Antinomian gospel?

[Amazing Grace]

What brought about the Marrow Controversy was the Auchterarder Creed, which said, “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ." In other words, the creed was saying that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must repent of our sins in order to come to Christ. The creed was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Marrow Men agreed with the creed whereas the Neonomians did not.

The wording of this statement is terrible. I, like William Craig, would not have signed this. The truth is that Orthodoxy says that one can come to Christ without forsaking sin, yet not remain there once indwelt by the Spirit.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Yes, I was referring to the third use of the law.

Anyone who denies the third use of the law (tertius usus legis) is neither confessionally Reformed or confessionally Lutheran, since the Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly.

rsc

But does this make one a full fledged antinomian? That's where I disagree.

Why? Do you deny the third use of the Law?

No, but I would not label one an antinomian who does not subscribe to the same wording as the confessions. For instance, I would not say John Reisenger is an antinomian in the league of Agricola or Eaton. So it all depends how one speaks of the use of Law.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's not wording that's important but meaning. A man who denies the 3rd use of the law in principle is antinomian. I don't see how any can get around that. I really don't care what the person's name or reputation is. Any man, redeemed by the Son of God, who doesn't look back at what His Redeemer commanded, seeing the things He loves, and doesn't feel compelled to obey out of gratitude has a basic theological disconnect.

How about, instead of calling such a man an anti-nomian, that we agree with James that a faith that is dead to such things is no saving faith. Is that better wording? Alternatively, we could say with John, that the love of God does not abide in such a man.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I guess my fear Richard is we hear so much about stamping out the stain of antinomianism, while having a couple toes in legalism. Myself included. Then I try to "balance" myself between the 2. Yet this is a terrible option to take. For me, legalism is a much worse sin. Paul rebukes the Galatians(legalists) much more harshly than the corinthian(antinomian) church. Perhaps it is becasue I was under the sheperding of a legalistic preacher, who always denied the label vehemently. Some seem so afraid to speak as boldly as Paul about the free grace of God. FOr 6 years all I heard taught was my motiviation to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior. That is legalism full fledged.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Any man, redeemed by the Son of God, who doesn't look back at what His Redeemer commanded, seeing the things He loves, and doesn't feel compelled to obey out of gratitude has a basic theological disconnect.

I agree Richard. Gratitude is the key word for myself. Not fear in the judicial sense..

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Dear Rich,

I know it's counter to the way we often speak, but yes, technically, narrowly, when Peter said, "Repent" he was not preaching the gospel.

Before we (not that you would do this) start calling that view "antinomian," I first learned it from Caspar Olevianus! I don't think he was alone. "Repent," in that instance, is a command to reckon with the law and one's sins relative to justification before God. "Believe" is a command (yes, it is) to reckon with one's Savior relative to justification. We are not justified because we reckon with our sins properly. No one is justified, however, without reckoning with one's sins. Hence HC 1-3.

One is justified by reckoning with one's Savior, by "resting" and "receiving" and "trusting" and by possessing a "certain knowledge" about him and his finished work for his people.

In the narrow use of the word "gospel," we ought to think of the command to "repent" to be a law word because there is no terminus of repentance. Repentance is not the exact mirror of "believe." The latter has an immediate and fixed terminus. The latter is a binary operation. The latter rests in the extrinsic perfect work of the God-Man for us and these things are not true of repentance.

Repentance, reckoning with the demands of the law, turning away sin, is a continual process with no terminus in this life. The object of repentance is intrinsic, it looks within, it looks to one's self. "Am I a sinner?" Yes. Have I repented? Yes. Have I turned away from sin perfectly? No. Will I, in this life, ever turn away from sin perfectly? No.

Thus, "to repent" and "to believe" are distinct operations. The object of the latter is perfect and extrinsic. The moment one believes he is justified. That cannot be said of repentance. Must we continue to believe? Yes, but it is not as our justification is conditioned upon the quality of our faith.

Repentance, is not a binary operation. Because its nature and object are different from the nature and object of faith, even though pedagogically they are closely linked, we should not confuse the two. To construe "repent" to be a gospel word would be to introduce a condition of justification that could never be met in this life and it would be to suspend justification until glorification. In short, to make repentance a gospel word, in the narrow sense, would be to make us effectively Roman Catholic.

Must one "obey the gospel"? As has been pointed out, this is not only a biblical phrase but also a confessional phrase. Amen. What does it mean? It means that the word "gospel" can be used in a broader sense. I discussed this in this EVANGELIUM article in 2004. I think I also addressed this question in ch. 12 of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.

So, it is seems to me, that the resolution of this question lies in the use of the word "gospel." If we're using it in the narrow sense, then no, "repent" is not a gospel word. The command to reckon with sin and to turn away from it is the preaching of the law. If we're using the word "gospel" in the broader sense, however, to mean, "a short summary of the Christian message to the world," then, yes, it could be said to include the command to repent.

In our climate, however, where antagonists to the Reformation, who nevertheless persist in regarding themselves as "Reformed," continue to misconstrue the question as one between whether faith, in the act of justification is alone or not, who continue to misconstrue the issue, thirty years later, as concerning "easy believism," it is more helpful rhetorically and pedagogically to distinguish clearly between the law and the gospel, even concerning the command to believe and the command to repent.

rsc

I don't think the gospel can be properly defined to include repentance. That is relative to the law and our sin, not the good news of Christ's work for us.

Good news: You must repent!

Oh, wait, that's not good news.

Try:

Good news: Christ has accomplished all righteousness and freely justifies all who trust him and his finished work!

These are two different kinds of speech.

The fact that the two are closely associated in the proclamation of the Christian message doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, the one is the other or that they are interchangeable.

It helps to distinguish between the order of teaching and the order of salvation.

rsc

I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really didn't understand how your answer addressed my question.

If the Gospel, by definition, excludes the idea of "Repent" then it seems you're saying that Peter was not preaching the Gospel in Acts 2:38-39. Your answer sort of had a "seems to me that repenting doesn't sound like Good News" flavor over really addressing whether it belongs in the address of the Gospel herald.

Further, you present a false dilemma as if the Gospel has to be only "Repent of your sins" or "Christ accomplished righteousness". Why is it not: "Repent and trust in Christ who accomplished all righteousness"?

Finally, you seem to imply that the very notion of repentance is, in itself, bad news. Perhaps to unregenerate hearts.

I am not at all disputing that the message is Christ has accomplished what we could not do. I also take issue with the fact that I ever said that faith and repentance were interchangeable.

What I'm trying to understand is how Christ's activity has any meaning in terms of being the propitiation for sin if there is no recognition for sin and the fact that He needs to put it away. You and I can talk about Christ accomplishing all righteousness because we have a common set of "blanks" filled in. Your presentation, however, would be completely abstract to someone who has no idea what righteousness is. You have ruled the recognition of unrighteousness out of bounds for the Gospel herald. The hearer is left asking: "Justified from what? Why is that good news? Why do I need Christ's righteousness?"

I've always understood the reason for the Goodness of the News of the Gospel to lie against the backdrop of the recognition that condemnation awaits our unrighteousness apart from Him.

