never about salvation but for restoration of the nation--it would have been through personal salvation that the nation was restored to their rightful place with God, e.g. 2 Ch 7:14, but that has never happened as of yet and Tommy doesn't understand this perspicuously plain teaching of Scripture). Again, blatant heresy and deception. Essentially nearly ever example in Scripture of repentance is for the unsaved, and its always implying repentance of sin and more, including self, stuff and people, which we will prove further on in this report. Yet, Charlie says his position is the same as Tommy's, he says the two congregations are like-minded concerning repentance and thus the gospel, while saying something else during the discourse. I do not believe Charlies position is anywhere close to Tommy's, though it is certainly compromised (for a number of reasons, even based on this ststement alone), but we see the massive confusion that is created when a man compromises to avoid conflict and bold stance for the truth and is not diligent in his discernment. Charlie, Scripture says,

"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." (1 Cor 16:13)

Error and Fallacy: Repentance is Not Part of the Gospel.

Consistently throughout the discussion, repentance is treated as a subject outside of the gospel, when nothing could be further from the truth. Both pastors are guilty of it and both are wrong. They speak of the gospel as one thing and then repentance and faith as another, as if these elements are separate or divorced from the gospel, but this is not Biblical, nor is it the Biblical gospel. If one was to directly ask either pastor whether repentance and faith are components of the gospel, the answer would very likely be in the negative (typically supported by 1 Cor. 15:1-4, which doesn’t say it). Most people that separate the gospel from repentance and faith also dumb and water down the gospel for a purpose. Though I do not believe that to be the case with Charlie, I certainly believe it of Tommy.

Repentance is actually part and parcel with the gospel, inseparable. It is as much part of the gospel as the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the gospel is spoken of, the Bible includes more than just the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What isn’t mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-4 but yet taught in the Bible as part of the gospel includes the following, and do look up all the Bible references:

• Repentance of sin and self, and then placing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ps 2:12; Mk 1:1-4; Matt 4:17-23; Ac 20:21,24; Lk 24:44-48; 1 Cor 15:1-2)

• Lordship of Jesus Christ (Phil 2:10-11)

• Sufferings of Christ (Is 53:5-7; Lk 24:46; 1 Pet 3:18)

• Shedding of Christ’s blood (atonement) for our sins (1 Jn 2:1-2; Is 53:4-12; Heb 9:14-22)

• Fear of God (Ac 13:6; Rev 14:7; Ps 66:16; Pr 1:7; 14:27)

• Judgment of God (Ac 17:30-31; Rev 14:7)

• Worshipping God in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23-24: Rev 14:7)

• Glorifying God (Rev 14:7; 16:9; Gal 6:14; Eph 1:6, 12-14)

• Receiving an eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15) and eternal life (Jn 3:15-16, 36; 5:24)

As you look up these scripture references, you will note that the gospel of Jesus Christ is being detailed and described. Every one of these elements are important aspects of the true gospel of Christ. They are not to be neglected or denied, lest you be guilty of presenting a false and perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

The Lord Jesus Christ dying for our sins, was buried and resurrected is certainly the heart of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4), but that is not all there’s to the gospel. How most preachers often use 1 Cor 15:3-4 today is not what Paul intended with this brief summary. It wasn’t meant to be an all-inclusive account of the gospel. That passage does summarize it in a nutshell for a specific purpose as that entire chapter puts forth. It was given in the context of the resurrection of the body and warning of false teachers denying the resurrection.The Greeks rejected bodily resurrection and the false teachers at Corinth sought some means to consolidate rejection of bodily resurrection with the gospel. Paul is saying it can't be done. If you reject bodily resurrection, then you reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which then means you reject the true gospel, since this is a component of the gospel.

The Bible plainly tells us that repentance is the gospel. Consider a few examples.

1. The Apostle Paul said the “gospel of grace” (Ac 20:24) that he preached was “repentance towards God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ac 20:21). Paul upon telling us about “the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God” (Ac 20:24), had in fact just finished explaining what he had specifically testified, when he testified of the gospel of God's grace: “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ac 20:21). Thus, in other words, his God-given ministry received from Christ whereby he would testify of the gospel of the grace of God, was to testify both to the Jew and the Gentile to repent to God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the gospel of God's grace, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and interestingly, repentance and faith are the only things he mentions here as the gospel he preached, though we know he of course preached all the other elements of the gospel (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1-4). Chopping a major component out of the gospel by eliminating repentance and faith from the gospel, is to do serious damage to the gospel where it becomes perverted and corrupted.

2. Jesus said “that repentance and remission of sins” is the gospel (Lk 24:46-48) and when He went forth to preach His gospel whereby man can be eternally saved, this is what He preached: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17). This was such a critical component of the gospel, when Jesus sent forth His apostles to “preach the gospel” (Lk 9:6), it was repentance that they preached, "And they went out, and preached that men should repent." (Mk 6:12 — Lk 9:6 and Mk 6:12 are parallel accounts).

3. When Jesus upbraided certain cities it wasn't because they didn't "believe" the gospel but rather because they wouldn’t repent (Matt 11:20-22). Repentance is not just a portion of the gospel; it is foundational.

4. John the Baptist’s ministry of “preach[ing] the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” was “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” (Mk 1:1-4). This is how the Gospel of Mark begins, with the Gospel, which was “repentance for the remission of sins.” People that leave out the repentance are not preaching the true gospel.

Thus the heretical concept of repentance and faith not being components of the gospel should be cast down as a unBiblical insult to the Lord of glory. Furthermore, gospel and salvation are the same thing, the Bible does not divide these, just like it doesn't separate repentance and faith from the gospel/salvation, which are in fact seriously critical elements of the eternal gospel of Christ, which without no man can be saved.

Is this important and why? It is absolutely critical. Every component of the gospel is important. Why is it important to address this? Because when repentance and faith are corrupted, the gospel is being perverted. That is what is occuring. And people that pervert the gospel or purposefully neglect it are condemned by God (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-7) as "false brethren" (Gal 2:4-5) and "accursed." (Gal 1:8-9).

Today many gospel minimalists preach that repentance is not part of the gospel to shirk their duty to preach repentance because of the conflict and effect on numbers that it brings or to avoid being condemned a false teacher preaching a false gospel since their preaching is largely absent of repentance. And not to mention their perversion of this doctrine when they do rarely allude to it and their denial of its absolute necessity for salvation and immediate and ongoing fruit from true conversion. But in their craftiness, they still espouse a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9) which means they are false teachers (2 Pet 2:1). The true minister of God however has, 

"Renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor 4:2)

Thus the egregious argument is commonly a futile attempt to get a free-get-out-of-jail card by those guilty of corrupting and perverting repentance. No one can play the ignorance card, besides non-religious unbelievers. This is not an ignorance issue, for repentance is required for conversion, and so all who are truly saved will embrace and teach true Biblical repentance, while the false believer will deny or reject the true doctrinal teaching of this critical element of the gospel. Of course the Holy Spirit will also lead and teach them into a deeper understanding of it, but fundamentally they know and understand what it is and its critical importance, for without true repentance man can never be saved (Lk 13:1-5), and then henceforth all that are truly converted and maturing in wisdom move on from "the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God" — which are of the foundational "principles of the doctrine of Christ" — and "unto perfection" (Heb 6:1).

Error and Fallacy: Repentance Must Mean the Same as Faith, Since it is Never Found in the Book of John

Repentance does not mean the same as faith, which should be self-evident. Two entirely different words and underlying Greek/Hebrew words, with entirely different meanings. Towards the beginning, Charlie briefly refutes this error of repentance equated to faith. He speaks of those who dumb down and ignore repentance or replace it with faith and believe, which is exactly, ironically, what Tommy does, and why he doesn't actually believe that a sinner must repent of his sin to be saved, and only turn from "unbelief to belief."

Tommy’s response to what Charlie said is to focus on the alleged carnal nature of the one's arguing, not the actual subject on hand, which once again is a very a serious red herring and straw man logical fallacy, one of many constructed during this discourse. It’s actually a textbook definition of a straw man, which is a logical fallacy, which is a form of lying and bearing false witness. So it’s an abominable sin as Scripture warns, though very often overlooked as simply an argument. It’s not. It’s a deceitful form of lying.

Nevertheless, he is right that the "no repentance" people are very carnal, that they are in fact lost, what the word “carnal” actually means, and for more reasons than their carnal nature, but don’t think that is what he actually had in mind when he stated this. Most preachers claim that “carnal” refers to Christians living disobediently or in sin, “backsliding” (usually goes hand in hand, both being Keswick currency), but both words are misused, misinterpreted and corrupted from their true meaning to justify a type of “Christian” that is actually not Christian and may well never be. We will touch on this in the next part.

Many use the Book of John to undermine the doctrine of repentance, since the word itself is never found anywhere in the Book, a Book that contains a lot on soteriology. Tommy is correct that repentance not being in the Book of John is more often than not used as a straw man, but he ignores the truck loads of straw man that are constructed all over his own teachings, lest he be spiritually reprobate (2 Tim 3:8-9), which very well may be the case. He is also right that whenever we see belief for salvation (and repentance is not mentioned), repentance is implied, though we already know at this point that he believes in a perverted and adulterated doctrine of repentance. So when he says "repentance" he is not conveying what the Bible is teaching.

Though “repent” or its derivatives are never found in John, the doctrine is demonstrated throughout the Book, even as mentioned by Charlie in the discussion. Though the word repent itself isn’t mentioned, there are at least six examples of repentance being preached or illustrated.

1. In Jn 3:19-21 Jesus expounds on regeneration and that it involves a sinner coming to the light over one’s sin and evil in response to God’s reproof. This is no doubt implying repentance, an expectation of turning from evil (which is sin), which leads to salvation and a changed life (vv. 8, 21).

2. In Jn 4 Jesus dealt with the woman at the well. He did not merely ask her to believe on Him, but dealt with her sin of adultery (vv. 16-18) from whence she turned. Then the Lord Jesus explained the nature of true worship (v. 24). This also touches on the intellectual aspect of repentance (a person can’t repent without believing the truth). We see she repented by her actions which followed, immediate fruit (vv. 28-29; cf. Col 1:4-6), which were "works meet for repentance." (Ac 26:20).

3. In the account of the blind man and of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 5 and 8), the Lord Jesus expected their salvation based upon repentance when He said, “go and sin no more” (Jn 5:14; 8:11 respectively). Implied in the statement is that they already turned from their sins and Christ made them whole.

4. Jn 12:40 quotes from Is 6:9-10 which is illustrative of repentance.

5. Furthermore, in Jn 12:40 the word repentance is actually directly inferred, translated as “converted” from one of the Greek words for repentance, “epistrepho.”

