Marrow and Lordship salvation controversies

[jayce475]

Hi all,

Was just reading up a bit on the Marrow controversy. I've heard different views on where repentance really is within the salvation plan, where it has to be said to be before faith, after faith or as a fruit of faith. The Lordship salvationists emphasize on the importance of repentance. At times I wonder if this is starting to cross into the boundaries of the Neonomians with their ideas of how there must be a certain form of piety before a man can be saved in any way. There seem to be an awful lot of parallels between the two controversies, but I can't get my head around them properly. Anyone out there who can do some comparisons between the two controversies?

 

[CharlieJ]

Yes, some of the writings that fall into the "Lordship" category do indeed err by commanding repentance as a legal condition of the covenant prior to justification. Such a view, while intending to uphold the law, actually deflates it, since the law demands perfection in all it commands. If repentance is a condition, then perfect repentance is the condition, and nothing less. On the other hand, the Scripture and WCF are clear that there is no salvation that is not accompanied by repentance, the WCF calling it an "evangelical grace." Further, MacArthur especially makes a great deal of works in assurance. Of course, works are a means of assurance, but I don't see in MacArthur the nuance and the balance that I find in the Marrow and the WCF.

Michael Horton edited a very useful book entitled Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to find.

 

[jayce475]

Yes, some of the writings that fall into the "Lordship" category do indeed err by commanding repentance as a legal condition of the covenant prior to justification. Such a view, while intending to uphold the law, actually deflates it, since the law demands perfection in all it commands. If repentance is a condition, then perfect repentance is the condition, and nothing less. On the other hand, the Scripture and WCF are clear that there is no salvation that is not accompanied by repentance, the WCF calling it an "evangelical grace." Further, MacArthur especially makes a great deal of works in assurance. Of course, works are a means of assurance, but I don't see in MacArthur the nuance and the balance that I find in the Marrow and the WCF.

Michael Horton edited a very useful book entitled Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to find.

I much prefer the terminology used by the WCF. I bought Michael Horton's book recently, and basically it puts forth repentance as a fruit of saving faith (defined as knowledge, assent and trust in the gospel), rather than being something that is part of conversion in itself. I'm starting to find that this is bringing it too far and undermining repentance slightly since it excludes repentance itself from conversion. Also, it takes the view that assurance of salvation should not be based on self-examination whatsoever and that assurance is the essence of faith, so I'm putting the book aside in favour of the WCF. By placing repentance as a part of conversion (I even heard Jeff Noblit preach that repentance precedes faith), am I committing the same error as the Neonomians? Also, did the Marrow men get it absolutely right without any imbalance?

 

[CharlieJ]

You say you've been reading about the Marrow controversy. Have you actually read the book? If not, I'd suggest you do so. Actually, it would be helpful to know what you are reading on the issue, since different authors will frame the issues differently. Almost all conservative commentators view the Marrow as correctly representing Westminster doctrine, and most also recognize it as the Reformed position, though Lachman equivocates here. Calvin held that repentance was the fruit of faith, as did many others, and all are documented in Boston's notes attached to the book.

It's been years since I read the Horton book, and I remember it being helpful at the time, but if that is the position of the book, it is of course incorrect. The Marrow men, along with the WCF and Reformed orthodoxy, do affirm that "assurance is of the essence of faith" in the sense that there is a fiduciary element in saving faith that appropriates the promise for me. They affirm it in a second sense in that it is only because assurance is of the essence of faith can assurance grow up from faith: “'This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; growing in many to the attainment of a full assurance.' Westm. Confess, chap. 14, art. 3. Now, how faith can grow in any to a full assurance, if there be no assurance in the nature of it, I cannot comprehend" (Thomas Boston). However, they all deny that "of the essence of faith" means that all who believe have an automatic assurance simply by virtue of believing. This is how I interpret WCF 14.3 "This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that..." The WCF here seems to be limiting the application or extent of the doctrine, and the Marrow men agreed with this.

