Lou and Lordship (Part 2)
October 31st, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Yesterday, I posted part one of my review of Lou Martuneac’s position on lordship salvation. In response, in the comments section of his own blog, Lou made this remark: “If Nathan insists on steering clear of a discussion of how Lordship defines the conditions for the reception of salvation, there will be little to discuss.”
I have to admit, I am a bit confused by that statement. By focusing on repentance, I believe that I am focusing on what Lou terms, “the conditions for the reception of salvation.”
[Note: After I finished this post last night, Lou commented that he prefers the phrase "requirements for salvation." I will use that phrase for the remainder of this post.]
Unless I am reading him incorrectly, Lou sees repentance as a requirement for the reception of salvation. In fact, he sees “a deficiency with both Dr. Ryrie and especially Dr. Zane Hodges in that they minimized repentance” (p. 24). More to the point, he later writes, “The Bible teaches that a man is saved by God’s grace when he repents and places his faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ” (p. 31, emphasis added).
That last sentence is the very essence of lordship salvation.
As John MacArthur wrote, in The Gospel According to the Apostles, “The gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9).” Or as Mark Talbot’s Signs of True Conversion explains (in a series edited by James Montgomery Boice): “We can rest assured that salvation is ours at the very moment of our conversion, at the very moment we repent and believe” (back cover).
In his chapter on repentance, Lou continues: “Repentance and Faith are two-sides of the same coin. The Apostle Paul clearly states that repentance and faith are his theology of conversion. … Repentance and Faith should not be separated. True repentance never exists apart from faith. A person cannot truly turn from his sin without simultaneously turning to God by faith. As a person turns to God, he turns from his sin of unbelief and dependence on works” (p. 119).
From such excerpts, I can only conclude that Lou sees repentance as necessary to saving faith.
Interestingly, his “two-sides of the same coin” metaphor is strikingly similar to John MacArthur’s explanation in chapter 5 of The Gospel According to the Apostles: “It has often been said that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. That coin is called conversion.”
Both Lou Martuneac and the lordship camp see belief and repentance as the two necessary sides of saving faith. So how is Lou’s position different from the lordship position? At its core, the difference is in how he defines repentance.
Lordship proponents contend that repentance is an intellectual, emotional, and volitional turning from sin. Sin, biblically defined, is rebellion against God and His law (1 John 3:4). To turn from sin, then, is to turn from that rebellion. And to stop rebelling, by default, is to start submitting. Submission is an inward response, that will result outwardly in good works.
Interestingly, the Free Grace group generally agrees that this is a biblical definition of repentance. Bob Wilkin (a Free Grace advocate) rightly defines repentance when he says: “It is a decision [or perhaps, a willingness] to turn from one’s sins. All fifty-five NT references to repentance bear this out. In each case repentance is a decision to turn from one’s sins” (“Does Your Mind Need Changing,” JGES, Spring 1998). The difference between Free Grace and Lordship is that Free Grace teaches repentance is post-salvation, while Lordship teaches that repentance is necessary to saving faith. Thus Zane Hodges (the leading Free Grace spokesman) contends, “”Faith alone (not repentance and faith) is the sole condition for justification and eternal life” (Absolutely Free, p. 144).
In yesterday’s comments section, I cited a couple paragraphs from John Piper’s new book What Jesus Demands from the World (Crossway, 2006), underscoring the lordship definition of repentance. I will include Piper’s comments here, because I think they are helpful:
Two things show us that repentance is an internal change of mind and heart rather than mere sorrow for sin or mere improvement of behavior. First, the meaning of the Greek word behind the English “repent” (metanoeo) points in this direction. It has two parts: meta and noeo. The second part (noeo) refers to the mind and its thoughts and perceptions and dispositions and purposes. The first part (meta) is a prefix that regularly means movement or change. In view of the way this prefix regularly functions, we may infer that the basic meaning of repent is to experience a change of the mind’s perceptions and dispositions and purposes.
The other factor that points to this meaning of repent is the way Luke 3:8 describes the relationship between repentance and behavior. It says, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance.” Then it gives examples of the fruits: “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise” (Luke 3:11). This means that repenting is what happens inside of us. Then this change leads to the fruits of new behavior. Repentance is not the new deeds, but the inward change that bears the fruit of new deeds. (pp. 40-41)
Ironically, Lou also sees repentance as that which includes an intellectual, emotional, and volitional response from the sinner. He sees it as a turning from sin (p. 113). And he sees it as that which results in righteous behavior (p. 111). Yet, at the same time, he attempts to distance his understanding of repentance from any hint of submission to Christ.