6. In Jn 16:8-11, we are reminded by John that the Holy Spirit directly deals with the conviction of sin and judgment, which are fundamental elements or objects of repentance.

Error and Fallacy: Not Everyone Has a Dramatic Conversion, Especially Those Who Are Saved as Young Children in a Christian Home

Charlie gives a good, Biblical and dramatic testimony of salvation as a young adult, hitting the mark of what the Bible teaches on repentance unto salvation, without actually ever using the word repentance (the principles were present, which is always necessary and as we see in Scripture, similarly many times with no mention of the word repentance), which follows with Tommy giving his testimony almost as a rebuttal, which was not dramatic at all (his own words) and occurred at the young age of 5 and excluded repentance (though he doesn’t directly say that it excluded repentance, it is obvious this is what he is implying based upon what he says and the complete context, especially in contrast with what Charlie had just shared). Tommy blames his non-dramatic testimony on being young and raised in a professing Christian Baptist home that always attended church and hadn’t entertained the depravity of sin and the world like an adult would’ve in contrast, Charlie being the contextual contrast. Though there is some truth to what he is saying, it’s actually more of a red herring than anything. When sin and hell is understood properly, children can have just as a dramatic conversion as an adult.

Tommy downplays and undermines dramatic conversions and how that is always the case with true Biblical conversions. He says he didn't have the same dramatic conversion as Charlie but doesn’t “doubt that I got saved as a five year old boy because I did believe on Christ.” Tommy, Satan and his demons also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Catholics also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Pentecostals also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Mormons also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Jehovah Witnesses also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Moslems also "believe on Christ" but they are not saved. Neo-evangelicals also “believe on Christ” but they are not saved. Almost the entire world of Christianity “believe on Christ” but they are not saved for the very most part.

Yes a five year old boy could hypothetically get saved but I know only of one five year old testimony amongst hundreds that I have heard, that is truly and genuinely converted to Christ, while all the others continue with the pretence of salvation. They are not, but they pretend to be. They attend fairly decent churches, have much of their doctrine right, dress in a godly manner, use the true Word of God in the English language (KJV), listen to godly music, but they, like I believe Tommy to be, are false converts. In some critical but more subtle areas they prove themselves to be false “believers” (areas like denying true repentance, undermining and corrupting the true gospel, misusing and wresting scripture especially salvation passages, all without remorse and impunity, not having a genuine and passionate zeal for godliness and righteousness and God's will, and more). A person can be extremely convincing and close to salvation, without being saved. Judas Iscariot is a great example. He spent nearly three years with the very Son of God and eleven other apostles (who never knew the better), preached the true gospel of repentance and salvation and saw people converted, healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, was trusted with the finances of the group, and more, yet was never suspected of being a false professor. A person can be very, very close but be unsaved. People as described above, and Tommy, have never genuinely repented because of the bad teaching they were raised in, which is easy believism and quick prayerism and rejection of true repentance. He, and they, are simply the product of their environment, and most of the IFB, all of evangelicalism, and majority of the rest of Christendom have been corrupting the gospel, especially perverting repentance and who Jesus is, for a long time now, and today we see the deceived and counterfeit fruit of that.

Tommy goes on to really give his honest opinion on dramatic conversions that testify of true Biblical repentance, opinions very commonly heard amongst the IFB (in one IFB church that stands out where we attended some years ago, the assistant pastor would go raving mad whenever someone gave a dramatic conversion testimony with repentance--he is now the senior pastor of the church, the blind leading the blind). Here he gives his real opinion of true Biblical salvation, since every single conversion in scripture was superdramatic:

“What often happens with people that grow up like I did, they get kinda offended when they listen to people that got saved older and they seek to focus so much on their dramatic conversion, the change they had, the emotional experience that took place. I can see why it would be an emotional experience, but then they cast doubt on our salvation, they are always confusing teenagers . . . I believe people that have had your experience not try to force that experience on someone who is expressing faith in scripture who maybe didn’t feel all those things, experience all those things, when they got saved. Would you agree that somebody that gets saved as a young child, like one of your children, they are not going to have like a radical life changing experience or something like that, does that make sense?”

This is extremely problematic. There is something terribly wrong here. I believe what Tommy says very much exposes him to be a false convert. I cannot believe for a second that he is saved. He, or his defenders, can protest this all he wants, but the proof is in the pudding. His own words condemn him, just like Scripture says they will. Thats the first thing I want to say before I briefly dive into what he said here, but not to the exclusion of mentioning Charlie’s take on what Tommy said was good. It was a good refutation of what Tommy said, though I believe he could've gone further and diagnosed the cause of his rejection of a dramatic conversion.

Tommy is essentially rejecting the true Biblical gospel because his own anemic, unscriptural testimony does not align with the true testimony of salvation that Scripture testifies of. How pathetic, a sob story that simulates our present pop culture "victims" playing victimhood.

I have heard this WAY to frequently from a certain camp among professing believers, specifically among the IFB, the Revivalist/Keswick camp, which is at least 95% of all IFB churches in the world. Their testimonies of "salvation" are so similar in every facet, from the age, to what allegedly happened, to their false and rejection of repentance, to their fruitless lives, to their redefining of repentance, to their rejection of two out of three major faculties of man involved in repentance (actually, even rejecting the other faculty as well, through their false definition and denial of the other two), giving faith a new definition as well, rejecting Christ's Lordship and surrender to Him, and so on, dovetailing with the Keswick heresy that rejects the call to discipleship being a call to salvation, that corrupts and wrests the many salvation passages in the NT into something post-salvation, that divides Saviour and Lord, penalty of sin and power of sin, produces two rests, and sells the truth for the abhorrent and counterfeit Keswick currency. They allegedly get "saved" at a very young age (usually too young to even remember, most relying on the memory of a parent), they never repented (didn't even know what it meant, and still don't, purposefully in most cases), they had no dramatic conversion, not liking the true definition and meaning of repentance and thus denying it, erecting straw man arguments and smoke and mirrors consistently when it comes the subject, not having fruit or evidence of salvation, believing that one receives Him first as a Saviour from the penalty of sin alone, only to become free from the power of sin sometime later in a post-salvation consecration where for the first time they surrendered to Christ as Lord. Then as they age they have to change the doctrine of salvation in Scripture and everything that it comes with to fit their own personal experience, just like Tommy is doing here, which is where Revivalism and Keswick Theology enters the door, a detestable system of theology that keeps the false professing "believer" in precisely that condition. Rather than finding the message of the whole NT, people like Tommy finds verses that might teach what they want the Bible to teach, then adjusts the rest of the NT to it.

If he didn't have this kind of salvation, dramatic and emotional, what did he exactly have? And where does the Bible ever describe a different type of salvation than this, like the kind he articulates allegedly occurred in his life? How can someone be forgiven of all their sins and know it; know that he or she has been washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus; be made a brand new creature in Christ Jesus where everything is become new and ALL old things are passed away; be quickened, that is made alive from a position of dead; move from being dead in sin to dead to sin; be freed forever from the dominion and bondage of sin and the law; have a new heart that is circumcised from the flesh; be translated from Satan's kingdom of darkness into Christ's kingdom of light and life; received all things that pertain unto life and godliness; received exceeding great and precious promises; partakers of the divine nature; escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust; be redeemed and reconciled, and so many more wonderful and amazing things; and yet not understand and experience the dramatic nature of such a conversion, that accompanies true salvation and applicable to all true converts?? How is it possible to have received the greatest gift that mankind could ever receive, experience the greatest miracle that the world has ever experienced, be transformed in the greatest possible way known to mankind, and not be dramatic about it? Or what sinner that comes to that place at the end of self, the place of contriteness and penitence and self-denial, the place of sorrow over their sin and wickedness before a Thrice Holy God, will not be utterly broken with great fear, sadness, and sorrow over their nature before God whom they have so greatly offended??

Biblical salvation is a dramatic instantaneous conversion experience that changes the life immediately, permanently and dramatically (Jn 3:3; Matt 18:3; 2 Cor 5:17). It is a birth after all!! Every single salvation recorded in the NT involves a dramatic life-changing conversion experience. For example, the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4), Zacchaeus (Lk 9:1-10), the Jews on day of Pentecost (Ac 2), the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac 8), Cornelius (Ac 10), Lydia (Ac 16), the Philippian jailer (Ac 16:27-34), Saul of Tarsus (Ac 9), the prodigal son (Lk 15), the Thessalonians (1 Th 1), the Colossians and all born again believers in the world (Col 1:4-6), and more in God's Word.

The biggest problem with Tommy and the millions of others just like him, he doesn't understand true repentance and salvation because he has never experienced the new birth. That is why he "gets offended." That is why he despises these true testimonies of conversion. He does not know what "the first love" is for the redeemed saint of God or the first act of worship for the repentant sinner. Rather than understanding the great offence he is to God and thus why true repentance of sins, self, stuff and people is what leads to surrender and true conversion, he is offended by those who do understand the offence they are to God.

He "gets offended"?! Wow, thin skinned heretics get offended when someone is genuinely converted to Christ! Unbelievable! But its perfectly sensical. There is Scripture that speaks to people just like Tommy, Scripture that differentiates between the truly saved and the false professor who appears subtly close to the truth. Though there are many such Scriptural passages that could be in mind here, we are referring to the parable of the sower and the seed, specifically the stony soil. Tommy is an illustration of this very soil, soil that professes, believes the Word, even received it with joy and gladness, but because they have no root, Whom is Jesus Christ, the "Root of David" (Rev 5:5; 22:16), they only endure and genuinely believe until the offense comes, whereafter they fall away from the grace and knowledge that they have, though never the false pretense of belief and Christianity, becoming imitators of Christians, all along self-deceived and demonically-deceived to their true condition.

"But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended." (Mt 13:21)

We believe that in majority of Tommy-like cases, childhood "conversion" is simply a manmade farce, an easy crutch to lean upon in the absence of a true Biblical testimony of salvation. They get a free get out of jail pass, or so they think, since they have never demonstrated a testimony of salvation after reaching an age of accountability, and a child apparently wouldn't exhibit a dramatic conversion or a fruitful life like an adult. Its a win-win situation for them, instead of having to humble themselves before God and man, and acknowledge their unregenerate, wicked, deceptive and feigned estate. But they are wrong and decieved, maybe even on purpose. Tommy is wrong. He has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Thought the degree of changed life and fruitfulness will slightly vary between a child and adult, that doesn't mean it isn't present. It is present, always, only to a lesser degree.

