[aruanan]

No -- this man doesn't know his Greek! The full, literal meaning of the word "repent" in the New Testament is "to feel remorse and self-reproach for one's sins against God; to be contrite, sorry; to want to change direction." The difference in meanings here rests on the word "Want." True repentance includes a desire to change!

Moreover, simply being sorry doesn't constitute repentance. Rather, true sorrow leads to repentance. Paul states, "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10).

I like David Wilkerson, but his analysis isn't exactly the most rigorous. For instance, in the passage above, he defines "repentence" and then in support quotes a verse that shows his earlier definition to be unworkable. To demonstrate this, we simply plug in his definition in place of "repentence":

"Godly sorrow worketh a feeling of sorrow and self-reproach and contrition and a desire to change direction to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death".

Sorrow worketh sorrow. Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings... And that's the problem. People tend to substitute feelings and intentions ("a desire to change", New Years resolutions) and talk (Clinton's claiming to have kept campaign promises because they had talked about them after getting into office) for action.

No, the earlier definition of "changing direction" is the better one. The man did know his Greek. Repentence involves an actual change of direction, of behavior, not a "desire to change direction". It's a change of behavior that comes as a result of sorrow over one's sins. This is what Paul was talking about in the verse above about godly sorrow versus sorrow of the world: godly sorrow results in a change of direction, a qualitatively change in behavior. Worldly sorrow is feeling bad but not changing one's behavior. As Paul described a specific instance of repentence with respect to one sin in Ephesians 4:28: "He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." The worldly sorrow version of this would be, "He who has been stealing must desire to steal no longer, but must intend to work, planning to do something useful with his own hands, that he may have something he can really, really want to share with those in need."

Jesus gave another example of the difference between intention and action and the effect it had on salvation in Matthew 21:29-32.

"There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' "`I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, `I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

[RnMomof7]

I look at the church today and I see it as the ones invited to the wedding...but not wearing the white garment need to attend..

The church is overun with false repentence and feel good confessions..and thus also false salvation

You only know that the repentance was 'true" when the sin is "turned from"..continued confession of the same sin means there was no true repentence

[the_doc]

Wilkerson is certainly not the profoundest theologian in the world, but he is correct in saying that the fellow did not understand NT Greek.

In other words, there are some profound things which Wilkerson does understand.

To render the Greek word for repentance is to commit the exegetical error known as the root fallacy.

The entire Bible teaches us what repentance involves. If you can only mock what Wilkerson is saying in the article, you are mocking the Bible.

What Wilkerson is ultimately suggesting is that much of what passes for saving faith is not saving faith at all. Much of what passes for conversion in our day is just the Satanic stuff of spurious conversion.

The spurious conversion, which is more common than a true conversion, is an artifact of man's Fall in Eden. God's elect experience the real thing, not the Satanic counterfeit devoid of real repentance.

Your position is part of the problem, part of the instrumental reason why spurious conversions are so common. By arguing for an experientially meaningless understanding of the supernatural event of repentance unto life, you are encouraging easy-believism.

(As an aside, I would point out that Wilkerson's crowd is not immune to the counterfeiting, unfortunately. A lot of his adherents don't grasp the other ways in which repentance can be counterfeited. One of these ways entails the decision to be as moral as possible.

That's not repentance, either. Even if you mix in a little sentimental religiosity, it's not repentance.

What Wilkerson needs to notice is that the Puritans approached holiness from an altogether different direction than Wilkerson does. They were predestinarians. That changes everything. And in this area, the Puritans were right an Wilkerson is wrong.)