# Antinomian gospel?



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

Can the following statement be considered an axiom?

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2007)

Are you going to sleep tonight?

Hmmm...that's a good question on whether it is axiomatic. I think it could be an axiom of antinomianism. It is not the only type of antinomianism that I could conceive of but one that denied the necessity of repentance from sin would necessarily deprecate the nature of God's Law.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Nov 4, 2007)

I answer that: Bill, define your use of "gospel" and "repentance."

CJ


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> I answer that: Bill, define your use of "gospel" and "repentance."
> 
> CJ



John - the gospel is the εὐαγγέλιον; the message of redemption through faith in Christ Jesus (c.f. Matthew 9:35; Mark 14:9; Romans 1:16). I would argue the repentance I am referring to is a response, made possible by faith, to the gospel message. That repentance is μετάνοια; a change of mind or purpose. Used together, the gospel message that results in regeneration in the heart of an individual will result in repentance as defined previously.


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Are you going to sleep tonight?



No. My internal body clock is a mess. I am going to do a hard reboot and pull an all-nighter.


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

> It is not the only type of antinomianism that I could conceive of...



Rich - in context of the gospel and repentance (as I defined it for John - "Sydnorphyn"), what other type(s) of antinomianism could you conceive of?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > It is not the only type of antinomianism that I could conceive of...
> 
> 
> 
> Rich - in context of the gospel and repentance (as I defined it for John - "Sydnorphyn"), what other type(s) of antinomianism could you conceive of?


I guess when you first proposed the axiom, it was not really my first thought for how I would define an antinomian. The fact that some may not feel the need to repent would be symptomatic but not primary.

More fundamentally, it seems, that type of antinomian doesn't recognize the Holy character of the Law, that it reflects God's Holiness, that it is normative, and that they will be judged according to it.

I think there are even some classes of antinomians that probably believed they had to repent of their sins and trust in Christ to some extent but, being done, they now feel no gravity to the demands that the Law places upon a believer in the pursuit of sanctification - not to achieve Justification but as an outworking of our union with Christ. I would say a majority of Evangelicals are antinomian in this regard. Many kind of know they need to repent but then they kind of miss the part where they're not supposed to sin all the more so that Grace can abound.

Even on this board we have to battle a "laid back" attitude about the character of God and repeated charges that Reformed piety is really legalism. There is a lack of mature discernment between a trust in self-righteousness and a pursuit of the things that please God.

I could probably develop this further but, while early there, it is getting late here and will take this up a bit more tomorrow.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

Rich - interesting and I'm glad the discussion is going this way. You seem to be indicating that antinomianism is not an all or nothing proposition; that is has varying levels or degrees. Most of us on the PB would raise a red flag if antinomianism was apparent on the front end of the _ordo salutis._ But the "back end" part - namely sanctification - may be where some lower their guard. I would be interested in developing this a bit further also.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 4, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Can the following statement be considered an axiom?
> 
> _"Any gospel that does not include repentance from sin is an antinomian gospel."_



Paul can present the gospel _without _including a call to faith and repentance in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Rom. 1:2-4, and 2 Tim. 2:8.

However, we can then _unpack _the gospel and show that it includes the call to faith and repentance (Acts 14:15) precisely because Christ is saviour (which demands faith) and Lord (which demands repentance).

If someone says that the gospel _doesn't include repentance ever_, then we have an antinomian gospel (taught by the likes of Tobias Crisp).

Blessings.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 4, 2007)

The antinomian Gospel could also be defined as "BAre mental Assent" of Glas and his son-in-law Sandeman.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 4, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Can the following statement be considered an axiom?
> 
> _"Any gospel that does not include repentance from sin is an antinomian gospel."_



Antinomianism comes in different flavors, where it cannot be pinned down to neatly. I would go to John Agricola vs Luther for some good reading on this. This would be more correctly be pinned on the Non Lordship people as Zane Hodges who have redefined the place of repentance.

Concerning Repentance, by James Durham

Above is a good article by Durham.


I do have a question though, I have yet to find one accused of being antinomian who publicaly announces one can live in the mire of sin willingly and yet be counted as elect. Jude mentions those who turn the grace of God into Licensiusness, but if they exist, I cant find any. Obviously some have, and must be discounted as wrong. Has anyone else found this? We must remember the Paul was accused of being an antinomian. In fact as my signature states, anyone who magnifies the free grace of our Lord in salvation over and above Law or obedience is preaching the true Gospel. MLJ....