Error and Fallacy: Conviction and Sorrow Over Sin to Be Saved Might Not be Present, and Tying These Things Into Repentance is Error

Charlie gave a brief testimony of his sons getting convicted of sin and making a profession of faith, to exemplify conviction of sin producing an emotional reaction that led to a profession of Christ, which was in response to the aforementioned erroneous statement by Tommy (i.e., "Would you agree that somebody that gets saved as a young child, like one of your children, they are not going to have like a radical life changing experience or something like that, does that make sense?”). Charlie spoke of some people crying and some not crying, but completely neglected to mention the Biblical truth that the emotional faculty of man is always involved in salvation, found within the Greek word "metamellomai" translated as "repent[ed]" in Matt 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8; Heb 7:21, and defined as emotional regret, easily noted in the contextual examples, and may represent true repentance (godly sorrow) or false repentance (worldly sorrow, like Judas, Matt 27:3). Really, how could the weight of sin and then the miraculous dramatic event of salvation not effect ones emotions?? When someone is deeply moved by their sin and wickedness before a Holy God, there will always be some kind of emotional reaction. Once the mind and heart grasps the new definition of who I am, there is a consequential emotion that goes from the mind and heart to the feelings, and there is godly sorrow and shame (2 Cor 7:10). This aligns with what Christ said in the very beginning of the sermon on the mount, “blessed are the poor in spirit.” (v. 3). Thus you understand you are spiritually poor, spiritually bankrupt, you have nothing, so what do you do? “Blessed are they which mourn, for they shall be comforted.” (v. 4). The repentant sinner sees their true lost and condemned condition, their spiritual poverty and then they mourn over this present condition and standing before God and condmenation of damnation.

At this point of the discussion, Tommy makes it clear that he doesn’t like the word "conviction," which ties into his dislike of true Biblical repentance. He says he is for “convince” but "not convict," because the Bible apparently never actually says “convict.” Wow. What a horrible straw man, from the mouth of someone that doesn’t appear to believe in true repentance but rather labourers in the construction of logical fallacies to argue away this critical biblical doctrine and foundational element of the gospel. It doesn't work though for this false teacher. Does he stop calling the Bible, "Bible," because the word is found nowhere in Scripture? Does he apply the same principle to the word "Trinity," since the word is found nowhere in Scripture?

Conviction is a bigger word than just emotional guilt and reproof. Conviction is a judicial word found in the courtrooms of the law. When the Holy Spirit reproves the world as noted in Jn 16:7-11, of sin, righteousness, and judgment, they are already pronounced guilty and have been convicted by the court of Heaven. The trial is already over: the prosecutor has rested and the Judge has rendered His verdict, and the whole world stands guilty before God. They are declared and pronounced guilty, and then immediately sentenced to death and the eternal lake of fire. This is the meaning of convict. Now the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of men to bring that conviction—reproving, rebuking and drawing them.

Nevertheless, its not actually even true what Tommy said. The word "convict" is indeed found in Scripture, in Jn 8:9, where God's Word speaks of convicting sinners of their sin, our very subject here, and what Tommy rejects. The word there in Jn 8:9 is translated from the Greek "elegcho," which is found 17x in the Bible and means (and translated as) confute, admonish, convict, convince, tell a fault, rebuke, reprove, all words describing the convicting work of the Holy Spirit of God (e.g., Pr 1:20-24; Jn 16:7-11) and the Word of God (Heb 4:12). “Convince” is found 7x in the English KJV, including in Ti 1:9 and Ju 1:15, and all 7 accounts refer to the sinner being "convinced," actually "convicted," of their sin and need of salvation (one account is Jesus, who is not a sinner, asking, "Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?"). Interestingly, the Greek word "exelegcho" underlying the translated "convince," carries the meaning of convicting fully, which is the same meaning of elegcho," and, as you will note, extremely close in their grammer, only differentiating by the prefix of "ex." So essentially the Bible words "convict" and "convince" are idential in meaning, used interchangeably, but that is certainly not what ole Tommy had in mind when he rejected "convict" and embraced "convince."

Without even knowing, the Bible confounded Tommy's illogical and Scripture rejecting argument. What he was in fact referring to is how the word is utilized today, carrying a slight nuance of meaning of how it would've been understood in the first century. The modern day “convince” is insufficent to bring the sinner to repentance and on the pathway to salvation. The way "convince" is understood today, as in persuading, winning over, and assuring someone, in contrast to the meaning of "convict"and "convince" of the first century (which, again, carried identical meanings), is a serious undermining and sugar coating of what the Holy Spirit does in a sinner (Jn 16:7-11; Pr 1:20-24). Anyone can be convinced of something, that is, persuaded and assured, but that doesn’t mean they are convicted or reproved. I have preached the gospel to thousands of people that have been “convinced” but seared their conscience to any conviction, as far as one sees outwardly.

There is absolutely NO salvation apart from conviction and reproof of sin and everything that comes with it: I.e. fear of the Lord, true repentance, godly sorrow, turning from sin, self, stuff, and people. One of the Greek words that is translated as repentance in the NT, "matanoeo," carries the meaning of a "pricking of heart; poignant grief or remorse proceeding from a consciousness of guilt; the pain of sorrow or regret for having offended God, and incurred His wrath; the sting of conscience proceeding from a conviction of having violated a moral duty.” (Webster’s Dictionary, 1828). This is all referring to the word conviction, which is the manner by which this behaviour comes across through the Holy Spirit, by the Word of God:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb 4:12)

The Holy Spirit convicts sinners of their sin and their present condemnation of death and hell, and that is through the law of God (Rom 3:19-20; Gal 3:23). That is how He works. He doesn't attempt to superficially convince them, but to convict them, reprove them, and bring them to repentance. The law reveals sin, while the Holy Spirit is convicting the sinner of the sin. The purpose of the law is not to produce righteousness, but to produce conviction. The Holy Spirit of God is come to reprove the world of sin because they believe not. Thus, this is where Bible preaching begins for the sinner, with the law, for it is the law that reveals man’s sinful condition to him, convicts him of his sin, of which the Gospel is the cure. But without conviction, all is futile, for no man has ever repented of sins he did not believe he was guilty of, and that is why men like Tommy McMurtry change these kind of things, because they actually reject the true gospel.

Ionically, later during the discussion in his argument against (of course) forsaking sin in repentance, he says, likely unwittingly, that the Holy Spirit actually convicts of sin (not “convinces”), likely not consciously considering his hypocritical statement, or could it be this is what he truly believes since that is exactly what the Holy Spirit does and that rather what he had stated prior about "convince," is just a red herring to get around the “repentance of sin” that he rejects. I think that is the real reason why he created this red herring, and then later lets it slip that he does in fact believe that the Spirit of God does convict of sin. He spoke of people coming to him and “bringing up specific sins, and in I think in many cases that could be the Holy Spirit convicting them of those sins…” Then a short while later he says it again, “I personally think its great when people start bringing up specific sins, that shows me the Holy Spirit is working, that they are being convicted,” and then again once more shortly after that.

So the entire logical fallacy about “convince” and "not convict," is smoke and mirrors, seeing he uses the "convict of sin" at least 3x after. This tells us definitively that he is acting duplicitously and dishonestly, attempting to make it appear that he believes what Charlie is saying only with a “minor shade” of difference, but in reality, he is actually a rejector of true Biblical repentance evident by his denial of simple Bible truth, and the erection of logical fallacies to undermine Biblical truth.

When God declared what would occur if Israel did not obey His commandments in the promised land, thus not repent and genuinely be converted, in Lev 26 up to v. 39, He followed this declaration with what would occur when they would be obedient, which again firstly and most critically involved genuine salvation, for they is no obedience without genuine conversion (see De 30; Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5) and no healing of the land without national conversion, which would entail the personal salvation of majority of Israelites. This is how v. 40 starts off, “confession of their iniquity,” and their “uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept the punishment of their iniquity.” (v. 41). "Uncircumcised hearts" means unsaved. The LORD is painting a wonderful picture of what happens in the process leading up to salvation, the Holy Spirit of God convicting and reproving the sinner of his sin, iniquity and wickedness, and the sinner accepting fully that this is truly him and that he deserves the righteous judgment of every sin.

The apostle Paul was convicted, mentioned by Charlie in this context (though he never mentioned the actual word that tells us this). The Bible says he was “pricked” in the heart (Ac 9:6; 26:14), which means exactly our point here: to be convicted by the Word of God. The word "pricked" comes from the Greek "kentron" which means to sting (actually translated as such multiple times in Revelation) and goad.

Tommy goes on to construct a number of straw men on why any sort of emphasis on emotion is wrong when it comes to salvation. He lays the blame on “emotional response” testimonies as to why kids have a false profession in their churches: they grow up in Christian homes, are in church 3x/week, and then go off to bible college and “get saved in bible college all the time.” The blame is laid at the feet of emotional and dramatic testimonies. He repeats this mantra multiple times. He refers to these people who “conjure up emotion” and “work up the tears so they can finally get it” and follow through with the alter call number who-knows-how-many-times, as “sorry Christians.” He says these people “think 'I will go pray and finally get it this time and then I won’t want to do these sins anymore.’ The problem is once the emotions wear off at youth conference and everything, they are feeling the same.” We are also certainly against attempting to drum up any false type of emotional reaction with tragic stories and forced responses, the background elevator music appealing to the emotions, the preacher pleading and begging the masses to walk the old sawdust trail to the tear soaked mourners alter (or bench), which really is nothing less than a form of quick prayerism and easy believism, a numbers "revival" rally.

The real problem with false professions isn't really the emotion or drama that is expected or over-emphasized but rather the bad teaching and preaching, the false gospel, the repentant-less and Lord-less gospel of "free grace." To zero in on "emotional response" is a serious logical fallacy. How does Tommy read his Bible if he doesn’t like to hear dramatic and emotional conversions, since it is filled with dramatic conversions? Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) gave his testimony of salvation at least four times and it is super dramatic and emotional, while illustrating the same process of conversion that every born again believer experiences, besides the vision and voice of God. There are many emotional reactions recorded in Scripture upon conversion: Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Lk 7:36-50; cf. Jn 11:2), Zacchaeus (Lk 9:1-10), the Jews on day of Pentecost (Ac 2), the Publican (Lk 18), the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac 8), Cornelius (Ac 10), Lydia (Ac 16), the Philippian jailer (Ac 16:27-34), Saul of Tarsus (Ac 9), the prodigal son (Lk 15), the Thessalonians (1 Th 1), and more.

Dramatic and emotional testimonies are not the cause of false professions but rather a perverted gospel, and faulty gospel reception and response. The problem with what Tommy is describing here has nothing to do with over emphasis on conviction and emotional response, as he would like it to be, but because of the easy believism and quick prayersism that runs rank among majority of IFB churches, very likely including his, by all appearances. The bible also doesn’t differentiate between kids and adults, and it’s for good reason. Salvation is always the same.

At this point Tommy claims that tying conviction and sorrow into repentance is wrong:

“I think tying that into repentance is a mistake, just because I think that is another category.”

