Repentance and the Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Clarification

Why This Debate Matters for the Gospel

The present discussion surrounding repentance is not merely a matter of terminology or preference—it strikes at the very clarity of the gospel itself. When the meaning of repentance is altered, minimized, or redefined, the message of salvation is inevitably affected. What is at stake is not simply how one explains conversion, but what one is actually calling sinners to do in response to Christ.

In recent decades, many have asserted that repentance, in its relation to salvation, refers only to a change of mind about one’s lost condition or unbelief, without any necessary reference to sin itself. Within this framework, repentance is often treated as functionally synonymous with faith, or even reduced to belief alone. While such formulations are often presented as safeguards against works-based salvation, they raise a crucial question: Is this how repentance has been historically understood in biblical preaching?

When one examines both Scripture and the history of evangelistic proclamation, a more comprehensive picture emerges. Repentance is indeed a change of mind (metanoia), but it is not a bare intellectual adjustment. As standard Greek lexicons affirm, the term carries the sense of a change of mind that results in a transformed disposition and direction of life.¹ This understanding does not make repentance a work; rather, it recognizes that a true turning to God necessarily involves a turning from that which is contrary to Him.

This is not a question of adding works to faith, but of preserving the biblical meaning of conversion itself. As Scripture declares, Christ “shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21), not merely from the consequences of sin, but from its dominion and power. To redefine repentance in a way that removes sin from its scope is to risk presenting a gospel that offers supposed deliverance from judgment without addressing the very rebellion that brings that judgment.

Historically, evangelical preaching—whether in the ministries of early revivalists, nineteenth-century evangelists, or many fundamentalist leaders of the twentieth century—consistently called sinners not only to believe in Christ, but to turn to God from sin.² This was not understood as a demand for sinless perfection, but as the necessary posture of a heart that has truly come to Christ.

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. If repentance is reduced to mere acknowledgment, the gospel call may become intellectually accessible while remaining spiritually incomplete. But if repentance is understood biblically—as a Spirit-wrought turning of the heart to God—then the gospel retains both its freeness and its transforming power.

The Contemporary Redefinition of Repentance

In much contemporary gospel preaching, repentance is frequently defined in a way that sharply distinguishes it from any turning from sin. It is often described exclusively as a “change of mind” about one’s lost condition or about Christ, with any moral or behavioral implications deferred entirely to the realm of sanctification. Within this framework, repentance becomes virtually indistinguishable from belief itself.

One of the clearest and most influential articulations of this position is found in the preaching and writing of Curtis Hutson. While affirming the necessity of repentance, Hutson explicitly rejects the idea that repentance involves turning from sin. He writes:

“For instance, to say that repentance means to turn from sin, or to say that repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change of action, is to give a wrong definition to the word.”³

He further argues:

“If repentance means turning from sin, and turning from sin means to stop sinning, then a person must live a sinless life in order to be saved.”⁴

Hutson’s concern is clear and should be fairly acknowledged. He is seeking to protect the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, guarding against any suggestion that human effort or moral reform contributes to justification. In this, he reflects a broader reaction within segments of twentieth-century fundamentalism against perceived legalism and works-based salvation.

However, the definition he proposes represents a significant narrowing of the biblical and historical understanding of repentance. By explicitly denying that repentance includes a turning that results in changed action, the concept is reduced to an internal or intellectual shift with no necessary directional movement away from sin.

This raises an important tension. While it is certainly true that repentance does not require sinless perfection, it does not follow that repentance has no moral dimension whatsoever. The biblical presentation consistently connects repentance with a turning to God that carries implications for the whole person—mind, heart, and will.

Moreover, Hutson’s argument depends heavily on equating “turning from sin” with “stop sinning.” Yet historically, evangelical preaching did not make this equation. Rather, it called sinners to turn from sin in the sense of renouncing it as master and turning toward God, even while recognizing the ongoing struggle with sin in the believer’s life.⁵

When repentance is reduced to a change of mind alone—divorced from any orientation away from sin—it risks becoming something less than the biblical call to conversion. The issue, then, is not whether repentance is a work (it is not), but whether the definition being used fully reflects the way Scripture and historic gospel preaching present it.

Historical Gospel Preaching on Repentance: A Unified Voice

When one steps back from the contemporary debate and listens carefully to the voices of earlier evangelistic preaching, a striking pattern emerges. Across generations, styles, and contexts, gospel preachers consistently spoke of repentance not merely as a change of mind in abstraction, but as a turning to God that necessarily involved a turning from sin.

This is not a claim built on isolated statements, but on a recognizable and repeated pattern.

John R. Rice, writing in his widely distributed tract What Must I Do to Be Saved?, defined repentance in terms that clearly unite inward change and outward direction:

“To repent literally means to have a change of mind or spirit toward God and towards sin. It means to turn from your sins, earnestly, with all your heart, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you.”⁶

Here, repentance is not presented as a work that earns salvation, but neither is it reduced to a purely intellectual shift. It is a change of mind toward sin itself, resulting in a turning of the heart toward God.

