15. Our pastor never does altar calls and never asks people if they want to ask Jesus in their heart or choose Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Instead, Calvinists emphasize the need to "repent."
As I mentioned in the last point, with Calvinism in general, there are no altar calls, no "Do you want to ask Jesus into your heart, to choose Him as your Lord and Savior?"
They say it's because they don't want people thinking they're saved just because they "walked the aisle" or "prayed a prayer." But I know it's because they don't want people thinking they have a choice. Because that would contradict their whole idea of election, that God decides for us and causes the elect to believe.
Anyway, I just realized something interesting about a Calvinist's emphasis on repentance. (You'll also see repentance emphasized in a Calvinist church's Statement of Faith, instead of any reference to accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.) I didn't really know why the Calvinist's emphasis on repentance bothered me so much (because, after all, repentance is a necessary, good, important thing), but then I was reading Acts 19:1-5 this morning and it hit me:
"... There he [Paul] found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?'
They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' [Note: Acts is a transitionary time-period as things shift into the Church Age, from before the coming of the Holy Spirit to after.]
So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
'John's baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
While reading this, I immediately thought about the emphasis Calvinists put on repentance, as opposed to "believing in and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior." You see, Calvinists don't think we have a choice about believing in Jesus. They think it's ultimately up to the Lord whether we believe or not. They think that God first elects those He wants to save and then He gives them the Holy Spirit to regenerate them (make them born again), which causes them to believe in Jesus. (And the non-elect can never believe.) And so Calvinists put the emphasis on "repentance" - because their theology prevents them from putting it on "believing."
But John the Baptist's "baptism of repentance" (Acts 19:4) was before Jesus died for our sins. Repentance is what was required of people before Jesus died on the cross. It's how people showed their devotion to God (along with following Jewish religious rules) before we had the option of believing in Jesus. But after Jesus, the Bible shifts the emphasis from repenting to believing, choosing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
The thing is, when I looked up "repent" in the concordance, it simply says it's about changing your mind for the better. It involves three steps: gaining new knowledge about something, regretting the course of action you were/are on, and changing your course of action for the better.
Let me ask Calvinists this: Where, in any of that, is Jesus? Repentance is a good, important thing. You can't turn to Jesus without repenting first. But repentance, on its own, is not much different than self-therapeutic behavior-modification. Repentance, on its own, essentially leaves Jesus out, falling short of putting our faith in Him, of committing to Him.
Acts 20:21 shows us that both repentance and believing in Jesus are needed: "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (KJV)
"Repentance" is about what we turn from, but "believing" is about who we turn to. You have to believe in Jesus to be saved. And the author of Acts even stresses this when he says that John told the people to believe in Jesus. John did baptisms of repentance, but he said that when Jesus comes, it's about "believing."
So the Bible shifts it from repenting to believing (biblical New Testament "repentance" is only complete with "believe in Jesus"), but Calvinists have shifted it back (emphasizing repentance most) because they don't think believing in Jesus is a choice we can make.
And furthermore, Calvinists don't even think that we believe in Jesus to be saved. They think the elect believe in Jesus because they are saved. And that's a big difference.
And I guess that's what bothers me so much - when I compare what they say to what they actually believe. They want us to think they're saying that we have a choice about believing in Jesus, when they really think we don't. They want us to think they're saying that we repent and believe to be saved and born again, when they're really saying that the elect repent and believe because they're saved and after they're born again. They tell us to do something to be saved (repent and believe) that they don't think we can actually do unless we are already saved.
It's deceptive. And it makes it sound like they think anyone can do it and like it actually makes a difference in who will be saved... when they really believe that our eternities have already been decided by God and nothing can change it. In Calvinism, the elect - and only the elect - will get the Holy Spirit who will make them born again and cause them to believe in Jesus. And no one else can. (And yet notice that those disciples in Acts believed before they got the Holy Spirit - a direct contradiction to the Calvinism.)
And yes, for the record, many Calvinist preachers, including my ex-pastor, will say that we need to "repent and believe" (stressing the "repenting" part, heavily emphasizing how terrible we are and how we need to repent of our total depravity)... but they don't say this because they think we can actually choose to repent and believe. They say it because it's what the Bible tells them to say (and they admit this), even though they think we don't get a choice about it.
And so if a Calvinist says "anyone can believe in Jesus," they don't mean that all people have the ability, option, or opportunity to believe in Jesus and be saved. They just mean that anyone could be one the elected ones, one of the lucky few whose names were chosen in the salvation lottery. But everyone else is out of luck.