This is heresy. Plain and simple. There is no true repentance without conviction and an emotional response, both of which are required, among other critical things, for true repentance to occur. Over and over we see this exemplified in scripture.

Error and Fallacy: Repentance and Believing are Synonymous.

It usually doesn’t take very long to come across what the repentance-rejector truly believes about “repentance,” something Tommy claims to believe in, and defend, but duplictiously. From the get go it was evident that he did not actually believe in true Biblical repentance, but a bastardized, corrupted and perverted version of it, one where conviction isn’t necessary, emotional sorrow isn’t necessary (both of which we have covered above), turning from sin isn’t necessary (covered later, but the sense of this error is already derived early on), or that repentance from sin is only for those already saved. When you give a man enough rope, eventually he hangs himself, and that is exactly what we see occurring with Tommy. Here he slips up and reveals what he truly believes about repentance, which is nothing at all, only that it is the same as believing, even that the two words have the same exact meaning, which is heresy:

“I believe what everybody has to have in common is true repentance in the sense of did they truly believe on Christ, they believed the gospel message from the heart.”

True repentance is not believing on Christ. It leads to that, but it’s not that. These are two entirely different elements of the gospel, entirely different words with entirely different meanings. But what Tommy says here is truly scripted for all repentance rejectors. They all speak the same false gospel verbiage, tying repentance and faith together as one. They have to, because they have rejected Biblical repentance, so they corrupt and manipulate Scripture to mold it to their beliefs. This once again fits into the “free grace” position which Tommy claims to not be (facts speak otherwise), as a proof text position, influenced greatly by the outside and by pragmatism. They have hardened their heart to the truth and are happy to go to an eternity in the unquenchable fires of hell, so long as they do not have to humble themselves before man and God and acknowledge that they’ve always been wrong and that are in fact hypocrites.

If repentance and believing are synonymous why would Paul make such a plain distinction between them as he did in Ac 20:21,

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ"

The Lord Jesus Christ also clearly separated repentance and believing:

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mk 1:15)

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ separated repentance from faith by indicating specifically that repentance was a part of the Great Commission:

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk 24:47)

Repentance and faith must both be preached for they are two entirely different actions though they are intimately connected when it comes to salvation and cannot necessarily be separated in time. Repentance is to acknowledge one's sin and rebellion against God and to turn from one's sins, self, stuff, and people to God in surrender to Christ's Lordship. Faith is to trust the finished work of Christ for the forgiveness and redemption that the repentant sinner seeks. Repentance and faith are the two aspects of man's response to God's offer of salvation.

Error and Fallacy: Repentance is Turning from Unbelief to Belief for Salvation, Not Turning from Sins.

This is Tommy's true version of repentance, though he attempts to dance around this and put himself on the other side that believes in actual repentance of sin. But this is what he really believes, noted by Charlie around the thirty three minute mark, and also in this short clip, but it's blatant heresy and stands alone as proof that Tommy is a heretic and false teacher. No person has ever been saved by turning from their unbelief to belief. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture on this, and rather, the true doctrine which requires turning from sin (disobedience), self, stuff and people. Is unbelief sin? Yes it would be, but the only time it is ever mentioned in the context of salvation is when dealing the Israelites (e.g. Heb 3-4), or as a sin in a list of sins that do not inherit the kingdom of God is in Rev 21:8, "unbelieving," which is listed alongside "the fearful, . . . and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Repentance is the whole deal, or nothing, and that may include unbelief, but it's never singled out as an individual sin that anyone would repent of, besides the Israelites maybe, but certainly not among the Gentiles. It doesn't even the cross the mind of the repentant sinner. Ever. Only the heretic that rejects true Biblical repentance and invokes a new definition, description and application drums up this stuff, a deceptive manner of denying the truth and revealing spiritual reprobatism, "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (2 Tim 3:8).

When Charlie was done confronting Tommy with his erroneous and bad repentance of unbelief to belief definition being applied across the board (possibly even cutting off some of what Charlie said, time 33:23), exposing the fact that this erroneous definition of repentance could not be applicable to God since God does not turn from unbelief, Tommy's knee jerk reaction was to call it "a distracting argument" and spun it around and constructed yet another straw man, roughly numero 100 at this point, stating that this definition may be necessary because people like Charlie use "a bad argument against another bad argument." What is that "bad argument" from the other side (this time he wasn't including himself on this side because he had been called out for his erroneous repentance), from the "repentance of sin" crowd, that brings about the necessary counter-definition of"repentance from unbelief to belief"? Apparently people from that side are always applying the definition of "repentance of sin" to every example of repentance in the Bible, even to God but God does not repent of sin. This is what Tommy claimed. I have never heard anyone do that. Ever. No one would accuse God of repenting of sin. It's a lame logical fallacy for a position of false repentance.

Oddly, as if their mental dissonance is caused by a severe case of psychosis, these same individuals will claim that saved people can resort to "unbelief" during their so-called "Christian" life. So it really wasn't unbelief that they repented of after all, since unbelief was still present in their life post-"salvation". "Unbelief" However is Only a Characteristic of Unsaved People, Not the Saved, and repentance, concerning man, is not from unbelief but from sin, self, stuff and people, proceeding from a change of mind and will that produced a change of action (i.e., turning in godly sorrow, surrender) that leads to a changed life, conversion, the new birth.

The reason why Tommy embraces corrupted repentance and a perverted gospel is because he has never performed the first act of worship necessary for the sinner, which is offering their entire soul to God (Matt. 6:24; Lk. 14:25–15:32), which means turning (repenting) to God from all their sin, their self, their stuff, their people, in godly sorrow and with a poor and broken contrite heart, turning to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, fleeing from the wrath of God that they presently abide under (see Matt. 3:1-10; 10:32-39; 11:28-30; 16:24-26; 19:16-30; Mk. 1:15-20; 8:34-38; Lk. 5:31-32; 9:23-26, 57-62; 12:8-9; 13:1-5, 23-30; 14:16-35; 17:26-33; 18:9-17, 18-30; Jn. 3:3-21, 36; 12:24-26; etc).

In not one place in scripture is this heresy to be found, and “unbelief” is only ever mentioned in the context of the Israelites, because of their covenants and elected position before God, while being almost entirely unsaved as a nation throughout its entire history, except for a remnant. The Jew would also be turning from sin, self, stuff and people, as clearly evident in Christ's preaching (Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; 10:17-31; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:23-30; Jn 12:24-26; etc), with unbelief being a major evidential sin because of their great advantage, for "unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rom 3:1-2), and "to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom 9:4-5). God was always nigh to the Jewish people up to their providential blindness after they rejected their Messiah, His Word even in their mouth (De 30:14; Rom 10:8), and their great opportunity to be converted was almost unbelievable. Stephen the deacon summarized all the generations of the Jewish people up till their providential blinding, in Ac 7:51, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

“Repent” means to turn. Context doesn’t change the meaning of “repent” (at its basic form, it always means a change of mind and will that produces a change of action, and then concerning man and true repentance, the change of action always refers to turning in godly sorrow, surrender, that leads to a changed life), it determines what is being repented from and/or to. So of course it’s not correct to lump in sins every time “repent” is mentioned, but it's always wrong to define or describe repentance as a turning from unbelief to belief. In fact the "unbelief to belief" false repentance is nonsensical because for man to ever even come to a point of true and genuine repentance and conversion, he or she must first believe the Bible about them, their sin, their crime, their punishment, who God is, and so on. Before a repentant sinner can ever be saved, they have to "receive . . . the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Th 2:10), i.e., "belief," which then immediately excludes the whole heresy of "unbelief to belief," since this belief occurs prior to salvation.

Tommy rejects repentance of sin for salvation, and applies it only to believers sinning post-salvation. There is not the slightest hint of a distinction in Scripture between a “justification repentance” which does not involve turning from one’s sins and a “sanctification repentance” which does. That coupled with his heretical definition of "unbelief to belief" condemns him as a heretic.

Where did Tommy learn this heresy of repentance as a change from unbelief to belief? Through heretical revivalist IFB churches, which is most of them, very likely the one that he grew up in, where his father pastored. And they in turn learned this "damnable heresy" (2 Pet 2:1) from wolves in sheep's clothing such as Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson, who claimed that it is only unbelief that condemns men to hell and therefore it is only the sin of unbelief that the sinner must repent of. This is heresy and a perverted gospel.

What does Scripture say?

It is the act of disobedience, from whence all sins of mankind arise from, which comes from a heart of the sinner (Mk 7:20-23) that sends him or her to hell, as detailed in passages such as 1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Rev 21:8, 27.

Rom 5:12 says it is the "sin of one man" which has resulted in death. Adam's sin was NOT unbelief; it was disobedience.

Rom. 5:19,

"For by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."

It was through Adams sin of disobedience that all of mankind became sinners. NOT unbelief.

Eph 5:6 and Col 3:6 tell us that the wrath of God comes upon men because of their sins, such as the sin of fornication, covetousness, jesting, foolish talking, idolatry, and so on.

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5:6)

"For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience" (Col. 3:6)

Rev 20:12-15 warns us that unsaved men will be condemned by their works and cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 tells us that unbelief is only one of the sins that cause men to be outside of the eternal city of God.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Biblical repentance involves repentance toward one's sin; specific sins and sinning in general.

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds" (Rev. 2:22).

"And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repent not of their deeds" (Rev. 16:11).

The average professing Christian only wants to add "Jesus" to all their other idols. They don't want to obey God; they want a free get out of hell pass and ticket to heaven and a source of divine help with their sin-driven problems. Repentance, however, involves turning of the volition, wrought in the mind and heart, driven by godly sorrow. A man is going one way in life, his own sinful, self-willed way, and when he repents, he denies self, turns from his sins and self and stuff and people and turns around to go God's way. It is an act of surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord.

Is repenting of sin only in the OT? At time 35:40 Tommy makes it appear as if repentance from sin is only an OT doctrine.

“I’m going to go to Ezekiel or some place in the OT where they are being called to repent of sin, and now anytime I see it in the Bible, its about repenting of sin.”

Repentance from sin (which is always for salvation in the Bible) is everywhere in Scripture, both OT and NT.

Biblical Salvation Always Involves Repentance of Sin

Consider some examples from Scripture.

1. Lk 5:31-32. The Bible calls who to repentance? Sinners (Lk 5:31-32; 13: 1-5; 15:1-32). Jesus said,

"I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Lk 5:32).

What are these sinners, Jesus speaks of, repenting from? Are they repenting of only unbelief or some of their sins or something else? They are repenting of sin, of all their sins—certainly not just some of them like "unbelief."

