What is repentance from dead works ? ( as it is mentioned in the context of the book of Hebrews ) - location: Hebrews 6:1-2 etc.


The passage in Hebrew 6, makes a very clear point as to the very first step that was not only part of the Jewish understanding of regeneration but it was something that needed to be taught to the Gentiles as well.

Now dear friends, as I was taught this when I was a boy of nineteen and seeing as I managed to secure a copy of Derek Princes book about this doctrine of GOD, I would be most interested to read what sort of ideas are in your mind about the meaning of 'repentance from dead works'

Sincerely,
HH.

I might present some of the ideas that Derek Prince taught in his book, but for now I want to hear from those among you who are Bible Teachers, Youth Leaders, Pastors and such. (this does not exclude layman such as myself)

Add.

Wait a minute...I got it all wrong...

The first principle starts with a discussion about Cain and Abel.

Okay, that should be a good primer.

Peace,
HH.

Changing your mind from a merit-based legal system of "dead works" to a faith-appropriated grace system basd on the work of Christ. The fact that he calls it an "elementary teaching" basically proves that repentence is a basic trust in Christ alone for eternal life. If it meant something more complex, such as a turning from all sin, Paul wouldn't call it an "elementary teaching" to move beyond.

Originally posted by Obsidian

Changing your mind from a merit-based legal system of "dead works" to a faith-appropriated grace system basd on the work of Christ.

Thanks for responding Obsidiian.

I don't think that Cain would have regarded his actions in such fancy terms, but here is the full passage, which will be the basic primer of this thread.

And she again bore his brother Abel.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.

And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.

And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shallbe his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?

And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.
And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

( Genesis 4:2-16 )

The fact that he calls it an "elementary teaching" basically proves that repentence is a basic trust in Christ alone for eternal life.

Actually that will be something that I might consider in another thread, namely 'Faith towards God.'

If it meant something more complex, such as a turning from all sin, Paul wouldn't call it an "elementary teaching" to move beyond.

It was only elementary to the Jews to whom he was writing, for they had a basic understanding of these teachings which most Gentiles have to learn. If they are going to be able to negotiate the teachings on righteousness.
If you will notice, so many discussions on these forums revolve around topics like, 'What is Sin?', 'What if Faith?', 'Who is God?', 'What are the Baptisms', arguments about the Lord's Supper, and of course the favourite argument, 'Hell and Judgement', however not many engage on the subject of 'Resurrection', for it is complex and it requires considerable knowledge of the Hebrew words relative to the doctrines as so many passages deal with long words from Paul's letters to the Corinthians.

Actually Derek Prince in his book, first deals with two other ideas as his foundation to these. Namely the teaching about the Authority of Scripture, as well as having a rock solid personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, we are not there, we are on the subject of ..

Repentance from Dead Works...

I am going to reflect on the passage from Genesis and see if I can remember how it was put together.

Sincerely,
HH.

I was responding to the question about Hebrews 6:1. I don't really understand what Cain has to do with it.

Originally posted by Obsidian

I was responding to the question about Hebrews 6:1. I don't really understand what Cain has to do with it.

Exactly the same passage where this doctrine of GOD is from.

Seeing as this is such a tiny consideration, and yet I have read threads about Repentance that go on for a very long time. So I decided not to consider, ....

"Dead Works" first.

The passage above, has a good starting passage.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

( Genesis 4:3 )

I intend to go to sleeop now, it is way past my bedtime.

In the morning I will read up a bit more about this passage, but for now I enjoyed what John Gill wrote:

That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord; corn, herbs, seeds, &c. the Targum of Jonathan says it was flax seed; so Jarchi makes mention of an "agadah" or exposition, which gives the same sense; and another of their writers (e) observes, that Cain brought what was left of his food, or light and trifling things, flax or hemp seed. This he brought either to his father, as some think, being priest in his family; or rather he brought and offered it himself at the place appointed for religious worship, and for sacrifices; so Aben Ezra, he brought it to the place fixed for his oratory. It is highly probable it was at the east of the entrance of the garden of Eden, where the Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, was, and appeared in some remarkable manner.
(e) Ib. Vid. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 8. 2.

See you tommorrow.

HH.

Originally posted by headheart

What is repentance from dead works ? ( as it is mentioned in the context of the book of Hebrews ) - location: Hebrews 6:1-2 etc.


The passage in Hebrew 6, makes a very clear point as to the very first step that was not only part of the Jewish understanding of regeneration but it was something that needed to be taught to the Gentiles as well.

The writer spends most of the first 5 chapters comparing Jesus to elements (Moses, sabbaths, priesthood, prophets, etc.) of the Jewish religion showing the audience how Jesus is superior.

Chapter 7 is on Melchizedek. Chapter 8 is on the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. Chapter 9 - Christ entered the REAL Sanctuary (in heaven). Chapter 10 - Christ is the superior and final sacrifice. Chapter 11 - Jesus, the answer to the promises (v. 39-40)

I have no reason to believe "repentance from dead works" means any other thing than "realizing that (repenting from) relying on religious activity for justification, which is dead works".

Because of the Judaizers some Hebrew Christians were tempted to go back to the Law for justification, hence 6:4-6.

The writer is showing how Christ is not only superior, but He is the fulfillment of the shadows and types. They were pointing to him. Once He appeared the shadows and types, along with their covenant and all its rituals, became obsolete.

Originally posted by bc1980

I have no reason to believe "repentance from dead works" means any other thing than "realizing that (repenting from) relying on religious activity for justification, which is dead works".

Good morning BC,

BCFaith.jpg

'Relying on religious activity for justification', is quite a mouthful, and the idea of this thread is not to burden the phrase with too much theological profundity, but rather to open up the idea of the meaning of 'dead works', and then if we can get that done, to either explore repentance in this thread or do so, in fresh one.