[FYI: One of the few verses in the New Testament that attaches repentance to salvation is Acts 2:38. It says that the people were to repent and be baptized in Jesus' name, and then they would receive the Holy Spirit. But I believe that the saving action here is not the repenting but the "being baptized in the name of Jesus," which is not just a physical water baptism but a "believing in Him, calling on Him" baptism. The Holy Spirit is given to someone after they believe, not just after they repent. And this is seen in Acts 19 above when those particular believers did not receive the Holy Spirit until after being baptized in Jesus' name, even though they already went through a baptism of repentance.]
I think that emphasizing repentance is a clever tactic because it sounds biblical. It sounds so close to the truth that we can't see how wrong it is or how short it falls of true salvation, of true saving belief in Jesus.
You see, Satan doesn't mind as much if we "repent," if we try to fix our lives and do better and turn from bad choices and do good things to score more points with God. This is what even false religions do, with false gods. This is what nominal Christians do (those who are Christians in name only), the I-believe-in-a-higher-power-out-there-somewhere "Christians."
But "believing in Jesus"? That's what Satan doesn't want us to do. Because that's where the truth is. That's where the power is, the salvation. Satan doesn't want us thinking that we can choose to believe in Jesus, that it's our responsibility, our decision to make. And interestingly enough, neither do Calvinists.
But "believing in Jesus"? That's what Satan doesn't want us to do. Because that's where the truth is. That's where the power is, the salvation. Satan doesn't want us thinking that we can choose to believe in Jesus, that it's our responsibility, our decision to make. And interestingly enough, neither do Calvinists.
What an effective strategy of the enemy! He's tricked people into thinking that we don't have the ability to choose to believe in Jesus, that it's not up to us, that God's already made the decision for us and that He will make us believe if we were chosen. He's deceived people into thinking that believing in Jesus is a "work" - and so since we can't do any works to earn salvation, then we can't choose to believe either.
But guess what? Believing in Jesus is exactly what the Bible tells us we need to do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" (John 6:28-29).
How then can anyone truly be saved through Calvinist theology that teaches us that believing is something we can't do? (If anyone gets saved in a Calvinist church, it's in spite of the Calvinism, not because of it.)
I wonder, can Calvinists truly be saved if this is what they say of their conversion experience (as John MacArthur essentially said): "I just always knew from a young age that I was elected, that I was always saved"? Can they really be saved if they didn't personally, consciously choose to put their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior but merely grew up convinced they were elected, always saved, that God caused them to believe with no decision on their part? I believe there will be a lot of shocked Calvinists standing before God one day when He tells them, "I said that you were responsible to choose to put your faith in Jesus. And I meant what I said!"
I just watched a video of one Calvinist preacher who said that it's unbiblical and dangerous to tell people they can "accept Jesus into their hearts."
He says to his congregation, in a very creepy, wide-eyed, mouth-hanging-open, stilted way (paraphrased), "Shouldn't it bother us that we tell people to do this but that the phrase 'accept Jesus into your heart' isn't in the Bible anywhere?" (Honestly, it was very creepy, almost like "the lights are on but no one's home." Or like he wasn't really in control of his own mind. Here is a link to that clip featuring David Platt. Doesn't it seem like there's something wrong here? Can't you almost feel it?) He says it will mislead millions of people into thinking they are saved just because they "prayed a prayer." (Millions? Really? How stupid does he think the average person is, accusing us of being unable to realize that our words aren't magic, unable to figure out that believing in Jesus has to be a genuine heart thing? And once again, that's why you explain to them that it's not their words that save them, but it's their belief in Jesus that does.)
Well ... let's see what else is "not in the Bible":
1. There is no verse saying that in order to be a sovereign God, God has to control all things. (In fact, the word "sovereign" is not even in the concordance, the King James Bible, the Greek, anywhere. It's the NIV that adds it hundreds of times. And it uses it to replace the title "Lord." The word "sovereign" is a title, designating that God is Lord over all, in authority over all. It is not about how He has to use His power or authority to control everything.)
2. There is no verse saying that it's impossible to seek God unless God makes you do it.
3. There is no verse saying that "spiritually dead" means you are "dead like a dead body and cannot do anything but lay there all dead, that you are unable to want God or think about God unless God enables you to."