Salvation requires repentance and repentance requires not only turning from all your sin, but also from yourself, from your stuff and from your people, all of which are idols before God, thus sin, taking the place of the worship of God, made abundantly clear throughout the NT, including and especially Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; 19:18-30; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:1-5, 23-30; 14:25-15:32; 19:1-10; Mk 8:34-38; Ac 3:19; 26:20; etc. Read these passages carefully before you grow logical fallacies or other unscriptural arguments in your mind and mouth, and remember that the four gospels are exactly that: four books on salvation, NOT sanctification. Furthermore, know also that unsaved people are not taught in the gospels, or anywhere else for that matter, how to be better Christians or disciples. The gospel/salvation is being preached to them, and almost everything from Matthew to John is about soteriology, with brief references to practical sanctification, so that the unsaved may come to a saving knowledge of repentance and faith. That was why Jesus came. "To seek and to save that which was lost." (Lk 19:10).

The Bible also doesn’t have to tell us every time that repentance is from sin. It’s many times very plainly implied in the words used, such as the above example out of Lk 5:32, and taking the Bible as a whole it is obvious that this is a large part of what repentance means.

Scripture teaches this. The main reason why people will continue to harbour a false faith and false profession, like those in Jn 2:23-25, is because of what Jesus says in Jn 3:19-21, which is all about repentance:

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

2. Ezk 14:6; 18:21, 23, 30-31; 33:9, 11 declares,

“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent. and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. . . . But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. . . . Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? . . . Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, . . . Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn (shub) from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. . . . Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn (shub) ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

Though this passage is geared towards the Israelites, it equally applies to Gentiles as noted in the same language used throughout Scripture for salvation of all.

Ezekiel’s call to the “wicked” to turn from their evil ways proves that the prophet exhorts the lost to turn from their sins in order to be saved. Ezekiel never employs the word “wicked” for a saved person (Ezk 3:18-19; 7:21; 13:22; 18:20-27; 21:3-4, 25, 29; 33:8-15,19) but only for the lost, such as the idolatrous Babylonians who destroyed the Jerusalem temple (Ezk 7:21). Indeed, not one reference to either the Hebrew or Greek word for “wicked” is referred to a saved person—the wicked are uniformly those headed to damnation, who are “turned into hell” (Ps 9:17) under the curse and wrath of God, in contrast to those who trust in the Lord, (by grace) are righteous, and thus saved.

3. Jon 3 and the Ninevites. A good summary of the three faculties of man in repentance (intellect, will and emotions) is noted in the salvation of the Ninevites:

"So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. [6] For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. [7] And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: [8] But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. [9] Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? [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." (Jon 3:5-10).

The Ninevites repentance is noted in the intellect in that they believed what Jonah had proclaimed about Gods coming judgment and their sinful estate (vv. 4-5). The emotions are noted in their sorrow for their sin exhibited in a very striking way by humbling themselves, “cry[ing] mightily unto God” (v. 8), “in sackcloth and ashes” (vv. 5-6). Then the volition is noted, the purposeful turning away from their evil ways and violence unto God in such humble contrition that even their cattle wore sackcloth and ashes (vv. 6-8). They turned from their sin. “Evil ways” contain the idea that it's worse than mere common sin, though all sin has an element of evilness.

This is the benchmark of repentance, God’s expectation of repentance for salvation, according to the very words of God the Son (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32), though all words in the Word of God are equally important. Jesus said the Biblical standard of repentance is this repentance of the Ninevites:

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." (Matt 12:41)

When the Lord Jesus spoke of repentance of the lost, he spoke of the kind of change of mind and heart and will that brings a change of action and life that took place at Nineveh (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32), and that crucially included turning from all our sin, from our evil ways which are very sinful ways, noted by the Ninevites who “believed God . . . and . . . turn[ed] every one from his evil way,” where “their works” were fruitful evidence (cf. Ac 26:20), that they had “turned” from sin, from their “evil ways.” Jesus said this is true repentance and its the example that all will be judged by.

Thus, when Jesus spoke of repentance such as in Lk 13, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish", He was speaking of the same sort of repentance as the Ninevites demonstrated (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32). Its also noted in the book of Jeremiah repeatedly, who called on the Israelites to, “Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings,” (Jer 18:11; 25:5; 36:7). This is repentance of sin for salvation, because those in the "evil way" are obviously unsaved.

Also noted in this account of salvation of the Ninevites is Christ’s Lordship, which dovetails with true repentance. The king of Nineveh “arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.” (v. 6). He, the king of a very powerful and ever growing in power Gentile nation (Assyria), stepped off his throne so Christ could get on it — he set aside his kingly robes, took upon himself the garb of affliction and humility, and turned from all his evil ways with humbleness before Almighty God in acquiescence and contrition while crying out to God for mercy. This earthly king recognized his subservience to God, his evil towards Him and that God was God and he was not, and thus forsook all that he had in humble surrender to the King of kings and Lord of lords (Lk 14:31-34, 26-27). Surrender to the King derives from a repentant heart.

Also noted here is God’s repentance, a change of the mind and will (“God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them”) which resulted in a change of action (“and he did it not”) (v. 10), but His repentance is never about turning from sin or changing of life, so that aspect of repentance is not illustrated in God’s repentance, because He doesn’t sin or change.

4. Isa 55:1-7, one of my favourite passages in the Bible on salvation. The last two verses read:

“Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”

This is loaded with repentance from sin and what it means. Forsaking and returning are referring to repentance. Return and turn mean the same thing and are translated interchangeably. The sinner that is seeking the Lord and wants to find Him, must turn from his wicked sinful ways and thoughts and God will have mercy upon him, and abundantly pardon. The praying publican in Lk 18 did that. The repentant thief on the cross did that. And all others in scripture that repented of their sin and turned to Christ did that.

5. Rev 9:20-21. What are the types of sin that God says the men in the Tribulation will not repent of? Idolatrous sins (Rev 9:20) and immoral sins (Rev 9:21).

“And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.” (Rev 9:20-21)

“Works of their hands” is referring to sin here, sinful idols in v. 20, and then immoral sins v. 21, the word “works” is translated frequently from “ergon” in relation to sin.

For instance, Gal 5:19-21,

“Now the works [ergon] of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Eph 5:11,

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works [ergon] of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Same word, “ergon,” in Heb 6:1,

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works [ergon], and of faith toward God,”

The idea here is moving on from basic, foundational doctrines of Christ, unto perfection, and salvation is basic and foundational, where it starts and obviously for a reason first in this list. “Dead works” is not merely works-salvation related but specifically repentance from sin, which is what the word means.

6. Jesus addressed sins with the rich young ruler in Matt 19; Mk 10; Lk 18, that were no stumbling block to him from turning, except a particular one. Christ exposed that he loved that sin of covetousness more than Him, and was not willing to turn from it surrender to Him, to submit himself to his Maker and God and King (we address this case here). Authority is always an issue with unrepentant sinners, hence the truth that there is no salvation outside of Lordship Salvation. The fruit of true repentance would have been him forsaking all his riches and glory and following after Christ. Like Zacchaeus, given in the same context of Luke’s account, our next example.

7. Concerning Zacchaeus, he is a wonderful example of true repentance from sin in salvation. In Lk 19:6 we read,

“And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.”

It is evident that at some point between the tree and the ground he was converted through turning from his sin and trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. A truly repentant sinner—and he was a sinner indeed being a greedy corrupt publican—will “come to the light” so that his evil “deeds should be reproved” as Jn 3:19-21 indicates. Though we don’t read of his specific repentance and faith, we know it occurred because he came to Christ and received Him joyfully, what Jn 1:12 says. The coming to God language is always indicative of conversion (cf. Jn 14:6, “cometh unto the Father;” Lk 14:26, “If any man come to me,” Mk 8:34, “Whosoever will come after me;” etc). But it’s the fruit of true Biblical repentance, the “works meet for repentance” of someone that “repent[ed] and turn[ed] to God” (Ac 26:20) that demonstrates that he had indeed Biblically repented, that is turned from his sin and sinful ways, and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, as we see here tested immediately when his sin is exposed:

"And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. [8] And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” (Lk 19:7-8)

It’s obvious that he turned from all sins when he was repentantly believing, or he wouldn’t have had this fruit of repentance concerning something that was said about his grievous sin. He did what the unrepentant, non-submissive, rich young ruler wouldn’t do, and it’s at this point that Christ confirmed that he had been wonderfully converted/ saved:

“And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (vv. 9-10)

8. 1 Th 1:9 is another good example of repentance from sin for salvation,

“For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;”

What is it that the Thessalonians turned from in their repentance? From “idols.” What are "idols"? Sin. Always. An idol is never not sin. It is a breech of the first and second of God's ten commandments (Ex 20:3-6). When the lost repent, they turn to God from their sin and their idols with the intention of serving the living and true God and waiting for His Son from heaven.

9. Lk 13:1-5,

“There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

In Christ’s warning here on “except ye repent” (vv. 1-5), who and what is He referring to in his illustrations? Sinners excusing and perishing due to their sin. The command “repent” is tied directly to the object, “sinners,” so it becomes very obvious what these sinners need to repent of when they repent.

10. Acts 3:19, 26;

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; . . . Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

The whole of repentance is addressed here, a change of mind and will about sin, about God, about His judgment and righteousness, about the gospel, about the sinful and evil path they are on, and then to turn from these things, turning from sin (“converted” which is “epistrepho,” a word for repentance meaning to turn)

11. Acts 14:15,

“And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:”

"Vanities" here are in direct reference to the animal sacrifices the people at Lystra were about to do in the name of Paul and Barnabas, idol worship, which is greatly sinful (Ex 20:3-6). Paul was telling them to turn from these sins, vanities, unto the living God. That is repentance, and it is turning from sin.

12. Rev 16:9-11,

“And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.”

They “repented not of their deeds.” What are their “deeds”? Sin of course, which relates to what Rev 9:20-21 says, and Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:11 and other places, “ergon” referring to sinful works and deeds in this context.

13. Luke 15. In the single parable (v. 3) of Lk 15, Christ illustrates the conversion of publicans and sinners (vv. 1-2, 11-24) through the act of repentance from sin, self, stuff and people, by the restoration of a lost sheep, coin, and son, while the unconverted and self-righteous Pharisees who thought they did not need to repent (v. 2; cf. 5:31-32; 19:7-10) are illustrated by another son (Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1; Rom 9:4), who was not willing to enter his father’s house (vv. 25-32) but greatly dishonoured his father because of his perceived superiority to the restored lost son (vv. 25-32).

In this chapter that is all about repentance, the answer to what Christ had just preached in Lk 14:15-33, Christ spoke of the attitude expressed by the words of the son that was lost and then found: “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (vv. 18-19). He then turned from his sin and fled to the Father in humbleness and godly sorrow for his evil deeds and ways. Such an attitude expresses the change of will/heart that results in a change of action (turning from his evil sins, himself, and unto the Father) and change of life doctrine of repentance.

