Yeah this is wrong. At least it's closer than many Lordship Salvation doctrinal statements, but it still includes self-abhorrancy and "prayer for pardon" which are not part of the Gospel of Grace, which comes by simple faith in the finished work of the cross (which may then be followed by prayer telling God you accept his gift and trust what Christ did as sufficient to cover it all, but not with asking him to pardon you, for why would you request pardon if you already believe what he did was sufficient to cover it all: it's a contradictory notion). Whoever is in charge of this, tell them UGC called and admonished them to straighten out their doctrine, and if anyone wants a friendly debate, find a way to contact us and we will politely oblige.
Dispensationalism goes back to the early church fathers, and to many of the Anabaptists, long before your "LBCF". Take Irenaeus for example (2nd Century), who in Against Heresies (V.XXIX.1) said "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be,'" in defense of a pre-trib rapture thousands of years before Non-dispensationalists imagined the idea that "Darby invented it in the 1800's".
Even Augustine, of all people, began as a Dispensationalist:
Augustine, To Marcellinus, CXXXVIII, chapter 1, section 5:
"The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him."
Finally, it would literally waste time to address all of your verse citations individually when the original definition of metanoia/metanoeo still stands for every verse in the NT dealing with eternal salvation without having to eisegetically wrest any of them out of context just to fit your late LBCF. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide. It wouldn't matter if the Queen of England declared repentance of sins a necessary part of London's official soteriological doctrine: it's still not in the Bible for eternal life.
Also, it's clear from your citations and interpretations that you are not practiced in rightly dividing the word (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) according to situational context, audience, and/or timeframe (probably because you're a non-Dispensationalist: there's your foundational problem), but perhaps worse, your exercising of logic is rather weak. Again, you have taken the eisegetical approach, using the LBCF as your foundation and then shoehorning its context into the Bible rather than starting with scripture by which you then judge whether the LBCF aligns with scripture (which it obviously doesn't in this particular area for anyone well-practiced in logic). Additionally, "Lordship Salvation" is not OK just because "Jesus is Lord". That's a kindergarten argument. If Jesus is Lord, you would listen to what he said about salvation, which is that it is a free gift, which cannot be earned by our works, and since sin is the transgression of the law, if you are making an effort or promising to make an effort to abstain from (turn from) sin, you are making a commitment to the law instead of changing your mind (metanoia) from works toward grace (Hebrews 6:1). If you can't get past this simple first step, it proves my point that your exercising of logic is weak and we cannot continue into further complexities until you get the basics down: we can't put the cart before the horse. Again, get a professional representative for the London Baptists if need be, I have no issue engaging in a friendly doctrinal discussion with them.