# Repentance or faith; which comes first?



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2017)

In my studies, I have come to the conclusion that the order of salvation is logical and as well, chronological. Given that, I am comfortable with repentance following faith. I just read a small portion of M.Lloyd-Jones' work on conversion. In it, Jones says that repentance must come first and it is the scriptural idea:



> At this point, let me ask a question: in which order do
> they come? Which comes first, repentance or faith? Now that
> is a fascinating question. There is a sense in which faith is bound to
> come before repentance, and yet I shall not put it like that and for this
> ...



As well, he (ML-J) seems to hold to the idea that there can be a time lapse or as we have discussed, in my other thread, 'a gap' or time frame:



> There are variable elements in connection with conversion, and because of these we must be very careful that we know what the essential elements are. Let me
> illustrate what I mean: take the time element, the time factor in conversion.
> Must it be sudden? Is it impossible for it to be gradual? Well,
> I would say that the Scripture does not teach that it must of necessity
> ...



THOUGHTS?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 19, 2017)

Not to be too picky (but rather to keep in the good graces of our UK brethren!), please permit me to point out that the good doctor's last name is not Jones but Lloyd-Jones (with Martyn his middle name, the full name being David Martyn Lloyd-Jones). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edm (Aug 19, 2017)

This is something I was thinking about yesterday. My problem is, how can you have a saving faith, and realize that you are a sinner and need Christ, if you have no repentance for sin. If you do not understand that you sin, how can you have faith that Christ saves sinners and that He is needed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG (Aug 19, 2017)

I'm not sure how a person can turn away from sin and turn to Christ without having faith to do so. Something supernatural has got to be happening otherwise repentance would just be a good work.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2017)

Many a Puritan believed in a preparatory work in salvation, but I digress.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2017)

Read Sinclair Ferguson's book _The Whole Christ_. Best treatment of the subject ever. We should never forget the Auchterarder Creed: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ."

It is essential to forsake sin, but that forsaking is a necessary _consequence_ of faith and coming to Christ, not a pre-requisite or a constitutive element of coming to Christ. We do NOT want to be on the wrong side of the Marrow-men.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Edm (Aug 19, 2017)

That's what confuses me. I'm sure it is a definition issue. I consider repentance as feeling convicted and sorry for my sin. How can you have faith in a Savior if you don't accept that you are a sinner and need saving? What is your faith in, if you aren't convicted?


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2017)

Ed, repentance is far more than feelings of conviction. It is also a turning away from the sin, and to the life of faith. What the Auchterarder Creed safeguards is the absolute monergistic saving activity of God. We can't turn ourselves towards God. Yes, the law can give us conviction of sin, but it cannot give us salvation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edm (Aug 19, 2017)

What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. Part of me is hesitant because of all of the anti lordship salvation, easy believism I have had thrown at me, which I am strongly against. But I do understand that true repentance is turning from sin, which one can't do unless one is regenerated, which Is from the Lord.


----------



## KeithW (Aug 19, 2017)

Recently there was a different thread which brought up a similar issue.

There are a couple of other considerations here. Are we thinking from an experiential perspective of how we experience conversion? Are we thinking from a theological perspective of how God works salvation in us? Those two perspectives are not equal and change our answer to the original post.

From God's perspective He gives us new birth, He takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh, He puts a new spirit within us, He gives us faith, He grants us repentance, He works in us both to will and to do. (All of these have corresponding verses which I can provide if desired.) From man's perspective it is our belief, our faith, our decisions, our sorrow for sins, our turning from not-God to God, our working. And all of these things we think we are doing can be the hardest decisions and work we will ever do! 

On the day when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, if I find that He calls me one of His sheep it will only be because of everything He worked in me. My own sinful nature is otherwise in constant rebellion towards Him, and is in obstinate opposition towards Him. (By the way "obstinate opposition" is the definition of one of the Greek words translated into English us "unbelief".) So in that day I can be thankful and praise Him for what He did, not for what I did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2017)

Ed, you reaction is quite understandable. It is vitally important, however, not to let a reaction against the contemporary grace movement (as Harry Reeder dubs it) lead us into something equally as problematic, though not equally visibly so. 

The CGM jettisons any idea of a distinct sanctification from the ordo salutis. They are typically correct on justification, incorrect on sanctification. They think that sanctification works the same way as justification. As the Westminster Standards make so clear, however, there is every difference in the world in terms of how they work. Also, the watchwords that help us avoid error in this regard are: distinct yet inseparable. 