This same understanding appears in the preaching of Lester Roloff. In a sermon devoted to repentance, Roloff illustrated the nature of true repentance through the concept of restitution (with an illustration about someone stealing his billfold):

“I don’t believe he really repented of it unless he brings my billfold back… I don’t believe you’ve repented until you get right and say, ‘Lord, I want to live different from now on.’”⁷

Roloff does not describe repentance as sinless perfection, but he plainly rejects the idea that repentance can be separated from a decisive break in direction. Repentance, in his preaching, includes a changed attitude toward sin that manifests in a changed course of life.

This perspective reaches back even further. Charles Spurgeon, preaching in the nineteenth century, warned against any definition of repentance that divorces it from sin:

“Repentance” is a hatred of sin; it is a turning from sin and a determination in the strength of God to forsake it⁸

Spurgeon’s language is direct and unmistakable. Repentance involves not only recognition, but resolution—a deliberate turning away from sin toward God.

Even within twentieth-century fundamentalism, this pattern remained intact. Bob Jones Sr., known for his emphasis on revival and personal holiness, repeatedly described repentance in terms of forsaking sin and turning to God, insisting that the gospel call addressed not only what a man believes, but the direction of his life.⁹

Taken together, these voices (from different persuasions) demonstrate a remarkable consistency. While differing in tone and emphasis, they do not present repentance as a mere mental adjustment detached from moral reality. Instead, they describe it as a Godward turning that includes a changed relationship to sin.

This does not mean that repentance is meritorious, nor that a sinner must reform his life before coming to Christ. But it does mean that the historic gospel call did not separate repentance from the sinner’s relationship to sin itself.

What becomes increasingly difficult to ignore is that this understanding of repentance—so common in earlier gospel preaching—differs in both definition and emphasis from the strictly intellectualized form that has become widespread in more recent decades.

For more quotes on repentance from respected voices see the addendum at the bottom of this article.

Why This Debate Matters for the Gospel

At this point, the discussion must move beyond definitions and historical observations to the central issue: Does the way we define repentance affect the clarity of the gospel itself?

The answer is yes—not because repentance is a work added to faith, but because repentance directly relates to what the sinner understands about his condition before God.

The gospel addresses man not merely as one who is uninformed, but as one who is in rebellion. Scripture consistently presents sin not only as guilt to be forgiven, but as a condition from which man must be delivered. As the angel declared concerning Christ, “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). This salvation includes forgiveness, but it is not limited to it—it speaks to the very problem that separates man from God.

When repentance is reduced to a simple acknowledgment of lostness or unbelief, apart from any real confrontation with sin, the nature of conversion can become unclear. A sinner may recognize that he is lost, yet still remain fundamentally unchanged in how he views sin itself. He may seek deliverance from consequences while never coming into agreement with God about the nature of his rebellion.

This is where the issue becomes critical.

Scripture describes repentance as being “toward God” (Acts 20:21), not merely toward one’s circumstances or condition. To turn toward God necessarily involves a reckoning with that which is against Him. This does not mean that a sinner must fully understand the depth of his sin, nor that he must reform his life before coming to Christ. But it does mean that repentance cannot be meaningfully separated from a changed disposition toward sin.

As Thomas Watson, the Puritan writer, expressed it:

“Repentance is a grace of God’s Spirit whereby a sinner is inwardly humbled and visibly reformed....repentance is a spiritual medicine made up of six special ingredients:

1. Sight of sin

2. Sorrow for sin

3. Confession of sin

4. Shame for sin

5. Hatred for sin

6. Turning from sin”¹⁰

Watson’s statement does not suggest that outward reform earns salvation, but that true repentance carries an inward reality that cannot be entirely divorced from its direction.

The danger, then, is not simply theological imbalance—it is gospel confusion. If repentance is expanded into moral reformation, the gospel is burdened with works. But if repentance is reduced to a bare intellectual shift, the gospel may be stripped of its moral and spiritual depth.

In the first case, sinners are driven to despair, believing they must improve themselves to be saved. In the second, they may be given assurance without ever truly coming to terms with the nature of their sin before a holy God. Neither reflects the biblical gospel.

The New Testament holds these truths together without contradiction. Salvation is entirely by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), yet the call to salvation is consistently accompanied by repentance—a turning that brings the sinner into agreement with God. As one historian of evangelicalism has noted, early gospel preaching did not treat repentance as optional or incidental, but as integral to the sinner’s response to the message of Christ.¹¹

This helps explain why the apostles could preach both:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31)

and

“God… now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30)

without any sense of contradiction.

