 Rhae Comfort yw'r llai o bwysig. Rhae Comfort, o rhae, yn yr ysgolwch, sy'n mynd i'r ffordd o'r cyd-dwylliant a'r cyfnod yn ymdweithio, ychydig o'r byd. Rhae Comfort, o'r rhae, yn ymdweithio, mae'r ffordd yma yn y cyd-dwylliant yn y cyfnod yma sy'n mynd i'r amgylchedd i'r Ddweithio Ilyw. A'r rhae Comfort yma yn ymdweithio i'r cyd-dwylliant, mae'n ddweithio i'r ddweithio Sèfwyr o phoedd cyfgaredd, dyfododd ac amgyrchu gondolwyd, oedd yn dweud roedd mae'r blwysig oes iawn, oedd yn amlwgaf o'r gondolwydau gwiaith o'r gondolwydau, fel bydd yn dweud yn fwy o'r시�ffaith ymddangos i'r panthau. Byddwn i hwnna ddim yn rhan o'r unrhyw o rhaid pawb ddim yn ddylch chi'n dod o'r ddechrau, rhaid o'r dweud o'r rhaid o'r gondolwydau. Gondolwyd gondolwyd gondolwydd ar yr hyn yn gwybod cyffredig yma ymddangos mean to turn from sins, and that by suggesting that repentance does not mean turning from sin, I am following after the number one error that has crept into the church. Now it's clear he didn't actually bother to watch the documentary before he commented on it. This comes as no surprise because false prophets have very deaf ears and very loud mouths. Despite telling everybody else to repent of their sins, he seems to live in willful defiance to the proverb that says, he that answers ymaddo ffraeg before he hears it. It is a folly yn yshaeim onto him. The documentary already covered some of the verses that he quoted at me in his comment. So when he says, scripture makes it very clear that repentance is turning from sin, the documentary already proved from some of those verses, at least, that it didn't.l having actually demonstrated that most Christians do believe that repentance means to turn from sin, for salvation. Even false denominations of Christianity and false religions defined yn gyfnod yn ysynol iawn oedd yw'r ysgol yn gwneud o'r cyffredinol a'r cyfrifysgol. Rwy'n obi'n rhan fyddwyd yn ysgol i'r modd ychydig yn ysgol yn fwy oherwydd, ychydig hefyd mae'n sgol i'r modd ymarfer, mae'n gwneud. Felly yn y cerddur yma, rwy'n gweithio'r arno yma'r gweithio'r pasadau fyddwydau ond mae'n gweithio'r rhan fyddwyd, ac mae'n gwybod y context ar gyfer rhan fyddwyd yw. felly mae have to refer back to those videos rather than re-explaining material I've already covered. I'm going to show you how a false prophet, such as RehComfort, uses sly manipulative tactics to deceive people and preach a false definition of repentance as it pertains to salvation. So the first scripture that he presented to prove that repentance means turning from sin and he was very precise to say sin's plural, not one sin. It is E.Q. 1821-23. And the first thing that struck me about this is that his yw'r rhaid wedi gweithio hwn wedyn dwi'u adael hwnnw ac mae'n bleidgau'r hyffordd hyn, ond hynny wedi'i adael hwnnw'n ymwneud y siarad? Rhaid hwnnw'n mynd i'n meddwl gyda'r ffordd rhaid hynny'r gweithio'n ddeuliant. Rhaid hwnnw'n meddwl cymaint ac yn adael y bwyllgor yn griffyrdd. Gweithio'n meddwl y cwmaint o hes, allan ni'n meddwl i'r ffordd. Ond o ffrannu ymlaen i reall, mae yna'n gallu'n mynd i'n meddwl. Ond mae'n ffordd o'r syniadau a'r ffordd o'r hawliau yma yn y ffordd. Fydiw yng Ng wych yn 17, ac mae'r ffordd o'r syniadau dyna yw'r ffordd o'r awdd yma wedi'i'n ddechrau. Ac mae'n gwybod y ffordd o'r cyffredig gyda'r cyffredig, mae'n ymdweithio'r golygu'r llyfr yw'r brif. Fydwch chi'n cyffredig? Mae'n cyffredig o'r golygu'r golygu'r golygu'r golygu. Mae'r ydych chi'n gwybod bod yr amser yn ymarferwyr yw'r own yn ymddangos. Ry cwmherwydd yn ymddangos cael y pethau ymddangos ymddangos Paul Wanned yn Ynys Gwmhysol Cynlludau. Paul Wanned yn ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos i ddweud ymddangos ymddangos i ddweud. Ac rwy'n ddweud ymddangos ymddangos i ddweud ymddangos. Yn hyn, mae'n meddwl i'r Godf. Fel y gallwn gydweithio'r Gwmherd yn ymddangos chi, But just by quoting Ezekiel 18 to justify his definition of repentance for eternal salvation, he is going about to establish his own righteousness. So with that being said then, why didn't Ray Comfort quote this part of his citation? Well the answer is simple, he doesn't really want you to notice or pay close attention to this bit. He only wants you to pay attention to the bit he actually quoted to support his false gospel. He only wants ydych chi fod yn ddweud y cyffredd trwm gweithio. Fe chi fod yn ddweud y cyffreddyr yn adull, ac mae'r cyffreddor yn ddweud ddweud cyffreddor ac gan sefydlu gyda gyfarwodwch yn y ddweud, Rydyn ni'n ddweud sodd y cyffreddor? Mae'n meddwl y cwrwm yn edrych mewn cyffreddor, mae'r bydau sydd gweithio ei gennym eich cyfreddor. Ond y gall 플�oedd yn yw y diolch yn gallu ein gweithio. ddiddw i'w gilydd o'r ddwy ar-gwylwyd wedi'i ddweudio'r cyfle o'i gilydd. Dyna, dyw'r cyffredig sy'n mynd i'r grath, a'r