14. There are four Greek words and two Hebrew words that are translated as repent (and metonyms) or define and describe the principles of repentance, and these clearly implicate sin as the major element in repentance.

Of the four words that are used in the Greek gospels to describe the process of repentance, (a) one, metamelomai, emphasizes the emotional element of repentance/regret, sorrow over the past sinful and evil course of life (noted in Matt 21:28-32; 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8; Heb 7:21); (b) two, metanoeo/metanoia expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude (noted in such passages as Matt 12:41, Lk 11:32; 15:7, 10); and (c) three, epistrepho, denotes a volitional change in the direction of life, turning, one master being substituted for another (noted in passages such as Matt 13:15 [and parallels]; Lk 17;4, 22:32). Repentance is not limited to any single faculty of the mind: it engages the entire man, intellect, will and affections. In the new life which follows repentance, the absolute supremacy of God is the controlling principle. He who repents turns away from the service of self and mammon to the service of God.

The verbs “shub” and “nacham” are used in the OT for the doctrine of repentance. (a) “Shub,” means to turn away from sin/self/stuff/people and around to God and be converted, to abandon a course of action to desist from doing wrong (e.g. Is 55:7; Ezk 14:6; Hos 12:6; Jon 3:8). "Shub" is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Ps 85:4). Its two sister words in the Greek NT are "epistrepho” and "metanoia.” It is a common verb and most generally utilized to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance, a conscious response to forsake all (sin, self, stuff, people) and to turn to the righteousness only available and provided through Christ (De 4:30; Neh 1:9; Ps 7:12; Jer 3:14). It typically refers to God in His relation to man (Ex 32:12; Jos 7:26). "Shub" is the word for repentance in passages such as Ezk 14:6; 18:21, 23, 30-31; 33:9, 11, in the words "turn" and "turn away" and "turn yourselves." (b) “Nacham” emphasizes the emotional aspect of repentance, conveying the expressive idea and deep feeling of sorrowful regret, to regret something, and is found with reference to human repentance in texts such as Jer 31:19 and Job 42:6: “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It literally means "to pant; to sigh; or to groan" (Vines). Its sister word in the NT is “metamelomai.”

It is not difficult to note the sin aspect of NT and OT repentance. For further detail on these words, please see here.

More examples could be given but these should suffice.

The Bible overwhelmingly teaches that repentance is turning from sin, NOT from "unbelief."

No one had to tell this wretched sinner that it was sin that I needed to turn from in my unregenerate nature, when I came across the necessity to repent in the Scriptures before my conversion. It was obvious, though I wasn’t too interested in doing that. Thankfully, one day that did occur as I surrendered to Christ and God gloriously saved me.

Error and Fallacy: Repentance is Merely a Change of Mind

Is repentance a mere change of mind of something, whether it be sin or God or the gospel or all thy above? Why do so many preachers ignore the inspired text behind the KJV translation (of course this is done by modern Bible perverters on a much worst scale, and there is the much greater additional issue of Textual Criticism and of an underlying text that has produced tens of thousands of omissions, additions and changes, which is blasphemous evil worst than genocide).

The average ignorance to the critical word "repentance" expressed in the comments of the youtube video and by Pastor Tommy McMurtry is appalling, and may well reflect the counterfeit "salvation" of many. Someone in the comments section defined repentance as “a change of mind.” This is very, very common, but it’s very, very heretical. Repentance is a critical element of the gospel of Christ (Mk 1; Ac 20:24, 21), the very foundation of salvation (Matt 4:17; Mk 6:12; Lk 24:44-48), and it is expressed in the NT through three Greek words, addressing all three elements of repentance and faculties of man: the intellect, the emotions, and the volition (will). When any of the three faculties is missing, it is false repentance.

Tommy rejects repentance of sin for salvation altogether, which means he is advancing a false and perverted gospel and is a false teacher of "damnable heresies" (2 Pet 2:1). His "repentance of sin" is purely relegated to the Christian, and there it becomes a mere change of mind, not from sin (as in immoral sin) mind you, but from unbelief, which is heretical.

The word repentance at his core definition always means the same thing, only applied differently to man than God. The basic definition of repentance is a change of mind and will, that produces a change of action, and then—in the case of man— leads to a change of life. When God repented in Scripture, in every example this definition applies: a change of mind and will, that produces a change of action. The “change of mind” repentance is a faith of intellectual assent only, which is a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4). The overwhelming Scriptural and grammatical evidence for the true Biblical position remains untouched, and is actually strongly supplemented by theological support from invalid “change of mind” only argumentation.

Repentance is a critical element of the gospel of Christ (Mk 1; Ac 20:24, 21), the very foundation of salvation (Matt 4:17; Mk 6:12; Lk 24:44-48), and it encompasses the three faculties of man: the intellect, the emotions, and the volition (will), and its by these three elements that repentance is expressed in the NT through three different Greek words. This is very clear in scripture and really basic to the doctrine of repentance. Anyone that has a true and genuine desire to understand repentance will examine the doctrine at this level, to develop the full definition and illustration of the doctrine.

1. The Intellect. This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Metanoia,” which is used in number of scripture, such as Lk 11:32; 15:7, 10, and defined as a reversal of your thinking, your mental attitude. “Anonia” essentially refers to the mind. You change your mind, so one of the facilities repentance deals with is the mind. You have to change your mind about yourself, how you view yourself, the way you really are, the way Scripture says the way you are, how God says you are, to see yourself as a fallen, corrupt, and wicked sinner from the cranium to the feet. You acknowledge that you are a guilty filthy, wicked sinner under the wrath of God, and hell-bound.

2. The Emotions. This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Metamellomai,” another Greek word used for repentance seen in passages such as Matt 21:28-32, and it emphasizes regret and sorrow, the emotional faculty of man. Once the mind and heart grasps the new definition of who I am, there is a consequential emotion that goes from the mind to the feelings, and there is godly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10) and shame. This aligns perfectly with what Jesus said in the beginning of the sermon on the mount, “blessed are the poor in spirit,” so you understand who you are, you are spiritually poor, spiritually bankrupt, you have nothing, so what do you do? You actually are sad then, “Blessed are they which mourn, for they shall be comforted.” So you see your condition, you see your spiritual poverty and you mourn over your lost and unrighteous condition.

3. The Will (Volition). This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Epistrepho,” found in places such as Lk 17:4; 22:32, and means you change or turn directions in your life and refers to your will, your volition. It starts in your mind, moves to your emotions and activates your will. It has to start in the mind, you understand the truth, you know what it says. 2 Tim 3, “from a child thou has known the holy scriptures.” So you have to know it, understand it first, and actually love it, “receive . . . the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Th 2:10), before it can get down to the emotional and volitional levels. It’s a self-assessment that matches up with what God’s Word says about you. You want to go away from yourself, and go after Him, “come after me” (Mk 8:34), thats the turning of repentance, turning from your ways, your sins, your idols and your loves, to God. That is the volition, and it starts with a self assessment that is dramatically different than anything you have ever viewed yourself. You have to hate yourself to the degree that you would literally die if needs be, deny self, take up the cross, a symbol of death. When someone sees themselves for who they really are, they won’t make something sacred out of their life, knowing how bad they are, how wicked they really are. It’s not just a fanciful idea what Jeremiah stated, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer 17:9).

Anyone of these three faculties eliminated results in a false repentance that won't save.

Repentance is certainly not just a change of mind, discussed in further detail here: Repentance is Not Just a Change of Mind. The "change of mind only" repentance is a faith of intellectual assent only, which is a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4), a “repentance” that is shared with the devils (Jam 2:19).

Interestingly, the “change of mind” only “repentance” confined to sheer intellectualism is so defined in a word that is not found to be translated as repentance or its metonyms or even in principle, but as “metaballo” found only once in the NT in that of Ac 28:6 where the pagan people on the island of Melita (today Malta) “changed their minds, and said that [Paul] was a god” when they “saw no harm come to him,” after a viper had sprung and latched onto his hand from out of the fire, and thinking “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.” (v. 4). They who witnessed the event “changed their minds” from thinking he was “a murderer” to that of “a god.” That is the definition of "metaballo" and MANY are attempting to corrupt repentance with this definition “Metaballo” literally means to turn about in opinion; a changed mind. Thats what occurred in the minds of the Maltans. It’s purely of the intellect, of the mind, and nothing volitional. This is in fact the word that is being described by these repentance rejectors of the “change of mind” persuasion. It has nothing to do with repentance, yet its meaning is used to describe “repentance” by the repentance rejectors.

The words underlying repentance, or its synonyms or principles in both OT and NT provide overwhelming and crystal-clear evidence in favour of the position that true Biblical repentance is always a change of mind and will that always results in a change of action (concerning man: turning, contrition, self-denial, surrender), and always (in the case of man) leads to a change of life, and against the position of a “change of mind” repentance. Were the "change of mind only" position true, very many standard lexica’s would have to be in error, along with many verses of Scripture.

The idea that repentance is just a change of mind (and not will) that may or may not result in a change of action and life, the false “change of mind” only position, is totally unbiblical. It is a serious, dangerous and Satanic corruption of the saving gospel of Christ. Its advocates should consider the warning of Gal 1:8-9 and tremble:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Error and Fallacy: Repentance Alone is Sufficient to Save

It was addressed by both I believe (but definitely by Charlie) that people can have all the doctrine right, say the right words, but miss the mark of conversion because they are missing the Lord Jesus Christ in everything. I do not believe that this actually happens very often, but rather that the repentance is not genuine, it’s not true self denial which is absolutely demanded for true and genuine conversion.

I think this is used more often as a straw man than not, but it does occur specifically amongst works-salvation sects, denominations and churches, as this writer has witnessed amongst the Mennonite people especially. Someone can be convicted of their sin, be remorseful, sorrowful, and even broken, as we see in the example of Judas Iscariot and Esau, but if they do not turn to the Lord Jesus Christ and place their faith and trust in His gospel, they most certainly cannot be saved. Just like Judas and Esau. Repentance on its own is not sufficient. In my heritage, traditional background, Mennonites are masters of temporal repentance, the "repented himself" (Matt 27:3) type, but its a facade built out of a pity party and selfish motives, because they really do not want to turn from their false religion and church or from their lists of self-interests and sins that appear to attractive, to the truth of faith in Jesus Christ by God’s grace for salvation. In many ways they imitate the religious Jews to almost perfection, and we could, with Paul, declare to them,

“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Rom 10:2-4).

This passage out of Rom 10 summarizes this very subject invoke here. The religious Jews, scribes, chief priests, Pharisees, and so on, appeared to live a life of repentance and piety, but boy were they ever dead spiritually. They were ignorant of God's righteousness, and went about to establish their own righteousness, and this is always the case in dead religion.