4. There is no verse saying that the Holy Spirit has to regenerate you before you can believe.
5. There is no verse saying that God only chose a few people to save and that He predestined the rest for hell.
6. There is no verse saying that God only loves a few people enough to save them or that Jesus only died for the sins of a few people.
7. There is no verse saying that God has two different Wills that oppose each other or that He has two different kinds of calls, one for the elect and one for the non-elect.
8. There is no verse saying that Adam and Eve lost the right to make decisions after they sinned.
9. There is no phrase about how God "ordains sin/evil" in the Bible anywhere. There is no phrase "total depravity" or "unconditional election." There is no phrase "limited atonement." There is no "irresistible grace."
10. And my Calvinist ex-pastor once said something like "We tend to have a problem with the idea that God can choose who to save and who not to save. We don't like it. But the Bible clearly teaches it. The Bible calls it 'the doctrine of election, the doctrine of predestination'." (But the funny thing is, you won't find the phrase "doctrine of election" or "doctrine of predestination" in the Bible anywhere. So ... NO! ... the Bible does not call it that. But making it sound like the Bible actually uses those phrases and clearly teaches those "doctrines" is a good way to deceive people and get them to stop doubting it.)
And these are just a few.
Should it not bother us that none of these essential Calvinist ideas are clearly laid out in any verse in the Bible? That they have to fabricate support for these ideas by cobbling together other verses taken out of context and reinterpreted through a Calvinist lens?
[And in fact, the opposite of Calvinism is in the Bible, when read plainly, as it was written, without filtering it through one's own assumptions first.
In Genesis 1:26 and Psalm 8:6-8, we read that God sovereignly decided to give man a certain level of control, dominion, over His creation.
In Amos 5:4, God tells His people who have rejected Him to "Seek me and live." If they aren't spiritually "alive" yet then they are "dead," which means God is telling "dead people" to seek Him. "Dead" men can seek God!
In Acts 2:38, we see that the Holy Spirit enters a person as a result of their choice to believe, not before he believes in order to give him the ability to believe. And this is evident, as we already saw, in Acts 19:1-6 when Paul found some disciples who hadn't yet received the Holy Spirit. They were disciples, believers, before they got the Spirit. And 2 Corinthians 3:16 tells us when the veil (of our minds) is removed - "Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." After we turn to the Lord, the veil is removed. But in Calvinism, the veil has to be removed before you can turn to the Lord. Big difference!
There is no verse saying that God only loves a few people, only wants to save a few people, or that Jesus only died for a few people, but there are multiple verses saying that God loves the world, wants all to be saved, and that Jesus died for all: John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, John 1:29, Romans 5:18, Hebrews 2:9, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:32, Romans 10:13, etc.
There is no verse saying that God has two different Wills, one that wants all to be saved and one that really wants most to go to hell. But there is a verse - Acts 20:27 - about how Paul preached the "whole will" of God. And what was the thing he preached? "Repent and believe to get eternal life." And he calls this "the whole will of God." Where is there room for a secret "God-really-wants-most-people-to-reject-Him-and-go-to-hell" Will?
"Election" in the Bible does not have anything to do with individuals being chosen for salvation. In the concordance, it simply means to be picked out, chosen. But there is no mention of what the "elect" are chosen for. So "chosen for salvation" is not inherent in the word "election." And when it's used in Romans 9 (a big "predestination" chapter for Calvinists), we see that it's not at all about individuals being chosen for salvation, but it's about Israel/Jacob being "elected" for a certain role/responsibility. "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: ... "The older will serve the younger." ... Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (Romans 9:11-12, 21) This election is not about God choosing certain people for heaven; it's about God choosing to use certain people for big purposes, to give certain people a big job/responsibility. And in this case, when you read the chapter in context, you see that it's about God choosing Israel (Jacob) to be the bloodline that brought Jesus into the world. This totally contradicts a Calvinist's view of election, that God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Election is about being chosen for a certain responsibility, not about being chosen for salvation.
