Seth Doty

A little perspective here... Is doing such a thing beneath the dignity and character of the american military? yes, but the soldiers have been at war and war frequently increases hatred of the other side. They have seen their buddies killed & maimed by those people, and they have been exposed to the culture in that part of the world which is physically filthy, extremely corrupt and dishonest, and pointlessly brutal by american standards(not that america is perfect but the difference is great enough there is quite the culture shock). As a result of such things a number of soldiers end up hating/despising the people over there which leads to things like this on occasion. What does the ememy do to our guys bodies in such situations? Not that justifies anything per se but it certainly leaves the Afghans little room to complain. Things like this should be dealt with at a fairly low level. Those involved should have received a reprimand & or discipline from their commanding officer to enforce more dignified and proper behavior and that should have been that. No need for a media circus. It is a perfectly natural behavior for fallen man to disrespect and defile the bodies of their enemies out of hatred and a desire for vengeance. It is a behavior that should be repressed, but it is not exactly hard to understand or sympathize with.

Why? I think that passage itself shows pretty well that "Jacobs trouble" is not speaking of the "events of Esther". First the passage mentions that God is going to raise up "David their king" to them, whether this is speaking of the literal king David or a King like unto David(Christ for example) is irrelevant since after the Babylonian captivity they had no king at all. Secondly, even when they did return from that captivity, the city of Jerusalem was a mess, and they remained a weak nation under the control of the persian empire. Hardly a fulfillment of the prophecy in the passage.

The parallel passage that speaks of the restoration of "King David" makes it equally clear that it isn't talking about the babylonian captivity since it describes a time when Israel is without kings, idols, or sacrifice and specifically places it in the "latter days".

"Hosea 3:4-5 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days."

Look at "Jacobs trouble" in scripture and see if it fits the return from the Babylonian captivity or not.

"Jeremiah 30:4-24 And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.
5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace.
6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
10 Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
12 For thus saith the LORD, Thy bruise is incurable, and thy wound is grievous.
13 There is none to plead thy cause, that thou mayest be bound up: thou hast no healing medicines.
14 All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of thine iniquity; because thy sins were increased.
15 Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy sorrow is incurable for the multitude of thine iniquity: because thy sins were increased, I have done these things unto thee.
16 Therefore all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey.
17 For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD; because they called thee an Outcast, saying, This is Zion, whom no man seeketh after.
18 Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.
19 And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small.
20 Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them.
21 And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD.
22 And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
23 Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it."


Israel didn't have any sort of King when they returned from the Babylonian captivity, let alone " David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." Compare that passage about the restoration of "king David" to this one:

"Hosea 3:4-5 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days."

Also at the end of this prophetic passage to Israel it says "in the latter days ye shall consider it." The "latter days" are pretty much are synonymous with the "last days" in the NT and certainly can never refer to any period prior to the time of Christ at the very earliest, or the millennial kingdom at the latest...

Ditto. It had nothing to do with keep the bloodline pure. It had everything to do with the fact that the surrounding nations were pagan. If someone converted to the one true God and became part of the Jewish nation in the OT it was perfectly fine for a "natural born" Jew to marry them and several such examples exist. Same principle applies today, don't marry the heathen. Race is not the factor that makes it acceptable or unacceptable then or now.

I would say biblically no, from the scriptures it seems Gods perfect will is that a person should not remarry after a divorce as long as their divorced spouse is still alive. If it was "ok" for anyone to do that then it wouldn't be a problem when a pastor did it either.

If your going to be consistent and if your categorically apposed to such things on the grounds "God did not intend mankind to be united as one", and if your going to use the tower of babel as evidence, then logically I would think you would be apposed to learning other languages as well. After all God confused the languages at the tower of babel precisely to create division. Also if your going to use Acts 17:26 as some type of evidence then logically you should be apposed to marrying someone from a different country regardless of the race they were of, and within the same country it also would not matter what race they were of. The verse is talking about God setting the bounds of nations not races after all. So no English/German, American/Canadian marriages either.

Truth be told when you boil it down much of the time it seems black and some other color marriages are the only interracial marriages that are categorically disapproved of by some. A White guy with a Hispanic lady or a White guy with a Asian lady and the same people that object to Black guy with a White woman don't seem to care more often than not. That tells me it is indeed more often than not the last vestiges of racism, conscious or not, and that kind of thing is also doubtless why at one point it was semi-popular to teach that the "mark of cain" was being black regardless of zero evidence for that and the fact that all his descendants were destroyed in the flood. Now in a sense this is every individuals own business, nothing says you "must" personally approve of interracial marriages or perform marriage ceremonies in such cases if it bothers you. However you certainly can't even begin to reasonably defend such a position from scripture and if a pastor/church does penalize a couple for no other reason but something like this then I do think they are in the wrong and will have to answer for it to God. Churches are made up of sinful people and occasionally have to deal with the results of racism in the midst along with just about everything else. No different than when in the early church at Jerusalem the Greek widows were being neglected and receiving less than Jewish widows for racial reasons and the office of deacon was created precisely to take care of some of the effects of that sin of racism within the church and restore the proper balance.
.

