Repentance Human and Divine

[greenbaggins]

William Greenhill has a nice way of putting it that I thought was helpful:

In human repentance there is the change of the will; in divine repentance there is the willing of a change, and that in the thing, not in the will or counsel of God, which are unchangeable (Ezekiel, p. 577).​

 

[Pergamum]

This seems an unbiblical and arbitrary division; I see no distinction in Scripture, only that man is to repent. Here also is the same man expounding Ezekial 33:11 (bolds are mine):

"Obs. 4. Sinners, in what condition soever they be, have no cause to despond or despair of mercy, so that they turn from their evil ways. Let them be great sinners, old sinners, sinners under judgments, ready to be destroyed and cut off by the hands of enemies, as these were, yet if they turn from their sins, there is hope of mercy for them. For,

(1.) God takes pleasure rather in their conversion and salvation, than in their death and destruction: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." If a state say to a company of its subjects, who are traitors, and upon traitorous designs, I have no pleasure in your ways which lead unto death, but my pleasure is that you turn from them and live; is not here a large door of hope opened unto them, whatever their treasons be?

(2.) Lest men, being deeply guilty, should suspect the reality of God herein, (for guilt is full of jealousies,) the Lord swears to it, and that by his life, which is the most unquestionable thing of all, for none doubts whether he be the living God; "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure," &c. So that here is God's word and oath, two sufficient bonds, to secure it.

(3.) Here is God's command and earnest desire of their turning; "Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways." When a man's servant is abroad on some dangerous design, and his master commands him again and again to leave it off, and come home to him; or if the servant be in a deep water, and the master sees he will be drowned if he come not back again, he calls to him, and commands him to return; is not this an argument that he seeks his good, and would have him safe.

(4.) God sets the strongest arguments before them that can be thought of, life and death. If ye go on, there is no hope of mercy, you must die; if you will turn, here is life, ye shall live: here is great mercy. They are not left unto uncertainties, whether they shall have life or no; but life is propounded and offered unto them, and where that is promised there is a wide door of mercy opened. God is troubled at it, that sinners forsake mercy and embrace it not: Why will ye die? Why will ye not turn from your evil ways unto me the living God? Am I so ill a God? Have 1 dealt so unkindly with you, as that you will not come unto me? testify against me, tell me wherein. Like that in Micah vi. 3, "O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me:" if there be any such thing lie in the way, I am ready to remove it.

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/11/william-greenhill-1598-1671-observation.html?m=0



My note: when God calls all men to repentance he does not merely mean temporal repentance.

Of course, here is Charles Spurgeon's assessment:

"I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! may the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error."

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/search/label/Duty-Faith?m=0

 

[greenbaggins]

Perg, I'm not sure to what you're objecting. The Hebrew root "naham" which is the normal word for "repent," is used with God as subject more than once. See Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11. We know from the context of the latter verse (in particular 1 Samuel 15:29) that whatever it is that God does when described by that verb, it is not like what humans do. That is why I think Greenhill is so helpful here. He describes the difference in how it works, thus preserving the idea of change in the situation without positing any change in God. This is standard Reformed doctrine on the subject. The quotations from Greenhill that you brought up have more to do with whether God takes delight in the death of the wicked, which is a different question.

 

[Pergamum]

Perg, I'm not sure to what you're objecting. The Hebrew root "naham" which is the normal word for "repent," is used with God as subject more than once. See Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11. We know from the context of the latter verse (in particular 1 Samuel 15:29) that whatever it is that God does when described by that verb, it is not like what humans do. That is why I think Greenhill is so helpful here. He describes the difference in how it works, thus preserving the idea of change in the situation without positing any change in God. This is standard Reformed doctrine on the subject. The quotations from Greenhill that you brought up have more to do with whether God takes delight in the death of the wicked, which is a different question.

Ok. You posted your quote right after Afterthought in the Free Offer thread made a distinction between duty-repentance and repentance unto life and Duty-faith with duty-saving faith (whatever that is). Then you posted your devotional quote. Seems a coincidence. I thought there was a connection to his denial of the duty of repentance.

Repentence is both a duty and a gift. But some Hypercalvinists denied that faith and repentance were duties because they were gifts (i.e. they believed faith and duty could not be both). Among the Baptists in Spurgeon and Gill's day this was called "The Modern Question."

 

[greenbaggins]

Perg, glad to clear it up: there is no connection at all between my devotional quotation and the other thread.

 

[Afterthought]

Repentence is both a duty and a gift

I will respond in the appropriate thread later, but I think you need to listen more to what is being said and what is not being said. I have affirmed and agree with the above statement. There is a little more to the idea I am trying to express (I'm still mulling over whether it's worth trying to explain again, since it might actually not be as relevant to the discussion as I originally thought), but I was understanding "saving faith" in the other thread in terms of the "gift" side of faith: an evangelical grace. You may believe that what I have explained necessarily implies a denial of duty faith, but that is different from what I have explicitly and intended to affirm: I affirm duty faith.

 

[Pergamum]

I will respond in the appropriate thread later, but I think you need to listen more to what is being said and what is not being said. I have affirmed and agree with the above statement. There is a little more to the idea I am trying to express (I'm still mulling over whether it's worth trying to explain again, since it might actually not be as relevant to the discussion as I originally thought), but I was understanding "saving faith" in the other thread in terms of the "gift" side of faith: an evangelical grace. You may believe that what I have explained necessarily implies a denial of duty faith, but that is different from what I have explicitly affirmed: I affirm duty faith.

Ok, thanks.