Now, again, to spare misrepresentation of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that there needs to be a priority given to repentance or that it be perfect or that it is instrumental and in addition to faith. What I'm confused about is your insistence that the Gospel itself does not include the aspect of repentance and, specifically, how you reconcile Peter and Paul's repeated presentations of the Gospel by leading with the unrighteousness of men, a call to repentance, and a fleeing to the Cross.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The Reformed faith is unequivocal (see HC 86) that anyone who calls himself a Christian must submit to the law of God as a consequent obligation of having been justified. He is not justified because he submits to the law as the norm of the Christian life. That is moralism, but no one consistently refuses submission to the law is a Christian.

Certainly anyone who says, "I do not have to keep the law as a consequence of having been justified" can consider himself Reformed. Most of the third section of the Heidelberg Catechism is about our consequent obedience to the moral law of God. Much of the doctrine of the WCF after ch 11 is about our obedience to the moral law of God, about the "working out" of our salvation with fear and trembling.

In the fact of nomism, covenantal nomism, covenantal moralism, neonomianism etc it is not helpful, biblical, or Reformed, to take up the antinomian position. This just plays into the hands of the moralists. Then they can say: "See, I told you all along. You "law/gospel" types really are antinomian!

No, the law/gospel types believe the third part of the HC, but they also are able (which the moralists are apparently unable to do) to distinguish between the first, second, and third parts of the catechism. We understand that Q. 86 is not speaking to justification but to the consequent and fixed moral and logical necessity of obedience.

rsc

Yes, I was referring to the third use of the law.

Anyone who denies the third use of the law (tertius usus legis) is neither confessionally Reformed or confessionally Lutheran, since the Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly.

rsc

But does this make one a full fledged antinomian? That's where I disagree.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Dear Rich,

I know it's counter to the way we often speak, but yes, technically, narrowly, when Peter said, "Repent" he was not preaching the gospel.

Before we (not that you would do this) start calling that view "antinomian," I first learned it from Caspar Olevianus! I don't think he was alone. "Repent," in that instance, is a command to reckon with the law and one's sins relative to justification before God. "Believe" is a command (yes, it is) to reckon with one's Savior relative to justification. We are not justified because we reckon with our sins properly. No one is justified, however, without reckoning with one's sins. Hence HC 1-3.

One is justified by reckoning with one's Savior, by "resting" and "receiving" and "trusting" and by possessing a "certain knowledge" about him and his finished work for his people.

In the narrow use of the word "gospel," we ought to think of the command to "repent" to be a law word because there is no terminus of repentance. Repentance is not the exact mirror of "believe." The latter has an immediate and fixed terminus. The latter is a binary operation. The latter rests in the extrinsic perfect work of the God-Man for us and these things are not true of repentance.

Repentance, reckoning with the demands of the law, turning away sin, is a continual process with no terminus in this life. The object of repentance is intrinsic, it looks within, it looks to one's self. "Am I a sinner?" Yes. Have I repented? Yes. Have I turned away from sin perfectly? No. Will I, in this life, ever turn away from sin perfectly? No.

Thus, "to repent" and "to believe" are distinct operations. The object of the latter is perfect and extrinsic. The moment one believes he is justified. That cannot be said of repentance. Must we continue to believe? Yes, but it is not as our justification is conditioned upon the quality of our faith.

Repentance, is not a binary operation. Because its nature and object are different from the nature and object of faith, even though pedagogically they are closely linked, we should not confuse the two. To construe "repent" to be a gospel word would be to introduce a condition of justification that could never be met in this life and it would be to suspend justification until glorification. In short, to make repentance a gospel word, in the narrow sense, would be to make us effectively Roman Catholic.

Must one "obey the gospel"? As has been pointed out, this is not only a biblical phrase but also a confessional phrase. Amen. What does it mean? It means that the word "gospel" can be used in a broader sense. I discussed this in this EVANGELIUM article in 2004. I think I also addressed this question in ch. 12 of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.

So, it is seems to me, that the resolution of this question lies in the use of the word "gospel." If we're using it in the narrow sense, then no, "repent" is not a gospel word. The command to reckon with sin and to turn away from it is the preaching of the law. If we're using the word "gospel" in the broader sense, however, to mean, "a short summary of the Christian message to the world," then, yes, it could be said to include the command to repent.

In our climate, however, where antagonists to the Reformation, who nevertheless persist in regarding themselves as "Reformed," continue to misconstrue the question as one between whether faith, in the act of justification is alone or not, who continue to misconstrue the issue, thirty years later, as concerning "easy believism," it is more helpful rhetorically and pedagogically to distinguish clearly between the law and the gospel, even concerning the command to believe and the command to repent.

rsc

I don't think the gospel can be properly defined to include repentance. That is relative to the law and our sin, not the good news of Christ's work for us.

Good news: You must repent!

Oh, wait, that's not good news.

Try:

Good news: Christ has accomplished all righteousness and freely justifies all who trust him and his finished work!

These are two different kinds of speech.

The fact that the two are closely associated in the proclamation of the Christian message doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, the one is the other or that they are interchangeable.

It helps to distinguish between the order of teaching and the order of salvation.

rsc

I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really didn't understand how your answer addressed my question.

If the Gospel, by definition, excludes the idea of "Repent" then it seems you're saying that Peter was not preaching the Gospel in Acts 2:38-39. Your answer sort of had a "seems to me that repenting doesn't sound like Good News" flavor over really addressing whether it belongs in the address of the Gospel herald.

Further, you present a false dilemma as if the Gospel has to be only "Repent of your sins" or "Christ accomplished righteousness". Why is it not: "Repent and trust in Christ who accomplished all righteousness"?

Finally, you seem to imply that the very notion of repentance is, in itself, bad news. Perhaps to unregenerate hearts.

I am not at all disputing that the message is Christ has accomplished what we could not do. I also take issue with the fact that I ever said that faith and repentance were interchangeable.

What I'm trying to understand is how Christ's activity has any meaning in terms of being the propitiation for sin if there is no recognition for sin and the fact that He needs to put it away. You and I can talk about Christ accomplishing all righteousness because we have a common set of "blanks" filled in. Your presentation, however, would be completely abstract to someone who has no idea what righteousness is. You have ruled the recognition of unrighteousness out of bounds for the Gospel herald. The hearer is left asking: "Justified from what? Why is that good news? Why do I need Christ's righteousness?"

I've always understood the reason for the Goodness of the News of the Gospel to lie against the backdrop of the recognition that condemnation awaits our unrighteousness apart from Him.

Now, again, to spare misrepresentation of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that there needs to be a priority given to repentance or that it be perfect or that it is instrumental and in addition to faith. What I'm confused about is your insistence that the Gospel itself does not include the aspect of repentance and, specifically, how you reconcile Peter and Paul's repeated presentations of the Gospel by leading with the unrighteousness of men, a call to repentance, and a fleeing to the Cross.

If I may also mention, when the command to 'repent' is given, it literally says "Begin repenting" reflecting a continuous behavior in the life of the believer, not a one time operation.

Repent or you will likewise perish.... Go commands all to repent...etc etc. or Mark 1:15...

in these verses it actually means "be ye repenting/believing", "begin repenting/believing", or, "keep repenting/believing". NOT a "repent at once!" type of command.
Luke 13:3. Likewise here Christ uses the present tense with subjunctive. Which means the force is not "except ye repent at once"; i.e. a one time act of "saving repentance' or change of mind is not in view.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Can the following statement be considered an axiom?