One issue that I have yet to be solid on is what brings repentance? Is it the Law or Gospel? This is another issue surrounding the antinomian controversey


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 4, 2007)

'bump'


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Nov 4, 2007)

*a verb needed*



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > I answer that: Bill, define your use of "gospel" and "repentance."
> ...





Bill, I answer that: I think you need a verb for repentance (μετάνοew), not a noun...ok, but what is the gospel according to Isaiah of which the gospel writers build? Yes, you definitions is correct, but not complete. See you next weekend...SPADES is on, by brother.

Johnny O


----------



## stansbery (Nov 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> One issue that I have yet to be solid on is what brings repentance? Is it the Law or Gospel? This is another issue surrounding the antinomian controversey



I would have to say that repentance is a gift from God, given to us through the means of the Gospel. The Law only brings us to a knowledge of our sinfulness and our need for a Savior. It is the message of the gospel that can effect a change in our hearts. It is only open hearing the "good news" of forgiveness in Christ, that we are able to turn away from our sin and turn to Christ.

That's my 2 cents. Also, this is my first post on the PB. Hi to you all and I look forward to much discussion and learning and sharpening here. It was only this past February that God opened my eyes to the glorious truths of calvinsm/reformed theology/doctrines of grace.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

I know it is widely believed that Crisp was antinomian, but there are good reasons for doubting that conclusion. 

Buchanan says, “the real Antinomians” were those who sought to relax” the requirements of the law and “to substitute an imperfect, for a perfect righteousness as the ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God” (177)

Buchanan suggests that he was anti-Neonomian rather than Antinomian.

See C. F. Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London: SPCK, 1966), 172.

rsc



JohnOwen007 said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > Can the following statement be considered an axiom?
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Why can't we simply say that repentance is the fruit of faith? Do unbelievers repent? No.

To build repentance into faith in the act of justification is to do more than the WCF does in ch. 11 and more than HC 21 and 60 do.

We seem to be terrified to let grace be grace. We seem to be bent on building sanctity into justification so we can get people to be good.

It doesn't work. Yes, believers must be good or strive to be good. Anyone who denies the moral and logical necessity of sanctity as a consequence of justification, as evidence of justification, as vindication of the claim to justification runs crosswise to James 2. Believers are obligated to obey the law, as consequence of justification not as a condition of justification or as a part of faith in the act of justification. 

Anyone who says that Christians are not obligated to the law is antinomian. It is not antinomian to deny that repentance is a part of the gospel or else a good number of orthodox Reformed theologians (including at least one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) is antinomian.

Let's be careful about tossing this word about.

rsc


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 2, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Anyone who says that Christians are not obligated to the law is antinomian. It is not antinomian to deny that repentance is a part of the gospel or else a good number of orthodox Reformed theologians (including at least one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) is antinomian.
> 
> Let's be careful about tossing this word about.
> 
> rsc



Your first part is a very broad brush RSC. DO you mean obligated to the 3rd use? or all uses?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > Can the following statement be considered an axiom?
> ...



I think I read in Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology that Zane Hodges did not believe that it was necessary for people to repent in order to be saved. Is this true.


----------



## Bygracealone (Dec 2, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Why can't we simply say that repentance is the fruit of faith? Do unbelievers repent? No.
> 
> To build repentance into faith in the act of justification is to do more than the WCF does in ch. 11 and more than HC 21 and 60 do.
> 
> ...



Well said brother, I was going to post something along these same lines. If I remember correctly, wasn't this the very issue that brought about the Marrow Controversy--repentance as a condition of justification? 

Like faith, repentance is a gift from God and follows regeneration. We should expect to see these things in the life of one truly justified, but not as a prerequisite for justification.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 2, 2007)

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Why can't we simply say that repentance is the fruit of faith? Do unbelievers repent? No.
> 
> To build repentance into faith in the act of justification is to do more than the WCF does in ch. 11 and more than HC 21 and 60 do.
> 
> ...



First, I want to note that I am not sure when I answered this thread initially that I was thinking about the nature of the Gospel as much as the nature of antinomianism.