If your going to be consistent and if your categorically apposed to such things on the grounds "God did not intend mankind to be united as one", and if your going to use the tower of babel as evidence, then logically I would think you would be apposed to learning other languages as well. After all God confused the languages at the tower of babel precisely to create division. Also if your going to use Acts 17:26 as some type of evidence then logically you should be apposed to marrying someone from a different country regardless of the race they were of, and within the same country it also would not matter what race they were of. The verse is talking about God setting the bounds of nations not races after all. So no English/German, American/Canadian marriages either.

Truth be told when you boil it down much of the time it seems black and some other color marriages are the only interracial marriages that are categorically disapproved of by some. A White guy with a Hispanic lady or a White guy with a Asian lady and the same people that object to Black guy with a White woman don't seem to care more often than not. That tells me it is indeed more often than not the last vestiges of racism, conscious or not, and that kind of thing is also doubtless why at one point it was semi-popular to teach that the "mark of cain" was being black regardless of zero evidence for that and the fact that all his descendants were destroyed in the flood. Now in a sense this is every individuals own business, nothing says you "must" personally approve of interracial marriages or perform marriage ceremonies in such cases if it bothers you. However you certainly can't even begin to reasonably defend such a position from scripture and if a pastor/church does penalize a couple for no other reason but something like this then I do think they are in the wrong and will have to answer for it to God. Churches are made up of sinful people and occasionally have to deal with the results of racism in the midst along with just about everything else. No different than when in the early church at Jerusalem the Greek widows were being neglected and receiving less than Jewish widows for racial reasons and the office of deacon was created precisely to take care of some of the effects of that sin of racism within the church and restore the proper balance.
.

If your going to be consistent and if your categorically apposed to such things on the grounds "God did not intend mankind to be united as one", and if your going to use the tower of babel as evidence, then logically I would think you would be apposed to learning other languages as well. After all God confused the languages at the tower of babel precisely to create division. Also if your going to use Acts 17:26 as some type of evidence then logically you should be apposed to marrying someone from a different country regardless of the race they were of, and within the same country it also would not matter what race they were of. The verse is talking about God setting the bounds of nations not races after all. So no English/German, American/Canadian marriages either.

Truth be told when you boil it down much of the time it seems black and some other color marriages are the only interracial marriages that are categorically disapproved of by some. A White guy with a Hispanic lady or a White guy with a Asian lady and the same people that object to Black guy with a White woman don't seem to care more often than not. That tells me it is indeed more often than not the last vestiges of racism, conscious or not, and that kind of thing is also doubtless why at one point it was semi-popular to teach that the "mark of cain" was being black regardless of zero evidence for that and the fact that all his descendants were destroyed in the flood. Now in a sense this is every individuals own business, nothing says you "must" personally approve of interracial marriages or perform marriage ceremonies in such cases if it bothers you. However you certainly can't even begin to reasonably defend such a position from scripture and if a pastor/church does penalize a couple for no other reason but something like this then I do think they are in the wrong and will have to answer for it to God. Churches are made up of sinful people and occasionally have to deal with the results of racism in the midst along with just about everything else. No different than when in the early church at Jerusalem the Greek widows were being neglected and receiving less than Jewish widows for racial reasons and the office of deacon was created precisely to take care of some of the effects of that sin of racism within the church and restore the proper balance.
.

If your going to be consistent and if your categorically apposed to such things on the grounds "God did not intend mankind to be united as one", and if your going to use the tower of babel as evidence, then logically I would think you would be apposed to learning other languages as well. After all God confused the languages at the tower of babel precisely to create division. Also if your going to use Acts 17:26 as some type of evidence then logically you should be apposed to marrying someone from a different country regardless of the race they were of, and within the same country it also would not matter what race they were of. The verse is talking about God setting the bounds of nations not races after all. So no English/German, American/Canadian marriages either.