(Also consider "election" in Romans 11:28: "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." This is important because it destroys a Calvinist's idea that election is about being "chosen for salvation." This verse is about Israel, and it's saying that they are elected but are basically enemies of the gospel right now. How can "elected" people be enemies of the gospel if election means "predestined to be saved"? Calvinists also say God only really loves those whom He elected and that He elects (predestines to heaven) those He loves. But in this verse, the "elect" are enemies of the gospel (not going to heaven), yet still loved? How can this be - how can elect people be unsaved and unsaved people be loved - if Calvinism is true? Answer: It can be so because Calvinism ISN'T true, because election isn't about the eternal salvation of individuals, about being predestined for heaven. It's about being called to fulfill a role, a special job/responsibility. This verse is saying that even though Israel is an enemy of the gospel right now, they are still part of the elect, the bloodline that was chosen to bring Jesus into the world. And because of that election, that special call of God's, He still loves them, even if they are His enemies right now. And because of His love, God will someday, in the end, soften their self-hardened hearts and bring them all to belief in Him. Once again, election is about God choosing people to fulfill a special role, not to be individually predestined for heaven. That's why Israel can be "elect" but lost, and lost but still loved.)
And, yes, predestination is a biblical concept, but not the way Calvinists view it. Notice how it's used in Romans 8:29: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son..." It's not that people are predestined for salvation; it's that true believers (foreknown by God) are predestined to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus. Whether or not you get saved is not predestined, but if you become a believer, the ultimate path you take has been predestined, because the Holy Spirit leads us to reflect Christ more and more.
If you pay attention carefully and get rid of the preconceived idea that "predestined" has to mean "predestined for heaven or hell," you'll see that any and all "predestination verses" can be read in one of these other ways: God has predestined Israel's involvement in His plans and their salvation as a nation. He predestined Jesus's death for humanity because He knew we would sin. He predetermined that Jesus's death is the only way to salvation. He predetermined to have a family of believers with Him in heaven (but we decide to be part of that family or not). He predestined people in general to know Him and have a relationship with Him (yet He allows us to resist that plan and to rebel). He predestined which generation would see the arrival of Jesus and be the first to be saved through His death. And He predestined the path that believers walk once they choose to believe in Him (a true believer will be led by the Holy Spirit to grow to be more like Christ, to grow closer to Christ, to be more obedient, and to bring God glory). (For more on this, see these posts: "Predestined for Salvation? Or For Something Else?" and "According to the concordance, it's NOT predestination.")
There are so many other ways to understand "predestination" than "predestined by God to go to heaven or hell." And unlike a Calvinist's view of predestination, these other ways do not contradict the rest of the Bible and do not change God's character into something horrible, irrational, and contradictory. An accurate view of predestination will always keep the Bible consistent and God's character intact.
And these are just a few.
Calvinists ignore what God plainly, clearly, repeatedly said, in favor of their "secret knowledge" of what God supposedly "meant to say," turning the consistent, easily-understood, available-for-all gospel into a contradictory, confusing, only-for-a-very-few-lucky-people mess. And I think there will be a heavy eternal price to pay for this!
If you change what God clearly, plainly said to make it fit your views which God never clearly, plainly said - your views which contradict what God clearly, plainly said - then it is absolutely certain that your theology is wrong!]
When a Calvinist criticizes the "accept Jesus into your heart" phrase, essentially it's because they don't want you to think you have a real choice about it. That's what it's really about. Because to "accept" something means to decide to embrace it, to let it in, to make a choice. And they don't believe you can choose. And they don't want you thinking you can choose.
But while the phrase "accept Jesus into your heart" isn't in the Bible, the idea sure is.
But while the phrase "accept Jesus into your heart" isn't in the Bible, the idea sure is.
"That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:9-13)
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20. Is Jesus knocking on a literal door at your house? Clearly not. This is a metaphorical door - the door of your heart.)
"I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." (Ephesians 3:16-17)
And on top of that, according to the concordance, "receive" and "believe" (such as in John 1:12: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.") mean that we take hold of something (we "receive" Jesus by taking ahold of Him, it is a "self-promoted taking," not passively acquiring something) and that we are persuaded by something, becoming convinced that it's true (we "believe") and, as a result, we commit to it. These are both actively done by us, not done to us while we passively sit there doing nothing, waiting for God to instill this stuff in our hearts.
So let's see ... "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart" ... "call on the Lord" ... Christ "dwells in your heart" ... "open the door of your heart to Jesus so that He can come in" ... "grab ahold of Jesus, be convinced that He is the truth and commit to Him" ... sounds an awful lot to me like we are responsible to make the choice to accept Jesus into our hearts, into our lives.
So tell me again how "accept Jesus into your heart" is unbiblical but how "total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, God ordains sin, etc." are biblical!