Personally, I don’t think he is successful in attempting to do this. But my thoughts on that will have to wait until tomorrow.
My point today is simply this: the key issue is Lou’s definition of repentance. That is the watershed of our disagreement. Everything else ultimately flows out of that disagreement.
Lou’s position and the Lordship position make “the requirement for salvation” the same, at least semantically: repent and believe. The difference is in how repentance is defined.
Tomorrow I hope to demonstrate not only why Lou’s definition of repentance (which repeatedly excludes submission to Christ) is untenable, but how his arguments (when applied consistently) actually lead to the lordship definition.
(Part three to come tomorrow)
Nate
I am running out of paper downloading all these Lordship Articles and comments. Great.
The change of heart and mind and life does occur following a new heart, 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
When Christ saved me he created within me a new creation, when a man believes in Christ, and gives up himself to him; faith does not put a man into Christ, but makes him appear to be in him: and such an one “is a new creature”; So faith or repentance is an act of God within us. Its an creation of God in us and something that we cannot do ourselves.
an implantation of new principles of grace and holiness; here is a new heart, and a new spirit, and in them new light and life, new affections and desires, new delights and joys; here are new eyes to see with, new ears to hear with, new feet to walk, and new hands to work and act with: that happen in me from the age of seven until today at fifty nine. Did I repent or have faith enough to be saved? No. It was a creation of God in me at the point of salvation.
Charles Grow By Learning, and I grow each day by reading the comments on this site. Thank you all.
Nate, you are doing a tremendous job in clarifying the issues. I believe you have truly hit the heart of the debate. Along with you, I believe that faith/repentance are necessary for salvation. The issue for these posts, then, is over the definition of “repentance.” I can’t wait for tomorrow’s installment.
Charles,
Thanks for your comment.
You are absolutely right. The ability to believe and repent is only possible because of God’s regenerative work in the heart. This is why the reformed ordo salutis gives causal priority to regeneration over repentance and belief. In time, regeneration, belief, and repentance occur simultaneously. But, in terms of logical sequence, regeneration (or God’s working in the heart) occurs first, initiating the response of saving faith from the sinner.
Of course, from the human perspective, what must one do to be saved? He must repent and believe. But when we call for this, in calling sinners to faith, we know that it is God who initiates this work in the heart.
In my opinion this is a big part of the difference between MacArthur and Martuneac. Lou openly rejects all five points of Calvinism. So, obviously, he is going to see some things a bit differently.
That being said, I don’t want to divert the discussion from what I believe is the key point in all of this: the meaning of repentance.
Lordship sees repentance as that which includes a change of allegiance (from sin and self to Christ), and thus a willingness to submit to the authority of Christ. Lou, on the other hand, attempts to keep any hint of surrender out of his definition of repentance.
That is the crucial difference. It changes what one means when he says, “You must repent and believe.” It changes, as Lou terms it, the requirements for salvation.
Thanks,
NB
Nate,
This is quite a fascinating exchange. I have personally known Lou for almost 20 years yet not closely. The infancy of my Christian growth gave me interaction with Lou. Since my teen years I’ve lost touch. I was personally influenced by Lou’s godliness and fervency for Jesus. He has a way with people. No doubt he has quite audience in his circles (I can only imagine). I cannot question his sincerity for truth and his love for Jesus.
I know well the doctrinal and practical ideologies espoused in the orbit he’s in. God in his grace led me to study the Scriptures in the university and on the graduate level. Through the ministries of his Word in different venues and many teachers, I have come to adhere to the Reformed doctrine of salvation. In a sense, I have come “around” to the other side of those ideologies wherein I was inculcated.
Whether or not our brother has desired to carve out a niche in the debate, he has (I can smell a 4 views of conversion book coming; given that our Pentecostal/Wesleyan brother from yesterdays thread submits his view=+).
Brother Lou is certainly entitled to publish whatever he wants. However, I think that you hit the bull’s eye re: the fountainhead of Lou’s dispute. It comes from his presuppositions about what is a sound correlation of the soteriology of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, etc., (some refer to it as Calvinian soteriology). Really, he should then write a prequel to his book addressing Calvinism, but Dave Hunt already did that and was (in my humble opinion)sufficiently refuted.