It is vital to gospel integrity, however, that repentance NOT be considered a prerequisite to coming to Christ (so we avoid neo-nomianism), while at the same time considering it an essential, yet subsequent benefit of union with Christ (thus avoiding the CGM). 

Therefore, your hesitancy is needless, as long as one realizes that the best answer to the CGM is not to input repentance into the "coming-to-Christ" bit, but rather to emphasize the inseparability of faith and repentance.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2017)

BG said:


> I'm not sure how a person can turn away from sin and turn to Christ without having faith to do so. Something supernatural has got to be happening otherwise repentance would just be a good work.



Regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Recently there was a different thread which brought up a similar issue.
> 
> There are a couple of other considerations here. Are we thinking from an experiential perspective of how we experience conversion? Are we thinking from a theological perspective of how God works salvation in us? Those two perspectives are not equal and change our answer to the original post.



How God works salvation in us....keep in mind the difference between regeneration and conversion.



> From God's perspective He gives us new birth,



Regeneration



> He gives us faith, He grants us repentance, He works in us both to will and to do.



Conversion




> From man's perspective it is our belief, our faith, our decisions, our sorrow for sins, our turning from not-God to God, our working.



YES


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Read Sinclair Ferguson's book _The Whole Christ_. Best treatment of the subject ever. We should never forget the Auchterarder Creed: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ."
> 
> It is essential to forsake sin, but that forsaking is a necessary _consequence_ of faith and coming to Christ, not a pre-requisite or a constitutive element of coming to Christ. We do NOT want to be on the wrong side of the Marrow-men.



Lane,
Whats your take on what ML-J's says in the OP?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 19, 2017)

It sounds like you are seeking some kind of evangelical obedience.


----------



## Unworthy_Servant (Aug 20, 2017)

"Whether a whole precedes one of its parts, or is preceded by it, since no man can give a sound definition of evangelical repentance which will not include faith, it is altogether wrong to perplex the minds of serious Christians with useless questions of this sort. Let the schoolmen discuss such matters to their heart's content, but let the humble Christian rest in the plain and obvious meaning of the words in Scripture. The effect of divine truth on the heart is produced by general views, and not by nice and metaphysical distinctions."

- Archibald Alexander on whether faith precedes repentance or repentance precedes faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 20, 2017)

About 35 years ago this question was given during a Bible study to a group of us that included former baptists, methodists, and mainline presbyterians. (I was carrying a Ryrie study Bible!) That regeneration precedes faith became the soteriology of a great church. Fast forward to the present, and I'm about to start a homeschool year in which the WCF shorter catachism is actively taught. Several of the men present that day have served as presbyterian church officers for decades. The church has trained many future pastors, has a great ministry on a secular campus, started a Christian school and counseling center, and much, much more. It has long appeared to me that that night's study drew us together in our reformed understanding. Contemplating such questions can be important in the life of individuals and churches. Don't under estimate the power of the Holy Spirit to use right doctrine in all areas of life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro (Aug 20, 2017)

Guerstner writes," a great theologian once asked a class of sixteen students, which came first in conversion, faith or repentance? Eight were for faith; and eight were for repentance. Neither group were right or wrong. The two are simultaneous. Opposite sides of the same coin. Aspects of the same experience. When you are turning to Christ, you are turning from the world. When you are turning from the world, it is to Christ you are turning."
Whilst that is true, there can be a delay in our experience even though we exercise faith in both. But thankfully they are both the gifts of God

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Aug 20, 2017)

As for my own testimony, I repented about a year before I knew the gospel. God did a wonderful work within me to bring me from living in sin to pursuing all things right, all before me knowing the scriptures. He literally just changed my heart out of nowhere. Sometime later through family members he brought me the gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 20, 2017)

In John Gerstners work on Jonathan Edwards entitled: The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, Gerstner creates an outline of Edwards' theology on seeking, regeneration, faith and conversion. In this document, Gerstner writes:

Seeking is not meritorious but it is necessary to properly prepare men for reception of salvation.

Effectual calling, conversion and regeneration were used as virtually synonymous terms by Edwards

The mind, active in repentance, is passive in regeneration.

Conversion refers both to the passivity of the mind as well as it's reflex action.

Repentance is an activity of the mind attributed to God alone as it's source.