cyffredig sy'n mynd i gilydd, ond ddim o'r golygu o'i gilydd ar-gwylwydd, dwi'n ddweudio'r cyffredig, a'r gyffredig sy'n mynd i'r gyffredig yma'r gyffredig yma. Yn ymgyrch i'r gyffredig sy'n mynd i'r grath, yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ymgyrch yn gweld y safb da, cyd-dynion i'r ddweud yma ac mae hynny'n gwybod i'w ddweud i'ch gweithio i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. Ydych chi'n gwybod gwlad yn ymhyfodol, ychydig ar y cwylwyr yn Cynllunau Rhyw Roedd, dwi'n gweithio'r ddweud i ddweud o'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. Dyna, y ddweud o'r cyfrifiad yma yn ymhyfodol, ac eich E18 yn ymhyfodol, Po os gydweithio'r hyfio o'ch erioed. Mae'n iawn bod yna llawer o'u gwybod i gydych chi'n ei ddau, i'w gofyniaeth eich Llyrdoedd yn hyfio o gyntaf, mae'n maes eich gwybodaeth i'n cael eu bod yn y gallu hefyd. Felly, oherwydd yn y gallu hefyd, mae'n gofyniaeth eu gofyniaeth erioed. Os yw'r hyffordd sy'n gwybod yn ddiweddol, ma o'ch hanes ar gwaith gwybodaeth, mae nhw'n credu am y dyma o'r pasfyniaeth, fel yw Izzekylai 18, ynghylch yn bwysig o'r hyn o Gweithi Prydwyr Ynw'r ystod o'i cyflwymoedd ym Widwrach Cymru a bydd hynny'n dweud y fensiwyr yn fwrddwr i'r lleol.�� is next verse quoted is ax 319, where it says Repent ye, therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out." And he insists on pointing out that it says sins, plural, not sin singular. Now, why is this relevant? So he's trying to say that well sins, plural, all sins is the context of repentence. So, it can't mean repent of unbelief or change your mind about Jesus because it's not one sin or the sin of unbelief, It's sins, plural, so all of them. Here's what's so stupid about this ridiculous argument though. The doing of or the act of sins, plural, is not the context of repentance in this verse. The blotting out of sins is the context. The reason why it says sins, plural, is because when a person repents, aka they turn to Jesus, Jesus will blot out all of their sins, plural. An unlike Ray Comfort, my subscribing audience is populated with people that are actually saved and don't have sticks in their ears, so some of them at least, I've already seen my study on Acts 319, we already know what Peter said in this discourse. We know that Peter did not talk about a big long list of all these fleshly sins that the audience in Acts 3 needed to repent of. He never mentioned stealing, he never mentioned phonication, or drunkenness, or revelings, or adultery, or idolatry, or covetousness in Acts chapter 3. Peter did talk extensively about Jesus in the chapter. He said that God of our fathers has glorified Jesus first 13. He is the holy one in the just verse 14. He is the prince of life whom God has raised from the dead verse 15. His name through faith in his name has made the healed man strong verse 16. He should suffer so that the things showed by the mouth of the prophets should be fulfilled verse 18. If you want to say by any measure that the doing of sins is the context of repentance in Acts chapter 3, it was that Peter accused this crowd of being responsible for delivering Jesus up to Pilate and having him killed. This was a one-time sin, not a lifestyle of perpetual, unrepentant sinning. Now one of Ray Comfort's gimmicks for evangelism is to show people the law of Moses, particularly the Ten Commandments, and to show how people are guilty according to the Ten Commandments because they've sinned against the law, they've broken these commandments. But Peter didn't do that in Acts chapter 3. He didn't point to the law of Moses and enter a discourse about the evil sin of murder because it wasn't the act of murder as a defiance of the law of Moses that was the key important issue. Peter was concerning the crowd more with the person they did it to rather than the act itself. Their disobedience to the law was not the important issue. The identity of the Christ whom they rejected is the important issue. Why? Because his preaching in this passage is about Jesus, not about you, Ray Comfort. Now you have to wonder what kind of self-absorbed, self-obsessed, narcissistic I am takes a passage that's talking about Jesus, like Acts chapter 3, and makes it all about you or yourself. Oh, I know, I know, somebody who quotes his 18 as a self-affirmation because he's trying to establish his own righteousness. He then quoted verse 26 in Acts 3 and he capitalised where it says, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities, because again he wants to make the context about you turning from your sins. But again, here's what's so stupid about that. Jesus and God the Father are doing the action in this verse. God sent his son Jesus. Who is doing the action in this verse? God is doing the action, not you. Not only is God the one who does the