What Is Biblical Repentance?
October 25th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Repentance is no more a meritorious work than its counterpart, faith. It is an inward response. Genuine repentance pleads with the Lord to forgive and deliver from the burden of sin and the fear of judgment and hell. It is the attitude of the publican who, fearful of even looking toward heaven, smote his breast and cried, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” ( Luke 18:13 ). Repentance is not merely behavior reform. But because true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose, it inevitably results in a change of behavior.
Like faith, repentance has intellectual, emotional, and volitional ramifications. Berkhof describes the intellectual element of repentance as “a change of view, a recognition of sin as involving personal guilt, defilement, and helplessness.” The emotional element is “a change of feeling, manifesting itself in sorrow for sin committed against a holy God.” The volitional element is “a change of purpose, an inward turning away from sin, and a disposition to seek pardon and cleansing.” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 486) Each of those three elements is deficient apart from the others. Repentance is a response of the total person; therefore some speak of it as total surrender.
Obviously, that view of repentance is incompatible with no-lordship theology. What do no-lordship teachers say about repentance? They do not fully agree among themselves.
Some radical no-lordship protagonists simply deny that repentance has any place in the gospel appeal: “Though genuine repentance may precede salvation, … it need not do so. And because it is not essential to the saving transaction as such, it is in no sense a condition for that transaction” (Hodges, Absolutely Free, 146). This view hinges on making the “saving transaction” nothing more than forensic justification (God’s gracious declaration that all the demands of the law are fulfilled on behalf of the believing sinner through the righteousness of Jesus Christ). This single-faceted “saving transaction” does not even bring the sinner into a right relationship with God. Thus the radical no-lordship view offers this peculiar formula: “If the issue is simply, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ the answer is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Ac 16:31). If the issue is the broader one, ‘How can I get on harmonious terms with God?’ the answer is ‘repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Ac 20:21)” (AF 146).
The insinuations underlying those statements are staggering. How or why would anyone who is unrepentant raise the question, “What must I do to be saved?” What would such a person be seeking salvation from? In what sense is salvation a separate issue from “get[ting] on harmonious terms with God”? Is it possible to obtain eternal salvation with no sense of the gravity of one’s own sin and alienation from God? That is the implication of radical no-lordship teaching.
But the predominate no-lordship view on repentance is simply to redefine repentance as a change of mind—not a turning from sin or a change of purpose. This view states, “In both the Old and New Testaments repentance means ‘to change one’s mind’ ” (Ryire, So Great Salvation, 92). “Is repentance a condition for receiving eternal life? Yes, if it is repentance or changing one’s mind about Jesus Christ. No if it means to be sorry for sin or even resolve to turn from sin” (SGS 99). Repentance by that definition is simply a synonym for the no-lordship definition of faith. It is simply an intellectual exercise.
Note that the no-lordship definition of repentance explicitly denies the emotional and volitional elements in Berkhof’s description of repentance. No-lordship repentance is not “be[ing] sorry for sin or even resolv[ing] to turn from sin.” It means simply “changing one’s mind about his former conception of God and disbelief in God and Christ” (SGS 98). Again, one could experience that kind of “repentance” without any understanding of the gravity of sin or the severity of God’s judgment against sinners. It is a remorseless, hollow, pseudorepentance.
Repentance in the Bible
Does the no-lordship definition of repentance square with Scripture? It clearly does not. It is true that sorrow from sin is not repentance. Judas felt remorse, but he didn’t repent ( Matt. 27:3 ). Repentance is not just a resolve to do better; everyone who has ever made New Year’s resolutions knows how easily human determination can be broken. Repentance certainly is not penance, an activity performed to try to atone for one’s own sins.
But neither is repentance a solely intellectual issue. Surely even Judas changed his mind; what he didn’t do was turn from his sin and throw himself on the Lord for mercy. Repentance is not just a change of mind; it is a change of heart. It is a spiritual turning, a total about-face. Repentance in the context of the new birth means turning from sin to the Savior. It is an inward response, not external activity, but its fruit will be evident in the true believer’s behavior ( Luke 3:8 ).