"Any gospel that does not include repentance from sin is an antinomian gospel."

Where grace leads faith and repentance (these two are twins) follow. An antinomian Gospel is no Gospel at all. I would urge you to listen to 3 messages by Sinclair Ferguson on the Marrow Controversy which deals with the wider issues. Meanwhile, 'Love so amazing, so divine (Gospel) demands my soul, my life, my all (faith and repentance)'.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dear Rich,

I know it's counter to the way we often speak, but yes, technically, narrowly, when Peter said, "Repent" he was not preaching the gospel.

Without trying to be cute, it's actually "counter" the way the Canons of Dordt "speak" that places the call to repentance under the header of the Call to the Gospel.

Before we (not that you would do this) start calling that view "antinomian," I first learned it from Caspar Olevianus! I don't think he was alone. "Repent," in that instance, is a command to reckon with the law and one's sins relative to justification before God. "Believe" is a command (yes, it is) to reckon with one's Savior relative to justification. We are not justified because we reckon with our sins properly. No one is justified, however, without reckoning with one's sins. Hence HC 1-3.

One is justified by reckoning with one's Savior, by "resting" and "receiving" and "trusting" and by possessing a "certain knowledge" about him and his finished work for his people.

In the narrow use of the word "gospel," we ought to think of the command to "repent" to be a law word because there is no terminus of repentance. Repentance is not the exact mirror of "believe." The latter has an immediate and fixed terminus. The latter is a binary operation. The latter rests in the extrinsic perfect work of the God-Man for us and these things are not true of repentance.

Repentance, reckoning with the demands of the law, turning away sin, is a continual process with no terminus in this life. The object of repentance is intrinsic, it looks within, it looks to one's self. "Am I a sinner?" Yes. Have I repented? Yes. Have I turned away from sin perfectly? No. Will I, in this life, ever turn away from sin perfectly? No.

Thus, "to repent" and "to believe" are distinct operations. The object of the latter is perfect and extrinsic. The moment one believes he is justified. That cannot be said of repentance. Must we continue to believe? Yes, but it is not as our justification is conditioned upon the quality of our faith.

Repentance, is not a binary operation. Because its nature and object are different from the nature and object of faith, even though pedagogically they are closely linked, we should not confuse the two. To construe "repent" to be a gospel word would be to introduce a condition of justification that could never be met in this life and it would be to suspend justification until glorification. In short, to make repentance a gospel word, in the narrow sense, would be to make us effectively Roman Catholic.

Must one "obey the gospel"? As has been pointed out, this is not only a biblical phrase but also a confessional phrase. Amen. What does it mean? It means that the word "gospel" can be used in a broader sense. I discussed this in this EVANGELIUM article in 2004. I think I also addressed this question in ch. 12 of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.

So, it is seems to me, that the resolution of this question lies in the use of the word "gospel." If we're using it in the narrow sense, then no, "repent" is not a gospel word. The command to reckon with sin and to turn away from it is the preaching of the law. If we're using the word "gospel" in the broader sense, however, to mean, "a short summary of the Christian message to the world," then, yes, it could be said to include the command to repent.

In our climate, however, where antagonists to the Reformation, who nevertheless persist in regarding themselves as "Reformed," continue to misconstrue the question as one between whether faith, in the act of justification is alone or not, who continue to misconstrue the issue, thirty years later, as concerning "easy believism," it is more helpful rhetorically and pedagogically to distinguish clearly between the law and the gospel, even concerning the command to believe and the command to repent.

rsc

At least I understand what you're driving at but I'm not sure I agree. I understand your concern about antagonists to the Reformation and how some will insert faithfulness into the Gospel but that's neither here nor there for the Confessional language itself. When it's time to deal with those in error we deal with those in error.

But when there's an ongoing discussion going on and people are parotting even your own 3FU that says that the call of the Gospel includes repentance, for you to jump in and state, in an unqualified way "...why is everyone afraid of Grace..." is not very helpful. When asked about Peter and Paul initially, you then still wouldn't just explain the concern and answer that you believe that is an element of Law and could be misconstrued by those in error.

I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with the idea that Peter actually thought "..well, strictly speaking this is Law..." when his first answer to the stricken consciences of his brethren was given. That presentation is all over the Scriptures. When Paul is talking about the Gospel itself in the grand testimony of it in Romans he doesn't forego the nearness of judgment as "non-Gospel". Without the nearness of judgment, there is no "News", it would just be life as usual. I understand your concern but it seems like you're reading in a fine systematic point at the expense of allowing everyone to acknowledge the broader principle, which you acknowledge, that it is nigh impossible to preach the Gospel without including a call to repentance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From the Canons of Dordt:
[...]

Let's also not forget that WCF speaks of obedience to the gospel as well:

3. VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

23. II. The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

There was a specific reason I chose the Canons of Dordt.

I guess my fear Richard is we hear so much about stamping out the stain of antinomianism, while having a couple toes in legalism. Myself included. Then I try to "balance" myself between the 2. Yet this is a terrible option to take. For me, legalism is a much worse sin. Paul rebukes the Galatians(legalists) much more harshly than the corinthian(antinomian) church. Perhaps it is becasue I was under the sheperding of a legalistic preacher, who always denied the label vehemently. Some seem so afraid to speak as boldly as Paul about the free grace of God. FOr 6 years all I heard taught was my motiviation to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior. That is legalism full fledged.

That's only a danger if the 3rd use of the law is legalism. It is not. It is another way of stating what you find all over the Epistles. I've been teaching a book of the Bible every week of the year this year and am finally to the Epistles of John this week.

What is incredibly striking to me about James, Peter, John, and Jude is how similar they are in the refrain about the obedience that flows from the Gospel and the fact that men who deny this reality are dead.

Moralists look at the conclusion of the matter prior to receiving the Gospel. That is, they skip all the stuff about Christ's accomplishment of righteousness and skip to the commands and then try to obey them as Law. A few blurbs from my teaching last week on 2 Peter 1:3-10 (see here to read the whole thing: Everything We Need (2 Peter 1:1-14) | SoliDeoGloria.com)

I want you to notice something about verse 5. It begins like this: “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence….” Now, we’re going to get back to this part again but did you catch the beginning? It said: “For this very reason….” What reason, Peter? Well many of us would just ignore that part because we’re being told to do something now but Peter says “…for this very reason…” and so it only makes sense that if we’re supposed to do something for a reason then we ought to know what that reason is. Right?

Here’s the reason he gives earlier: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”

Some of you may remember when I spoke about the Prodigal Son. He had spit on his father by claiming his inheritance early. Generations of work had gone into securing a large property that was passed from father to son over many, many centuries. The son demands his portion from his father wishing him dead and then goes out and spends it on a big party. Centuries of ancestral blessing are spent in a few weeks and the boy is destitute.

He’s working with pigs and then he comes to his senses. He’ll go back to his father and ask for forgiveness. His only desire now is to be a slave in His father’s house. He knows he doesn’t deserve anything more. This is exactly what the Pharisees expected too. Forgiveness could not be granted but the boy had to earn his way back. He would be expected to wait in the town as the people in the town came to heap shame upon the boy.

