# The Trend to Claim that Repenting of Sin is "Works"



## Vox Oculi (Jan 8, 2016)

Found something to provoke discussion.

Here's the gist: One of the internet-warrior heretic(?) types I've run into this year on FB has been the "repentance is works" guys. They claim -- and as far as I can tell, correctly -- that the Scripture doesn't ever use the specific word "repent" with "from sin" as the object. They claim that the exhortation to people to repent of their sin and trust in Jesus Christ is preaching works-based soteriology.

Now, the Scripture very clearly teaches two things I'm aware of that address this claim:
1. Timothy and Acts both contain verses that express that repentance is a GIFT from God. Just like faith, and faith is not a work. So repentance is not a work. 
2. Now, they might complain that that's "repentance" and not "repentance of sin," but the second point is simply that there are repeated exhortations to leave one's lifestyle of sin, stop sinning, turn from sin, die to sin, be freed from sin, etc. So the meaning conveyed by the phrase "repent of your sins" is clearly taught in Scripture.

I suppose that my specific question is whether there are any further silver bullets to deal with this, or more specific arguments than what I brought up here already, or perhaps it's the case that the Bible does somewhere use 'repent of sin' as a sort of proof-text that can be used?

Basically, how would you go about demonstrating that repenting of sin is not a work and that it is clearly taught in Scripture to go hand in hand with regeneration/salvation?

Would you consider promoters of this belief heretics? Where does it come from? Or is it genuine error resulting from misdirected zeal? Also curious how you'd tackle that.


----------



## Toasty (Jan 8, 2016)

> Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
> 
> Acts 3:19



In Acts 3:19, repent and returning to God are connected with your sins being wiped away.



> But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.
> 
> Acts 26:16-20



In the above passage, turning from darkness to light is connected with the forgiveness of sins. "Performing deeds appropriate to repentance" means that one's life or conduct will demonstrate whether repentance has taken place. Repentance is a change of the heart and a change of life or conduct is a consequence of having a changed heart.

We also know that justification by faith alone is taught in Philippians 3:9, Romans 3:28, and Galatians 2:16. 

Both faith and repentance occur at conversion. Faith is the sole instrument that receives justification and repentance accompanies faith. Even though repentance accompanies faith, it is not the instrument that receives justification.

God grants people the ability to believe in Christ (Philippians 1:29).

Repentance is a gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25).


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 8, 2016)

Thanks for the reminder about "bearing fruit in keeping with repentance". That at very least implies that true repentance is closely associated with fruit.


----------



## Paul1976 (Jan 8, 2016)

There is an excellent article on Monergism about the so-called "Free Grace" movement. Their basic problem is simple. People from Calvinistic denominations gradually drifted into full-blown Arminianism, but perseverance didn't drift quite the same way; it morphed into eternal security. The trouble is, eternal security and Arminianism don't make much sense together. Consequently, much the Bible doesn't make much sense to them either, and they have to substantially redefine words and develop very convoluted theological escapes from what the Bible can't possibly teach in their minds. If you want to understand their mindset, read this article.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html

This group really does redefine words. Look at one of their books on what biblical terms actually mean:

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Most-Misunderstood-Words-Bible/dp/0978877381/

They also HATE actual Calvinists (they would call anyone qualifying for membership here a hypercalvinist, or worse). My mother has been drawn into this teaching, and I have had very little success with helping her to see the danger. So, if you find anything more helpful than this, please let me know.


----------



## timfost (Jan 8, 2016)

Faith and repentance are both works. This is why they can both be commanded and why it is sinful disobedience if neglected. However, while they are works, they do not merit our salvation themselves, nor does God count them as the whole obedience of the law themselves as Arminian/neonomian theology teaches. Rather, faith is the instrument by which we receive our justification (based on Christ's perfect obedience to the law), not that which merits justification (see Rom. 1:5, 2 Thes. 1:3 which demonstrate that faith is obedience and a work). Furthermore, Christ merits faith and grants repentance to all of the elect in time. This, however, doesn't mean that we should not command all to repent and believe since all men are under obligation to obey all of God commands.

What you describe is classic hyper-Calvinism and antinomianism. The Westminster explicitly denies that there are two covenants of grace since they opposed the heresy promoted by Tobias Crisp which taught that the first covenant of grace had conditions (Mosaic covenant) but that the new covenant of grace instituted by Christ had no conditions. The antinomianisms held this doctrine to justify that law keeping is part of the old covenant of grace, not the new.


----------



## timfost (Jan 8, 2016)

Also, compare the reasoning of repentance being a work with this Gospel Standard Article (a hyper-Calvinist confession if you're not familiar with it):



> DUTY FAITH AND DUTY REPENTANCE DENIED
> 
> XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and
> savingly repent and believe1. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God2 of themselves.
> ...


----------