On considering evidences of salvation, Boston gives a chain of assurance. You examine your outward actions to see if they spring from inward mental actions. Then you examine your inward mental actions to see if they derive from a habit of grace. Then you examine that supposed habit of grace to see if it is rooted in justification (as opposed to an attempt to obtain justification). Lastly, you examine whether your belief in your justification is based on a correct faith in Christ. So, outward evidences are a means of assurance, but Christ and our faith in Him is the ultimate ground. I believe that this is in accord with WCF 14.2, which lists first the truth of the promises, then the inward evidences of grace, then the testimony of the Spirit. Trying to measure salvation or assurance by some artificial list of outward works is a poor doctrine indeed.

When Neophytus closes with Christ, Evangelista encourages him to be confident in his salvation, even though Neophytus still has some nagging concerns. His closing with Christ is evidence enough for that moment, although Evangelista expects that as he goes along, he will be provided with additional evidences that will cause his assurance to grow to a full stature.

 

[jayce475]

I intend to read the book soon, so I would like to understand the positions a bit more first lest I get really confused. What I've been reading goes something like this Marrow Controversy
Why are there people equivocating about the Marrow men and their doctrines? What's wrong with it?

I still can't see from scriptures or the WCF how repentance is the fruit of faith. Seems more like a part of conversion. Would I be taking a non-Reformed position by insisting that repentance is not the fruit of faith?

Yes, I absolutely agree with what you're saying with regards to assurance as it is pretty much what the WCF says.

 

[CharlieJ]

I intend to read the book soon, so I would like to understand the positions a bit more first lest I get really confused. What I've been reading goes something like this Marrow Controversy
Why are there people equivocating about the Marrow men and their doctrines? What's wrong with it?

Well, it seems like a logical fallacy to assume that because people think a doctrine is erroneous that there is something wrong with it. The Marrow controversy was fought in 18th century Scotland between "the Marrow men" and the mainline Church of Scotland, which had turned neonomian. So, because the Church was moralist, they found the true grace of the gospel erroneous.

I still can't see from scriptures or the WCF how repentance is the fruit of faith. Seems more like a part of conversion. Would I be taking a non-Reformed position by insisting that repentance is not the fruit of faith?

Yes, repentance is part of conversion. Conversion means a turning, which is also the meaning of repentance, and it is a term which summarizes the initial appropriation of salvation. In the ordo salutis, we're not talking about time order but logical order. Look at WCF 15.2:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

So, repentance begins at conversion, but it cannot be a legal condition placed before justification, because Christ fulfilled all the conditions of the covenant of grace. Even faith is not a legal condition, but simply an instrument. Since repentance can be neither a condition nor an instrument (faith is the sole instrument), there really isn't room for it in the ordo salutis before justification. However, it is an evangelical grace, so God gives it with faith and salvation. In other words, you don't repent to be justified, but all justified people repent.

 

[AC.]

I still can't see from scriptures or the WCF how repentance is the fruit of faith. Seems more like a part of conversion. Would I be taking a non-Reformed position by insisting that repentance is not the fruit of faith?

I think you're overthinking it..... repentance is both a fruit and a part of conversion not either/or

 

[jayce475]

I intend to read the book soon, so I would like to understand the positions a bit more first lest I get really confused. What I've been reading goes something like this Marrow Controversy
Why are there people equivocating about the Marrow men and their doctrines? What's wrong with it?

Well, it seems like a logical fallacy to assume that because people think a doctrine is erroneous that there is something wrong with it. The Marrow controversy was fought in 18th century Scotland between "the Marrow men" and the mainline Church of Scotland, which had turned neonomian. So, because the Church was moralist, they found the true grace of the gospel erroneous.

I still can't see from scriptures or the WCF how repentance is the fruit of faith. Seems more like a part of conversion. Would I be taking a non-Reformed position by insisting that repentance is not the fruit of faith?

Yes, repentance is part of conversion. Conversion means a turning, which is also the meaning of repentance, and it is a term which summarizes the initial appropriation of salvation. In the ordo salutis, we're not talking about time order but logical order. Look at WCF 15.2:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

So, repentance begins at conversion, but it cannot be a legal condition placed before justification, because Christ fulfilled all the conditions of the covenant of grace. Even faith is not a legal condition, but simply an instrument. Since repentance can be neither a condition nor an instrument (faith is the sole instrument), there really isn't room for it in the ordo salutis before justification. However, it is an evangelical grace, so God gives it with faith and salvation. In other words, you don't repent to be justified, but all justified people repent.

