Written Debate With Bob Wilkin of GES...

[BlackCalvinist]

What Is the Gospel ? Does it simply involve believing a set of facts about Jesus or a radical turning from ones' sin to Him ? Is such turning a condition for eternal life, or can one simply acknowledge the fact of Jesus' life, death, payment for sin and resurrection without any change of life or turning from ?

The issue has dire consequences and believers need to know which is most Biblical.

Kerry Gilliard ( Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries, B.S. Bowie State University) will be debating Dr. Robert Wilkin ( Grace Evangelical Society, Ph.D, Dallas Theological Seminary) in a written online debate set to be begin on June 1, 2004. The topic will be [i:254b64c2f1] 'Repentance Is Not Necessary For Eternal Life'[/i:254b64c2f1].

Dr. Wilkin will be arguing the positive (that repentance is NOT necessary for eternal life). Mr. Gilliard will be arguing the negative (repentance IS necessary for eternal life).

[quote:254b64c2f1]Excerpted from [i:254b64c2f1]Confident in Christ[/i:254b64c2f1] (p.199-201), by Robert N. Wilkin:

"Since eternal salvation is by faith alone, what is the role of repentance in eternal salvation? There are three options:
1. Repentance is a condition of eternal salvation since it is a synonym for faith in Christ. Thus, 'He who believes in Me has everlasting life' is identical to 'He who repents has everlasting life.'
2. Repentance is a condition of eternal salvation since it is a necessary precursor to faith in Christ. Thus one cannot believe in Christ until he first repents; that is, until he first recognizes his sinfulness and need of a Savior.
3. Repentance is not a condition of eternal salvation and is neither a synonym for faith in Christ nor a necessary precursor to faith in Christ."
[/quote:254b64c2f1]

Dr. Wilkin holds position number [b:254b64c2f1]3[/b:254b64c2f1].

Mr. Gilliard holds position number [b:254b64c2f1]2[/b:254b64c2f1].

Full details of the debate are posted on the Reaching The World For Christ website discussion board:

http://reachingforchrist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=627

The debate will also be posted on the TheologicallyCorrect.com discussion board.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:419b27ea74] 2. Repentance is a condition of eternal salvation since it is a necessary precursor to faith in Christ. Thus one cannot believe in Christ until he first repents; that is, until he first recognizes his sinfulness and need of a Savior. [/quote:419b27ea74]

If your definition of repentence is simply recognizing "his sinfulness and need of a Savior" then I would probably agree with you. But traditionally, repentence means more than just that. It means to actually turn away from sin, not just recognize the need for salvation. Repentence then under this more traditional definition can only be a fruit of regeneration and faith, not a precursor to it. In other words, one cannot repent until he has faith. Repentence then is necessary, not to have eternal life, but as a necessary fruit or proof that you in fact possess eternal life already.

I have a feeling that this debate is going to end up being a debate of whether works are necessary to be saved. The statment "3. Repentance is not a condition of eternal salvation and is neither a synonym for faith in Christ nor a necessary precursor to faith in Christ," is correct so long as you don't go so far as to say repentence is not required at all. That would be antinomian. Now, his being from DTS, he may actually believe the antinomian idea of the "carnal Christian." I don't know for sure, perhaps you do. I've never heard of this guy.

This is why it's so important to distinguish up front the difference between justification and sanctification.

[Edited on 5-16-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[fredtgreco]

This may help:


[quote:6c571f6008]
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. (WCF 15.3)
Ezek. 16:61-63; 36:31-32; Isa. 43:25
Hosea 14:2, 4; Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7
Luke 13:3, 5; Mark 1:4; Acts 17:30-31
[/quote:6c571f6008]

 

[BlackCalvinist]

This may simplify it all:

Repentance is a grace, granted by God and not a human work. It logically follows regeneration and is immediately afterward followed by faith.

regeneration ---> repent & believe.