Regeneration/efficacious grace is characteristically immediate, the cause solely supernatural without the human antecedents of faith and repentance.

Physical regeneration is not the product of education or moral influence, but the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

If ever men are to be turned to God, God must turn them.

The saint is active afterward in consequence of regeneration.

If a person is utterly passive when regenerated and thoroughly active once born again.

What God produces are our own acts.

God is the only proper author and fountain.

We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.

A holy, heavenly spark is put into the soul of the Christian at conversion and God maintains it there.

This spark has influence to govern the Christian's heart.

Efficacious grace as the gift of God is quite consistent with vigorous human activity.

Edwards sometimes describes conversion as an act, sometimes as a process.

It is the infused principle of grace which makes actions right, and not actions which make the principle right.

*Faith begins in the understanding.

Faith is a rational act in the first instance.

Truth must be present to the mind before it can be illumined.

There must be that which is to be believed before it can be believed.

Doctrine is indispensable.

There must be a true object of faith before there can be a true exercise of faith.

The soul cannot be consciously united to Christ without knowing something about him.

One must know what is true about Christ to be united to Him.*

Acquiescence is an assent of the soul to what it understands.

This assent is more than mere knowledge.

Unless all these aspects, understanding, inclination, and will are involved, there is no true justifying faith.

Faith is an assent of the soul, venturing one's whole interest on Christ.

Edwards writes:


> I put repentance and conversion together, becasue the scripture puts it together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.


----------



## Cymro (Aug 20, 2017)

I love Swinnock. He writes, "according to a man's sense of misery, such is his estimation of mercy. The sharp sauce of repentance doth commend Christ exceedingly unto the spiritual palate. The more bitter and irksome sin, the more sweet and welcome Jesus Christ will be to the soul. When the sinner seeth that he is lost in himself, then and not till then, will he truly request to be found in Christ; the prodigal did not prize the bread in his father's house till he was ready to perish for hunger. If sinners were sensible of the sting of the serpents, they would look up to the brazen serpent with an eye of greater respect." It is when we are pricked to the heart, then we cry, "men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?"

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2017)

Scott, I am uncomfortable with L-J's formulation there. The problem with it is that just because one thing is _mentioned_ before something else does not mean that it _comes before_ that something else. Plus, "repentance" can mean a simple call to the gospel message, a part for the whole, a synechdoche. In certain contexts, the obviously ungodly lives of the hearers can mean that repentance is what they most need to hear. That does not mean that repentance comes before faith. If we say that repentance comes before faith, then we are saying that we can seek God and turn to him before we are even united to Christ. And it is quite dangerous to say that we have to repent before God will accept us. God accepts us exactly where we are, because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He never leaves us where we are, but draws us after Him. The Puritans, as blessed as they were, did not always get this point correct. I reject all forms of preparationism. If we don't believe that repentance will do any good, then we will not repent. Therefore, faith has come before repentance. Nevertheless, it is inseparable from faith.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> in this document, Gerstner writes...


Scott,

Gerstner's work comprises three *volumes*. Are you using quotes from a summary given elsewhere or are you referring to the Appendix to volume I of his three volume work (I:564-639) which is a summary of Dr. Gerstner’s audio tape series: “The Theology of Jonathan Edwards” ? I would like to look up the contexts of some of the quotes in my set.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 20, 2017)

Allow me to formulate what happened to me. 

I saw the Ten Commandments repeatedly yearly as a child. 
I presumed they were accurate concerning the Burning Bush and the Commandments. 

I became a reprobate by many standards.

I jointed the Navy to pay restitution for crime. 

One night while I was doing drugs my convictions became highly intensified.

I didn't have any convictions about the Bible nor did I understand it. I did have a presumption that Jesus Christ did have something to do with God but I had no idea what for. No Idea. I wasn't raised knowing anything about him except he died for sinners. You can read about that here. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...eived-testimony-of-christs-work-in-my-life-2/

I think I was regenerate before I was converted or justified. God did something inside me to let me know I was messed up and needed him. I knew the 10 Commandments and if God was like that I wanted Him. He was Good. I wasn't. If he could be forgiving I wanted that too. I wanted a Perfect God. A Good God. One like the Ten Commandments.

I didn't know who He was till I had already read the first three Gospels. John was the Gospel when Jesus told me He was God. I knew it. I just knew it. He wasn't like my earthly father. I always wanted him. Something made me want him before I knew I knew Him. And no, that is not a double positive. It is meant to be like a that that grammatically.