Furthermore, it really seems the position espoused by Lou is in keeping with what you mentioned to be his “deeper life” presuppositions. In my study of this evangelical phenomenon, one must adhere to a “non-lordship” view for the most part as a platform for the theology and subsequent experiences of the “deeper life.” This, I know, is getting off the issue at hand, but I wonder if sometimes (not necessarily for bro Lou) the thirst for a deeper or “victorious” life is what feeds a non-lordship position (cart before the ox). For whatever it’s worth. Keep up the good work, brother!
Nathan/All:
This is a side bar, but an important one. If you will go to SharperIron you will find a disturbing example of how far John Piper has drifted from practical Bible Christianity.
Go to SI, check this disturbing image, come back, and then ask yourself if you can join me in saying: “What more do we need to finally say, ‘Enough of John Piper’s ministry and theology.’”
If men keep presenting John Piper as though his ministry and/or doctrine is an example to follow (Phil 3:17), some of our next generation will follow his example.
LM
http://www.sharperiron.org
Lou,
I trust you are not suggesting that John Piper’s definition of repentance in my article is flawed because he allowed a Christian rap artist to perform at his church?
I realize that his actions offend you (especially in light of your conservative fundamentalist background, being from Pensacola). However, introducing the music argument into the lordship discussion is a total red herring.
In spite of what one thinks about the music question in general, or about John Piper in specific, Piper’s definition of repentance is still a very good one. That is why I cited it in today’s post. Attempting to discredit him (because of music styles) is not a logically valid response to his position. It is, instead, the very definition of ad hominem.
Thanks,
NB
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
There can be no conversion unless there is repentance. That is what conversion is, repentance. That is acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, receive His doctrines, and comply to His teachings,externally reeducate in life and conversation, and bring forth fruits equal for repentance, such as will exhibit it to be true and genuine.
With that said, “repentance” is going to be the working out of our salvation. As you said, repentance is an intellectual emotion and a willingness to be obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Nate, Could we say as preachers when we are preaching, “Salvation occurs by “faith alone” yes, and
there will be occur in that person a repentance in his mind and heart not only of their sin of rejecting Christ as Savior, but an internal change of the mind’s discernment and tendency andobjectives.
As a seven year old or even as a twelve year old in a preachers home, I didn’t know those terms, but I experience, and had an internal understanding that this salvation meant a change of behavior that would reflect Christ’s glory. I don’t know that I understood the term “repent” but I understood the internal change that happen at the point of salvation. And that change let to a desire to be obedience to the preaching that my dad preached.
Charles
Nathan,
YOu are not quite accurately summarizing the Free Grace view of repentance. You say:
The difference between Free Grace and Lordship is that Free Grace teaches repentance is post-salvation…
This isn’t what Wilkin and Hodges teach. Hodges considered Cornelius an example of someone who repented first than was saved later. He wrote:
“For Cornelius, repentance preceded the whole process though it was not a condition for salvation.”
Another example is where Paul preaches Jesus the judge and repentance at Mars Hill before focusing on evagelism proper.
Hodges explains:
****************************************
Repentance definitely can and should bring glory to God, as it did at Jerusalem in Acts 11:18. And it does so when it is properly understood, not as a condition for eternal salvation, but as the means by which we can reach harmony with our Maker no matter how far we have strayed from him.
The unsaved man can find in repentance a road that leads him to faith in Christ and to fellowship with the Father in heaven. Even when he comes to faith in Christ before repentance, he will find fellowship and harmony with his God. And a Christian who has walked with God for years, and then has left that path to go off into sin (like the Prodigal Son), can always repent and come home to his heavenly Father…
Most definitely, we have every reason to thank God for allowing sinners like ourselves to repent and to find harmony and joy in His presence, after days or months or years of waywardness and rebellion. Like everything else God does for us, this is possible only because He gave His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. It is one of the numberless benefits of the cross of Christ.
But as wonderful as it is, there remains one thing repentance cannot do for us. It cannot give us eternal life or security from eternal judgment. If eternal life depended on our repentance, we could never know whether our status before God was secure, since at anytime (if we know our own hearts!) we could wander away and need to repent again.