The truly regenerate will repent of their sin, because they realize (as Isaiah and many others in scripture who stood in the presence of the Almighty) that God is Holy and they are far from Holy. They realize that to embrace Christ, they [i:c3d01570a1]must[/i:c3d01570a1] turn from their sins.

Again - not a human work, but a fruit of regeneration. Those who have not repented, but claim belief..... should test themselves to see if they are truly in the faith.

 

[raderag]

[quote:6505e8a0c0][i:6505e8a0c0]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6505e8a0c0]
Now, his being from DTS, he may actually believe the antinomian idea of the "carnal Christian." I don't know for sure, perhaps you do. I've never heard of this guy.
[/quote:6505e8a0c0]

He is VERY antinomian. Wilkins, Zane Hodges, and Joe Dillow ahve all promoted the heresy that one can fall away and yet remain in grace. In fact, they teach that there is NO progressive sanctification.

 

[raderag]

Hi,

This issue was one of the issuses that drove me away from dispensationalist to covenant theology. My advice is to not use scriptures that dispensationalist can reasonably through out with their hermunetic, such as the Gosples (kingdom gospel :flaming: ). Rather, ask Dr. Wilkins to explain the first epistle of John.

If you want to understand these guys thinking, you need to read up on the guy who is the intellectual behind this heresy, Zane Hodges.

Try to get his commentary on Hebrews, James, and 1 John.

Here are some links I gathered some time ago. Don't get caught in their Dispensational trap. They cannot through out what John said in his epistle, but they will try to make it meaningless.

Here is some writings on repentance from Zane Hodges.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98may2.html
http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98july1.html

Here, he tries to assert that faith without works really means that the faith saves, but doesn't sanctify.

http://he.net/~zhodges/deadfaith/dfaith.html


Here is a pretty good refutation of his theories. Ironically, the guy refuting ZH theology is also a non-Lordship dispensationalist (pretty close to Ryrie), but he sees the evil in the theology of Zane Hodges. It is useful to know this as he has been very influential in Baptist and Bible church circles.

Let me know what you think.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98july1.html

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by raderag]

 

[raderag]

[quote:104c6f9902][i:104c6f9902]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:104c6f9902]
This may simplify it all:

Repentance is a grace, granted by God and not a human work. It logically follows regeneration and is immediately afterward followed by faith.

regeneration ---> repent & believe.

The truly regenerate will repent of their sin, because they realize (as Isaiah and many others in scripture who stood in the presence of the Almighty) that God is Holy and they are far from Holy. They realize that to embrace Christ, they [i:104c6f9902]must[/i:104c6f9902] turn from their sins.

Again - not a human work, but a fruit of regeneration. Those who have not repented, but claim belief..... should test themselves to see if they are truly in the faith. [/quote:104c6f9902]

Amen to that. To deny repentance is to deny the true work of Grace. It is not unconsequential that the dispensationailst that believe one must repent are generally five point Calvinist.

Another problem with dispensational thinking is their picture of two natures. We have a new nature and a sin nature, and our 'free will' determines which one to follow.

We have a new nature that is our TRUE nature, yet tainted with the sin of the old man. Grace determines that we will repent, not our free will.

 

[Preach]

Kerry,
You wrote that regeneration comes first, then repentance then faith. One thing you may want to clarify is that this is the logical priority, not necessarily the temporal. Know what I mean? Although this does not seem to be the issue at hand, people could become quickly confused if yoy do not qualify logical and temporal priority.

Moreover, when Dr. John H. Gerstner was a student sitting under John Murray. Prof. Murray asked the students the following question: WHICH COMES FIRST, REPENTANCE OR FAITH? Half the class said said repentance, half said faith. Kerry, I think Gerstner said faith. Although, I think he used the word faith to be synonymous with regeneration. Just some thoughts.

 

[fredtgreco]

I think it safer to speak of faith and repentance as coinciding, in the same way that justification and adoption do.