[And before Calvinists defend themselves with "Yeah, well, the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible anywhere either, but we all believe in that," let me say that the word "Trinity" doesn't destroy God's character or twist His Word or make Him guilty of our sin/evil/unbelief like Calvinism does!]
[And before Calvinists defend themselves with "Yeah, well, the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible anywhere either, but we all believe in that," let me say that the word "Trinity" doesn't destroy God's character or twist His Word or make Him guilty of our sin/evil/unbelief like Calvinism does!]
"Accept Jesus into your heart" is a much more biblical concept than any of Calvinism's nonsense. There is more than enough support for "accept Jesus into your heart" if you don't get hung up on the exact wording of the phrase.
(Of course, we need to be careful about using the phrase "accept Jesus into your heart" with children, because they can't understand the "in your heart" part and it might scare or confuse them. But we older people know what it means.)
And so let me ask this: Which one is truly more dangerous ...
Telling people they can ask Jesus into their hearts if they want to be saved, even though that exact phrase is not in the Bible ...
... or teaching people that they can't seek God or believe in Him on our own (even though He tells us over and over again that's what we need to do to be saved), and that we can only believe in Him after He regenerates us with the Holy Spirit and only if you are one of the few elect because Jesus never died for the non-elect anyway and God created the non-elect simply so He could hate them and send them to hell for His glory, even though He caused them to be the unbelievers they are and to commit the sins they did, never giving them a chance to be saved or to do right?
One of these opens the door of salvation to everyone and makes them take responsibility for their choices ... and one of them closes the door of salvation to most people, reducing Jesus's sacrifice and God's love to only a very few lucky, randomly-chosen people who apparently have to do nothing to be saved except sit there and wait for God to make their choice for them.
(I hate Calvinism! And if you really understand Calvinism and God's Word, you would too!)
But Calvinists will shame you into agreeing with them by saying that if you think you can choose to believe in Jesus, then it's because you are trying to work for your salvation, to take credit for it. They mock you for "trying to save yourself." And so they emphasize "repentance."
But repentance is actually far closer to "working to save yourself" than believing is. Repentance involves changing your mind and then, consequently, changing your course of action, leaving your old one behind and adopting a new, better one. Repentance is a lifestyle of living better than you were.
This is far more "works" than believing ever could be!
And it's a brilliant, subtle, satanic scheme, reversing what God said, replacing what He requires (believing) with a much greater "work" (repenting), while accusing believing of being the one that is "working for your salvation." Brilliant! Wicked!
But do you know what?
The Bible does say "believing" is a "work." But it says that it's the one work God requires of us to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" (John 6:28-29)
And contrary to Calvinism, God does not consider believing a "saving work" or "trying to save yourself."
"'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6)
Do you see how "believing in/trusting God" is not considered a "working to earn salvation" kind of works? God is saying that believing and trusting are different than the other kinds of "works" people do to try to earn their way with Him.
We can't do anything to earn our salvation, to work our way to heaven. But God does require one thing of us in order to be saved: To consciously, willingly believe in Jesus, to make Him our Lord and Savior, to trust that He made the way and paid the way to heaven for us.
Question: If Calvinists say that we can't do the one thing God requires us to do to be saved, then how in the world can anyone be saved the Calvinist way?
(And I don't see how the action of "repenting" is any less of a choice than believing is. Both are the responsibility of the one doing it.)
Looking again quickly at Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Calvinism essentially reads this as "Repent and you will be saved." They might not say it, but their emphasis on repentance, without belief, does. But considering what "repent" really means in the concordance, that would be like saying this: "Change your mind and the course of your actions, pick a better path, and you will be saved."
Once again, where is Jesus in this?
But being baptized in Jesus' name is to put your faith in Him, to identify with Him, to embrace Him as Lord and Savior. And this is when the Holy Spirit comes, not just through mere repentance.
Ephesians 1:13: "Having
Acts 2:38 is not meant to emphasize just repentance, but to emphasize the fact that we need to change our mind, to turn from our present course towards Jesus, to believe in Him and follow Him in obedience.
But Calvinists make repentance our only real responsibility (changing our mind and course of action) while saying that we can't choose to believe in Jesus because it's "works."
But you can't get to true repentance unless you go through believing first. Because if you try to do that, all you end up with is man-powered behavior-modification, changing your course towards something better but not necessarily towards Jesus.