I appreciate that the neonomians were moralists, just wondering about the actual balance of the Marrow men. Think I'll probably need to go to the book to get a proper sense of that.

What if I disregard the ordo salutis altogether when it comes to justification, regeneration, repentance and the granting of faith? The way Michael Horton put it, it seemed as though repentance is a part of progressive sanctification, which I do not really agree with.

 

[AC.]

I think the issue is when we find the command repent in the Bible it is often preceived as something within our abitlity.

But true repentance cannot be carried out prior to justifaction, although it does obviously coincide with conversion.

The Reformed View basically renders the commands of scriptures useless without the grace of GOd manifest via the shed blood of Christ, no? But where does man's responsbility come to play? I guess the fact that God's Word enlightens the mind and makes the truths of the Gospel known...but are of none effect without God's effectual call/irresistible grace.....

 

[MW]

John Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):

Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered through the preaching of the gospel in order that the sinner, freed from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of vices, may cross over into the Kingdom of God, surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of his past life into the right way, and applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance. There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.

 

[jayce475]

I think the issue is when we find the command repent in the Bible it is often preceived as something within our abitlity.

But true repentance cannot be carried out prior to justifaction, although it does obviously coincide with conversion.

The Reformed View basically renders the commands of scriptures useless without the grace of GOd manifest via the shed blood of Christ, no? But where does man's responsbility come to play? I guess the fact that God's Word enlightens the mind and makes the truths of the Gospel known...but are of none effect without God's effectual call/irresistible grace.....

Calling absolutely must precede conversion since Rm 8:30 says so. Repentance is a purely God's grace, as in the procurement of true saving faith. So God gives both, and both will need to happen before a person can be soundly saved at the point of conversion. Does the ordo salutis of repentance, faith and justification really matter all that much? Mark 1:15 calls for both repentance and belief, so I am not really convinced that a person can logically be justified without repentance. Then again, does it matter? A new convert who is soundly saved will be repentant, be trusting in the gospel and fully justified before God, even if he hasn't started to manifest the fruits of the spirit and bear the different marks of grace. I'm wondering about how wrong the neonomians really were.

Calling repentance a fruit of faith, as Michael Horton has done in his book, places it into the same realms with the other fruits of the spirit described in Galatians. Surely they are rather different, as without repentance, "ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). Not all will bear all the fruits of the spirit, so then repentance may also be a fruit that some may fail to bear. Of course that's nonsense, and I just think that this kind of language is opening us up to antinomianism.

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

John Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):

Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered through the preaching of the gospel in order that the sinner, freed from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of vices, may cross over into the Kingdom of God, surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of his past life into the right way, and applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance. There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.

Thanks for that Rev Matthew. This clears things up, though I'm still wondering about the need to say that repentance is born of faith and where justification necessarily fits in. Also, unless I have grossly misread Michael Horton's often recommended book, I think he's somewhat off balance in representing Calvin's position.

 

[AC.]

do really want to be confused, check this out - http://www.sfofgso.org/sermons/Perkins_Order_Salvation.pdf

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/perkins.html

 

[jayce475]

do really want to be confused, check this out - http://www.sfofgso.org/sermons/Perkins_Order_Salvation.pdf

Calvinism Soteriology Topics

However little I got out of that, it seems that repentance is being placed as a fruit of sanctification, which is pretty much the issue. Beyond that, that chart is precisely why I'm wondering about the need to have an ordo salutis for some parts of salvation.

 

[AC.]

Enjoying God Ministries

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/

http://covenantofgracechurch.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=20

A lot of the Reformed research I've come across, if I'm reading it right, is putting repentance & faith with conversion (Acts 3:19) and prior to justification

 

[jayce475]

Anthony,

Precisely, and what's on that Monergism.com page is what I'm leaning toward so but many seem to disagree with me. And if this is the case, then repentance is a "condition" for justification, legal or otherwise. So what do we reconcile that with what Charlie has said?