Just as repentance points to the Lord Jesus Christ and faith in Him, faith rests upon and relies on repentance to be true and genuine, as opposed to dead or feigned or absent altogether.

Error and Fallacy: God Repented More than Man and Thus Means Different Things.

This is really the ultimate red herring and though Tommy says it is often used as a bad argument, he does not appear to be opposed to it. It seems perhaps that the straw man is constructed in opposition to the truth that salvation requires repentance of sin for salvation. It is utilized as a counter argument, by men who "resist the truth" and are "of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (2 Tim 3:8). Charlie provided a fairly decent answer to this, calling it nigh blasphemy because of the logical conclusion to the false argument, God must then repent of sin or unbelief or something else. I would add, a means to justify the false definition of repentance as a mere change of mind.

Tommy uses the “God repented” argument to justify various different types of repentance, and that repentance of sin is not always what repentance means, because God doesn’t repent of sin. This is once again a serious red herring, diverting attention away from the fact that Gods repentance is different than mans while man’s repentance is always the same. He says, “the word is used in many different ways,” which is a logical fallacy to support his false "repentance is turning from unbelief to belief" and "repentance from sin is only for believers."

What Tommy neglects to understand is that the word repentance at its core and basic rudimentary definition always means the same thing, only it is applied slightly differently to man than God. The basic definition of repentance is a change of mind and will, that produces a change of action, and then —in the case of man, when its true Biblical repentance— leads to a change of life. When God repented in Scripture, in every example this definition applies: a change of mind and will, that produces a change of action. Always. Every single illustration of His repentance. In fact, regardless of the example in Scripture, this definition is perfectly true, whether God or man.

God does repent but not more so than man, and His repentance isn't from error or sin but a pure change of His mind and will that leads to a change of action, NOT change of life. God doesn't change, even though He changes His mind at times. Repentance attributed to God is found in 30 or so places: e.g. Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:10-14; De. 32:36; Jud 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Ch. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; 110:4; 135:14; Jer. 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Am. 7:3, 6; Jon 3:9-10; Ze 8:14-15. Since God is sinless and does not need to turn from sin and self and stuff and people, proponents of this false position avers that the other view is an error and repentance is simply a change of mind without any change of action, claiming that these actions follow salvation, not for salvation. That is a straw man argument and neglects to understand what true repentance is.

Most of the above listed passages refer to God repenting or promising to repent, that is change His mind and will which produces a change of action (not doing what He threatened to do), if man would repent (noted in Jer 18:8-10; 26:3; 42:10; Joel 2:12-13 for instance). God cannot sin. And His counsel is immutable. But He can repent which doesn’t change Him or His character or His nature, but there are no examples in Scripture where God repented and nothing changed. Gods repentance is not from sin obviously, but of a decision He had made and then subsequently changed His mind and will and thus plan towards man because of man's genuine repentance of their sin.

A good example of this is that of the Ninevites. God repented, He changed His mind and will (“God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them”) because the Ninevites repented of their sin and evil ways (Jon 3:5-9) which resulted in His change of action (“and he did it not”) (Jon 3:10). When God repented of the evil He said He was planning to do to His people, the Christ-rejecting Israelites in the wilderness, His corresponding action was not to destroy them completely (Ex 32:9-14). When God repented of making the human race, He changed His gracious ways towards humanity and destroyed mankind with a flood (Gen 6:6-7). When the Lord repented of the bondage to foreign powers He had laid upon Israel for the nation’s sins, He delivered Israel by raising up judges (Ju 2:18-19). When God repented of making Saul king, He changed His actions toward Saul, deposed him, and set up David (1 Sam 15:35--16:1). No place in Scripture where God repented was there not a corresponding change of action.

In this context and discussion about “different types of repentance” by Tommy, he keeps bringing up that not all examples of repentance is about repenting from sin. What is his point? Is he trying to justify that some repentance of man is not from sin? Oh, because God doesn’t repent of sin, that means man doesn’t always repent of sin either? Where in Scripture does man repent and it's not from sin in general or some specific sin? There appears to be some manipulation by Tommy in this area, which we perceive to be about the problem of repenting of sin.

Repentance did not have “many different scenarios” in “1611,” as Tommy claims. He also says repentance is like “many words like that today, where we have many different uses of them, the context determines the exact definition even though it’s the same word. So thats whats going on with the word repent.”

He says,

“You can look up 1828 Websters dictionary, I forget how many different definitions of repentance, theres a lot, because there is a lot of different ways the word can be used.”

What Tommy says here is a complete farce and straw man fallacy. It’s not true, and a diversion, to cover up for his denial of this critical doctrine of the gospel.

Here is what the 1828 Websters Dictionary has on repentance, which express the truth of what we've been saying here concerning the three faculties of man, derived from the Greek and Hebrew words for repentance:

RE'PENT, adjective [Latin repo, to creep.] Creeping; as a repent root.

REPENT', verb intransitive [Latin re and paeniteo, from paena, pain. Gr. See Pain.]

1. To feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken; as, to repent that we have lost much time in idleness or sensual pleasure; to repent that we have injured or wounded the feelings of a friend. A person repents only of what he himself has done or said.

2. To express sorrow for something past.

Enobarbus did before thy face repent

3. To change the mind in consequence of the inconvenience or injury done by past conduct.

Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return. Exodus 13:17.

4. Applied to the Supreme Being, to change the course of providential dealings. Genesis 6:7. Psalms 106:45.

5. In theology, to sorrow or be pained for sin, as a violation of God's holy law, a dishonor to his character and government, and the foulest ingratitude to a Being of infinite benevolence.

Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13:3. Acts 3:19.

REPENT', verb transitive

1. To remember with sorrow; as, to repent rash words; to repent an injury done to a neighbor; to repent follies and vices. [See Repentance.]

2. With the reciprocal pronoun.

No man repented him of his wickedness. Jeremiah 8:6.

[This form of expression is now obsolete.]

REPENT'ANCE, noun

1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.

2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.

3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.

Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Corinthians 7:9. Matthew 3:8.

Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God.

Tommy is lying and bearing false witness to the truth, either because he is ignorant to the true gospel and thus repentance, or he is purposefully manipulating and gaslighting Charlie and his audience. Any man that believes repentance is just a change of mind, and a mere turning from unbelief to belief, and rejects repentance from sin, is a completely rejector of true Biblical repentance and perverter of the true gospel. Essentially everything he will argue will be from a position of rejection, and bear the thorns of logical fallacies and other mental gymnastics.

Error and Fallacy: Straw Man Concerning Repentance of Sin, or Turning from Sin: Means You Either Must Stop Sinning to be Saved or You don't Have to Repent of All Your Sins.

This portion of the discussion is full of straw man logical fallacies and a true denial of the Biblical doctrine.

Matt 16:24-26, Mk 8:34-38, Lk 9:23-26, are applicable to all people, not just the Moslem or Catholic that gets excommunicated from his family (strangely he leaves out the Jew, who is actually the very subject receiving this truth from Christ). What Charlie says here is not bad, but it’s incomplete. These passages (though he only addressed the Matt 16 passage, they are all parallel) are being preached as the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are what repentance and faith encompasses. That is what he should have said, but he didn't because he normally rejects this critical truth, and applies these egregiously to something post-salvation, which is very normal in the Keswick/easy believism camp. Read here: In Mark 8:34-38, Is Jesus Teaching How to be Saved or How to be A Better Christian?

Charlie does however in this instance apply this to repentance and salvation which is good:

“And that person would have to make a decision: I going to come to Christ or am I going to put my family first. That doesn’t mean it’s a works-based gospel, they are counting the cost just like Jesus said they should, counting the cost. So is there any room for someone’s sin to be a stumbling block from coming to Christ.”

Tommy appears to argue against this. He mentions people coming to him and “bringing up specific sins, and in I think in many cases that could be the Holy Spirit convicting them of those sins,” (remember he rejects "conviction") and then puts out this straw man:

“You do realize Jesus had to die because of that sin. Jesus had to die for the drunkard. Jesus had to die for the fornicator. . . . a lot of people they do not want to see the truth of their sinful condition. But what I also do with those same people, I would hate for them to think that they somehow gain salvation by giving up some kind of sin or by doing some kind of work . . . every sin is unacceptable to a holy God, and while God had to die for everyone of those sins, I don’t want you to get the idea that if you just reform your life and you forsake all these sins that this somehow would make you acceptable to a holy God. You can forsake all those things all you want, and I hope you do, but it won’t save you. Your only hope is coming to Christ as you are and letting Him save you and then help you forsake those things in your life. So I think you can send a wrong message both ways there. . . . I personally think its great when people start bringing up specific sins, that shows me the Holy Spirit is working, that they are being convicted, but I make it abundantly clear that them getting rid of one or two sins is not going to do a thing to save them because every sin matters in the eyes of God. . . . If the Holy Spirit is convicting them of that sin, thats wonderful, let em know that its exceedingly sinful just make sure they understand its worse than they think, you know, every sin would stop them from going to heaven and this why they need Christ, so He will save them and then after they get saved, the Holy Spirit will come and He will help them clean their life up.” He goes on to quote Ti 2:11-14 in discussion that “people will instinctively know, when they recognize their sinful condition, that even if they are presented the gospel correctly, they know that the sin they enjoyed, they are not going enjoy it the way they did before, if they acknowledge the truth about that sin. But I am still not going to tell that person, ‘forsake that first, other wise you can’t get in.’”

First of all, this is a message of confusion and Tommy completely circular reasons around the issue being discussed, in grandeur logical fallacy fashion. He never even addresses the passage out of Matt 16:24-26, because he utterly rejects this as salvation and corrutps it into a post-salvation discipleship passage, which is heretical and wicked wresting of Scipture (2 Pet 3:16-17).

Secondly, in his rejection of repentance from sin, he erects the incredible straw man and red herring that “every sin” is important and “every sin” Jesus died for and “every sin is unacceptable to a holy God” and “every sin matters in the eyes of God” and “every sin would stop them from going to heaven and this why they need Christ,” yet he actually rejects repentance from sin for salvation. And no one is denying these things, but the discussion at hand is whether Tommy believes that a sinner must turn from those sins, “every sin,” to be saved. Thats the question that causes him to bounces around the entire forest and misses it for the trees.

Thirdly, the bible teaches the sinner to forsake all for Christ, and it’s NOT referring to something after salvation either, not ever. Jesus was speaking to unsaved people in the context of salvation and repentance for salvation (e.g. Lk 14:25-33).

"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." (Lk 14:33)

Christ's Call to Discipleship is a Call to Salvation.