But then the oddest thing happened. The father saw the boy from far off and he ran to him. He ran to him before that boy could get to the town and receive the shame of the townspeople. He ran to him and fell on his neck weeping and kissing this scoundrel. The boy was coming to the Father expecting to earn his way back into the father’s favor but the father who had long loved the boy had overtaken him before his plan could be completed. He said “Father forgive me…” and before he could say “make me your slave”, the father squeezed the breath out of him. You see, beloved, God doesn’t permit slaves into His kingdom, He only permits sons. He only permits in those whom He adopts out of sheer grace. They deserve nothing from His Hand but He gives them a rich inheritance. He gives them a rich inheritance more lavish than the inheritance they squandered while they were living their own life. The only thing the son can do is receive that blessing.

Are your eyes wide open now? Do you understand now what that “reason” is that Peter was talking about in verse 5 when he says: “For this very reason….” Why would the son that was just lavished with love by His father and given an inheritance desire to serve Him? Because he loves Him! He’s grateful for what God has done. There is no more condemnation. He knows he can’t earn what was just given so now He obeys the Father out of the sheer joy for how incredibly blessed he is.

So Peter goes on and tells us: “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.”

Do you see how you have a completely different way of looking at these verses now? You were probably ready to start working at these so you could work for God and receive a blessing you were missing out on. In fact, the most popular “Christian” books out there are constantly telling you that the reason you’re missing out on God’s blessing is because you’re not living up to your purpose. But Peter doesn’t motivate us by giving us a purpose. No! He motivates us by the promise of God and what He has done and so we respond by adding to the faith that we have in Him these virtues. Why? Because what child who loves their Father dearly, doesn’t want to delight in the things that He delights in?

But just remember this. If you start with trying to love God on your own strength before you’ve believed the Gospel, before you’ve fallen at the foot of the Cross, and before you’ve heard the news of your acceptance by God and His rich blessing then you won’t be able to do any of it. You’ll be trying to show love and brotherly kindness as a way to fix up your life. You’ll be trying to get those merit badges so you can show God how serious you are that He’ll have to take notice of you and bless you. But there is no blessing if we approach these things as if they’re something that slaves do. We can only express them as children of God. We have to be born again.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for your clarifications. I understand more clearly where you're coming from. However, my major disappointment is that you're not grappling with the Scriptures that have been cited in this thread. Indeed, your post has no Scripture in it. Moreover, I find your reasoning problematic.

"Repent," in that instance, is a command to reckon with the law and one's sins relative to justification before God.

This is simply not what the Bible teaches; repentance is a command that arises directly from Jesus being appointed as King / Lord (Psalm 2, Psalm 110), which precisely is the gospel (Rom. 1:2-4; 2 Tim. 2:7). This is so clear from Peter's sermon:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The call to repentance here arises directly from Christ's kingship. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is both saviour and Lord (King), who now rules the world. The response must be twofold: faith (in the saviour) and repentance (under the King).

In the narrow use of the word "gospel," we ought to think of the command to "repent" to be a law word because there is no terminus of repentance. Repentance is not the exact mirror of "believe." The latter has an immediate and fixed terminus. The latter is a binary operation. The latter rests in the extrinsic perfect work of the God-Man for us and these things are not true of repentance.

Repentance, reckoning with the demands of the law, turning away sin, is a continual process with no terminus in this life. The object of repentance is intrinsic, it looks within, it looks to one's self. "Am I a sinner?" Yes. Have I repented? Yes. Have I turned away from sin perfectly? No. Will I, in this life, ever turn away from sin perfectly? No.

Firstly, this reasoning about fixed termini and binary operations, as I see it, arises nowhere from Scripture itself. It's interesting reasoning, but it's not grounded in Scripture. I can't find anyone saying or implying those things in Scripture.

Secondly, it fails to grapple with the fact that Christ (in the gospel) has not only won for us a new position (justification, reconciliation, etc.) but also a new condition (regeneration, sanctification, etc.). The new position demands faith, and the new condition demands repentance (Rom. 6:1ff.; Col. 3:1ff.).

To construe "repent" to be a gospel word would be to introduce a condition of justification that could never be met in this life and it would be to suspend justification until glorification. In short, to make repentance a gospel word, in the narrow sense, would be to make us effectively Roman Catholic.

Dr Clark, this has been answered earlier in the thread. The bare call to "repent" is neither law nor gospel. It's more like this:

Law: Repent to be saved (which is in Roman Catholicism).

Gospel: Repent because you are saved.

Your Lutheran construal of law as bare "command" is not how Paul understood law. It's command + resulting life / curse: "he who does these things [command] shall live by them [+ resulting life / curse]" (Gal. 3:12).

So, it is seems to me, that the resolution of this question lies in the use of the word "gospel." If we're using it in the narrow sense, then no, "repent" is not a gospel word.

Again, I can't agree with this. It's not a distinction between broad and narrow (which in your take makes the former repugnant to the latter), but between summary and expansion. The gospel can be articulated in summary form without any call to faith and repentance as in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. However, when we unpack or expand this summary we find the call to faith and repentance intrinsic to it. All I'm doing here, is restating the position of John Owen.

In our climate, however, where antagonists to the Reformation, who nevertheless persist in regarding themselves as "Reformed," continue to misconstrue the question as one between whether faith, in the act of justification is alone or not, who continue to misconstrue the issue, thirty years later, as concerning "easy believism," it is more helpful rhetorically and pedagogically to distinguish clearly between the law and the gospel, even concerning the command to believe and the command to repent.

I hear your concern. However, as one who believed the Lutheran law / gospel dichotomy for years, it caused the classic problems with which the Lutherans struggled in my own life (especially dead orthodoxy). It's easy to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction of error. But all that does, is cause the next generation to overreact in the opposite direction. Don't we see this happening, time and again, through church history?

Every blessing.

 

[Amazing Grace]

That's only a danger if the 3rd use of the law is legalism. It is not.

I did not mean to elude I thought it was legalistic. My point being is before I knew it, all this obedience to Law was ingrafted into justifying faith by my pastor. Too much listening to Norman Shep. And becasue of this I am a tad gun-shy when I hear the words obedience, repentance, and constant worries about antinomianism.

 

[cih1355]

Is it correct to say that even though faith and repentance are involved in conversion, the instrument that receives justification is faith, not repentance?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Marty,

If you haven't read ch 12 of CJPM, please do. I won't repeat all that here.

I don't understand what makes what I'm saying "Lutheran." Can you explain? Are you claiming that the Reformed didn't speak as I do here?

Are you saying that Owen didn't distinguish between law and gospel? Please explain.

rsc

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for your clarifications. I understand more clearly where you're coming from. However, my major disappointment is that you're not grappling with the Scriptures that have been cited in this thread. Indeed, your post has no Scripture in it. Moreover, I find your reasoning problematic.

"Repent," in that instance, is a command to reckon with the law and one's sins relative to justification before God.

This is simply not what the Bible teaches; repentance is a command that arises directly from Jesus being appointed as King / Lord (Psalm 2, Psalm 110), which precisely is the gospel (Rom. 1:2-4; 2 Tim. 2:7). This is so clear from Peter's sermon:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The call to repentance here arises directly from Christ's kingship. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is both saviour and Lord (King), who now rules the world. The response must be twofold: faith (in the saviour) and repentance (under the King).

