Replies

The word is repent (to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins) [...] It does not carry the idea of penance but a change of the will.

Sorry for the dealy in responding; I will catch up as much as I can today.

That is a tangent to the issue that the sheep are supposed to repent (whatever precisely, that repentance entails). It is therefore somethigng that happens to sheep: they are lost. Therefore, the security that you impute to the same sheep in John 10 is imputed without warrant: sheep do get lost, sometimes they are found, and sometimes they are lost forever.

The Protestants like to make much of the literal meaning of "metanoia", "changing the mind", and the Catholic concept as penance. So, in what sense does the Gospel use the word: does it mean a purely intellectual changeover, or does it involves some penitential work? If we look at how St. John the Forerunner used the word, we have to go with the Catohlics: he wore a hairshirt, lived as a hemit, and fasted. That was the example of "metanoia" he gave. You do your own math.

It was not the sons feeling sorry or doing anything to earn the father's disposition towards him

The repentance of the son is what brought him home. His arrival produced forgiveness. It is notable that it is his suffering in the body (eating with the pigs, etc.) that produced the change of heart.

"The word is repent (to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins) [...] It does not carry the idea of penance but a change of the will. "

Sorry for the dealy in responding; I will catch up as much as I can today.

That is a tangent to the issue that the sheep are supposed to repent (whatever precisely, that repentance entails).
TRANSLATION: I don't like what it REALLY means so I am going to call it tangential. Pay no attention to the 3000 lb elephant in the room, I, the great Oz, have spoken.

It is therefore somethigng that happens to sheep: they are lost. Therefore, the security that you impute to the same sheep in John 10 is imputed without warrant: sheep do get lost, sometimes they are found, and sometimes they are lost forever.
Lots of 'therefores' (assumption) without a scriptural basis. I don't like the real meaning of repentance therefore the sheep are lost and the security that you (gee, I wasn't aware he wrote John 10) 'impute' to the sheep is unwarranted. Nice 'argument' Annalex, unfortunately, it is false. The sheep's security rests in the Good Shepherd who leaves the 99 and brings back the one. The sheep aren't out there wandering without a shepherd. It is the job of the shepherd to be the caretaker of the sheep and Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, promised he would do just that. John said those who leave and do not come back were never of the fold to begin with. True Sheep hear the Shepherd and follow the Shepherd. Thoughthey stray at times, ultimately, the Good Shepherd will not lose a single one of them. Jesus gave us that promise.

The Protestants like to make much of the literal meaning of "metanoia", "changing the mind", and the Catholic concept as penance.
Yes. We are fond of reality.

So, in what sense does the Gospel use the word: does it mean a purely intellectual changeover, or does it involves some penitential work?
Repentance is the change of will given by the Spirit of God. It will produce a change of action. It is not some 'intellectual' exercise "Oh, okay, that was wrong" (which I think is what you are implying), but it change that the Holy Spirit works in one's life. If one doesn't have that change, they are not saved for the Holy Spirit's work is always effectual in the life of the Elect. So, it is a change of will. I used to want to go in a certain directino (away from God) but now I don't thanks to the Spirit's quickening, drawing, and gifting. It is not "Jesus's sacrifice was insufficient and some of my sins I have to work off through penance so that God knows I'm serious about my 'repentance.'

If we look at how St. John the Forerunner Have we Baptist's gotten you so shaken you now refuse to use the term "Baptist" in reference to John?

used the word, we have to go with the Catohlics: he wore a hairshirt, lived as a hemit, and fasted.
There is no evidence that John saw these actions as salvific. To the contrary, he looked forward to the Savior whose shoes he was unworthy to bear.

That was the example of "metanoia" he gave.
There is no 'tie' between John's sparse lifestyle in the Dead Sea region and the term "Repentance" in Scripture. Nowhere does he say 'live like I do to have eternal life.' At most, he calls for them to relinquish their cold dead tradition and pedigree, but rather have the sort of mindset that brings about good fruit. He then distinguishes against his own baptism and the one to come from Christ indicating a difference in the good news being preached. John's message was a precursor to the gospel of grace. It was necessary in order to get the traditional Jews who were so steeped in the words of their human teachers to get their eyes off of dead religion and on to the Messiah to come. You do your own math.
Your math does not compute.

It was not the sons feeling sorry or doing anything to earn the father's disposition towards him

The repentance of the son is what brought him home. His arrival produced forgiveness. It is notable that it is his suffering in the body (eating with the pigs, etc.) that produced the change of heart.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son was a parable. The point of the parable, which has apparently been missed here, is the LOVE and GRACE of the Father not the wisdom and virtue of the son. Turning when you have no other choice but to do so is not a virtue. And, something which truly IS of note, though he strayed. Though he was selfish. Though he was wicked and ungrateful. And even though his faith in his position wavered to the point that he devised some scheme of how HE could get back into the Father's graces rather than just thrusting himself upon the Father's mercy, he remained the SON. If he would have died, he would have still been the SON. Nothing changed that. Not is riotous living. Not his ungrateful attitude. Not his self-centeredness. He said "I'm not worthy to be called a son" but in the eyes of the Father, he never changed from being the son. And though that fellowship was broken for a time it was fully restored EXCLUSIVE of special works of penance by the Son.

In the real world, Christ comes after us and draws us back (per scripture) or takes us home (also exampled in Scripture). He knows we are stupid sheep. He is the good shepherd. And he will lose NONE of us.

" St. John the Forerunner used the word, we have to go with the Catohlics: he wore a hairshirt, lived as a hemit, and fasted. That was the example of "metanoia" he gave. You do your own math"

If you are talking about John the Baptist, he was a Nazarite from birth. It was foretold he would be filled with the Holy Ghost and turn many to God. His life style was not one of repentance but that of a Nazarite and a prophet. He was not earning his salvation, he was already saved under the old economy.

If you are talking about another person, then I have no idea who he is or what he was doing.

As far as the prodigal son, his returning was the fruit of his repentance not repentance itself.