Charlie followed the above with:

“Sure but there has to be a willingness. There has to be a willingness to realize, my sin, or whatever specific sin mentioned is getting in the way of me getting saved. . . . If they are not willing to acknowledge that they are potentially the booze before God or whatever it is, I said to this person, you giving up drinking is not going to get you saved, its you believing on the Lord Jesus Christ that gets you saved. And when you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, He will help you to be sanctified and not have an appetite for the drinking. He’ll give you new desires. But you see he didn’t want that. He didn’t want this new desire, he didn’t want this new life in Christ, he wanted to continue to drink. So his desire hadn’t changed, he hadn’t had a repentant heart, he didn’t care about the crucified one that died for this sin and this is what I am trying to say, you could say to someone, ‘yea just come to Christ, say this prayer, and you’d be saved and don’t worry God will take care of the rest,’ no, no, I am worried, cause you asked me a question, I didn’t even talk about your sin, I didn’t even know that was his struggle, he’s the one that brought it up to me. I cannot be dishonest with my response to him.”

Charlie shouldn't be afraid to preach the truth. Repentance is not just “a willingness to acknowledge or realize sin and its consequence.” It’s not even “a willingness to turn from sin,” for the spirit of man is often willing, but the flesh is weak, but an actual literal real tangible turning from sin, which is different than a mere willingness. If that happens to be the moment you are drinking, that would be letting go of the bottle and ceasing from indulging in the devils drink. If that happens to be the moment you are on the way to drinking, it is turning 180 and going the opposite direction. If that happens to be the moment you are stealing, it is stopping the steal and fleeing from the sin. And the same for killing, fornicating, adultery, and so on. Repentance is an internal, and literal turning from sin, just like the prodigal son (Luke 15).

Tommy’s response here is a true classic straw man and the very definition of a false repentant-less gospel of easy believism:

“Its very likely to one of the reasons that people bring all these things up Is they’ve likely been to 14 different churches that told them they had to forsake all those sins before they could be saved. They’ve tried 27 different times to forsake all those sins so they could be saved and it never succeeded. And thats why to me though, when you say it the way you are saying it there, you almost have to lower God’s standard and you almost have to deceive people into thinking that they are capable of being this Christian that doesn’t do all these things, no what they need to understand is that they are hopeless, they are helpless, but they need to believe that Christ love them anyway, He paid for all those sins, then once a person comes to that point, then they are able to get saved and then the Holy Spirit can work on all those things . . . I think we are giving people a false hope, false idea if we are saying to them in that way. I think we need to tell them, no, believe that God loves you, believe that God saves you, even though you are a sorry drunk, and then let God help you with these things.”

It’s no wonder that people are charging him with antinomianism. But it’s worse than that. Tommy is preaching a false gospel that makes people two-fold children of hell. Period. The only one here that is giving “a false hope, false idea” is Tommy. Additionally, it is this very false no-repentance gospel of easy believism that actually “lowers God standard” and “deceives people into thinking that they are capable of being this Christian that” doesn’t need to repent, that is, turning from their sin/self/stuff/people, in sorrowful contrition and with a broken and poor spirit, in surrender.

Charlie did respond to this partially, and what he said was good, exposing the “just believe” heresy that excludes preaching against sin, but he didn’t go far enough. Indeed the man in the story rejected the gospel and yes you should answer his question, but more so, he should've been asking those very type of questions to begin with. That is casting down spiritual strongholds that are opposing the truth. True gospel preaching is completely based around repentance, and thus sin and the fear of God. This is what we see in every single example throughout the gospels of Christ and NT overall (e.g. Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; 10:17-31; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:1-5, 23-30; 14:15–15:32; 16:19-31; 17:32-33; 18:1-30; 19:1-10, 11-27; Jn 12:24-26; Ac 3:19-26; 13:26; etc).

Tommy repeats it again,

“They are not going to enjoy their sin as they did before. I am still not going to tell that person, ‘forsake that sin or otherwise you can’t get in.’”

Jesus told them to forsake all for Him (Lk 14:33) but Tommy won't do what Jesus did. How fitting with the false gospel that he propagates.

This is actually just another form of religion where the new birth is excluded and conformity to whichever “Jesus” it is that you like is accepted. Everyone has their own "Jesus," that cleans the garbage out for them so they can have their best life now.

Conclusion

From a personal perspective, I think both of these men are likeable but I cannot for a moment believe that pastor Tommy is actually genuinely converted. You cannot be if you reject Biblical repentance. I mean this in the nicest manner possible. Speaking the truth in love. Tommy comes across as an efficient and intelligent orator (with the caveat that many people attach themselves to a good orator scratching their itches like a dog attracted to its own vomit--see Rom 16:18), and appears to be very knowledgeable in the Bible in many areas and we have no doubt of his sincerity as a pastor and appreciate his stance on many important subjects, but we believe deep down in his heart the doubts he has are actually real. Doubting itself is not what true salvation produces. There is nothing wrong with a man humbling himself before God and man and making sure of this matter, for eternity is way too long to be wrong. You don’t want to slam into eternity and come to realize on the other side that you've always believed a lie. But that examination must be based on genuine sincerity, and with a true understanding of what repentance is and Christ’s lordship, how this is true salvation indeed vs the gospel errors that he embraces and promotes. I would encourage him to do thus, to "Examine [himself], whether [he] be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor 13:5). I know of a number of testimonies of this very nature. I think of a man who was the youth leader in his fathers church in the east coast, with a very similar testimony of salvation, but he knew inside of him was something not quite right and there was no possible way he could be genuinely converted. Yes, doubting and uncertainty is always a mark of unregeneracy. There is a void to be filled. The day came in his young adult years when he was genuinely and dramatically saved, before all the church, and it was a big church, and what had been missing all those years was true and genuine repentance, as it almost always is. His salvation was dramatic, as it also ALWAYS is, regardless of age.

As the discussion in the discourse went deeper, the errors of Tommy became more prominent. And these aren't just some minor or nitpicking errors either but rather damnable heresies that affect the very gospel of Jesus Christ, and demonstrate the Gnosticism of easy-believism. Here is really what every one of these heretics that pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ by corrupting repentance and who Jesus is, are in fact — Gnostics. Professional Gnostics.

Not only did the errors wax worse and worse, but do so did the deception. Tommy, as it appeared, was attempting to pull the wool over Charlies eyes as to what he really and genuinely believed. Consistently he attempted to place himself into the "repentance of sin" side, but he doesn't actually believe in repentance of sin for salvation, and he knows it to, so it was purposeful deception. Believing in repentance for sin after salvation is NOT the same as repentance of sin for salvation. These are two completely different things, and what is different is not the same. Attempting to undermine the vast gulf between these two things, indeed as vastly different as the gulf that separated hell and paradise, further reflects the active undertaking of spoiling the listener "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col 2:8). As do the truck loads of logical fallacies, which didn't booster his position either, only "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb 10:27).

The heretics and gnostics rejection of the actual doctrine of repentance in Scripture, which is supported by 3 or 4 Greek words and nearly as many Hebrew words in the OT, speaks volumes to the false professions and dead faith of such "churches." This heresy and false gospel must be immediately confronted and true believers should not give place to such false teachers, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Gal 2:5). Professing Christians who are being led astray and confused by such attacks on the gospel should be immediately confronted. True churches must warn against such assaults on the gospel and maintain strict and total ecclesiastical separation from its advocates (Rom 16:17; Ti 3:10; 2 Jn 1:7-11). They must also boldly preach repentance and faith to every creature, so that they not only negatively oppose error, but by their true doctrine and practice adorn the truth (Matt 28:18-20; Lk 24:47; Ac 20:21).

Upon examining Tommy’s position on repentance further through his church website and gospel presentation, I am certain that he actually rejects the doctrine altogether, while of course giving lip service to a form of it whenever it is forced, lest he be deemed a false teacher. It didn’t help. He might give some lip service to it, as he does here in the discussion, but in reality he utterly rejects it evident by his false definition, false application, denial of its true meaning, never actually preaching it, rejecting true fruit of salvation as always present, denying other elements associated with the doctrine (such as "conviction") and so on. He gives easy credence to almost any, maybe all, professions of faith. He cannot be discerning in these matters because they lack substance and meat just like his own, but there are deeper and more serious reasons.

I am glad that Charlie confronted the issue of repentance misconceptions and fallaciousness, but he didn't go far enough or press the right questions or confront Tommy's errors and heresies concerning repentance in a more direct and transparent manner. If Charlie does not believe that Tommy's "repentance" is unBiblical, I would be concerned over his own position, which appeared much different than Tommy's and much more Biblical. I would've also liked to see him go much further with the doctrine and discuss it at the depth that it needs coverage, and then also tie it into Lordship salvation and how that dovetails and relates. It would have been good of him to soundly oppose the errors that Tommy was promoting and believing and call him out as the heretic that he truly is (Ti 3:10-11). That is Biblical, just like Paul the Apostle did repeatedly, ten times in 1 and 2 Timothy alone, naming all men by their given first name.

The Bible calls these erroneous and fallacious teachings on repentance, unsound doctrine of fables (2 Tim. 4:3-4), a perversion of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), another gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4) and false teaching (Rom. 16:17). If repentance is required for salvation but different than believing (which it is—Lk. 13:3,5; Mk. 1:15; 2:17; Ac. 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:9; 2 Pet. 3:9) and repentance is part of the gospel and thus great commission (which it is—Lk. 24:44-48; Mk. 1:15; Ac 20:21, 24), and repentance is always from sin and self, which incorporates "dead works" (which it is—Lk. 24:48; Ac. 3:19; 1 Th. 1:9) and repentance must precede believing (which it must—Matt. 21:32; Ac. 3:19-4:4; 19:4; 20:21; Mk. 1:15), then a false version of repentance would corrupt and pervert the gospel (which it does—Matt. 21:32; Mk. 1:15; Gal. 1:6-9), and deemed as a "damnable heres[y]" (2 Pet. 2:1). This erroneous "repentance" of Tommy does not change a person, that is certainly true, because it is not true salvation. True repentance is central to the gospel:

"And [Jesus] unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things." (Lk. 24:46-48).

Corruption or perversion thereof would mean that the gospel has become false. Consider the warning of Paul in Gal 1:8-9 regarding a perverted gospel which is any gospel besides the gospel that the apostles preached.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

The gospel that Paul preached included repentance (turning from sin, self, stuff, people to God) and trusting in Jesus Christ (Ac. 14:15; 20:21; 26:18-20; I Th. 1:9; etc). The Great Commission is the preaching of the gospel, which includes "repentance" (Lk. 24:44-48) and believing (Mk. 16:15-16). In 2 Cor. 11:3-4 Paul expresses his fears that those at Corinth would merely bear with false teachers that bring "another Jesus" and "another gospel" and "another spirit," not even necessarily following the false teaching, but bearing (tolerating) with the false teachers. This we see is being fulfilled in many churches today.

The false-repentance "gospel," just like the repentant-less "gospel," is "another gospel." (2 Cor 11:4).