It has often been said that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That coin is called conversion. Repentance turns from sin to Christ, and faith embraces Him as the only hope of salvation and righteousness. That is what conversion means in simple terms.
Faith and repentance are distinct concepts, but they cannot occur independently of each other. Genuine repentance is always the flip side of faith; and true faith accompanies repentance. As Berkhof stated in his Systematic Theology, “The two cannot be separated” (p. 487).
Isaiah 55:1–13 , the classic Old Testament call to conversion, shows both sides of the coin. Faith is called for in several ways: “Come to the waters … buy wine and milk without money and without cost” (v. 1 ). “Eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance” (v. 2 ). “Listen, that you may live” (v. 3 ). “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near” (v. 6 ).
But the passage also enjoins repentance: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the Lord” (v. 7 ).
As that verse demonstrates, the issue in repentance is moral, not merely intellectual. What repentance calls for is not only a “change of mind” but a turning away from the love of sin. A leading New Testament dictionary emphasizes that the New Testament concept of repentance is not predominately intellectual. “Rather the decision by the whole man to turn around is stressed. It is clear that we are concerned neither with a purely outward turning nor with a merely intellectual change of ideas.” (NIDNT, 1:358) Another principal theological dictionary defines repentance as:
radical conversion, a transformation of nature, a definitive turning from evil, a resolute turning to God in total obedience ( Mk. 1:15 ; Mt. 4:17 ; 18:3 ).… This conversion is once-for-all. There can be no going back, only advance in responsible movement along the way now taken. It affects the whole man, first and basically the centre of personal life, then logically his conduct at all times and in all situations, his thoughts, words and acts ( Mt. 12:33 ff. par.; 23:26 ; Mk. 7:15 par.). The whole proclamation of Jesus … is a proclamation of unconditional turning to God, of unconditional turning from all that is against God, not merely that which is downright evil, but that which in a given case makes total turning to God impossible.… It is addressed to all without distinction and presented with unmitigated severity in order to indicate the only way of salvation there is. It calls for total surrender, total commitment to the will of God. … It embraces the whole walk of the new man who is claimed by the divine lordship. It carries with it the founding of a new personal relation of man to God.… It awakens joyous obedience for a life according to God’s will. (Kittel, TDNT, 4:1002–3)
“It has often been said that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That coin is called conversion. Repentance turns from sin to Christ, and faith embraces Him as the only hope of salvation and righteousness. That is what conversion means in simple terms.”
Spurgeon makes that same statement in sermon #140. Indeed, faith and repentance are inseparable. A change of life is inevitable. One goes from doing what is right in his own eyes to wanting to live in accordance to God’s word.
To add to the first comment, Amen! How can one claim allegiance to both Christ and himself? Such a man is decieved! A person must claim that his allegiance is no longer to himself in order to claim that it is with Christ. This is repentance and faith. I turn from me and I turn to Christ. You cannot do one without the other.
[...] John MacArthur has provided a helpful article on the nature of biblical repentance on PulpitLive! This is much like what he has written so clearly in The Gospel According to Jesus and The Gospel According to the Apostles. [...]
Hi Lou,
I don’t know if you are reading this or not… but…
I wanted you to know that I received your book last night from Amazon. It’s an extensive work, and I’ve enjoyed thinking through your presentation so far. (I made it about half way through the book last night.)
I would be curious, having read your chapter on repentance, what your thoughts are on John MacArthur’s article here. Do you agree with how he has defined biblical repentance?
Thanks,
NB
Dr. MacArthur,
Thank you for providing your view of what “Biblical” repentance is.
It isn’t as if Free Grace proponents do not believe in repentance. We preach it forcefully.
Yet you fail to evidence that God requires repentance for justification and eternal life.
I submit that you cannot produce a single verse or passage that conditions eternal life or justification on repentance.
Yet we see over a hundred conditioning them on faith alone.