Faith and repentance are not competing requirements—they are complementary aspects of a single response to the gospel. Faith looks to Christ for salvation; repentance turns the heart toward God from all that stands opposed to Him. To redefine repentance in a way that removes this dimension is not merely to adjust terminology—it is to risk altering the very nature of the gospel call.

A Biblical Synthesis of Repentance

Having considered both the contemporary redefinitions of repentance and its consistent expression in historical gospel preaching, it is necessary to return to Scripture itself and carefully articulate a definition that reflects the full biblical witness.

At its most basic level, repentance (metanoia) does indeed refer to a “change of mind.”¹² However, this change of mind must be understood in its biblical context. It is not merely a shift in intellectual awareness, but a transformation in how one perceives God, sin, and self. It is a change that reaches beyond cognition into the disposition of the heart.

In Scripture, repentance is consistently directed “toward God” (Acts 20:21). This is crucial. Repentance is not merely turning away from something; it is fundamentally a turning to Someone. Yet such a turning cannot occur without a corresponding recognition of and break in allegiance to that which stands opposed to God.

This is why the biblical language often holds both realities together. Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians in these terms:

“Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

Here, repentance is not dissected into isolated components. The turning to God and the turning from idols are part of the same movement of the soul.

Importantly, this does not mean that repentance requires a complete or immediate reformation of life prior to salvation. Scripture nowhere teaches that a sinner must first cleanse himself in order to come to Christ. Salvation remains entirely by grace, and the sinner comes as he is—guilty, helpless, and unable to save himself.

However, it does mean that repentance involves a real and meaningful change in one’s posture toward sin. Sin is no longer viewed with indifference, justification, or allegiance, but is seen in light of God’s holiness. This aligns with the Spirit’s work described by Christ:

“And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin… because they believe not on me” (John 16:8–9).

Unbelief is indeed central, but it is not isolated from the broader reality of sin—it is its expression and culmination. This understanding helps resolve a false tension that often arises in discussions of repentance. On one hand, it is rightly insisted that repentance is not a work and does not merit salvation. On the other hand, Scripture does not present repentance as a neutral or purely intellectual act. Rather, it is a Spirit-wrought turning of the whole person toward God.

As such, repentance and faith should not be artificially separated. They are distinct, but inseparable. As one turns to Christ in faith, he simultaneously turns from all that he formerly trusted or clung to in opposition to God.¹³

This also clarifies the relationship between repentance and sanctification. While the ongoing transformation of the believer’s life belongs to sanctification, the initial turning of the heart toward God—including a changed disposition toward sin—belongs to conversion itself. The fruit of repentance unfolds over time, but the direction is established at the beginning.

Therefore, repentance may be best understood as:

A Spirit-enabled change of mind and heart toward God that results in a turning from sin and a turning to Christ in faith.

This definition avoids both extremes. It does not make repentance a work of moral reform, nor does it reduce it to a bare acknowledgment devoid of moral and spiritual substance. Instead, it reflects the unified testimony of Scripture: that the sinner who comes to Christ comes humbly, honestly, and turningly—not perfectly, but genuinely.

Holding the Line Without Extremes

The discussion surrounding repentance is not new, but the present moment has made it unusually urgent. As we have seen across these three articles, the issue is not whether repentance should be preached—virtually all sides affirm that it should—but how it is defined, how it is presented, and what it requires of the sinner in coming to Christ.

In Part 1, we established that repentance is undeniably present in the gospel message of Scripture. In Part 2, we traced a noticeable shift in how repentance has been defined in more recent decades—often reduced to a purely intellectual change, intentionally separated from any necessary turning from sin. In this final section, we have sought to bring the discussion back to Scripture itself, showing that while repentance is not a work that earns salvation, neither is it a hollow acknowledgment that leaves the sinner unchanged in his posture toward sin. This matters because the gospel itself is at stake—in its clarity, and thus in its truth and power.

There are those who, out of a sincere desire to protect salvation by grace, have reacted strongly against anything that might sound like works. That concern should not be dismissed lightly. Scripture is abundantly clear that salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). No sinner is saved by reforming his life, making promises to God, or proving his sincerity through outward change.

At the same time, there are those who, in emphasizing that truth, have so narrowed the definition of repentance that it no longer fully reflects the biblical call to turn to God. In seeking to remove all possibility of works, repentance can be reduced to something so minimal that it risks losing its moral and spiritual substance altogether. A very dangerous and destructive position, indeed.

Both errors, though slight variations of the same error, create instability and confusion. One burdens the sinner with what he cannot do. The other may reassure the sinner without ever confronting what he must face.

The biblical gospel does neither.

It calls the sinner, as he is, to come to Christ by faith alone—yet it calls him to come honestly, humbly, and with a heart that is turning toward God. It does not demand perfection, but it does involve surrender. It does not require a finished work in the life, but it does establish a new direction of the soul.