action, it's in the past tense. It already happened. This verse is not a commandment. It already happened. It's not telling you to do anything. Because Acts chapter 3 is a passage about Jesus, it's not about you, Ray Comfort. And then he quoted Luke 24-47 again trying to make the doing of sins the proof of what repentance means. But once again, it's not the doing of sins that's the context here. It's the forgiveness of sins that's the context of repentance. And Jesus isn't telling anybody to repent in this verse. He's telling the disciples that they're going to preach repentance. Which is exactly what happened in Acts chapter 3 when Peter was talking about Jesus, not about Ray Comfort. Now the next part of his comment really just put the cherry on top of the cake. It just shows you how these unsaved fools, they just make stuff up. They just make it up. So he asks what can only be described as a foolish question. If repentance is just a change of mind about Jesus. Why does the Bible speak of godly sorrow producing repentance? Now it's a foolish question because he's already presupposed that godly sorrow has something to do with turning from all sin and reforming yourself to be saved. And that passage does need its own exposition in the series. I've not yet had a chance to do a video on it. But let's assume that godly sorrow is about being sorry and full of remorse for your sins just for the sake of argument. Godly sorrow leads us to realise that we are sinners who need saving. Therefore we repent. We change our direction and believe on Christ. We believe in him by faith without works and get saved from our sins. So he forgives us of all sins. Plural. And this is irreversible, hence repentance to salvation, not to be repented of. Ungodly sorrow doesn't lead to that because there are lots of people who have sorrow over their sins, but they don't get saved. They don't place their faith in Christ to save them. Ray comfort is one of them, of course, but there are others like him. They're called Judas Iscariot. They're called Roman Catholics in the conventional booth. They're called Muslims praying five times a day. So therefore 2 Corinthians 70, if anything, is speaking against Ray comfort, not for him. And his question really is as stupid as asking, well, if the Bible says we're not saved by works, then why does it give us all these works to do it? Well, because that's got nothing to do with how to be saved, has it? You're not saved because you got down on your knees and cried about all your sins and made pig squeals, right? Now, if you are sorry for your sins, and I hope you are, well then that's all the more reason to trust in Christ for your salvation rather than your own self-reformation, which is what Ray comfort trusts in. And just to show you how this liar makes up his own nonsense as he pleases. He makes a completely arbitrary connection between godly sorrow in Corinthians and anguish over sin in Psalm 38. Well, this is as stupid and ridiculous as me saying something like, Well, if you truly have faith in Jesus, you will go on a religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem and see all the sights where Jesus travelled. After all, Jesus said in Matthew 2018, Let us go up to Jerusalem. Jesus commanded you to go up to Jerusalem. The Bible says you are justified by faith. Therefore, that's what you have to do by faith to be saved. Obviously, that's retarded because nowhere in the Bible does it make a connection between faith and let us go up to Jerusalem. Obviously, we all agree that that is absurd. Well, when Paul says godly sorrow, that's referring to something that happened between him and the Corinthians. He doesn't refer back to David and his Psalms. As for David, the stories in Samuel indicate that David was already a believer when he was a very young man. Long before, he actually did all of the horrible sins that he then felt sorrowful over. So his godly sorrow, if you want to call it that, didn't lead to his salvation. It was a man who was already saved, who then did some very evil sins and got chastised for those sins, realised the consequences for those sins, felt sorrow over it, but even after his sorrow, it couldn't undo the consequences of those sins. And those consequences were very awful circumstances in his earthly life. Furthermore, we only know of some sins that David actually had sorrow over and confessed, such as the sin of Bathsheba. But there were plenty of sins that David actually never explicitly expressed sorrow or confession over, such as having multiple wives when the law specifically commands kings not to do this or killing women and children in certain battles where the law commands against this. But you won't get important contextual information like that from Ray Comfort because that's not really convenient