The reader must be aware of a cogent biblical fact that necessarily places a huge burden of proof upon the Lordship Salvationist:
Nowhere in the Bible is the reception of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification conditioned on an act of repentance.
The LS must string together texts and arguments in order to support his unbiblical assertion that repentance is a theologically binding requirement for the possession of eternal salvation. In his arguments, the fallacy of special pleading is a common trait, for there is no clear text that makes his point.
The Lordship Salvationist cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.
If this is such an important element in the discussion of the critical components of the gospel message it is odd – no, it is incredible – that not a single verse clearly conjoins a command to repent with a resultant appropriation of: eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification.
Isn’t the reception of eternal life/justification of utmost importance to a lost sinner on his way to hell? I mean, listen – the information on how a person is initiated into a relationship with God is of dire necessity! Wouldn’t you think that an issue of such great import would be properly clarified by the God who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)? Isn’t it unbelievable that in the whole canon of scripture, that if eternal well-being is contingent partly on an act of repentance, that no text whatsoever conditions a result of eternal salvation on such an act?
The apostle John, who is not unfamiliar with the doctrine of repentance, as he presents it more than any other New Testament writer other than Luke (10 mentions in Revelation), nevertheless is inconspicuously silent on repentance as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life in his Gospel that was written for an express purpose of evangelism (John 20:30-31).
Would it not be a major error of inestimable proportions that if repentance is indeed a necessary requirement for eternal life that John the apostle would not include a single reference to it as a condition for salvation, yeah, even further, fail to mention it even once in the whole of his gospel written so that men could have eternal life?
The evidence in regard to this chilling and absolute silence of the Fourth Gospel in mentioning repentance in conjunction with the indisputable instrument of eternal life’s appropriation, faith into Jesus for it, can have only 1 of 3 possible ramifications:
1) John, the disciple who leaned “on Jesus’ bosom”, the apostle “whom Jesus
loved” (John 13:23), was not aware that the free reception of eternal life was
in someway conditioned upon an act of repentance by the unsaved and thus
presented an inadequate and therefore faulty testimony in this matter.
2) John, the apostle “who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we
know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24), purposely omitted a crucial
component of the promise of eternal life for reasons that could only be
speculated upon (the first one that would come to mind is some form of
mal-intent).
3) John, who knew that “which was from the beginning”, who
declared what he “heard” and saw with his “eyes”, who revealed that which he
“looked upon” and his hands “handled, concerning the Word of life”, who bore
“witness” and declared to us “that eternal life which was with the Father and
was manifested to” him (1 John 1:1-2) did not consider, did not believe, and was
not under the conviction that repentance was a necessary requirement for the
appropriation of eternal well-being.
If we agree to the following:
1) John told the truth
2) John wrote his gospel with a purpose of
evangelism and admit to the following (which cannot be denied):
3) John did not require repentance in his Gospel as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life, as he did not even mention it once in the whole of his discourse; repentance being shockingly absent from its whole.
We must necessarily come to this conclusion:
4) Repentance is not a theological necessary condition
for the reception of eternal life.
[Note: “The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately.” (Zane Hodges, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 2000, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1″)]
Furthermore, we must consider our dear brother, the apostle Paul. The idea of repentance is a category strikingly absent from him. In his whole discussion of justification by faith in Romans 3-5, there is not even one mention of repentance as a condition for eternal salvation. It is also noteworthy to share that Paul only mentions repentance 5 times in his epistles (half as many as John), although he wrote 13 (possibly 14) out of the 27 New Testament books. And none of these passages in which he speaks of this doctrine does he regard repentance as a condition for the reception of eternal salvation.
In addition, what is even more damaging to the Traditionalist position is the utter absence of repentance in the book of Galatians. This epistle is Paul’s defense of his gospel wherein he heralds clear and loud the essential tenet that righteousness is imparted through faith alone in Jesus. It is indeed significant that repentance is absent in a book where Paul is presenting and defending the gospel message he received directly from the Lord. For Paul, faith alone into Christ is the sole theological requirement for justification and eternal salvation.