In the narrow use of the word "gospel," we ought to think of the command to "repent" to be a law word because there is no terminus of repentance. Repentance is not the exact mirror of "believe." The latter has an immediate and fixed terminus. The latter is a binary operation. The latter rests in the extrinsic perfect work of the God-Man for us and these things are not true of repentance.

Repentance, reckoning with the demands of the law, turning away sin, is a continual process with no terminus in this life. The object of repentance is intrinsic, it looks within, it looks to one's self. "Am I a sinner?" Yes. Have I repented? Yes. Have I turned away from sin perfectly? No. Will I, in this life, ever turn away from sin perfectly? No.

Firstly, this reasoning about fixed termini and binary operations, as I see it, arises nowhere from Scripture itself. It's interesting reasoning, but it's not grounded in Scripture. I can't find anyone saying or implying those things in Scripture.

Secondly, it fails to grapple with the fact that Christ (in the gospel) has not only won for us a new position (justification, reconciliation, etc.) but also a new condition (regeneration, sanctification, etc.). The new position demands faith, and the new condition demands repentance (Rom. 6:1ff.; Col. 3:1ff.).



Dr Clark, this has been answered earlier in the thread. The bare call to "repent" is neither law nor gospel. It's more like this:

Law: Repent to be saved (which is in Roman Catholicism).

Gospel: Repent because you are saved.

Your Lutheran construal of law as bare "command" is not how Paul understood law. It's command + resulting life / curse: "he who does these things [command] shall live by them [+ resulting life / curse]" (Gal. 3:12).

So, it is seems to me, that the resolution of this question lies in the use of the word "gospel." If we're using it in the narrow sense, then no, "repent" is not a gospel word.

Again, I can't agree with this. It's not a distinction between broad and narrow (which in your take makes the former repugnant to the latter), but between summary and expansion. The gospel can be articulated in summary form without any call to faith and repentance as in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. However, when we unpack or expand this summary we find the call to faith and repentance intrinsic to it. All I'm doing here, is restating the position of John Owen.

In our climate, however, where antagonists to the Reformation, who nevertheless persist in regarding themselves as "Reformed," continue to misconstrue the question as one between whether faith, in the act of justification is alone or not, who continue to misconstrue the issue, thirty years later, as concerning "easy believism," it is more helpful rhetorically and pedagogically to distinguish clearly between the law and the gospel, even concerning the command to believe and the command to repent.

I hear your concern. However, as one who believed the Lutheran law / gospel dichotomy for years, it caused the classic problems with which the Lutherans struggled in my own life (especially dead orthodoxy). It's easy to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction of error. But all that does, is cause the next generation to overreact in the opposite direction. Don't we see this happening, time and again, through church history?

Every blessing.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Is it correct to say that even though faith and repentance are involved in conversion, the instrument that receives justification is faith, not repentance?

If repentance is the instrument of justification then you've just crossed the Tiber into Rome. May it never be. Faith alone is the instrument of justification.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dr Clark,

Thank you for your questions. Here are some answers.

Marty,

If you haven't read ch 12 of CJPM, please do. I won't repeat all that here.

Yes, it was great fun to read, I really enjoyed it.

I don't understand what makes what I'm saying "Lutheran." Can you explain? Are you claiming that the Reformed didn't speak as I do here?

Are you saying that Owen didn't distinguish between law and gospel? Please explain.

Firstly, I'm not saying that the Lutheran and Reformed view of justification are substantially different.

Secondly, I am saying that the Lutheran and Reformed take on the law / gospel distinction is substantially different. Yes, the reformed do believe in a law / gospel distinction, but there are differences between the Lutheran and Reformed tradition.

The Lutheran view is:

Law = Commands (imperatives)
Gospel = Promises (indicatives)

However, the reformed view (as it evolved because some of the early reformed theologians embraced the Lutheran distinction) was:

Law = Covenant of works (which is more than bare imperatives)
Gospel = Covenant of Grace (which is more than bare indicatives; imperatives are included in the CoG).

The Lutheran view is basically reductionist; it doesn't say enough.

Law = more than commands, it must be command + promise of life or curse of death for complete obedience. i.e. the one who "does these things [command] will live by them [+ promise of life upon obedience].

Gospel = more than indicatives, it must be: Christ has done all (and fulfilled the law), therefore live out your new status.

We find this difference start quite early in people like Zwingli and Bullinger, through Ursinus, and then into the full-blown federal theology of the 17th century. Hence, for example, the quote from Perkins you had on your blog shows that he included imperatives in the gospel.

Here is a rather lengthy quote from Owen to get the point across. He talks about the imperatives that are in both the law and gospel, what is similar and what is different about them. Sorry for the length of the quote, but it explains thoroughly how the high federal theologians construed the commands in both the law / gospel distinction (my comments in []'s, and my added emphases in bold):

But to make our way more clear and safe, one thing must yet be premised
unto these considerations; and this is, that God’s commands for holiness
may be considered two ways: —
1. As they belong unto and are parts of the covenant of works; [i.e. under Law]
2. As they belong and are inseparably annexed unto the covenant of
grace [i.e. under Gospel].
In both respects they are materially and formally the same; that
is, the same things are required in them, and the same person requires
them, and so their obligation is joint and equal. Not only the
commands of the new covenant do oblige us unto holiness, but those
of the old also, as to the matter and substance of them. But there is a
great difference in the manner and ends of these commands as
considered so distinctly. For, —

1. The commands of God, as under the old covenant [i.e. Law], do so require
universal holiness of us, in all acts, duties, and degrees of them, that upon
the least failure, in substance, circumstance, or degree, they allow of
nothing else we do, but determine us transgressors of the whole law; for,
with respect unto them, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10. Now, I acknowledge
that although there ariseth from hence an obligation unto holiness to them
who are under that covenant, and such a necessity of it as that without it
they must certainly perish, yet no argument of the nature with those
which I insist upon can hence be taken to press us unto it: for no
arguments are forcible unto this purpose but such as include
encouragements in them unto what they urge; but that this consideration of
the command knoweth nothing of, seeing a compliance with it is, in our
lapsed condition, absolutely impossible, and for the things that are so, we
can have no endeavors. And hence it is that no man influenced only by the
commands of the law, or first covenant, absolutely considered, whatever in
particular he might be forced or compelled unto, did ever sincerely aim or
endeavor after universal holiness.

Men may be subdued by the power of the law, and compelled to habituate
themselves unto a strict course of duty, and being advantaged therein by a
sedate natural constitution, desire of applause, self-righteousness, or
superstition, may make a great appearance of holiness; but if the principle
of what they do be only the commands of the law, they never tread one
true step in the paths of it.