This is why earlier gospel preaching could speak so plainly about sin, call men to repentance without hesitation, and yet still proclaim with full confidence that salvation is the free gift of God, by grace through faith. There was no contradiction because repentance was not viewed as a meritorious act, but as part of the sinner’s turning to God. It is also why the apostles could preach both repentance and faith without confusion, and why Scripture never feels the need to apologize for either.

The goal, then, is not to win a debate, defend a camp, or correct personalities. It is to speak where Scripture speaks and to define terms as Scripture defines them. Where the Bible is clear, we must be clear. Where it is balanced, we must be careful not to tilt.

If there is any burden in this study, it is simply this: that the gospel be preached with both clarity and integrity—that sinners would not be confused about what God requires, nor discouraged from coming because of what He does not.

Repentance is not a work that earns salvation. But neither is it an empty word that can be redefined without consequence. It is part of that profound, Spirit-wrought response whereby a sinner, seeing himself as he truly is, turns to God and rests wholly in Jesus Christ. And where that kind of repentance and faith are present, the promise of Scripture stands sure:

“Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37).

⸻

Footnotes

1. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th rev. ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 567.

2. Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750–1858(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994); Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

3. Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? (Forest Hills Baptist Church, Decatur, GA, n.d.), accessed online at https://www.cavaliersonly.com/christian_articles_and_messages/repentance_-_what_does_the_bible_teach_by_curtis_hutson.

4. Ibid.

5. Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 281–283; see also David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1989), 40–42.

6. John R. Rice, What Must I Do to Be Saved? (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord Publishers, n.d.), 10.

7. Lester Roloff, “Repentance” (sermon), transcript from recorded message, accessed via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3vaT5rLJ7Q.

8. C. H. Spurgeon, “Repentance unto Life,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, vol. 1 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1855), 334.

9. Bob Jones Sr., sermon materials and revival preaching excerpts, various addresses on repentance and conversion (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University archives and others).

10. Thomas Watson, The Doctrine of Repentance (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987), 18.

11. David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 15, 42–45.

12. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 567.

13. Curtis Hutson, while redefining repentance, still acknowledges the inseparability of repentance and faith in conversion, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach?, accessed online. See reference 3 above.

    
    

Addendum: Other Representative Historical Definitions of Repentance

To further demonstrate that the understanding of repentance as involving a turning from sin was not an isolated or fringe position, consider the following definition from Oliver B. Greene in his commentary on Acts:

“Repent—True repentance is sorrow for sin committed against a holy God; and not only sorrow for sin, but turning from sin, forsaking sin, and turning to God. To do again the same thing supposedly repented of is not true repentance. Repentance is not fear of the consequences of sin and damnation in hell. It is not fear of the wrath of God poured out upon the wicked. True repentance in the heart looks upon sin in its true light and recognizes sin as having nailed Jesus to the cross. True repentance is such hatred for sin that the penitent one forsakes sin and turns ‘about face’ and walks with God. Sin is evil. God hates sin. Sin nailed the Saviour to the cross—and certainly that fact alone is sufficient reason why all who have genuinely repented hate sin and forsake sinful ways.”¹

This definition is not presented as a theological innovation, but as a straightforward explanation of biblical repentance consistent with the preaching and writing of many evangelists throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It reflects a view of repentance that includes not merely a change of mind in abstraction, but a change of mind about sin that is inseparable from a changed posture toward it.

Oliver B. Greene, The Acts of the Apostles (Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, n.d.), 180.

George W. Truett writes:

“There were two plain truths sounded out by Jesus and His apostles, the record of which is kept here for us in His Holy Word, and those two truths are set forth in the two pithy sayings: ‘Repentance toward God,’ and ‘Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Here we are, with our moral sickness, with our lapse and defeat and loss and moral failure. Here we are, hostile and disobedient in the sight of God. Here we are, having violated God’s law and transgressed His precepts. And He calls to us, saying: ‘Will you not repent of that evil way? Will you not turn from it? Will you not forsake it? Will you not renounce that evil way and leave it utterly behind? Not only will you be sorrowful for such evil course, but will you not translate that sorrow into action, and forsake the evil way and leave it behind?’ That is, by repentance, to turn to God. And then, will you not by faith lean wholly and only upon Christ, the atoning Savior for those who have sinned in the sight of God? Will you not commit yourself to that divinely given Friend, who came, himself the just, to make atonement for us, the unjust, that by His own atoning sacrifice He might make us right with God? Will you not thus definitely by faith take Christ as your Savior? Whoever comes, turning definitely away from the wrong course —and he may make such turning in one moment—and turning with absolute surrender to Jesus, the Divine Savior —whoever comes like that to Christ, shall in that selfsame hour be forgiven and saved.”

George W. Truett, A Quest for Souls (Dallas: Baptist Standard, 1917), 114–115.