Antonio,
You have made some very strong statements above. However, I think a brief survey of the NT’s (not to mention the OT’s) teaching on repentance will show its importance in receiving eternal life. Note the following examples:
(1) Repentance was required to become a citizen of the kingdom of God (Mk 1:15).
(2) The Holy Spirit is given to those who respond in repentance to the Gospel message (Acts 2:38).
(3) Repentance is required for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4; Acts 3:19; 8:22).
(4) Eternal life necessitates one to repent (Acts 11:18).
(5) Repentance is required for one to possess salvation (2 Cor 7:10).
(6) Repentance is necessary for one to escape the eternal judgment of God (Acts 17:30-31).
(7) If one does not repent, he will perish (Lk 13:3).
(8) The wrath of God comes on those who are unrepentant (Rom 2:4-8).
I also think that it helpful to see Peter’s answer to the question, “What shall we do?” after his Pentecost sermon. He did not say, “Just believe in an intellecutal sort of way.” Rather, he said (no, he commanded), “Repent” and then links that with forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:37).
Acts 26:20 – ‘[Paul preached] to the Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.’
J. I. Packer [a theologian with credibility]: ‘The NT word for repentance means changing one’s mind so that one’s views, values, goals, and ways are changed and one’s whole life is lived differently.’
‘Repentance is a fruit of faith, which is itself a fruit of regeneration. But in actual life, repentance is inseparable from faith, being the negative aspect (faith is the positive aspect) of turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. The idea that there can be saving faith without repentance, and that one can be justified by embracing Christ as Savior while refusing Him as Lord is a destructive delusion.’ [Concise Theology, pp. 162, 3]
Nathan:
Good to hear my book arrived. Be sure to read Appendix ‘A’ Articulating Repentance.
I did not read anything in the article I would find serious disagreement with. Anyone who says repentance has no place in the gospel message is wrong. Having read my chapter on repentance I trust you understand that my position on repentance would not fit what Dr. MacArthur refers to as the “no-lordship” position on repentance. Am I correct?
I do have three concerns with the article:
1) Dr. MacArthur wrote, “Repentance is a response of the total person; therefore some speak of it as total surrender.” Why does Dr. MacArthur weave “surrender” into the article when “surrender” is not part of the biblical definition of repentance? One might suggest the repentance infers “submission,” but it is not appropriate to build a gospel message of “submission” for salvation on what is at best inferred.
2) Dr. MacArthur wrote, “Like faith, repentance has intellectual, emotional, and volitional ramifications.” Why does Dr. MacArthur use the emotional, intellectual, and volitional elements of repentance when he refers to faith? These three elements are not a part of biblically defined faith.
3) I would offer a caution on Dr. MacArthur’s discussion of the volitional element. One must always be careful not to make the results of repentance or a promise for the results of repentance the requirement for salvation.
Pastor George Zeller wrote, “Don’t confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. Don’t confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith but they are not the essence of saving faith. Don’t confuse the fruit with the root.”
I have answered this for you, but you have not yet replied to my four questions in the thread under Common Questions About Lordship, Part 1. See post #99 in that thread. Those questions are important they get at the crux of the Lordship controversy.
LM
Nathan:
As for the final paragraph by Kittel- I have serious reservations with how he frames repentance.
“It calls for total surrender, total commitment to the will of God. … It embraces the whole walk of the new man who is claimed by the divine lordship.”
This is flat out way beyond what I would express agreement with!
LM
Lou,
Thanks for your response. I have not forgotten about your four questions. But I wanted to get your book first, so that I would have a better context for knowing exactly what you were asking. I was able to finish your book today, and plan to offer a full response/review in the next few days (perhaps on Friday, or by early next week.)
Regarding your second point, I would note that in Appendix A of your book, VanGelderen also notes that faith has an intellectual, emotional, and volitional element. He writes: “A study of biblical saving faith reveals that faith involves three angles (not steps): understanding (intellectual), agreement (emotional), and dependence (volitional). So faith is the positive side of repentance” (p. 243). This (in my opinion) is not a major point, but I mention it only because I just read that appendix this afternoon.