Is the order the same for everyone? I can not answer that. The one thing I know is that Regeneration has to preceed faith and repentance. I wanted to repent before I could but I didn't find the power and I wanted to have faith at times but I didn't have the power. When it happened in Barracks 500 in October of 1981 at Oceana, Virginia I knew it happened. My God Loved Me. He Paid a Ransom I couldn't understand. I fell in Love with Him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 20, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Scott,
> 
> Gerstner's work comprises three *volumes*. Are you using quotes from a summary given elsewhere or are you referring to the Appendix to volume I of his three volume work (I:564-639) which is a summary of Dr. Gerstner’s audio tape series: “The Theology of Jonathan Edwards” ? I would like to look up the contexts of some of the quotes in my set.



Yes, this was from the appendix in vol 1 on pages 614-620.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 20, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> And it is quite dangerous to say that we have to repent before God will accept us



I believe ML-J is going on the idea that the person he speaks of is already regenerated.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2017)

Scott, perhaps that is true. However, whether God _accepts_ us or not hinges on God-given faith, not on regeneration, since it is by faith that we lay hold of Christ's righteousness. So whether L-J has someone in mind who is already regenerated or not does not really impact this particular discussion, since we are talking about repentance and faith, not regeneration.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 20, 2017)

If God has regenerated you He has obviously called you to become something. Do you pretend to know that Lane? Yes, Faith and repentance are requirements conditionally. Lane, Do you deny this? Is not God working regeneration a reality that he died and accepted you too? I am speaking about regeneration. That has to happen before faith.

Maybe you need to understand Calvin's and the Bible's twofold grace of God. Justification and sanctification. Are they separate? I would contend that Sanctification comes first in a way. The Passive way.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 20, 2017)

> whether God _accepts_ us or not hinges on God-given faith, not on regeneration



Lane,
I understand that; However, once regenerated, men are within the scope of that acceptance-consider it in a divided sense. Or, seed faith. I don't know if I believe a man can be regenerated and not have a seed of faith there. I cited Van Mastricht in a similar thread:



> Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin.



Would u agree with VanMastricht then? I believe Randy's example above in his testimony would ring true, in this reagrd.

I want to address something you said earlier:



> If we say that repentance comes before faith, then we are saying that we can seek God and turn to him before we are even united to Christ.



Many of the Puritans taught of preparatory work in salvation-to which I am not that uncomfortable with. I was just reading Edwards today where he speaks of it.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2017)

The long version is too complicated, so I will give the short one. In 1986 I was three years clean and sober through a 12 step program familiar to everyone. I had been raised by atheists and was not only an unbeliever, but extremely antagonistic toward Christians who wanted to dictate their morality to others.

Listening to a cassette tape of Dr. Bob Smith, a co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, in a talk he gave in 1949, he said that the program of AA came from the 'good book.' Specifically the Book of James, The Sermon on the Mount, and the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians.
This infuriated me. I was between a rock and a hard place as it were. I wanted nothing to do with a program based on the Bible and Christian precepts, yet AA had saved my life and I knew that if I was to turn my back on it I'd soon be drowning my sorrows and committing slow suicide.

Growing up I had heard 'the Bible contradicts itself' and parroted that sentiment for years though I only gave the text a precursory glance a few times. So I resolved to read the New Testament to prove to myself that there was nothing there.
The Bluegrass group The Stanley Brothers recorded a song called 'I Can Tell You The Time.' It goes something like, 'I can tell you the time, I can take you to the place, where the Lord saved me, on that wonderful day.'

In September of 1986, in Kearny, NJ, having gone through the Gospels, and Acts, I was in the first chapter of Romans and the Holy Spirit convinced me of sin and my need of a Saviour. Prior to that supernatural experience I was a natural man and a natural man receivith not the things of the Spirit. They were certainly foolishness unto me.