Those who teach that repentance is necessary for eternal salvation can have no true assurance of their eternal destiny. And if they claim to have this, they are either fooling themselves or us or both!
Thank God there is only one answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: “Believe!”
Repentance is not a part of that answer. It never has been and never will be. But we should keep firmly in mind the lovely truth that repentance is always the first step when we need to come home again!
********************************
Nathan:
I am in the midst of three days of work that pays the bills. I would like to do more here, but am unable to do much more than post brief items right now. I will be trying to generate more for this thread as I am able.
I think I am seeing a pattern where you intermingle faith and repentance. I can understand some reason for that, but it seems you see faith and repentance as one side of the same coin. Even the picture at the start of this article shows this perspective.
Would you say that faith and repentance, both being vital to salvation, are separate and distinct doctrines? And if they are- why aren’t we discussing the biblical definition of faith?
LM
Nate:
“I trust you are not suggesting that John Piper’s definition of repentance in my article is flawed because he allowed a Christian rap artist to perform at his church?”
No, and I did not intend to do a red herring. His position on Calvinism, especially regeneration before faith and Lordship Salvation I do find troubling.
This recent revelation is so disturbing I decided to drop it in.
I would have done better to discuss the rapper thing outside this particular thread. You are right, I should have kept that of this thread, sorry about that.
LM
WP:
I believe I know you. If you are the young man I remember, I have very fond memories of you.
Have you been reading the discussions I have had with Nathan in earlier threads on this site?
If you are the WP I believe you to be why don’t you send me an e-mail.
Go to my blog, and click on the “e-mail me” link down the right side. Shoot one to me. OK?
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
Thanks for your comments. I can certainly appreciate the busyness of work, ministry, and life. (If only blogging paid better.) In spite of your busyness, I know our readers have appreciated your willingness to interact. So thank you again for being a part of our discussions here.
The graphic I used for today’s post is admittedly limited. If I were able to show the other side of the coin, it would say “BELIEVE.” Those two elements together make up “saving faith” … which is what I labeled the coin itself. Perhaps “conversion” or “salvation” would have been a better label to use. In fact, in thinking about it now, “salvation” would probably have been the best word to use.
I can see how my graphic could be confusing. Maybe I’ll change it.
The reason I am not focusing our discussion on what it means to believe is because, I think, we generally agree on what it means. And we both agree that, in order for it to be true belief it must be coupled with repentance (“two sides of the same coin”).
Where we disagree is on what it means to repent. That is why I am focusing the discussion on that topic.
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
Don’t worry about the coin, unless you can give it some animation. You know, turning on its axis so it shows faith, then repentance, then faith, then…
You probably have some clever IT guy at GTY that would love the challenge.
It’s no big deal, I just thought of it, and wrote out my thought.
LM
Jodie,
Thanks for the clarification regarding the FG view of repentance. I was not trying to misrepresent the view, only attempting to emphasize that FG sees repentance as separate from “the requirements for salvation.”
While FG and LS generally agree on what it means to repent, they disagree on its necessity with regard to salvation. (Again, this assumes that “repentance” itself [meaning an internal change of affections and allegiance] and “the fruits of repentance” [meaning the works that result] are not confused.)
Thanks,
- NB
Thanks Nathan,
I really appreciate your concern for accuracy. And I know it gets complicated because of the debate within the FG camp!
Blessings.
“His position on Calvinism, especially regeneration before faith and Lordship Salvation I do find troubling.”
Lou,
I realize that this is a slightly different topic, but the two are related.
Out of curiosity, where does faith come from? Why do not all have it (2 Thess. 3:2)? If your answer is “by hearing the Word of God” (which I’ll agree with somewhat), then how do you explain those who hear it and still don’t have faoth. I can”t seem to get a good answer from non-Calvinists on that point.
God Bless,
Puritan Lad
Here is what Dr. Wilkin of GES said in his online debate with Kerry Gilliard regarding the idea that repentance is the flip side of faith:
[Quote]
The idea that repentance is the flip side of faith is a popular yet unbiblical notion. Nowhere in the Bible do we see faith illustrated as the front side of a coin or repentance as the back side.
The illustration makes no sense. If the coin illustrates what one must do to have eternal life, then the coin is made up of two parts. Half of the coin is faith and half is repentance. Therefore, the illustration teaches that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith plus repentance.