Yes, some of the writings that fall into the "Lordship" category do indeed err by commanding repentance as a legal condition of the covenant prior to justification. Such a view, while intending to uphold the law, actually deflates it, since the law demands perfection in all it commands. If repentance is a condition, then perfect repentance is the condition, and nothing less. On the other hand, the Scripture and WCF are clear that there is no salvation that is not accompanied by repentance, the WCF calling it an "evangelical grace"

 

[AC.]

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------

It should be noted that the first three columns to do not reflect chronological occurrences, since the moment the sinner is regenerated, in that moment he repents and places his confidence in Christ’s saving work, and in that same moment God justifies, definitively sanctifies, and adopts and seals him.

Scroll Down the page of this link and note the columns:

Covenant of Grace Church - THE ORDER OF THE APPLICATION OF SALVATION - Doctrines of Salvation - News

 

[jayce475]

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------

It should be noted that the first three columns to do not reflect chronological occurrences, since the moment the sinner is regenerated, in that moment he repents and places his confidence in Christ’s saving work, and in that same moment God justifies, definitively sanctifies, and adopts and seals him.

Scroll Down the page of this link and note the columns:

Covenant of Grace Church - THE ORDER OF THE APPLICATION OF SALVATION - Doctrines of Salvation - News

This order is no different from the one on Monergism.com with the exception of "definitive santification" of which its effects I am still rather uncertain of. In these schemes, repentance IS a condition for salvation, though it is absolutely given to us by the grace of God. And this would mean that Charlie's quote and the positions taken in Michael Horton's book are not accurate. These schemes are representative of the Lordship salvation position and differ slightly from Calvin's quote that Rev Winzer has given us, as they do not separate logically separate repentance and faith.

 

[cih1355]

As soon as a person is regenerated, God causes that person to rely on Christ alone for their salvation and to turn away from their sins. Both repentance and faith are involved in conversion. Faith means to trust, to rely on, or to depend upon. Faith is the sole instrument that receives justification. It is not the act of avoiding evil that receives justification. It is not your changed life that receives justification. It is not your good works that receive justification. Faith alone is what receives justification. God grants both faith and repentance upon conversion, but it is only faith that receives justification.

 

[cih1355]

The Marrow Controversy had to do with the Auchterarder Creed, which said the following: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” In 1717, William Craig would not affirm this creed during his ordination trials before the Presbytery of Auchterarder. This creed was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Marrow Men believed that the creed was true, but the Neonomians believed that it was false.

Must we forsake our sin in order to come to Christ? The Marrow Men said "No", but the Neonomians said, "Yes."

Lordship salvation teaches that "the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority." (The Gospel According to the Apostles by John MacArthur p. 23)

In Lordship salvation, repentance is defined as a change of heart, a change of the mind, affections, and will.

 

[jayce475]

The Marrow Controversy had to do with the Auchterarder Creed, which said the following: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” In 1717, William Craig would not affirm this creed during his ordination trials before the Presbytery of Auchterarder. This creed was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Marrow Men believed that the creed was true, but the Neonomians believed that it was false.

Must we forsake our sin in order to come to Christ? The Marrow Men said "No", but the Neonomians said, "Yes."

Lordship salvation teaches that "the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority." (The Gospel According to the Apostles by John MacArthur p. 23)

In Lordship salvation, repentance is defined as a change of heart, a change of the mind, affections, and will.

So to you how similar is this definition of Lordship salvation to the position of the Neonomians that sin must be forsaken in order to come to Christ? They do sound awfully similar to me.

God grants both faith and repentance upon conversion, but it is only faith that receives justification.

This sounds rather reasonable, but such clarity is new to me. What then do we make of the following verses?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

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;

Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

 

[Marrow Man]

Reading The Marrow is always recommended!

 

[AC.]

I don't like the term condition to be applied here. regeneration, conversion (faith & repentance), justification, adoption, etc....all occur simotaneously (some elements of salvation are divine acts other parts human activities). So not all of the order of salvation is chronological, many aspects are equally instintaneous.