My life changed from that moment on, in that like Paul, sin which had been virtually nonexistent in my psyche, became exceedingly sinful. I cried out to God and the Holy Spirit began a work in me that continues to this day. Whether repentance was a precursor to faith I really cannot say. I do know the faith was stronger than the repentance, at least in my early years of my new birth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 20, 2017)

Is recognition of a need to repent to be counted as something? It is a precursor by many standards. I fear Society and the Church has removed that. When the recognition of the need to repent is numbed out, it obviously is not regeneration but peer pressure most likely. But when it comes from within it is from God putting his Law in our hearts and doing something. I believe both are good. We should be thankful both survive when they do.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2017)

Listening to MLJ right now. Preaching on Acts 3:19. He begins talking of repentance at 9 minutes and by 17 minutes says that repentance _must_ come first. https://www.mljtrust.org/search/?q=repentance

Thinking about my earlier post above, for me to turn from my antagonism and accept the Gospel was repentance.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 20, 2017)

> Thinking about my earlier post above, for me to turn from my antagonism and accept the Gospel was repentance.



in my opinion, your repentance was doctrinally based and grounded in the faith you now had. I myself am more comfortable with faith, preceding repentance.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> in my opinion, your repentance was doctrinally based and grounded in the faith you now had. I myself am more comfortable with faith, preceding repentance.


I don't know. The second sermon by MLJ, which I'm listening to now, is even more direct in placing repentance first. This only a few minutes into it. This sermon appears to be directly defining repentance. I'm only a few minutes into it. Of course his viewpoint does not settle the question, but I have great respect for his knowledge, and interpretation of Scripture.
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/repentance-2/


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Aug 20, 2017)

Cymro said:


> I love Swinnock. He writes, "according to a man's sense of misery, such is his estimation of mercy. The sharp sauce of repentance doth commend Christ exceedingly unto the spiritual palate. The more bitter and irksome sin, the more sweet and welcome Jesus Christ will be to the soul. When the sinner seeth that he is lost in himself, then and not till then, will he truly request to be found in Christ; the prodigal did not prize the bread in his father's house till he was ready to perish for hunger. If sinners were sensible of the sting of the serpents, they would look up to the brazen serpent with an eye of greater respect." It is when we are pricked to the heart, then we cry, "men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?"



Amen. Thankfully this is what I experienced. Praise be to God!


----------



## KeithW (Aug 20, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> The long version is too complicated, so I will give the short one. In 1986 I was three years clean and sober through a 12 step program familiar to everyone. I had been raised by atheists and was not only an unbeliever, but extremely antagonistic toward Christians who wanted to dictate their morality to others.
> 
> Listening to a cassette tape of Dr. Bob Smith, a co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, in a talk he gave in 1949, he said that the program of AA came from the 'good book.' Specifically the Book of James, The Sermon on the Mount, and the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians.
> This infuriated me. I was between a rock and a hard place as it were. I wanted nothing to do with a program based on the Bible and Christian precepts, yet AA had saved my life and I knew that if I was to turn my back on it I'd soon be drowning my sorrows and committing slow suicide.


Some people might think what I am about to say is off topic, but there is a point at the end.

Jimmy, congratulations on your sobriety. My best friend for the last 25 years, who introduced me to the Gospel back then, became an alcoholic and addict about 10 years ago. He is in AA and has been sober for several years now. In many ways he understands Scripture much better than I do, especially from an experiential standpoint -- the standpoint of dealing with sin in his own life. He has explained to me how the 12 steps are clearly steps from the Bible describing the process of repentance. But the founders realized that the people who need this life and death help are almost universally dead set against Christianity. That is why they had to remove all religious wording from the 12 steps. That and the church has nothing to offer people whose lives are this much in slavery to sin. It takes a very special church which does have a program like this; that has something to offer to people who if they commit one more act of sin it can lead to actual death.

My friend struggled for a long time not understanding how God was clearly working in people's lives freeing them from the power and dominion of sin but it was not saving them in the Gospel context of salvation in Jesus Christ. In fact God was honoring the Scriptural steps He gave in the Bible even where His Name was not named! Those 2 separate categories just did not exist in his mind, though he finally did come to understand it.

We Christians can sit back and contemplate on which comes first -- faith, repentance, or even regeneration. And everyone can have their own differing views. We have the luxury to ponder such things. But these ponderings should always lead us to a higher view of God which is in line with Scripture. And we must make sure our ponderings do not cause us to leave out necessary pieces of the Gospel, and possibly lead us to offering to lost men doctrine (meat) instead of the Gospel (milk).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 21, 2017)

I feel like we are having two different conversations here. As I re-read the L-J piece in the OP, regeneration was not mentioned. He was talking about the relative order of repentance and faith. He argued that because repentance is often mentioned first, that therefore it comes before faith, or maybe it is concurrent with faith. The Auchterarder Creed says the opposite of L-J, at least if "forsaking sin" be the same as "repentance," which I believe it is, at least partially. We do not forsake sin in order to come to Christ. We forsake sin because we have come to Christ through grace. That is a hill upon which I will die, along with all the Marrow Men. The call of the gospel, which is often phrased in terms of repentance, does not indicate for us the order in which the events occur. So I have not mentioned regeneration, but it keeps cropping up as if its relation to repentance and faith is the issue here.

