Pagbabalik-Loob Sa Diyos:
Reexamining Repentance and Conversion in the Philippine Context
Donna Hope C. Tan (Donna Castillo-Tan)
Published in Global Missiology, www.globalmissiology.org, October 2026
Abstract
This article reexamines Christian repentance and conversion through the Filipino concept of pagbabalik‑loob sa Diyos, arguing that the Western term “conversion,” shaped by colonial and English theological discourse, fails to reflect Filipino biblical and cultural understandings of salvation. Drawing on Scripture, Filipino theology, and anthropology, the study highlights loob as the center of personhood and spirituality. Pagbabalik‑loob sa Diyos is understood not as a change of religious affiliation but as a relational return and reconciliation with God that transforms the inner self. The article proposes pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos as a culturally grounded and pastorally faithful framework for salvation in the Philippine context.
Key Words: conversion, salvation, repentance, Filipino Christianity, pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos, loob
Introduction
A popular quote often attributed to Nelson Mandela says, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”
As a pastor’s kid, I grew up hearing that salvation means receiving Jesus into one’s heart. That became my understanding. The imagery closely related is of Jesus outside a dimly lit doorway, knocking, and saying, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens the door, I will enter.” From this image emerged the idea that opening the door of one’s heart and letting Jesus in is the primary act of receiving salvation. However, this imagery is not directly connected to salvation. The image is from Revelation 3:20, a verse addressed not to unbelievers or the lost but to believers, particularly the church of Laodicea. Yet, the image of Jesus knocking on the door has become one of the primary ways salvation in Jesus Christ is presented.
Humanity has a broken relationship with God as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. Ever since, human beings have struggled to find their way back to him. God has provided a way back through his Son, Jesus Christ. This message must be proclaimed to all people: salvation from eternal damnation and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ alone.
The most familiar way of salvation for many is through “conversion.” It is also the foremost English term for the act of receiving salvation and probably one of the most popular Christian clichés. This common usage is confirmed by the questions that believers ask each other to know how they came to faith, for example, “How were you converted?” “When were you converted?” and “What is your conversion story?” However, in Filipino or Tagalog, “conversion” is understood as pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos. This translation, however, conveys the idea of spiritual conversion but is not a direct translation. Furthermore, when pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos is translated back into English, the meaning becomes different. (Note: Filipino is the national language of the Philippines and is based primarily on Tagalog, a regional dialect. In this article, Filipino and Tagalog are used interchangeably.)
Growing up in a Christian, academic, and missionary-multilingual community, I understand the weight of the term “conversion” in a salvific context. Yet I wonder how other Filipinos, with no such background as mine, would understand “conversion.” This matter becomes especially interesting when we take into account the Philippines’ colonial history under Spain and the United States, including the aggressive mission efforts to “convert” the so-called “pagan” inhabitants of the islands. The notion of “conversion” may thus carry negative connotations for Filipinos because of limited understanding and an unconscious connection to their unpleasant colonial history.
Salvation Language in the Bible
In the Scriptures, two popular terms or languages for salvation are found in John 3 and Acts 16. In John 3:3, Jesus spoke extensively about salvation to Nicodemus in terms of being born again, and in 3:16 about believing in the Son of God. Acts 16:31 also uses the language of belief as part of salvation.
Moreover, the New Testament writers present salvation in various ways. For Luke, salvation is “present” salvation, something already at work in this life, emphasizing repentance and the forgiveness of sins, as well as salvation from not only spiritual but also economic, social, political, physical, and psychological suffering. By contrast, for Paul salvation begins in this life, in the present, but it is not completed here. For him, “salvation is a process initiated by one’s encounter with the living Christ, but complete salvation is still outstanding.” The Holy Spirit continues this work, and its completion comes with Christ's return. The key concept in Paul is “reconciliation,” as seen in Romans 5:10 (Bosch, 2006, pp. 104, 393-394).
For its part, the English term “conversion” is mentioned only once in the Bible (and only in certain translations), in Acts 15:3 (e.g., NASB, KJV). The Greek word used is ἐπιστροφή (epistrophe), which means a turning about (Hill, n.d.).
In his book The Languages of Salvation, Victor Kuligin attempts to enumerate 13 terms used to define or describe the single concept of salvation, namely regeneration, justification, adoption, redemption, citizenship, atonement, reconciliation, illumination, sanctification, fruitfulness, transformation, participation, and salvation (Kuligin, 2015). Interestingly, “conversion” is not included.