for his false gospel, is it? Ray Comfort makes these arbitrary connections all the time. For example, he published a video defining repentance as confessing and forsaking all sin, using Proverbs 28.13. What's the biblical definition of repentance, Ray? Confessing and forsaking is sins, I think. You didn't even have to add the I think. Oh, I mean that's what Scripture says. Who covers us in sharp prose, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy, so it's confessing and forsaking. But again, this is so ridiculously absurd. Proverbs 28.13 does not use the word repent. Neither did John the Baptist or anybody who ever preached repentance use this proverb to justify their message. Ray Comfort just plucked some random verses out of the Bible and uses them to make up his own dictionary. Matthew 21.32 and Acts 19.4 literally define John the Baptist's message of repentance as believing on the Christ he was preaching. It's very convenient that Ray Comfort does not use these verses to define what correct biblical repentance means, even though Jesus and Paul are practically spelling it out for him here. It then just comes up with a completely irrelevant non-point. It then says, listen to the Scriptures, address sinners telling them to be sorry for their sin. This is irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Nobody is arguing that the Bible never says to have sorrow over sin, but what does that have to do with the question, sirs what must I do to be saved? Zilch, nada, zero. He is building an irrelevant strawman so he can tear it down. And then he makes this completely self-contradictory statement that completely undermines everything he is just being saying basically. That a Christian perpetually turns from sin. Well, hang on a minute, this makes zero sense. Since his message is to first repent of your sins and you must do this before you believe the Gospel. And repenting of sin means to confess and forsake all sin and you must do that before you can be saved. Well, if you have to turn from all of your sins to be saved, then it's completely ridiculous to say that a Christian perpetually turns from sin. Because if you confess and forsake all your sins before you got saved, you wouldn't keep sinning as a Christian. Well, repentance doesn't mean perfection. Save Christian perpetually. Right, well then you look pretty stupid telling people to forsake all sins before they can get saved. Because they're not going to do that, are they? They're going to keep perpetually repenting. Doesn't make sense, but this is the double-talking politician speak that we can expect from these fools. And again, more made up nonsense without any biblical basis, he calls this perpetual turning from sin the fruit of repentance. Well, again, those of us that don't just make stuff up and actually prove what we believe, we already studied the fruits of repentance in video 5 and what John the Baptist actually said about this. The first work listed was to give a spare coat or meat to him that has none. It is not a sin to own two coats or portions of meat and he was not told to buy more coats and meats so as to increase his charity. This is not perpetual turning from sin. The recipient of the coat was not commanded to do anything to bring forth fruits. No action whatsoever was required on his part. This is not perpetual turning from sin. The publicans were only given one instruction, exact no more money than they were entitled to. They were not told to perpetually cry and sorrow and repent every time they exacted too much money. They were told not to do it. This is not perpetual turning from sin. The soldiers were likewise commanded to be content with their wages and to not do violence or recuse falsely. They were not told to keep doing it, but to be sorry and turn from it every time like a Catholic in a confessional booth. This is not perpetual turning from sin. So if Ray Comfort is just going to make stuff up, well that's his fruit of repentance. He's a liar. He hasn't turned from all of his sins. He lies. He makes false claims perpetually all the time. He doesn't repent from that. His made up nonsense makes no sense whatsoever. It makes no rational sense. So that's the rotten fruit of his repentance. I'm going back to when he pretended to believe a fusion too. In the same sentence he quotes Mark 115, repent and believe. Now earlier in his comment he was quoting verses like Acts 319 to prove that repentance means turning from sin, not believing in Jesus simply because the word sins can be found in those verses. But then he doesn't grasp the irony of quoting Mark 115 where belief is the context of repentance. Sin isn't. In fact Jesus' message of repentance in this chapter and its parallel in Matthew 4, Jesus never actually talks about sin in that particular discourse