There is a definitional problem which I think is gumming up the works here as well. It is the definition of "repentance." Sometimes, "repentance" can mean something like "conversion," as in a turning away from sin _and_ a turning to Christ. This is a more loose definition. It can be, in this case, almost synonymous with conversion, and encompass a great many things. It seems to me that possibly L-J is using the term in this sense, as are many (again, possibly) in the conversation. This is not the way I have been using the term, nor in the context in which I have been using it. I mean a very specific definition of forsaking sin, which, in the context of the Marrow controversy, was said by the neonomian General Assembly, to be essential _before_ coming to Christ. This is what Boston, the Erskines, and others, following _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_, rejected with abhorrence, but the Marrow position is what the General Assembly rejected as anti-nomian. The simple fact of the matter is that no one can forsake sin unless they are united to Christ by faith. This union produces the _duplex gratia_ of justification and sanctification. 

The biblical pattern is that God regenerates a person by His Holy Spirit, thus producing faith, which unites a person to Christ, thereby laying hold of Christ both in justification-type benefits (justification and adoption), and sanctification type benefits (which start with regeneration and definitive sanctification a la John Murray, and include progressive sanctification to conclude in glorification). The former benefits are benefits of status the occur outside the person, whereas the latter benefits happen inside a person. Justification happens at the same time as definitive sanctification (distinct, yet inseparable). It happens as the result of faith. I hold that union with Christ is the umbrella benefit that houses all the others. Repentance is a necessary part of sanctification, but it cannot precede union with Christ.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 21, 2017)

Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: *repent ye*, and *believe the gospel*.

Act_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;

Act_26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that *they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*
It seems Lane may be correct here. There are various ways in which the term repentance is being used. It seems that some passages are saying to repent and have faith or believe the gospel. Acts is a narrative book and we should be cautious about making any dogmatic doctrinal statements and the formulation of any doctrine from such a book. At the same time some things can't be ignored especially when it has historical context from the past.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Ed, you reaction is quite understandable. It is vitally important, however, not to let a reaction against the contemporary grace movement (as Harry Reeder dubs it) lead us into something equally as problematic, though not equally visibly so.
> 
> The CGM jettisons any idea of a distinct sanctification from the ordo salutis. They are typically correct on justification, incorrect on sanctification. They think that sanctification works the same way as justification. As the Westminster Standards make so clear, however, there is every difference in the world in terms of how they work. Also, the watchwords that help us avoid error in this regard are: distinct yet inseparable.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Justification and sanctification operate in very distinct ways. The Standards make this clear, and the confusion of the two terms (or the conflation of said terms) is the cause of much error in the church today.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 21, 2017)

It seems that the thistles in this thread are the result of two things. First, we're dealing with the Ordo Salutis and, while we can only deal with that within the confines of space and time, God exists outside these realms, and he is in complete control of the Ordo. We all agree that we're limited in our understanding of these concepts, but they're so majestic that our contemplation of them almost forces us to strain against our limitations--and not necessarily in a sinful way. We're honestly groping for understanding. It's important to remember that when we're using our minds best that activity will drop us to our knees--or at least it should. We cannot think outside the constraints of chronology; God created chronology. 

Second, the Lloyd-Jones quotes at the outset are problematic to the discussion. Not that the quotes reveal any aberrant theology, so much as they indicate incomplete thought. It's simply impossible to deal with everything simultaneously; and anyone who has ever preached will know the frustration of leaving the pew thinking, "I left something out. What was I thinking?" Lloyd-Jones doesn't deal with regeneration in the quotes. And we must realize that regeneration must come first, chronologically, for any discussion of the chronology of repentance/faith or faith/repentance to make any sense. 

It's always helped me to think of the act of initial-justifying faith as, in a manner of speaking, an act of initial repentance. The first time you believe you have actually repented of your previous unbelief.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