I disagree with saying that repentance is a 'condition', repentance is a mark of the true convert and cannot be seperated from conversion or justifcation....this is what the link I posted affirms.

I think the issue with the Marrow Men, if I understand it correctly....is that we can come to Christ as we are, sins and all. Christ came to save sinners. Of course we are sorrowful and repentant sinners, but sinners nonetheless. We are not expected to conquer sin prior to coming to Christ as a 'condition' for acceptance.

I'm not sure if I have this right? Am I in the ballpark???

 

[MW]

Going back to the Calvin quotation, which was used as a source in the Marrow Controversy, it is clear that repentance is defined as both a fruit and an accompaniment of faith. We must affirm both. As the Shorter Catechism says, repentance is a saving grace, hence it must accompany faith; but it also says that a sinner turns from his sin to God with an "apprehension of God's mercy," which means repentance springs from faith.

 

[rbcbob]

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

Calvin Comments:

Then hath God. Luke doth briefly declare in these words what the gospel containeth, and to what end it tendeth, to wit, that God may reconcile men to himself, being renewed by his Spirit. The word repentance alone is expressed in this place, but when he addeth unto life, it appeareth plainly that it is not separated from faith. Therefore, whosoever will rightly profit in the gospel, let him put off the old man, and think upon newness of life, (Eph 4:22); that done, let him know for a certainty that he is not called in vain unto repentance, but that there is salvation prepared for him in Christ. So shall it come to pass, that the hope and assurance of salvation shall rest upon the free mercy of God alone, and that the forgiveness of sins shall, notwithstanding, be no cause of sluggish security. This member, to give repentance, may be expounded two manner of ways; either that God granted to the Gentiles place for repentance, when as he would have his gospel preached to them; or that he circumcised their hearts by his Spirit, as Moses saith, (De 30:6), and made them fleshy hearts of stony hearts, as saith Ezekiel, (Eze 11:19). For it is a work proper to God alone to fashion and to beget men again, that they may begin to be new creatures; and it agreeth better with this second sense; it is not so much racked, and it agreeth better with the phrase phraseology of Scripture.

 

[cih1355]

The Marrow Controversy had to do with the Auchterarder Creed, which said the following: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” In 1717, William Craig would not affirm this creed during his ordination trials before the Presbytery of Auchterarder. This creed was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Marrow Men believed that the creed was true, but the Neonomians believed that it was false.

Must we forsake our sin in order to come to Christ? The Marrow Men said "No", but the Neonomians said, "Yes."

Lordship salvation teaches that "the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority." (The Gospel According to the Apostles by John MacArthur p. 23)

In Lordship salvation, repentance is defined as a change of heart, a change of the mind, affections, and will.

So to you how similar is this definition of Lordship salvation to the position of the Neonomians that sin must be forsaken in order to come to Christ? They do sound awfully similar to me.

God grants both faith and repentance upon conversion, but it is only faith that receives justification.

This sounds rather reasonable, but such clarity is new to me. What then do we make of the following verses?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

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;

Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

I think the Neonomians were teaching that one had to repent of his sins first before coming to Christ. Is this what they taught? If so, this is false. We come to Christ just as we are.

Proponents of Lordship salvation do not teach that one must repent of his first before coming to Christ.


This is what chapter 15 section 3 of the WCF says about repentance:
III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

Both faith and repentance are involved in conversion. I don't believe that a person has to repent of his sins before coming to Christ. Repentance does not cause God to forgive you. However, there is no pardon without it.

 

[jayce475]

John Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):

There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree.

I think I totally misread this portion of the quote. So yes, there is an aspect of repentance which is sprung out of faith, but that is also the other aspect of it that accompanies faith. Perhaps it is the latter that is under consideration here.

This is what chapter 15 section 3 of the WCF says about repentance:
III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

Yes, absolutely. And if this is the case, can we not term repentance a condition for the pardon of sins? Or is the doctrine of salvation by faith alone undermined if we use such a terminology? Repentance is not a condition for coming to Christ, otherwise we would have fallen into the same error as the neonomians.

Repentance does not cause God to forgive you.