Anyway, I have to run… it’s 5PM here (time to go home). But I look forward to discussing your book in greater detail soon.
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
Citing Kittel, which I am sure Dr. MacArthur endorses by its inclusion, puts us right back to what I have been saying all along.
Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of salvation on promises to live out the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a believer.
This is adding a promise of works in “exchange” for salvation. This is not biblical repentance! I deal with this serious problem in my chapter on repentance. For example,
“To be saved, must a man depend on a commitment to and promise of righteous living, or must he depend on the finished work of Christ? To be born again, a man cannot trust both a personal commitment and the finished work of Christ. Salvation comes by the total unconditional transfer of a man’s dependence to God alone through Christ’s atoning sacrifice and resurrection, and occurs apart from any personal commitment or submission to His lordship.”
LM
Nathan:
Glad to hear you have a 9-5. I have a 15 hour work day here.
Anyway, I note how VanGelderen references the three aspects. I prefer to keep them in the context of repentance. Agreed, not a major point.
I’ll watch for your review of my book.
LM
I and others have already provided several verses demonstrating that salvation is conditioned on repentance. A check back at previous posts will confirm this, and the onus should be on the objector to make the effort to read and respond to what has already been posted.
PMS,
did I not rightly say that the LS must string together texts and arguments?
Not one of the texts you offer conditions eternal life or justification on an act of repentance.
(1) Repentance was required to become a citizen of the kingdom of God (Mk 1:15).
I just read Mark 1:15. It claims that the Kingdom of God is near and commands Jews to repent and believe the good news.
Where is repentance shown here necessary “to become a citizen of the kingdom”? There is no result clause here! This is your importation into the text.
John the Baptist commanded men to repent, like Jesus, or else temporal judgment would come upon them. (Luke 3:7ff). Repentance is commanded in light of temporal wrath and judgment for sin.
(2) The Holy Spirit is given to those who respond in repentance to the Gospel message (Acts 2:38).
That is bold taken from Acts, where on a number of occasions the Holy Spirit wasn’t given until the laying on of hands.
In Acts 2:36, Peter preaches that Jesus is both Lord and Christ and that his audience crucified Him! In 2:37 these men were cut to the heart, IOW, they believed Peter’s message, namely, that Jesus was the Christ and that they crucified Him! John 20:31 and 1 John 5:1 state that believing that Jesus is the Christ brings eternal life and regeneration. They were born again! They next wanted to know what they should do now that they believed that Jesus was the Christ and that they crucified the Christ. They rightfully understood that temporal judgment and wrath could be waiting for them in light of their putting the Lord of Glory to death. Peter’s response? Repent and be baptized.
(3) Repentance is required for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4; Acts 3:19; 8:22).
The Jews were God’s covenant people. Forgiveness is a familial, relationional issue. Forgiveness repairs estrangement caused by offense. In Mark 1:4 John the Baptist was calling on national Israel to return their God, not institute a relationship with Him! In Acts 3:19, Peter is basically doing the same thing, because the kingdom was for National Israel. Peter re-offered the kingdom to the Jews here, based upon their return to their God. Acts 8:22 is talking about the forgiveness of a Christian who had already believed and was baptized (Acts 8:13).
(4) Eternal life necessitates one to repent (Acts 11:18).
Did you see the word “eternal” life in Acts 11:18? I didn’t catch that in my version! If it meant eternal life, then we would be left with the ridiculous proposition that the Christian Jews just now realized that Gentiles could be eternally saved! But this is so unlikely as to be almost fantastic. Didn’t Jesus command the Gentile mission in His Great Commission to the apostles? In fact, even the OT taught that Gentiles could be saved (see quotations in Rom 15:8-11). In the Jerusalem church of all places this truth must have surely been known. (See Hodges, Harmony with God 117-118.