Why limit the illustration to two sides? Why not make it a die with 6 sides? We could include not only repentance and faith but also baptism, prayer, active involvement in church, and confession of Christ. If faith isn’t the only condition of eternal life, then we could ultimately bring in all the commands of God as additional conditions.
[End Quote]
Nathan:
“From such excerpts, I can only conclude that Lou sees repentance as necessary to saving faith.”
Speaking for myself I would prefer to say, “Repentance is just as necessary as faith for salvation.”
In the chapter on repentance I write, “Faith without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on repentance leads to Easy-Believism. Repentance without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on faith leads to Lordship Salvation. Tendencies to emphasize one side of the repentance/faith theological coin more than the other can lead to an out of balance view of the gospel and to the corresponding extremes.”
When I read the phrase as you write it I believe I am seeing the emphasis and priority placed more so on repentance.
LM
Solifidian,
An interesting quote from Zane Hodges…though ultimately not convincing.
According to Lordship proponents, salvation occurs when (having been drawn by God) a sinner turns to God in faith.
In so doing, the sinner turns from sin. This turning from sin is called repentance, and it is the natural byproduct of turning to God.
That is what we mean when we speak of “two sides of the same coin.” It is how Paul described the faith of the Thessalonians… “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9).
In turning to God (in faith) they turned from idols (in repentance). The two go together. It is one turning, that involves two aspects (a turning from and a turning toward). When you turn to God you necessarily turn from sin.
Having said this, I realize that my Free Grace friends may want to revive a separate discussion at this point. I am going to ask, however, that we stay on topic in this particular thread. Lou agrees with the lordship camp that salvation includes/involves a turning to God which, by necessity, demands a turning from sin.
There are plenty of previous threads where the relationship of repentance and faith have already been discussed.
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
I really wanted to contribute more today, I have much in mind, but not able to get it on paper at this time.
I believe our point of departure on repentance is over the application of the definition.
You wrote, “To turn from sin, then, is to turn from that rebellion. And to stop rebelling, by default, is to start submitting. Submission is an inward response, that will result outwardly in good works.”
My concern is with demands for the outward “good works” in the form of an upfront promise of submission and surrender in exchange for salvation. This is what Dr. MacArthur calls for in his definition of Lordship Salvation. That is making an application that repentance does not define or necessitate.
Submission should be the natural result of salvation. As I have said right along, we must not make the results of repentance, or even a promise for the results of repentance, the requirements for salvation.
There are, of course, other areas where I sharply disagree with the Lordship gospel. Areas such as it interpretation of “believe” in Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31. There are separate chapters in my book devoted to addressing the errors of Lordship Salvation with each of these passages.
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
After reading both sides of the argument
This dialog between seems to have a deeper conflict rooted in Calvinism and Arminianism.
Being convinced that the Gospel is truly Calvinistic I agree with Nate B and Dr. MacArthur whole heartedly. I’m not sure how a Calvinist could believe otherwise.
By no means, is Lordship salvation restricted to just Calvinists, b/c I know many Arminians as well that scoff at the notion of FG. However, it is easier to see and understand how someone of that tradition would be more inclined to be swayed that way.
Lou,
Thanks for your note of clarification. I am not trying to emphasize repentance to the exclusion of faith. It is simply that, by and large, I agree with your understanding of faith. And I think most lordship advocates do too.
Like you, we would say: “The Bible teaches that a man is saved by God’s grace when he repents and places his faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The lordship camp would agree 100% with that sentence.
Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up “the requirements for salvation.”
Your quote…
…does not accurately portray either Easy Believism or Lordship.
When it comes to Easy-Believism, it is not that they deemphasize repentance as a requirement for salvation…it is that they exclude it altogether.
On the flip side, Lordship does not exclude or deemphasize faith in salvation. Not at all… We must repent and believe. Every lordship advocate I know says this, emphasizing both. (I would be happy to provide examples if you would like.)
The reason more time is often spent explaining repentance is because that is where the controversy primarily lies. As in our discussion, the necessity and nature of repentance ends up becoming the key issue. With Free Grace, the issue is its necessity. With you, the issue is its nature.
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
I carefully avoided using the phrase, “exclusion of faith.” I know that you do not exclude faith.