Is it possible that the varied terms and theological ideas used to describe salvation in the Bible and throughout church and mission history contribute to confusion and result in nominal faith? This undesirable result can occur especially when people only act out salvific teachings primarily taught in a language or concept foreign to their culture. Suzanne Langer explains, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world” (Faule & Alexander, 1978, p. 16), thus salvation conveyed in a language that is not one’s mother tongue can create gaps in understanding.
One example is the word sin (in Greek ἁμαρτία—hamartia). In Filipino, the equivalent is kasalanan, from the root word sala, which can be traced to when Spain conquered (and renamed) the Philippines. In their mission to “convert” the local inhabitants, they also changed the language. They introduced the term sala for sin, which means “off the mark,” a shallow term that does no justice to the depth and gravity of the word sin or its meaning. Filipinos would use sala in casual, everyday conversations, sometimes even in jest. By comparison, the word sin would never be used in the same manner. Melba Maggay observes that, “Centuries of using [sala] does not seem to have lent it the seriousness appropriate to our transgression against the laws of a righteous God” (Maggay, 2005, p. 42). Its casual usage suggests that Filipinos do not seem to sense sin as transgression against God and his absolute moral law. If this analysis is true of sin and sala, it is not far-fetched that something similar may be true of salvation, simply because of the language used.
The challenge of different languages is that the same words do not always carry the same meaning, therefore theological concepts must often be expressed through local linguistic equivalents that resonate with the particular culture. Jione Havea argues that “to change people’s imagination requires playing with and changing their language.... The imagination comes alive if the language used is different from the usual” (Havea, 2011, p. 43, emphasis mine). Language both reflects a people’s worldview and shapes culture and behavior (Maggay, 2005, p. 43).
Consequently, for God’s Word and theological ideas to make sense to Filipinos, they must connect with their lived experiences and employ familiar cultural idioms (Gener, 2001, p. 45). However, changing the language should not alter the intended meaning. As Whiteman asserts, “There are no sacred forms, only sacred meanings” (Whiteman, 2025, p. 122). Thus, while Scripture and theology must be translated into the local Filipino language, the original meaning of the message must remain faithfully preserved.
Cultural Understanding and Reexamining Conversion: Pagbabalik-Loob sa Diyos
Salvation is “a fundamental concern of every religion. [And] for Christians, the conviction that God has decisively wrought salvation for all in and through Jesus Christ stands at the very center of their lives” (Bosch, 2006, p. 393). Thus, believers must fully understand what salvation means and its role in their spiritual life. When their understanding is incomplete or inadequate, people cannot fully participate in Christ’s salvation. This limitation may result in people who are “willing to adapt but not ready to convert,” leading to accommodation rather than conversion (Maggay, 2005, p. 44). In this situation, people may accept the invitation to be saved through Jesus Christ as Savior but may not be fully surrendered to him.
In Filipino, salvation (in Greek σωτηρία—soteria) is translated as kaligtasan, while “conversion” is pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos—which when literally translated back into English is the “return of the inner self to God.” With respect to the English term “conversion,” I have some concerns. First is its use in simple, everyday language, where “conversion” refers to foreign currency exchange to the Philippine peso or vice versa, or to the conversion of citizenship from Filipino to US-American. It is not immediately associated with spiritual salvation.
This disconnect between the everyday meaning of “conversion” and the term’s spiritual meaning leads to the second concern. “Conversion” may be understood in the context of spiritual salvation only by a section of the Christian community, such as those familiar with theology and fluent in English. However, Filipinos from the indigenous tribes, those with limited to no education, people with little English literacy, or those with limited or no theological exposure may not grasp “conversion” in the same manner. At face value, “conversion” simply means changing from one form to another, or one allegiance to another. This set of barriers to understanding “conversion” as spiritual salvation leads to my third concern: “conversion” as a change in religion or allegiance. Bosch defines “conversion” as a change in allegiance: It is “not the joining of a community in order to ‘procure salvation’; it is rather, a change in allegiance in which Christ is accepted as Lord and center of one’s life” (2006, p. 489). Conversion from Buddhism to Christianity, or from Islam to Christianity, or vice versa, would certainly involve a change of allegiance. But in a majority Roman Catholic country like the Philippines, is there a change of allegiance to the God worshipped? Both Roman Catholics and non-Catholic Christians read and follow the same Scripture. The liturgy and some of the sacraments are similar. Thus, would it be conversion for a Filipino when referring to a spiritual orientation within the same faith history?