2. The end why these commands require all the duties of holiness of us is,
that they may be our righteousness before God, or that we may be
justified thereby: for
“Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the
man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5;
that is, it requires of us all duties of obedience unto this end, that we may
have justification and eternal life by them. But neither on this account can
any such argument be taken as those we inquire into; for by the deeds of
the law no man can be justified:
“If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”
So prays David, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalm 143:2; Romans 3:20;
Galatians 2:16. And if none can attain the end of the command, as in
this sense they cannot, what argument can we take from thence to prevail
with them unto obedience? Whosoever, therefore, presseth men unto
holiness merely on the commands of the law, and for the ends of it, doth
but put them upon tormenting disquietments and deceive their souls.
However, men are indispensably obliged hereby, and those must eternally
perish for want of what the law so requires who do not or will not by faith
comply with the only remedy and provision that God hath made in this
case. And for this reason we are necessitated to deny a possibility of
salvation unto all to whom the gospel is not preached, as well as unto
those by whom it is refused; for they are left unto this law, whose
precepts they cannot answer, and whose end they cannot attain.

It is otherwise on both these accounts with the commands of God for
holiness under the new covenant, or in the gospel; for, —

1. Although God in them requireth universal holiness of us, yet he doth
not do it in that strict and rigorous way as by the law, so as that if we fail
in anything, either as to the matter or manner of its performance, in the
substance of it or as to the degrees of its perfection, that thereon both that
and all we do besides should be rejected. But he doth it with a
contemperation of grace and mercy, so as that if there be a universal
sincerity, in a respect unto all his commands, he both pardoneth many
sins, and accepts of what we do, though it come short of legal perfection;
both on the account of the mediation of Christ. Yet this hindereth not but
that the law or command of the gospel doth still require universal holiness
of us, and perfection therein, which we are to do our utmost endeavor to
comply withal, though we have a relief provided in sincerity on the one
hand and mercy on the other; for the commands of the gospel do still
declare what God approves and what he doth condemn, — which is no
less than all holiness on the one hand and all sin on the other, — as exactly
and extensively as under the law: for this the very nature of God requireth,
and the gospel is not the ministry of sin, so as to give an allowance or
indulgence unto the least, although in it pardon be provided for a multitude
of sins by Jesus Christ. The obligation on us unto holiness is equal unto
what it was under the law, though a relief be provided where unavoidably
we come short of it. There is, therefore, nothing more certain than that
there is no relaxation given us as unto any duty of holiness by the gospel,
nor any indulgence unto the least sin. But yet, upon the supposition of the
acceptance of sincerity, and a perfection of parts instead of degrees, with
the mercy provided for our failings and sins, there is an argument to be
taken from the command of it unto an indispensable necessity of holiness,
including in it the highest encouragement to endeavor after it; for, together
with the command, there is also grace administered, enabling us unto that
obedience which God will accept. Nothing, therefore, can void or evacuate
the power of this command and argument from it but a stubborn contempt
of God, arising from the love of sin.

2. The commands of the gospel do not require holiness and the duties of
righteousness of us to the same end as the commands of the law did, —
namely, that thereby we might be justified in the sight of God; for whereas
God now accepts from us a holiness short of that which the law required,
if he did it still for the same end, it would reflect dishonor upon his own
righteousness and the holiness of the gospel. For, —

(1.) If God can accept of a righteousness unto justification inferior unto or
short of what he required by the law, how great severity must it be
thought in him to bind his creatures unto such an exact obedience and
righteousness at first as he could and might have dispensed withal! If he
doth accept of sincere obedience now unto our justification, why did he
not do so before, but obliged mankind unto absolute perfection according
to the law, for coming short wherein they all perished? Or shall we say
that God hath changed his mind in this matter, and that he doth not stand
so much now on rigid and perfect obedience for our justification as he did
formerly? Where, then, is the glory of his immutability, of his essential
holiness, of the absolute rectitude of his nature and will? Besides, —

(2.) What shall become of the honor and holiness of the gospel on this
supposition? Must it not be looked on as a doctrine less holy than that of
the law? for whereas the law required absolute, perfect, sinless holiness
unto our justification, the gospel admits of that to the same end, on this
supposition, which is every way imperfect, and consistent with a
multitude of sins and failings? What can be spoken more to the derogation
of it? Nay, would not this indeed make “Christ the minister of sin,” which
our apostle rejects with so much detestation, Galatians 2:17? for to say
that he hath merited that our imperfect obedience, attended with many and
great sins (“for there is no man that liveth and sinneth not”), should be
accepted unto our justification, instead of the perfect and sinless obedience
required under the law, is plainly to make him the minister of sin, or one
that hath acquired some liberty for sin beyond whatever the law allowed.
And thus, upon the whole matter, both Christ and the gospel, in whom
and whereby God unquestionably designed to declare the holiness and
righteousness of his own nature much more gloriously than ever he had
done any other way, should be the great means to darken and obscure
them; for in and by them, on this supposition, God must be thought (and
is declared) to accept of a righteousness unto our justification unspeakably
inferior unto what he required before.

It must be granted, therefore, that the end of gospel commands, requiring
the obedience of holiness in us, is not that thereby or thereon we should be
justified. God hath therein provided another righteousness for that end,
which fully, perfectly, absolutely answers all that the law requires, and on
some considerations is far more glorious than what the law either did or
could require. And hereby hath he exalted more than ever the honor of his
own holiness and righteousness, whereof the external instrument is the
gospel; which is also, therefore, most holy. Now, this is no other but the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; for “he is the end of the law for
righteousness unto them that do believe,” Romans 10:4. But God hath
now appointed other ends unto our holiness, and so unto his command of
it, under the gospel, all of them consistent with the nature of that
obedience which he will accept of us, and such as we may attain through
the power of grace; and so all of them offering new encouragements, as
well as enforcements, unto our endeavors after it. But because these ends
will be the subject of most of our ensuing arguments, I shall not here insist
upon them. I shall only add two things in general: —
[1.] That God hath no design for his own glory in us or by us, in this
world or unto eternity, — that there is no especial communion that we can
have with him by Jesus Christ, nor any capacity for us to enjoy him, —
but holiness is necessary unto it, as a means unto its end.
[2.] These present ends of it under the gospel are such as that God doth no
less indispensably require it of us now than he did when our justification
was proposed as the end of it. They are such, in brief, as God upon the
account of them judgeth meet to command us to be holy in all manner of
holiness; Owen, Pneumatologia V.iii, Works 3:606-609.

 

[Amazing Grace]

In post 38, I made this statement that nobody commented on, so I will repeat it becasue it bears weight to this corrent dialogue. The imperative to repent, is never given as a one time action by man.

If I may also mention, when the command to 'repent' is given, it literally says "Begin repenting" reflecting a continuous behavior in the life of the believer, not a one time operation.

Repent or you will likewise perish.... Go commands all to repent...etc etc. or Mark 1:15...

in these verses it actually means "be ye repenting/believing", "begin repenting/believing", or, "keep repenting/believing". NOT a "repent at once!" type of command.
Luke 13:3. Likewise here Christ uses the present tense with subjunctive. Which means the force is not "except ye repent at once"; i.e. a one time act of "saving repentance' or change of mind is not in view.

 

[JohnOwen007]

In post 38, I made this statement that nobody commented on, so I will repeat it becasue it bears weight to this corrent dialogue. The imperative to repent, is never given as a one time action by man.

Dear AG,

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

The gospel is not like an athlete's starting blocks that one leaves behind after they become a Christian. In the NT the gospel is more like spiritual food (a la John 6) that we must keep going back to and eating otherwise we won't persevere. Paul says it so clearly in Col. 2:6-7:

Colo 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

To move away from the gospel is to move away from Christ and the Christian life. Hence, repentance is a continual demand that arises from a continual going back to the gospel.