(5) Repentance is required for one to possess salvation (2 Cor 7:10).
What is the context there? What is the “deliverance” (soteria) Paul is talking about? Context is KING, and Paul is not talking about eternal salvation here!
(6) Repentance is necessary for one to escape the eternal judgment of God (Acts 17:30-31).
Are you sure that this is the eternal judgment of God? The text says judgment on the “world”. This is the temporal calamities of the great and terrible “Day of the Lord” and NOT eternal punishment!
(7) If one does not repent, he will perish (Lk 13:3).
The word “perish” is a perfectly good and attested word for “physically die”. Isn’t that what Jesus is talking about here in Lk 13, physical death? Those of whom the tower of Siloam fell and the Jews whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifices — what happened to them? They physically died. Jesus says to the Jews, unless you repent, you shall “likewise” perish. Likewise is the operative word (see also the following parable!). What happened? The Jews did NOT repent and Jerusalem was destroyed in ad 70 with the loss of hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives
(8) The wrath of God comes on those who are unrepentant (Rom 2:4-8).
Yes it does! The wrath of God is currently being revealed (Rom 1:18) and is also being stored up unto the “Day of the Lord” in which it will be meted out in full measure during the Great Tribulation (great and terrible temporal calamities).
Unrepentance of both unsaved and saved results in God’s displeasure and men are liable to temporal judgment!
There is not a SINGLE BIBLICAL TEXT that conjoins a command to repent with the resultant of eternal life or justification.
The LS must STRING together texts and arguments.
On the contrary, bare faith alone is shown over 100 times to be the ONLY condition through which eternal life and justification are received.
Antonio
In Acts 14:15 when Paul and Barnabas were at Lystra they said, “We are also men of the same nature as you and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God,. So we see here that preaching the gospel is preaching repentance/turning. Also, in I Thessalonians 1:9 it says “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God. So what was reported…their repentance. Also, when Paul was asked by the Philippian jailer, “What must I do to be saved?” He replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” So is Paul saying there are two different ways to be saved, or two different things that must take place for salvation to occur. No, they are part of the same package, in fact, they are both responses that complement each other. If they were required as separate acts or separate steps for salvation would not God in His grace let us know that. Again, in I Corinthian 15:1-8 when Paul describes the gospel he preaches, neither faith or repentance is mentioned, just the facts concerning Christ, that they fulfilled the Scriptures, and who He appeared to post resurrection, and the fact that the Corinthians had received this gospel and were now standing in it. So what happens when we receive the gospel? We exchange our sin for His righteousness and are no longer alienated from God and hostile toward God. Again, without going on any longer, it is all part of the gift of salvation, nothing necessary is left out. Otherwise the gift would not be complete and neiter would our salvation. Imagine the biggest oak tree you have ever seen. Where did it come from? It came from a tiny acorn, and all that the oak tree is now was in that acorn. Just like all that we need to be a true christian is in the the gift of salvation. God has left nothing out.
Morris
@Antonio
I think that there are plenty of verses that link repentance and salvation:
1)
Mark 1:4
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:14-15
14Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,and saying, ” The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
I think its plain here that the forgiveness of sin (NOT the judgment as you say) is coupled with repentance. Notice Jesus called for repentance with the preaching of the gospel. The gospel was a call for salvation NOT for a postpone of temporal wrath and judgment.
5) 2 Corinthians 7:10
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
I don’t know how you are reading this verse, but looking at the context, the sorrow is Paul’s rebuke. Now if you’re saying Paul’s rebuke would’ve caused physical death and that the salvation here is “deliverance from physical death,” would be a far stretch from the text. Rather it is clear that repentance and salvation are once again linked.
7)
The context here shows that Jesus goes beyond physical death, otherwise those who repent would not… die! Also if they did repent what is the result of that or how was the repentance possible??? Salvation. God never ever asked for repentance from unregenerate sinners b/c they are unable to repent. The Bible never states “Oh you guys just say sorry and God won’t hurt yah.”