A final concern is the nation’s long history of colonization spanning more than 400 years combined under Spain (1521-1898) and the United States (1898-1946). Would the term “conversion” provoke adverse reactions (whether overt or hidden) because of the negative connotations associated with the generally oppressive era of colonization? Gener points out that “the early translation of conversion was a totalizing attempt of a colonizing power to subjugate Filipinos—[thus, conversion] comes with an important caution for efforts at theological inculturation” (2001, p. 47). While “conversion” can be defined as “a particular event shaped by the experience of the convert” (Gener, 2001, p. 56, quoting Newbigen), when set alongside the instrumentalized and even coercive conversion mission of the Spanish mission or the US colonization of the Philippines, the notion of “conversion” may lead to internal confusion. As a result of these factors, the Philippine Church’s understanding of conversion has tended toward “be[ing] dualistic and other-worldly in orientation… supported by an ecclesiocentric, hierarchical (clergy-dominated) approach to Christian mission…. Hence, the ‘leavening’ influence of God’s people in the totality of the culture is stifled.” Insofar as “The gospel which the people received from the Americans was individualistic, other-worldly oriented, and tainted with American nationalism,” the problematic Filipino understanding of salvation and conversion has been compounded (Gener, 2001, pp. 56-57).
Understanding Loob
Filipino theologians Jose De Mesa (1984), Dionisio Miranda (1988), Evelyn Miranda-Feliciano (1991), Timoteo Gener (2001), Melba Maggay (2005), and Albert Alejo (2018) make references to the Filipino concept of loob and reflect on its role in Filipino spirituality, including pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos as the more appropriate term to use when referring to salvation, particularly “conversion”, in the Filipino context. Their reflections on loob and Filipino spirituality show a sharp difference between Filipino imagery and the Western concept of salvation, which is often framed in terms of “conversion.”
Loob, or “inner self,” according to de Mesa, is the core of one’s personhood and where the true worth of a person lies (Diesta Espiritu & Zosa, 2022, p. 3). It is “a Filipino’s inner person or self that constitutes his intellectual, volitional, emotional, and ethical life” (Miranda-Feliciano, 2001, pp. 69-70). Loob is also defined as one’s will, “dominating one’s psycho-moral reality” (Dionisio Miranda, 1988, p. 23). Loob, therefore, is a person’s core—what makes up a person, that from which ideas, feelings, and behavior emerge, and the place from which a personal relationship with others resonates. A Filipino’s way of relating is described according to their loob, like kabutihang-loob (kindness), kababaang-loob (humility), mabuting loob (goodness), or the opposites, like masama ang loob (hurt), masamang loob (referring to a person of bad character), even walang utang na loob (for one who has no sense of gratitude) (Pierse, 1999). Loob is also “aspired harmony with others and nature to be in union with God” (Ramos, 2017), so “[W]hen our loob undergoes a deeper experience, the more we become connected with each other and become sensible to nature and the creator” (SyGaco, 2009, p. 145).
The expanse of the use of loob in Filipino interrelationships, whether with oneself, others, or God, clearly indicates that it is an integral part of everyday life. Loob is perhaps even more noticeable in emotional and ethical life—it “covers the whole emotional-ethical range of mercy, charity, clemency, leniency, benevolence, and tolerance” (Miranda-Feliciano, 2001, pp. 69-71). Understanding the nature of loob as emotional is needed in connection with salvation “because people must see that repentance is the act by which humans turn their affections towards an ‘object worthy of love’ and so, away from sin” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 120).
Understanding Balik-loob and Pagbabalik-loob
The term balik-loob is a compound word, balik meaning “return” and loob referring to inner self. Combined it means “returning of self.” It is often used when Filipino rebel groups end their alliances and surrender to the government. The term is not to be interpreted, however, as a typical surrender without choice but as a voluntary process initiated by the Philippine government “by offering rebels and their family members reconciliation, a rehabilitation program and housing” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 117). Balik-loob is, of course, not limited to rebel soldiers. Pesebre suggests balik-loob as “contextualized repentance, [which] forces one to address [one’s loob]” (2005, p. 121).
The term pagbabalik-loob, as defined in the Babaylan dictionary, is “a return to the source” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 119). The literal translation means “return to,” “return,” or “come back to.” But in Filipino, pagbabalik-loob refers to “the return to one’s inmost being” (Maggay, 2005, p. 49). Pagbabalik-loob may have different reference points, such as that of a soul returning to the body in the case of illness, of a soul losing its way (Maggay, 2005, p. 49), or as related to returning to and reclaiming their ethnic self (Gener, 2001, p. 49; also Maggay, 1993, 2025 and Miranda, 1995), which Filipinos have lost as a result of colonization. Thus, pagbabalik-loob suggests “a restored relationship, forgetting the past, a new hope for the future or a new way of living” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 119).
Pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos
In the 1954 Filipino Bible, Ang Biblia, the term pagbabalik-loob or magbalik-loob is used for epistréphō (Greek, ἐπιστρέφω ) or “return” [to God] in Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27, James 5:19-20, Luke 22:32, and Acts 3:19, and for stréphō or “conversion” in John 12:40 and Acts 15:3. The one instance the original term is not translated as such is in Matthew 18:3, where manumbalik is used instead, which also means “to return.” Magbabalik-loob is also used in the 1980 Filipino Bible, Magandang Balita Biblia, referring to “a return to faith” (Luke 22:32). The more recent Ang Bible Pinoy Version qualifies pagbabalik-loob (“return to one’s innermost self”) with the addition of sa Diyos (“to God”), emphasizing “the transcendent dimension, the element of ‘self’ becoming passive in the act of returning to God” (Gener, 2001, p. 63), thus completing and clarifying the phrase to translate as “returning to God.” Thus, “pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos is an effort toward a dynamic equivalence translation of conversion which struggles with the tension between the self and God, immanence and transcendence” (Gener, 2001, p. 62). This rendering of pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos is, in fact, an entry for “conversion” in one of the standard Tagalog-English dictionaries (English, 1986).
Translated into English, pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos is the “returning of self to God,” a meaning quite different from the salvific term “conversion.” Furthermore, Pesebre observes that instead of “conversion,” Filipinos often refer to the act of repentance (2005, p. 121) when discussing pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos. This route of “repentance” would be clearer than that of “conversion,” and it aligns with Paul’s stance that reconciliation is the definition of salvation. Reconciliation is the act of returning to God or returning to a prior relationship his children had with him, but were led astray by sin.
Furthermore, for Filipinos, salvation also entails opening oneself to God, again connecting to loob. George Capaque further proposes Christian spiritual formation in the Filipino context as pagbubukas-loob (“opening oneself”), arguing that, because people are born into and live within a sinful condition (karupukan ng loob at kapaligiran—“a corrupted inner self and environment”), pagbubukas-loob happens only when people turn (pagbabalik-loob) to their true self, to their neighbor, and to God (2005, Abstract). Thus, pagbubukas-loob leads to pagbabalik-loob, which leads to pagbabagong-loob (“renewal of the whole”), an ongoing process toward becoming Christlike and the renewed self, formed through virtues, values, and spiritual disciplines consistent with the Filipino spirit or kalooban (Capaque, 2005).
Pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos as the Filipino Framework for Repentance and Conversion
The Filipino concept of loob is deeply affective. Filipinos are, by nature, emotional—feelings are important (Manalansan, 2016). Filipinos will respond to an offer of salvation not just cognitively, but more emotionally. To “communicate repentance successfully to Filipinos, one must work with the reality that the affective element is an important part of any Filipino’s learning process” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 121).
However, there are dangers in overemphasizing one over another. If conversion is treated as primarily cognitive, it will not become transformative to the affective Filipino, and repentance will be shallow. If treated as purely affective, conversion may become a series of penitent acts but without complete understanding of the weight of sin. Pesebre adds, “While sincerity may be elusive these days, balik-loob is really a sincere act” (2005, p. 127).
The consciousness of pagbabalik-loob helps overcome these two problems. “In balik-loob, there is sorrow—[like] a rebel soldier feeling remorse for the time spent fighting the government. But… there is also that strong element of hopeful anticipation” (Pesebre, 2005, p. 130) for a new future and a better life. Pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos ensures sincerity in repentance, especially because it is God-centered. The notion goes beyond merely considering the destructive effects of sin and leads to the recognition that sin violates God’s character (Pesebre, 2005, pp. 127–128). As 1 Corinthians 7:10 reminds us, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation.”
Conclusion
In cross-cultural communication, the meaning of the gospel is ultimately determined by the listener, not solely by the messenger (D. Whiteman, personal communication, March 16, 2026). Thus, it is critical to communicate the gospel in a language the Filipino will understand. Ed Lapiz, a well-known Filipino pastor, once suggested that in any attempt the Church makes at “evangelizing Filipinos, one must address the kalooban” (Pesebre, 2005, pp. 118-119). Communicating biblical repentance and salvation in the Philippine context requires more than just translating theological terms into Filipino; it requires engaging the Filipino worldview and their understanding of loob. Such an engagement provides a culturally meaningful lens through which Filipinos may understand repentance, conversion, and salvation as not just about changing allegiances but as a deep, inner transformation resulting from the return or realignment of one’s loob to God.
Pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos is God-centered and ultimately a return to God, whose grace initiates reconciliation and whose Spirit renews the whole person. In this sense, pagbabalik loob leads to pagbabagong-loob or inner transformation, an ongoing change expressed in new relationships, ethical living, spiritual formation, and participation in God’s mission. Pagbabalik loob sa Diyos more clearly communicates the biblical movement of turning from sin, returning to God, and being restored to relationship with him through Jesus Christ, preserving the affective and communal dimensions of repentance rather than reducing salvation to a merely cognitive decision or a change of religious affiliation. Pagbabalik loob sa Diyos is a contextual and dynamic-equivalence expression that enables the gospel to be heard within the Filipino world of meaning.
Ultimately, pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos may serve as a culturally grounded and biblically faithful paradigm for understanding repentance and conversion in the Philippines. In the loob, Filipinos return home—not to an isolated self, but to the God who receives, heals, reconciles, and renews. Here genuine repentance takes place, identity is recovered, and the gospel becomes rooted in the deep realities of Philippine history, language, and culture. It is in the place of home that we can finally be informed by the gospel, one that is shaped by the deep core of Philippine history and language (Maggay, 1993, p. 16).
Thus, more than just being simply about terminologies, the reexamining of pagbabalik loob sa Diyos as a framework for understanding repentance and salvation in the Philippine context is pastoral, missiological, and theological. If the Philippine Church is to move beyond nominal, individualistic, and other-worldly forms of Christianity, it must proclaim salvation in the language that reaches both the mind and the loob of the Filipino.
References
Capaque, G. N. (2005). Pagbubukas-loob: A proposed Filipino theology of evangelical Christian spiritual formation [Doctoral dissertation, De La Salle University]. Animo Repository. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_doctoral/116/
De Castro, E. (n.d.). Filipino psychology vs. Western psychology [Facebook reel]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/reel/499930632798529
Diesta Espiritu, J., & Zosa, M. A. H. (2022). Loob and meaningfulness: A Filipino theory of meaning in life. International Conference on Philosophy and Meaning in Life, University of Warsaw.
English, L. J. (1986). Tagalog-English Dictionary. National Book Store.
Faule, D. & Alexander, D. (1978). Communication and social behavior: A symbolic interactive perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Gener, T. D. (2001). Re-imagining conversion in lowland Philippine setting: The perspective of gospel re-rooting. Journal of Asian Mission, 3(1), pp. 43–77.
Havea, J. (2011). The cons of contextuality ... kontextuality. In S. B. Bevans & K. Tahaafe-Williams (Eds.), Contextual theology for the twenty-first century (pp. 38–52). Pickwick Publications.
Hill, G. (Ed.). (n.d.). HELPS Lexicon NASEC dictionary. In The HELPS Discovery Bible (Version 1.0.2.pre12) [Software]. HELPS Ministries.
Kuligin, V. (2015). The language of salvation: Discovering the riches of what it means to be saved. Lexham Press.
Maggay, M. P. (2005). Towards contextualization from within: Some tools and culture themes. Doing theology in the Philippines, ed., Suk, J. D. OMF Literature, pp. 40–53.
Maggay, M. P. (2025). Pagbabalik-loob: Cultural and moral recovery, 2nd ed. ISAAC.
Manalansan, M. (2016). Feeling Filipinos: Unraveling thoughts about the emotional and the (trans)national. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://www.press.jhu.edu/newsroom/feeling-filipinos-unraveling-thoughts-about-emotional-and-transnational?srsltid=AfmBOooSeXPwM1nq7WThoYHhRmTknJeg59m9TI0qoMqXgql02-Pbq0vF
Miranda, D. (1988). Loob: The Filipino Within. Divine Word Publications.
Miranda-Feliciano, E. (2001). Filipino values and our Christian faith. OMF Literature.
Pesebre, J. R. (2005). Balik-loob: Towards a Filipino evangelical theology of repentance. Doing theology in the Philippines, ed., Suk, J. D. OMF Literature, pp. 115–132.
Pierse, J. (1999, November–December). Prayer in the loob. Misyon Online. http://misyononline.info-aid.net/misyononline.com/nov-dec1999/prayer-loob.html
Ramos, C. C. R. (2017, December 17–18). Filipino concept of “loob” [Conference paper]. 10th International Conference on Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies (ASSHIS-17), Manila, Philippines. https://www.uruae.org/siteadmin/upload/UH1217422.pdf
SyGaco, S. B. (2009). Home. Silliman Journal, 50(1), pp. 135–148.