You wrote, “Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up “the requirements for salvation.”
Look back at my chapter, What is Saving Faith? My definition of faith is, “trust, confidence or dependence.” I define “believe” in a separate chapter.
Following is John MacArthur’s definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus: “Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (p. 87.)
I cannot express agreement with that definition of faith.
LM
Lou,
Thank you for your comment. This will probably be my last for the evening, just because I’ll soon be leaving the office and heading home.
I think, at some point, we may be talking past each other a little bit here.
When lordship advocates, including John MacArthur, use the term “saving faith,” they are speaking about that which results in salvation (and thus includes both belief and repentance).
Because lordship teaches that repentance involves submission to the authority of Christ, saving faith necessarily includes that same submission (or surrender). This is what John MacArthur is talking about when he uses terms like “commitment” and “follow.” He is speaking of something internal, not an external work.
On the flip side, because you assert that repentance does not involve submission/surrender to the authority of Christ, you do not see “the requirements for salvation” including any kind of submission or surrender.
Again, I believe the issue is the nature of repentance.
If repentance and belief are both necessary for salvation, and repentance includes surrender, then surrender is necessary for salvation. But if repentance does not include surrender, than it is not necessary for salvation.
I believe biblical repentance includes surrender. You assert that it does not. This is what I believe is the crux of our disagreement. And it is the reason I keep focusing on repentance.
Thanks,
NB
John
Of course 5 point Arminians such as John Wesley and those from the holiness churches would place an even stricter emphasis on personal committment than Calvinists. There’s the danger of losing your salvation. John MacArthur has said in the past that a true believer can commit suicide. A true Arminian would say if you commit suicide your heading to Hell!
Zane Hodges would have nothing in common with John Wesley. Most Reformed people don’t seem to be aware of Christianity outside their own theological persuasion.
Thanking God for the blog. Just an update, I had to close my blog down for the time being; I appreciate you listing me on the blog roll, but of course you can delete me for now. I will let you know when I start up again. Reason for the blog deletion at this time is that someone in the church I pastor took an article and is using it against me. For the sake of the body at this time I chose to lay low per se. Even so, please pray for me and the church. And may God bless this ministry of yours continually.
let me correct myself; I probably won’t be doing the blog thing anytime soon, in fact it’s not in the plans; It’s hard to blog these days and pastor when anything can be used to stir a controversy in the church. Even so, pray that I will do a good job at pastoring, loving God’s people and even those who oppose us at the present time. Thanks again for your blog, it encourages pastors like myself who care about these important issues. Blessings.
@ Shane = yea I should’ve been more clear.
Oh, I’m fully aware of what your saying and the “legalism trap” that would be counterintuitive to FG and that antinomianism is attributed to the (hyper)Calvinists.
But, most Calvinist reject that claim and would see that the salvation and repentance both came from God anyway and since God is giving you those things, repentance being concomitant with faith would be “part of the package.” This is why many Calvinists believe and have no prb with regeneration before faith, as Dr. Piper does.
The Arminian position has 2 sides it could take and yes one would be more strict, but b/c of their stance on free will, the other option would be that they could compartmentalize “the faith/believing” and “the repentance” as two distinct operations of their own will and having total surrender as another component of their will they can accomplish once mature. If it really is a matter of our volition and acceptance, its easy to see how you can say “no 1 sec Christian can totally surrender” and that they only need to believe. If they only need to believe for justification, repentance can come later with more understanding …
The Calvinist wouldn’t need to compartmentalize true repentance, faith, and regeneration b/c God would be able to grant them that 100% commitment the FG says we are unable to do (yes we are unable but what is impossible with man is possible with God).
JOHN
Interesting points John. I’m not an Arminian, though at one time I was, and I was somewhat a student of Wesleyan theology. Objectively, both sides have caricatured each other. It’s like the Republicans and Democrats. Actually it’s interesting that John Wesley had a strong belief in total depravity and original sin. And he did say that the truth was a hairsbreath away from Calvinism.He also believed in prevenient grace, which means that no sinner could come unless God drew him first. Though I now do believe in eternal security I still have a great respect for the Wesley brothers as evangelists and men of great piety. Have you ever read “Life in the Son” by Robert Shank? It’s a book opposing perseverance of the saints. I disagree with it now, but it was well written in a scholarly fashion. Good take John, grace and peace.