Every blessing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In post 38, I made this statement that nobody commented on, so I will repeat it because it bears weight to this current dialog. The imperative to repent, is never given as a one time action by man.

If I may also mention, when the command to 'repent' is given, it literally says "Begin repenting" reflecting a continuous behavior in the life of the believer, not a one time operation.

Repent or you will likewise perish.... Go commands all to repent...etc etc. or Mark 1:15...

in these verses it actually means "be ye repenting/believing", "begin repenting/believing", or, "keep repenting/believing". NOT a "repent at once!" type of command.
Luke 13:3. Likewise here Christ uses the present tense with subjunctive. Which means the force is not "except ye repent at once"; i.e. a one time act of "saving repentance' or change of mind is not in view.

I think you're question has been answered already, if obliquely, especially in light of the Owen quote. I think the problem that is occurring here is that some are making the Gospel call solely a call to a punctiliar event. Just as we need not mash together faith and repentance into the same concept, we need not mash together the idea that the Gospel is just another word for Justification. There is certainly no Gospel without Justification but the Gospel is also a herald of the Kingdom of Christ and a call to submit to His Lordship. It is about who He is and what He's done and that forms the basis then for the person to embrace in and rest in His work while there is also the understanding that His Lordship demands something of the recipient. That is not Law to understand that.

Christ says: "28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matt 11)

I don't buy for a second that our Lord is preaching Law here when He invites us to rest and take on His yoke.

It is interesting that I was just thinking about this as I've been preparing to teach on the Epistles of John this week. I was studying Chapter 3 and then came to this passage:

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

I had just read your question about the notion that the call of Peter is to "...begin repenting...."

The commentator on 1 John 3 mentioned that the verb form communicates the idea of the continuous practice of sin and not simply a sin. That is to say, that a person who is a practicing sinner is not one who abides in Christ.

It occurred to me then that the Gospel call is very much about the process of beginning our repentance. While we are surely declared just by God on account of our faith in Christ, our process of discipleship has just begun. The Gospel call is as much a declaration that Christ is our justification as it is an invitation to follow the Master and become His disciple. The herald cannot declare to "Repent once" and believe and everything after that is good to go. That's the revivalist mindset but it's not the Scriptural one and, consequently, not the Reformed position.

 

[Amazing Grace]

In post 38, I made this statement that nobody commented on, so I will repeat it because it bears weight to this current dialog. The imperative to repent, is never given as a one time action by man.

If I may also mention, when the command to 'repent' is given, it literally says "Begin repenting" reflecting a continuous behavior in the life of the believer, not a one time operation.

Repent or you will likewise perish.... Go commands all to repent...etc etc. or Mark 1:15...

in these verses it actually means "be ye repenting/believing", "begin repenting/believing", or, "keep repenting/believing". NOT a "repent at once!" type of command.
Luke 13:3. Likewise here Christ uses the present tense with subjunctive. Which means the force is not "except ye repent at once"; i.e. a one time act of "saving repentance' or change of mind is not in view.

I think you're question has been answered already, if obliquely, especially in light of the Owen quote. I think the problem that is occurring here is that some are making the Gospel call solely a call to a punctiliar event. Just as we need not mash together faith and repentance into the same concept, we need not mash together the idea that the Gospel is just another word for Justification. There is certainly no Gospel without Justification but the Gospel is also a herald of the Kingdom of Christ and a call to submit to His Lordship. It is about who He is and what He's done and that forms the basis then for the person to embrace in and rest in His work while there is also the understanding that His Lordship demands something of the recipient. That is not Law to understand that.

Christ says: "28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matt 11)

I don't buy for a second that our Lord is preaching Law here when He invites us to rest and take on His yoke.

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

I had just read your question about the notion that the call of Peter is to "...begin repenting...."

The commentator on 1 John 3 mentioned that the verb form communicates the idea of the continuous practice of sin and not simply a sin. That is to say, that a person who is a practicing sinner is not one who abides in Christ.

The herald cannot declare to "Repent once" and believe and everything after that is good to go. That's the revivalist mindset but it's not the Scriptural one and, consequently, not the Reformed position.

Richard, this is exactly what I am proposing. Hence repentance is part of the Gospel call. This is why the reprobate cannot continue to answer this call. They will not continue repenting/believing for their life as a disciple of Christ.

Martin: I am in agreement with your thought as well.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Richard, this is exactly what I am proposing. Hence repentance is part of the Gospel call. This is why the reprobate cannot continue to answer this call. They will not continue repenting/believing for their life as a disciple of Christ.

Martin: I am in agreement with your thought as well.

I just realized that Marty and I posted about the same time and just saw it.

It's interesting also because I was listening to R.C. Sproul on his podcast yesteday and he made an observation that made me think: "Oh yeah!"

The first four books of the NT are called "The Gospels".

In one sense, then, there is a definition of the word Gospel that includes the narrative of Christ's life and work and not simply the foil to an idea of Law.

He also made an interesting note distinguishing between the keregma (preaching) of the Gospel and the didache (teaching) of the Gospel. We cannot simply dismiss all these other aspects of it and have a true picture of what the Gospel is. It is certainly a very simple herald of what Christ has done and what He demands of us and then some respond and are baptized into the process of lifelong discipleship and established in that Gospel.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Marty,

If you read ch. 12 of CJPM, then I don't understand why you're caricaturing my view. I don't think I've said that the law = all imperatives. "Believe!" is an imperative. Ursinus addressed this in the lectures on the HC.

The word "repent," however, is different than the word "believe."

You glossed over the distinction I made earlier between repentance dealing with the law and believing dealing with the gospel.

You describe my view as "Lutheran" and then concede that some Reformed writers do speak the way I do. If I'm speaking the way Perkins and many other Reformed authors speak, I don't see how that's "Lutheran."

I think that what I'm saying agrees substantially with what Owen writes. In the chapter I cite a wide range of Reformed authors, not just early Reformed authors.

I suspect, if I may be blunt, that you have a fundamental problem with the distinction between law and gospel. Can you say briefly and clearly exactly what it is? You affirm it formally but you seem to reject it in substance.

How is the command to "repent" the same sort of speech as "Christ died for sinners." The latter is an indicative and the former is a command.

Of course, both law and gospel contain promises, but they have different conditons. The gospel promises blessing conditioned upon what Christ shall do (in the case of typological revelation) and the law promises blessing conditioned upon our obedience. These are fundamentally different ways of speaking. I don't see how what you are saying fits this distinction -- which is substantially what Wollebius said in the early 17th and which he learned from Polanus. Thus, I don't accept at all that the way I'm speaking belongs only to some earlier and less developed phase of Reformed theology.

rsc

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for your clarifications.

If you read ch. 12 of CJPM, then I don't understand why you're caricaturing my view. I don't think I've said that the law = all imperatives. "Believe!" is an imperative. Ursinus addressed this in the lectures on the HC.

Ok, I'm clearer now about what you're saying. You agree that "believe" is a command of the gospel, hence the gospel cannot be simply an indicative. I've heard you several times on the MP3s you put up on the Heidelblog say that the difference between law and gospel is between imperative and indicative. That's classic Lutheran talk, and I think it must be used with care (see below).