Truth be told when you boil it down much of the time it seems black and some other color marriages are the only interracial marriages that are categorically disapproved of by some. A White guy with a Hispanic lady or a White guy with a Asian lady and the same people that object to Black guy with a White woman don't seem to care more often than not. That tells me it is indeed more often than not the last vestiges of racism, conscious or not, and that kind of thing is also doubtless why at one point it was semi-popular to teach that the "mark of cain" was being black regardless of zero evidence for that and the fact that all his descendants were destroyed in the flood. Now in a sense this is every individuals own business, nothing says you "must" personally approve of interracial marriages or perform marriage ceremonies in such cases if it bothers you. However you certainly can't even begin to reasonably defend such a position from scripture and if a pastor/church does penalize a couple for no other reason but something like this then I do think they are in the wrong and will have to answer for it to God. Churches are made up of sinful people and occasionally have to deal with the results of racism in the midst along with just about everything else. No different than when in the early church at Jerusalem the Greek widows were being neglected and receiving less than Jewish widows for racial reasons and the office of deacon was created precisely to take care of some of the effects of that sin of racism within the church and restore the proper balance.
.

As your probably alluding to, there is no OT scripture that says "he shall be called a Nazarene"(see John 7:52) . Some think that it might be a obscure reference to Isaiah 11:1 and the "rod" coming out of the stem of Jesse due to the hebrew word for "rod". I personally think that that view is improbable answer and I think it is more likely a similar situation to that where Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude, quotations not found elsewhere in scripture. Likely a situation where a specific statement within a book was inspired but the whole book was not and therefore the book quoted from was not preserved as scripture. Another possibility is that this was something simply "spoken" by some of the prophets and not written down. I also think that is a little unlikely since there wouldn't seem to be a reason to mention it if it was not recorded somewhere where the initial target audience of the book of Matthew would have been exposed to it.

It seems to me that your response is stretching things beyond what is reasonable in order to try to make your point of view work, but this is a minor enough issue it probably isn't really worth going back and forth about any further unless you want to.

I am skeptical that there is a clear cut and consistent difference in how these words(or the ones your specifically asking about) are used biblically. There may be some slight difference but there is also a fair amount of overlap.

Here are a couple of examples that seem to disagree with your definition of "eternal" as only being something that has neither a beginning or ending.

"Isaiah 60:15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations."

"2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;"

"2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

"Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Note that in Isaiah 60 eternal is used in a future tense, and in second Corinthians 4 suffering for Christ is said to produce "eternal" glory. In 2nd Corinthians 5 the future glorified bodies of believers are spoken of as "eternal" in the heavens. Then lastly in Jude 1:7 Sodom and Gomorrha are said to be suffering the "vengeance of eternal fire". We know that all of those things were created works that had a beginning, indeed only God himself is without either a beginning or an ending.

Just curious, how do you differentiate between someone offering correction that lines up with scripture and someone pretending to be "perfect or holy or all wise"? Much of the time it is simply a matter of perspective. We all do well to listen to what the book of proverbs says about reproof even though receiving reproof is hard and the first and fleshly reaction of most or all of us is probably to push back and argue for that very reason...

The verses that teach the immortality of the soul are almost to numerous to list. Here is one of many examples:

"Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."





Like man, God is body, soul, and Spirit. Jesus Christ has a physical body, the Father and the Holy Spirit do not. All three are distinct persons or "souls" which is why God sometimes speaks in plural: "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" etc.

The body is what can be felt/touched.. the physical. The "soul" is basically the mind/will/emotions. The "spirit" is a even deeper part of who you are and it is this part that is capable of understanding/discerning "spiritual" matters, accepting/rejecting/communicating/ becoming one with Gods Spirit. It can control the soul which in turn controls the body. The "heart" as it is used in scripture is a combination of both soul and spirit. I agree that the spirit of man is what died at the fall, but all three parts of man, body, soul, and spirit exist after death in both the lost and the believer. The spirit and soul of the believer never dies, while the soul and spirit of the lost abide in death, which is not the same thing as unconsciousness. Eventually a new body for both believers and unbelievers comes at the resurrection.

Seems sort of irrelevant to me if he that "letteth" is specifically speaking of the Holy Spirit or an angel as it is six of one and a half dozen of the other. After all all the angels are is ministers of God and the the only reason their powers are superior to the powers of darkness is because of God.

"Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

As a dispensationalist this is how I would describe Gods plan/plans. First off God has a perfect will/plan of what would be the very best way. This is the way things would be if everyone did exactly what God told them to do. At any point man has been given the free will to follow that perfect will of God or do something else. In that sense man can "overrule" Gods best plan. On the other hand God being omniscient is always an infinite number of steps ahead of man and therefore man can never surprise God and do something God hadn't already planned for. In that sense man cannot change Gods plans because God knows what the free will choice of man will be before man makes it. For example, the fall of man. It was Gods "best" plan that man obey him and thus never sin and fall. However God being omniscient knew that man would choose to sin and therefore God had already planned for that from the foundation of the world. The fact that God is omniscient and not bound by time in no way means mans choice is not free though.

In the case of Israel they could have accepted him as the messiah, it was a genuine offer(Matthew 12:7 etc.), but of course God being a infinite number of steps ahead of them knew they would choose to reject him which is why it was prophesied throughout the OT.

Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.

Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.

Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.

In so far as I am aware no one on this board believes that the repentance that is necessary before salvation is cleaning yourself up, ceasing from sin or anything like that. It is a willful directional change of the heart.

"1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

The church at Thessaloniki is a case in point. They turned to God from idols. They didn't just add Jesus to their other idols(then they would have been catholics ), they had to choose to turn away from the idols in order to choose God. That is what repentance unto salvation is all about. Before you get married you have to be ready to enter into a specific and exclusive covenant with the individual your marrying, and likewise when you come to Christ for salvation your heart(not just the mind) must be turned toward him before you can be in a position to truly believe from the heart and be saved. If your heart is truly turned toward Christ then by default it must choose to turn away from sin. It is an either or situation, your heart can't be turned toward Christ and willfully hanging on to known sin at the same time. As it is written:

"1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

If you believe that a person can call on God and expect him to save them while willfully and knowingly holding on to sin then look at Psalm 66:18, Proverbs, 1:24-31, Ezekiel 14:1-8 etc.

I also wonder how the idea that a person can be saved and live "like the devil"(indefinitely?) fits in with this and other similar NT passages:

"Luke 6:43-46 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

Now to be clear a Christian can "live like the devil" temporarily if they so choose, but if they do so choose they will be miserable in that lifestyle and will be chastened by God until they either get right or until they "sin unto death" and God deals with them accordingly. They can't just live their whole life like a lost person without any kind of judgment from God if they are truly saved. Hebrews 12:6-13, 1st Corinthians 11:29-32, 1st John 5:16-17 etc.



If you only knew how many arguments we have had with Calvinists over the years. It is pretty funny to accuse this board of being predominately Calvinist, I think your the first person who has ever felt that way. Anyway, sorry to see you go if you do decide to leave, as for what ever reason I get the impression that you are either just slightly misguided or misunderstanding and therefore hung up on what is meant by repentance. :saint2:

I don't see how that explanation makes much sense, most of the time in the NT no context is given that would explain what they were to repent of. Contextually the word "repent" or "repentance" is usually treated as something that needs no explanation. Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17,Luke 13:3 etc. Those particular I examples mentioned earlier just happened to use repent and believe or repent & turn to God together which shows repentance and belief are not exactly the same thing.

On another note, here you are defining repentance as a 180 degree change of mind, rather than just turning from unbelief, which I would agree with. Only thing I would argue is that it is also a change of heart, not just of mind.

"Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

"Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:"

"Psalm 78:36-37 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant."

"Psalm 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:"

Take just one of those verses: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me". If this is true then how could anyone be saved without having had a change of heart as well as a change of mind? Repentance being a change of heart as well as a change of mind seems such a basic scriptural truth it is hard to see how it could even be argued against. Do you really think someone can merely say they believe on Jesus while coming to God in pride and unwillingness to re-line themselves with what they know to be his will and actually get saved?

If repentance is simply turning from unbelief, no more, no less, then why is it treated as something separate from belief in the scriptures? Logically the opposite of unbelief is belief correct? If you are telling someone to turn from unbelief why tell them to believe at all? If they turned from unbelief the state of belief is the only other option. Therefore telling them to to repent and believe would seem superfluous. It would be only one step not two. If your definition of repentance was correct what would be the point of using the word repentance in the following scripture samples?

"Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

"Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

"Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

"Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent."

"Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

"Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent."

"Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

"Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

"Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

I think the scriptures are pretty clear that repentance is a prerequisite before salvation can take place. The only "question" is what repentance is. It isn't cleaning yourself up and getting rid of sin in your life. It isn't exactly the same thing as belief and faith either though it is related. Rather it is both a mental and heart rejection of your current state/will/direction and a desire/willingness to align yourself with Gods will/way in so far as you are able to understand it at the time. I think someone mentioned that the philippian jailer was simply told "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." This is true. The reason for that though is that there is little need to wonder about whether a individual is at the point of repentance when that individual has fallen down trembling in front of you and is asking YOU what he needs to do in order to be saved rather than you trying to convince him he needs to be saved. Sort of a no brainer that that such a individual is very ready to believe, though they did apparently expound upon it a bit further. Scripturally the preaching of repentance is directed most often to those who are either flat rejecting God or only giving lip service with a heart that is not really ready to be right with God. The danger of not mentioning repentance at all is that it can give false assurance to those who are only mentally concurring with the gospel without a willing heart. Basically just giving lip service.

I think it would generally be better to avoid it if possible because that type of thing bugs some people, but strictly speaking it does not bother me personally. Could be one of those things that will be accepted as the new normal eventually.

I agree that specifically the verse was/is directed to Israel but practically it has broad general application to Christians as well. God is always more inclined to work mightily when his people by and large are following his will.