You have the burden of showing God accepting repentance from unregenerate people for the sole purpose of restraining temporary wrath.
Finally,
My friend you should revisis Luke 16 -
23″In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 27″And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house–
28for I have five brothers–in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29″But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’
30″But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’
I think it is painfully clear here that repentance is overtly linked w/ escape from Hades – NOT physical death. The rich man desperately wants what?? Does he say faith? No he doesn’t explicitly say faith, he more than anything wants repentance!!! That’s b/c faith, repentance, and salvation is bound up together and can’t get clearer than this.
You can come to it the other way round, too. 2 Peter 3:9 contrasts coming to repentance with “perishing.” This is too easy.
Jer.23:22,29 But if they had stood in my council, and had caused My people to hear my words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. 29 “Is not my word like a fire?” says the Lord, “And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?..
God has not changed His methods. His word will always effect changed lives. Throughout the Bible we frequently see this axiom. John has already referenced several helpful verses in his response to Antonio.
Rom.2:4-11 Scripture is clear that those who are “saved” are repentant and wholly redirected in the focus of their lives/actions.
I wonder sometimes if John has a clear understanding of Faith. We first need a working definition if we are going to understand associated doctrinal issues.
Faith, pistis, is a noun. It is a thing not an action. Believing, pisteuo, is a verb, an action not a thing.
Translations unfortunately more often use the term faith when what is meant is the expression of it, in other word believing. If one does not understand the the difference it eventually leads to errors in elementary doctrines of Christ.
Faith, the thing is the substance of what is hoped for. The word substance is hupostasis, and connotes the sense of equality of essence. When we survey other texts we find that our Hope is Christ. So, one way that Hebrews 11.1 can be translated is Faith is Christ.
Faith is not a created thing, but is what we are given, Christ in us. It brings to light a whole new understanding of John 3.16, by constrast to what is the popular sense of it, does it not.
It is Faith that produces believing into Christ and repentence from “dead” works, it is a gift freely imparted us by grace. It is not the tree that produces the fruit but this Tree of Life in us, this Root of David that brings forth the branches through whom he flows with the vitallity that is in His blood, and brings forth fruit in its season giving life to all who eat of it.
Repentance is a gift and it is one and the same with salvation in the free gift of God’s only Son along with all the other things that He freely gives us. Christ is our salvation, our justification and our sanctification. There are three aspects that I would add to what has been said, namely: conviction, contrition and cleansing. But none of these preceeds salvation but are one with it and become expressed in time. Salvation itself does not preceed Faith, but is one with it and will present itself in accordance with what Faith by its nature will produce in the season of God’s choosing.
The Father has given us His son and the Son will in turn give life to all who the Father has given Him. As it is written though, he proceeded forth and came from the Father and was sent by Him, so also he sends us by Faith which is born is us by the Son given to us by the will of the Father.
Why would anyone raise the question, “What must I do?” Well, is it not the nature of Faith to pray. It is an echo of “I have come to do your will. What will you have me do?” Jesus was baptised for repentance, though He did not need it, it was done to fulfill all righteousness. We need it and so it is done to fulfill all righteouness. It does not originate in us, but in God who has given us all the riches of Christ in Heavenly places by grace through the righteous acts of Christ, through whom we cry abba, save me. Of course it is “linked to salvation” but salvation is linked to regeneration, and regeneration is linked to the new man who is being transformed, day by day, glory to glory into the image of the Son of God. While we were yet dead in our sins and trespasses Christ died for us. It cannot be then, that the dead must repent to be saved, but the reverse. They must be raised to newness of life before they can voice the plea for life. If I understand Ezekial correctly, “Can these bones live again?” is anwered with, Lord you know! Then the preacher was commanded to preach and the bones came together, sinue and flesh and stood upon their feet (anastasis). It was only then that they had ears to hear the command. So goes the story of redemption, first salvation then the command for repentance, the reply of “have mercy” and the answer, “you are my child, with whom I am well pleased. Just like the Father in his unbroken relationship to the Son on the cross, he has not, and will not turned his face away or abandoned his holy one to see corruption.