on repentance. And we know that because we already studied it in the series in video number six. Heaven forbid we studied the Bible and do our homework properly. And then he engages in some weird appeal to authority fallacy by quoting A.W. Tozer as if that's supposed to prove something or mean something to me. Nobody who cares about the truth gives a damn what A.W. Tozer said. We care what the Bible says. The Bible said that John the Baptist's message of repentance is to believe on the Christ in Matthew 21 32 and Acts 19 4. The Bible said that when a man turns from sin that is his own righteousness in Ezekiel 18 22 and not to go about to establish our own righteousness in Romans 10 3. The Bible said repent and be baptized, repent for the remission of sin, repent and believe the gospel without saying of your sins after the word repent. This isn't the first time that Ray Comfort and his ministry have tried to justify the definition of repentance by quoting a bunch of other random people make fictional claims about repentance as well. In fact, they all do this. There is an article on his Living Waters Ministry website written by his colleague Mark Spence and it's titled How to Preach Repentance. And what struck me about this article is that a lot of page estate is dedicated to showing the swelling words of men who likewise want to be so poetic so they just make stuff up. Yet the vast majority of Bible verses are hidden in pop-ups. I just find that really bizarre and it just goes to show you that they're getting their definition of repentance by quoting other men incorrectly defining it instead of letting the Bible define it for us. And as you can imagine, this article contains so much word salad like repentance is the vomit of the soul. Repentance needs to be as loud as the sin was. This is pompous word salad. No normal down to earth person talks like this or even comprehends anything in those meaningless riddles. But these false prophets, they love their big swelling poetic words, don't they? They want to be seen of men with their incredible speech and their pomp. But they're just making up completely utter nonsense. Normal people don't understand or talk like this. He then ends his comment with more of his false assertions even though he doesn't directly target his comment at me. He is essentially suggesting that I have a shallow view of sin and that the kind of errors I am preaching could be filling the church with false converts. Well again, had he bothered to watch the documentary before he commented on it, he would have seen a 15 minute montage of just about everybody in Christendom under any denomination saying repent of your sins in a salvation context or it's ugly cousin surrender your life or surrender something. And it doesn't matter what denomination they come from with the Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, whatever and even non-Christian religions like Islam are defining repentance in this same way turning from your sins. So I submit to you that Ray Comfort is filling the church with false converts because he is filling the pews with people who think that they are going to heaven because they turned from their sins. Lord, Lord, did we not turn from all of our sins? Did we not live the holy life that you commanded us to live? Did we not bring forth fruits worthy of repentance? And did we not prove our faith by doing many wonderful works in your name? Depart from me, I never knew you, you that work iniquity. Now there are some liberal churches that actually don't preach against sin. That's not an unreasonable claim to make. You know, it's fair to say that some divorced lesbian vicar probably isn't too keen on preaching about or against sin, is she? And obviously this is a big problem in the church whatever this mysterious universal entity is supposed to consist of. But what you will find with people like that is that they often actually don't believe that they are bad sinners who need saving from hell. They usually think that hell doesn't exist or everybody's going to heaven or hell's not really that bad or the only people who are going to heaven are Hitler and Stalin and we're all good people at the base of it all. And if there are really bad sins it's like the bankers and the politicians who do these economic sins and political sins not the ordinary guy in the street. So look, these people don't need to repent of their sins to be saved. They need to recognise that they're filthy, evil, wicked sinners and they need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that they might be saved. That's the real issue with them. John Fford thinks that I'm the one preaching a false gospel and making false converts and I have the exact same feeling towards him. Let's compare our gospel messages with the Bible and let's see