Second, I'm trying to understand how you are distinguishing faith from repentance in your warning. When Peter addressed the multitude at Pentecost, he identified Christ as the Messiah who they put to death and leaves them condemned under the Law of God. When they ask "What must we do to be saved?" are you stating that Peter was adding sanctity to justification by answering: “*Repent*, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

What, precisely, is the sinner laying hold of in Christ if he has not first seen his sin and need for Christ? I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would never say that our repentance is faith or is also an instrument of our justification. I understand that repentance is a fruit of our faith but you seem to be distinguishing between them to the point of separating repentance out from the Gospel presentation itself and I simply don't understand how that can be accomplished.

I understand if someone stated that repentance needed to be added to saving faith for justification why you would be cautious here but the question was whether the _Gospel_ includes repentance and I can't think of an example in the Scriptures where the person was not enjoined to repent.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 3, 2007)

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



Amazing Grace said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who says that Christians are not obligated to the law is antinomian. It is not antinomian to deny that repentance is a part of the gospel or else a good number of orthodox Reformed theologians (including at least one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) is antinomian.
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 3, 2007)

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




SemperFideles said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't we simply say that repentance is the fruit of faith? Do unbelievers repent? No.
> ...


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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!



That's a caricature of the classic Puritan position which Owen, Sibbes, Manton, Brooks, Pemble _et. al._ adhered to. It's this:

Gospel: Christ has won for you justification and new life, live it out (repent).

Law: You must do, otherwise you will be punished.

The obedience the gospel demands, is not to be justified, but _because _one is _already _justified.

The gospel is what Christ has done _for_ us. And in Christ's work he's not only won justification but also the transformation of our lives. Wasn't it some Olevian guy who saw a *double *benefit Christ won for us?

Our _actual _obedience itself is not the gospel (what Christ does _in_ us). But the gospel unpacked _includes the call_ to live out the new transformed life Christ has won _for _us.

[1] "Good news" is not necessarily the best translation of _evangelion_ precisely because it's not good news for unbelievers. It's better translated "big news". To think that it has to mean the combination of the two words "good" and "news" is like thinking that "butterfly" is fly made up of butter.

[2] The NT places the call to repentance in the gospel itself:

Acts 14:15: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news [preaching the gospel], *telling you to turn* from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them" (see also verses like Rev. 14:6, 1 Tim. 1:9-11)

[3] The NT speaks of not just believing the gospel, but also being obedient to the gospel:

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who *do not obey the gospel of God*.

2The 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and *do not obey the gospel* of our Lord Jesus.

[3] The gospel is the message that Christ is _both_ saviour and Lord. We place our faith in Christ because he saves, and repent (not to be saved) because he now rules.

[4] Because Christ is Lord, the gospel also announces that Christ will judge every human:

Rom. 2:16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as *my gospel declares*.

Every blessing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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!
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2007)

According to 2 Tim. 2:25, "if God peradventure will give them *repentance to the acknowledging of the truth*." Then, Acts 11:18, "God also to the Gentiles granted *repentance unto life*." Finally, 2 Cor. 7:10, "godly sorrow worketh *repentance to salvation* not to be repented of." Hence repentance is necessary in order to acknowledge the truth, and to obtain the life and salvation promised in the gospel. The catechism accordingly teaches that repentance is a *saving grace*. This is a fairly straightforward conclusion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2007)

From the Canons of Dordt:


> 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)


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I was referring to the third use of the law.
> ...



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


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 3, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > R. Scott Clark said:
> ...



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 (Dec 3, 2007)

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 (Dec 3, 2007)

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 (Dec 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

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




SemperFideles said:





R. Scott Clark said:



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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 3, 2007)

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




Amazing Grace said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I was referring to the third use of the law.
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


_

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 (Dec 3, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


_

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 (Dec 3, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > From the Canons of Dordt:
> ...


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


Amazing Grace said:


> 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 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 (Dec 3, 2007)

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.



R. Scott Clark said:


> "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). 



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.).



R. Scott Clark said:



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.

Click to expand...


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).



R. Scott Clark said:



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.

Click to expand...


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.



R. Scott Clark said:



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.

Click to expand...


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 (Dec 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2007)

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 (Dec 4, 2007)

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




JohnOwen007 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 4, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Dr Clark,

Thank you for your questions. Here are some answers.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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]
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 5, 2007)

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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2007)

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 (Dec 6, 2007)

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for your clarifications.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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).



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.




R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.




R. Scott Clark said:


> 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.



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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).



R. Scott Clark said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2007)

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 (Dec 21, 2007)

moral necessity said:


> [...] 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 (Dec 21, 2007)

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!


----------