After reflecting on the example of Cain and Abel, I realized that to get a proper understanding of 'dead works', I would have to go back to the Garden. ( Romans 15 compels me to do so )

So for today, I will be considering ( Genesis 2 + Genesis 3 ) - in particular Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Sincerely,
HH

ps. I think the picture might make a nice avatar ?

Add:
btw. BC, so as not to appear condescending or to pour water on the fire of your insights into the book of Hebrews, I thought this paragraphy from Gordon Lindsay's book "Charismatic Ministry" harmonized nicely with what you wrote. (above)

'This great doctrine (referring to Repentance from Dead Works) helped Martin Luther to restore the true faith to the church in the Reformation. The Medieval Church was full of dead works. It prayed to saints, fasted, mortified the body, counted beads, bought indulgences, and made pilgrimages in and effort to obtain salvation. But all was to no avail. Without repentance there is no basis of fellowship.'

I think that to some degree the Roman Catholic Sacramental System has harmed a clear understanding of this doctrine, and in particular the understanding of 'Justification by Faith ' - Some time ago, I read a paper by the Roman Catholic Church' explaining such, only to discover that it was laden with all sorts of double-speak. My heart aches for those in Roman Catholicsm, for though I know many true brothers and sisters in Christ are members, their is a sense that one is stealing from the glory of Christ's completed work.

That being said, I believe that the RCC or any religion for that matter (including Judaism) are only one of a kind. All are somehow promoting 'Dead Works' or more subtly the poison that Eve succombed to which was in the heart of Satan, howbeit I think it is true that such a monster was already in the heart of Adam. However, that might be something that this thread will uncover.

Who knows ?

Rejoice,
HH.

Originally posted by bc1980

The writer spends most of the first 5 chapters comparing Jesus to elements (Moses, sabbaths, priesthood, prophets, etc.) of the Jewish religion showing the audience how Jesus is superior.

Chapter 7 is on Melchizedek. Chapter 8 is on the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. Chapter 9 - Christ entered the REAL Sanctuary (in heaven). Chapter 10 - Christ is the superior and final sacrifice. Chapter 11 - Jesus, the answer to the promises (v. 39-40)

I have no reason to believe "repentance from dead works" means any other thing than "realizing that (repenting from) relying on religious activity for justification, which is dead works".

Because of the Judaizers some Hebrew Christians were tempted to go back to the Law for justification, hence 6:4-6.

The writer is showing how Christ is not only superior, but He is the fulfillment of the shadows and types. They were pointing to him. Once He appeared the shadows and types, along with their covenant and all its rituals, became obsolete.

Very well presented BC. Jesus, as being the fulfillment of the law, certainly drives your point home.

FWIW, Can it not be said that "dead works" is the substance of, vanity?

Originally posted by Cross Reference

FWIW, Can it not be said that "dead works" is the substance of, vanity?

I think it is one of the manifestations of dead works, but as to the essential nature of dead works, I guess I would say that it is 'the will' which is the primary substance of 'dead works'.

Sincerely,
HH.

Originally posted by headheart

I think it is one of the manifestations of dead works, but as to the essential nature of dead works, I guess I would say that it is 'the will' which is the primary substance of 'dead works'.

Sincerely,
HH.

And the"will" is subject to who or, in this case, "what", which automatically identifies, "Who"?

Oh good grief, not vanity again...

'Relying on religious activity for justification', is quite a mouthful, and the idea of this thread is not to burden the phrase with too much theological profundity, but rather to open up the idea of the meaning of 'dead works',

I thought that was what I did.

"Theological profundity", now that's a mouth full.


After reflecting on the example of Cain and Abel, I realized that to get a proper understanding of 'dead works', I would have to go back to the Garden. ( Romans 15 compels me to do so )

Why? Side note: How does Romans 15 compel you to go back to the beginning.

So for today, I will be considering ( Genesis 2 + Genesis 3 ) - in particular Genesis 3:5

Sorry. I didn't realize you were guiding us on a Bible study.

Concerning Genesis 3:5, why are you starting your examination with a lie that the serpent told Eve?

I loved the picture of BC. I don't know how to add that to my avatar. Computers aren't my forte.

Hi CR,

You certainly know how to get the cogs whirring inside my brain.
I would say that 'the will' is subject to the prevailing dominant will, which is subject to the Godhead.

Sincerely,
HH

Originally posted by headheart

What is repentance from dead works ? ( as it is mentioned in the context of the book of Hebrews ) - location: Hebrews 6:1-2 etc.


The passage in Hebrew 6, makes a very clear point as to the very first step that was not only part of the Jewish understanding of regeneration but it was something that needed to be taught to the Gentiles as well.

Now dear friends, as I was taught this when I was a boy of nineteen and seeing as I managed to secure a copy of Derek Princes book about this doctrine of GOD, I would be most interested to read what sort of ideas are in your mind about the meaning of 'repentance from dead works'

Sincerely,
HH.

I might present some of the ideas that Derek Prince taught in his book, but for now I want to hear from those among you who are Bible Teachers, Youth Leaders, Pastors and such. (this does not exclude layman such as myself)

The way I've always read it was a turning from faithless acts. That is, acts that are not necessarily unlawful of themselves (or what some might call blatant sins) but those works that are not works of faith - rather works coming from one's own self alone. Paul's declaration that "anything that is not of faith is sin" lumps those works in with unlawful works, but they are not things that an unregenerate person has any clue about. Once converted, the new believer realizes that those things that seemed moral and good (but weren't) had just as much value in God's eyes as things like murder and adultery. They are filthy rags.

Sorry if someone has already basically said this...I didn't finish reading the thread.