How can we change our mind about Jesus? What mind. Until we have been given the mind of Christ, we are as the brain dead, so corrupted by darkness, so blind, that there is no recognition of even light. John 3 also tells that those who do the truth, come into the light so that it may be seen that their deeds have been done, not by them through repentence, but by God.
Could Judas have turned. Only if the Word of God is a lie. Jesus said that what happened to him was what was written, and what has been written cannot be unwritten. His book of deeds has been finished from the beginning and will continue to be fulfilled as Christ said until every jot and tittle is completed. What blasphemies we entertain in our vainity, that we could thwart the acts of Almighty God by our repentance.
It is not surpising that McArthur would quote Ryrie. As I wrote in my response to John’s blind assertions in his article “Is God Reponsible for Sin” it is because John is neither Reformed nor Calvinistic, but rather a modified Arminian, that he speaks this way. He truly believes with the Catholic semi-pleagians that we work with the grace of God instead of God working in us by grace to accomplish His will and His purpose.
David’s plea for a new heart, where did that motivation come from, do you wonder? His flesh? Hardly, the sinful nature is opposed to God and cannot please Him, it is in fact impossible for it to do so. So, where did the words “Create in me a clean heart,” come from? Repentance cannot come from an unclean heart. It is infact that the heart must be circumcised with a circumcision that is not of the flesh done by the hands (works of man), before it can repent. It can only be done by the Word, sharper than any two edged sword, and proceeding out of the mouth of God. For man does not live by the deeds of the flesh, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Is not that what we meant by radical conversion? Not the turning around, or the changing of mind, but the impution of a whole new nature is what is required for repentance to ever take place. The OT word for repentance contains a more obscure meaning, rest. Jesus said unless you lose you life, you shall not find it. Hebrews says therefore there remains a day of rest for God’s people. It also says that, “Today if you hear His voice,” the problem of coarse is that before we have received that gift of life and its attendant messangers of regeneration, repentance and believing into eternal life, we have no ears.
Perhaps I misunderstood Antonio when he said that believeing brings regeneration. Stated in that sequence we have the Word of Faith Movement’s positive confessionalism and a faith that becomes a magic talisman. I think it is more appropriately said that Faith concieves and brings forth regeneration, if by Faith we mean the Spirit of Christ, the Son who gives life through regeneration to whom so ever he chooses. Regeneration though can have a sequential expression as is also captured in David’s plea and also in the reality of the resurrection passage, “Will not He who raised Christ from the dead also give life to your mortal bodies.” So there is a promise, according to grace, that God provides the means of escape with the believing. Believing, though is not the causal agent, it is Faith that is the cause, and that by grace. For all other things that de Rosa said, there is naught to argue with as far as I am concerned in this division of truth.
It all comes back to the fundamental understanding of how we receive Faith in the first place. Who can hear, who has believed the report? It was God that blinded the eyes and the ears of the understanding, Isaiah 6. And, Jesus said that it is only given to His own to understand. So how do we receive? By repentance? It can not be. Sin hears no rebuke, sees not the kingdom of God, does not enter in behind the veil, nor can it. It cannot abide in God’s presence. So, how does a man ever come to repentance, except that he is born again. Unless God says, “Rise up, dry bones, and receive the breath of life. Unless, He takes some clay and fashions a new man, and into him breathes the breath of life, he would never come to Him.
It would hardly do to exchange our sin for his righteousness, seeing as it would mean that it is we who would impute sin to Christ and would by our own act impute his righteousness to us. What usurpation of the right of the Father is this, who alone has imputed to Christ the punishment for our sin, sin that he does not want, that he has come to destroy? It is the Father who has by grace, according to his freedom, given us the righteousness of Christ, an alien righteous earned not by our actions. I see more and more the vileness of self-applied, self-appropriated grace. It is gross, and simply the same kind of blasphemous sin that was offered in the Garden, “…you shall be as God.”