Would we be right to say this? If the pardon of sins requires both genuine repentance and true saving faith, which come side by side at the logical point of conversion and are both given by God, then repentance does yield forgiveness, just that it also needs to be accompanied by true saving faith.

All in all, I think I'm stuck in the mindset that following regeneration, the equation is faith+repentance=pardon of sins (justification?). Is such a thinking problematic?

 

[MW]

All in all, I think I'm stuck in the mindset that following regeneration, the equation is faith+repentance=pardon of sins (justification?). Is such a thinking problematic?

That would be very problematic. It is faith alone that justifies because faith is receptive of Christ and His righteousness. While we must insist that repentance is an accompanying condition of justification we must not give any impression that it is a component of justification or instrumental in any way. But to say "faith+repentance=pardon of sins" is to make repentance a component of justification in the same way that the numeral is a component of a mathematical sum. This is to make repentance instrumental and turns justification into a mixture of faith and works.

 

[jayce475]

All in all, I think I'm stuck in the mindset that following regeneration, the equation is faith+repentance=pardon of sins (justification?). Is such a thinking problematic?

That would be very problematic. It is faith alone that justifies because faith is receptive of Christ and His righteousness. While we must insist that repentance is an accompanying condition of justification we must not give any impression that it is a component of justification or instrumental in any way. But to say "faith+repentance=pardon of sins" is to make repentance a component of justification in the same way that the numeral is a component of a mathematical sum. This is to make repentance instrumental and turns justification into a mixture of faith and works.

After taking a harder look at Ephesians 2, I now see what you mean. So faith that is not accompanied by repentance is not true saving faith, but yet repentance contributes nothing whatsoever to our justification. When James talk about faith without works being dead, was he referring to the more general fruits of the spirit, or was repentance also a part of those "works"? My understanding thus far is that repentance is largely monergistic, but there may also an aspect of it that may be synergistic (that which is sprung forth from faith?). Wondering if that is correct. Considering the beatitudes, it appears to me that repentance as a "work" has a different place compared to other good fruits brought forth by progressive sanctification. Is that a fair understanding?

Okay, with that sorted out, I'm looking at the Neonomians and Lordship Salvationists. There exist some Lordship Salvationists who make the same error that I was making, which was precisely where I got that misunderstanding of the doctrine from, but are there really any of them who do not make this error? The Neonomians kind of take it a step further and say that the forsaking of sins (the same as repentance?) is necessary before a person can come to Christ. I don't quite get this "coming to Christ". Does it refer to faith or justification or something else?

 

[CharlieJ]

I would say that some Lordship people are inconsistent in their presentation. They can be confusing at times about exactly what a sinner needs to do to be justified, versus what sort of life gives evidence of assurance. But here is a paragraph by John MacArthur that I think gets it right:

"Above all, repentance is not a presalvation attempt to set one's life in order. The call to repentance is not a command to make sin right before turning to Christ in faith. Rather, it is a command to recognize one's lawlessness and hate it, to turn one's back on it and flee to Christ, embracing Him with wholehearted devotion. As J.I. Packer has written, 'The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may not make on their lives.'"

Even here, though, it should be stressed that the instrument of justification is not the change of our will to be "for Jesus" but our reception by faith of Jesus "for me."

 

[jayce475]

I would say that some Lordship people are inconsistent in their presentation. They can be confusing at times about exactly what a sinner needs to do to be justified, versus what sort of life gives evidence of assurance. But here is a paragraph by John MacArthur that I think gets it right:

"Above all, repentance is not a presalvation attempt to set one's life in order. The call to repentance is not a command to make sin right before turning to Christ in faith. Rather, it is a command to recognize one's lawlessness and hate it, to turn one's back on it and flee to Christ, embracing Him with wholehearted devotion. As J.I. Packer has written, 'The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may not make on their lives.'"

Even here, though, it should be stressed that the instrument of justification is not the change of our will to be "for Jesus" but our reception by faith of Jesus "for me."

That quote seems as confusing as ever to me. It just kind of sets him apart from the Neonomians and gives a sound definition of what repentance looks like. Apart from that, it still confuses the issue of the instrument of salvation and makes no clarification on the ordo salutis.