who is vindicated here. In John chapter 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus to believe for everlasting life. He doesn't tell Nicodemus to stop sinning for everlasting life. In John chapter 4 Jesus told the woman at the well to drink of the water I give for eternal life and the Samaritans later believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They didn't cry in sackcloth and ashes and beg for forgiveness. In John chapter 5 Jesus told the lame man to sin no more but never mentioned eternal life so it must not be a salvific commandment and we don't even know what the sin was it was so unimportant. When he talked about eternal life later to the Jews he told them to believe. He didn't tell them to turn from their sinful lifestyle he didn't make sin no more an eternal life requirement. In John chapter 6 Jesus extensively talked to believe for eternal life he didn't teach turn from sin and have eternal life. And for a bonus credit from this same chapter Ray Comfort says that Judas is proof that you can't just believe to be saved you have to repent of your sinful lifestyle as well. Apparently Judas is his favourite disciple for this very reason. It's as if he really wants to be saved by his own works. But John 6 groups the betray with those who believe not in the same verse verse 64 yet Judas repented of his sin in Matthew 27 3-5 so his story is the exact opposite of what Ray Comfort actually teaches. In John chapter 8 Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more but didn't mention eternal life so it must not be a salvific commandment. He later told the Pharisees that they would die in their sins because they didn't believe in verse 24. He didn't tell them that they would die in their sins because they believed the right things about him but wouldn't give up their sin. He didn't make sin no more an eternal life requirement. In John chapter 10 Jesus told the Jews to believe for eternal life and before Ray wants to try the my sheep follow me trick Jesus told them that they weren't his sheep because they didn't believe in verses 25-26 not because they had a sinful lifestyle. In John chapter 11 Jesus told Martha to believe for eternal life he didn't tell her to turn from a sinful lifestyle for eternal life. In John chapter 12 Jesus denounced the Jewish Greeks for not believing. He didn't denounce them for their sinful lifestyle. In Acts chapter 16 the prison keeper literally asked what must I do to be saved and Paul and Silas only told him to believe on Christ. They didn't tell him to stop working for the bad guys as a prison keeper for their sinful lifestyle. When John the Baptist preached repentance he never said repent of your sins. The people only confessed their sin but there is no evidence they actually turned from them and transformed their lives. We have no follow up about the converts. Matthew 21 32 and Acts 19 for prove that his message of repentance was to believe on the Christ. When Peter said repent and be baptized or repent and be converted in Acts chapter 2 and 3 he was preaching about Christ. The only sin mentioned was a one time sin and when you find Christ no perpetual sinful lifestyle was mentioned. Whereas Ray constantly evangelises using the law particularly the Ten Commandments Peter did not address the implications of murder as defined the Ten Commandments. Instead he addressed the person they did it to Christ the person they are supposed to believe. When Jesus preached repentance in Mark 115 and Matthew 4 12-17 he mentioned believing in Mark's account and he pointed to himself in scripture in Matthew's account. He never mentioned the sinful lifestyle of the audience he did not quote scripture about turning from sin. When Paul clearly explains the components of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 he lists the following items receiving and believing it in verses 1 and 2. He doesn't say living it. The death of Christ in verse 3 the burial of Christ in verse 4 the resurrection of Christ in verse 4 the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ in verses 5-8. Notice how your self-reformed lifestyle did not make it into this list. When Jesus said I came to call sinners to repentance he is the one doing the calling. The sinners don't do the action in this verse. When Jesus said the joy over one sinner that repents the parables describe Jesus finding those who belong to him. The parables did not describe sinners changing their behaviour. Even the prodigal son only turned back to the father for his own selfish reasons. It was the father who had compassion on him nothing to do with the son's obedience. There is far more that I can say on that but I rest my case. This is no nonsense Christianity reminding you that nowhere in the Bible does it say repent of your sins to be saved.