But in Calvinism, believing does not lead to salvation; being chosen for salvation leads to believing. In Calvinism, believing does not lead to getting the Holy Spirit; getting the Holy Spirit leads to believing.
(Question: When did the disciples believe in and choose to follow Jesus? Was it before or after receiving the Holy Spirit? Hint: Believing and following - John 1. Receiving the Holy Spirit - John 20/Acts 1. Amazing how "totally depraved" men who were not "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit yet could choose to believe in and follow Jesus!)
In Calvinism, it's get elected (chosen for salvation) first, get the Holy Spirit second, be drawn to the Lord by the Holy Spirit third, and believe last. And somewhere before "believe" is "repent."
But in the Bible, believing is first, and then we are saved and get the Holy Spirit. And repentance is simply choosing to change our mind and our path. We do this when we choose to believe in Jesus, to change from our old ways and to choose to follow Him instead. And we do this as believers when we continue to seek forgiveness for sins to restore our relationship with the Lord.
But repentance is not the "gateway to salvation." Believing is.
Now, I am not saying repentance isn't necessary, that it's not crucial for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 24:47 stresses this: "and repentance and the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations ..." But notice that forgiveness is found "in his [Jesus'] name," not just in repentance. And this verse ties into another one: "Therefore, brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified ..." (Acts 13:38-39)
Once again, it all comes back to believing. Repentance and forgiveness come back to believing.
As I said, Acts is the transition between the old way and the new way. And after the book of Acts come all the books that are intended for the Church, the Epistles. And in these books, you find little emphasis on repentance. And I found only one instance of it tied to salvation: 2 Corinthians 7:9-10.
"yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance.... Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation..."
However, it's important to note that this letter is written to the Church, to Christians. It's not about unbelievers repenting to be saved; it's about believers repenting to grow to be more like Christ, to restore their relationship with Him.
But yes, it does say "repentance that leads to salvation." And so I looked up "salvation" in Strong's concordance (with Vine's Expository Dictionary), but "salvation" has several different meanings and I couldn't find what was meant by this word in this particular verse. But 2 Corinthians 6:2 also uses the word "salvation," and the concordance clarified its usage in that verse. And since 7:9-10 comes hot on the heels of 6:2, it stands to reason that the writer is referring to the same thing.
And the usage of "salvation" in 6:2 is not about eternal salvation, heaven or hell. It's about the sum of all the blessings that a believer gets from God through the Holy Spirit.
So the most likely way to understand 7:9-10 is not that an unbeliever's repentance leads to salvation, but that a believer's repentance helps them keep all the blessings that the Holy Spirit gives to faithful followers of Christ. It's about believers maintaining their relationship with the Lord.
Big difference!
And like I said, this is really one of the only references to repentance leading to salvation in the Epistles. And it's not even about the eternal salvation of your soul.
But do you know what the Epistles do link to eternal salvation, time and time again?
That's right: Believing. Calling on Jesus as Lord and Savior.
See John 1:12, John 3:16-18, John 20:31, Acts 16:31, Romans 1:16, Romans 3:22, Romans 10:9-13, Galatians 3:22, 1 Timothy 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 10:39, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 5:1,5,13.
And incidentally, 1 John 3:23 confirms the truth that God gave us the work of believing: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ..." It is a command. Something God requires us to do.
Does God give us commands that He prevents us from being able to follow?
(Calvinists would say "yes." They would say, "Yes, God commands us to believe, but only the elect can and will believe. But God ordained that the non-elect would never believe because He didn't choose them. But He still gave them the command to believe, even though they can't do it, to make them guilty for rejecting Him so that He could punish them in hell like He predetermined. For His glory." What kind of a horrible god is Calvi-god!?! Once again, Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible!)
And while repentance is a part of it (because you can't turn to Jesus if you don't repent of your old beliefs and lifestyle, if you don't "change your mind and your course of action"), believing is the one thing God requires us to do to be saved, the one work He gave us, that He won't do for us.
And yet Calvinists insist that believing is something we can't do on our own, that He has to do it for us.And so I ask: Who's wrong? God or Calvinists?
Maybe this isn't interesting to you, but it is to me. Because it shows the error of of Calvinism again, the folly of their emphasis on repentance while denying the one thing God requires us to do to be saved: Believe!
Then think like a Calvinist ... "Let's alter everything in the Bible and completely change God's character to fit our preconceived ideas about how God has to act in order to be the kind of God we say He is!"
There! Now you're thinking like a Calvinist!