Yes, Ursinus does speak about belief as a command, but he also includes more than just "believe" in the call of the gospel:

"But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. [...]" (Williard, p. 105).

The word "repent," however, is different than the word "believe."

You glossed over the distinction I made earlier between repentance dealing with the law and believing dealing with the gospel.

Well, I don't see how I "glossed over it". I gave reasons for why I rejected your reasoning at this point and they were:

[1] I don't find that reasoning either explicitly given, or implicitly implied, in Scripture. If you can show me where I'd be grateful.

[2] The gospel proclaims Christ as saviour (which calls for faith) and Lord (which calls for repentance). I gave you verses that explicitly show the call of repentance in the gospel but you haven't answered these as yet.

You describe my view as "Lutheran" and then concede that some Reformed writers do speak the way I do.

Yes, in the early inchoate reformed tradition some appear to follow Luther. But as the reformed tradition developed, particularly in light of the rise of federal theology, there arose a particular understanding of the law / gospel distinction that differed from confessional Lutheranism. This understanding of the gospel appears (to me anyway) to be taught at Dort, and hence shows the official reformed position:


Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).

[...]

Article 14: God's Use of Means in Perseverance

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

If I'm speaking the way Perkins and many other Reformed authors speak, I don't see how that's "Lutheran."

Because Perkins includes the call to live a new life in the gospel itself, which Lutherans explicitly rejected. This, to them was law.

I suspect, if I may be blunt, that you have a fundamental problem with the distinction between law and gospel. Can you say briefly and clearly exactly what it is? You affirm it formally but you seem to reject it in substance.

Feel free to be blunt, I am after all an Australian , but be careful to make accusations that fit the evidence. Please understand I have not a hint of sympathy with Sheperd, the FV, or the NPP. I absolutely love the law / gospel distinction, I glory in it, and personally derive much joy from it; heck, it gets me up out of bed each morning! And yes, I think you're right that it needs to be emphasised in light of the FV.

However, what worries me is the wrong construal of the law / gospel distinction. The Lutheran take, from what I understand, seems to have been a help in producing the sort of dead orthodoxy that has dogged that particular tradition, and against which Spener, Francke, and the Pietists reacted. (A good book on this is by the Lutheran author J. K. Mann, Shall We Sin? Responding to the Antinomian Question in Lutheran Theology (Peter Lang, 2003).

How is the command to "repent" the same sort of speech as "Christ died for sinners." The latter is an indicative and the former is a command.

With great respect Dr Clark, I feel like you're just not listening (or reading?!) to what I'm saying here. So, here we go once again. The gospel is twofold:

(i) Christ died for sinners and hence
(ii) through his resurrection was appointed Lord of the universe (Rom. 1:2-4).

"Christ died for sinners" is incomplete. Resurrection (and Lordship) is also integral to the gospel (2 Tim. 1:8!!). These two elements naturally entail two responses. Christ's death deals with my position before God (and enjoins faith), and Christ's Lordship (through resurrection) deals with my corrupt condition (and enjoins repentance). The gospel offers a double benefit (as your good friend Olevian followed Calvin upon).

But it is Christ's death that focuses on bringing me into a right relationship with God the Father and hence arise the positional metaphors like justification, reconciliation, salvation, and adoption. This demands faith. However Christ's Lordship also demands that I repent and live under it not to be in a right relationship but because I am in a right relationship (through faith in Christ's death). Hence we get a second raft of metaphors concerning Christ's work that deal with our new nature (regeneration, rebirth, renewal, new creation etc.). This double perspective is critical to the actual gospel itself and is seen, for example, in Luke 24:45-47:

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Just because repentance is the fruit of faith it does not mean that the gospel doesn't command it.

Every blessing to you dear brother.

 

[moral necessity]

I think the tendency of myself was to assume that Peter's command to repent meant to turn from some specific sin or sins that I had or was committing. I thought that for years, and doubt and depression and lack of faith in the work of Christ for my justification was the result. It is true that "repent" means to turn from something to something, but what those somethings are, is the question. I propose that what Peter was telling them to do was to turn away from their law-based righteousness to the Messiah's righteousness, to turn from the law to the gospel, to turn from Judaism to the Christ that Judaism pointed to, basically to turn from any alternative righteousness but Christ's for their righteousness before God and to turn to his work for deliverance from their sins. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, and people had to repent or turn to the snake on the pole to be saved, so Peter told them that they had to turn to Christ, to forsake all other ways of obtaining their own righteousness and to turn to the Messiah's imputed righteousness and work on the cross as the only way to be righteous before God and delivered from his wrath.
The former way I took the verse would be like saying to a man infested with cancer that he must forsake cancer to come and visit the only doctor who can save him. No! Rather, he must forsake all other means of deliverance from his cancer besides the one offered by this one doctor, and go to him only, leaving all other options behind. He must come to this physician with his cancer and in his cancerous state, and he will then gradually be cured of it.
For, if "repent" means to forsake sin, we just kid ourselves with our ability to do this, and hold a much much smaller view of our sin and corruption than reality admits.
Hope these thoughts are useful in your study.
Blessings.

 

[JohnOwen007]

[...] I propose that what Peter was telling them to do was to turn away from their law-based righteousness to the Messiah's righteousness, to turn from the law to the gospel, to turn from Judaism to the Christ that Judaism pointed to, basically to turn from any alternative righteousness but Christ's for their righteousness before God and to turn to his work for deliverance from their sins.[...]

Thanks for your thoughts brother. However:

(1) Look at how Paul preaches to non-Jews in Acts 14:15 and Acts 17:30 where repentance is preached to them (as a part of the gospel): it is the re-orientation of a whole life towards God (which includes renouncing works righteousness but a whole lot more);

(2) You can't prove that repentance is only the renunciation of works-righteousness from Peter's sermon in Acts 2; and

(3) Repentance in the Christian life is not the fundamental indicator of our standing before God. To make it so will cause depression of the highest order--I know from experience!! Repentance is the grateful response to being already in a right relationship through faith alone in Christ alone. The normal Christian life is one where the flesh and the Spirit are against each other. The very experience of "not doing what you want" (Gal. 5:17) is a sign we are regenerate!

God bless you.

 

[moral necessity]

Blessings to you, JohnOwen007.

Please forgive me for my reply if it leads to wrangling about words rather than edification. I've learned over the years that all believers still have a depraved mind, especially myself, and that spiritual things are spiritually discerned in God's timing,...,different degrees of understanding are given to different people about different topics, and not all to the same level or at the same time. And so, love and bearing with one another is to cover the gap. I, for one, have found that the more I learn, the less I really know,...,if that makes any sense or not. It is truly humbling.

With that said, as I sit here today in my partly enlightened, mostly depraved mind, I agree that repentance of other things occurs in sanctification. I was thinking more along the lines of justification, or in presenting the gospel, when I wrote. In these sections of Acts 2, 14, and 17, we are told to repent of something, almost it seems, as a sort of prerequisite to turning to Christ.

I ask myself, what are we told to repent of? Is it sin, or something else. I tend to think it is something else, otherwise the gospel seems to have an impossible prerequisite attached to it.

Hope this clears up my thinking.

Blessings!