The Geneva Bible's Definition of "Repent" in Matthew 3:2

The Geneva Bible is particularly well-liked by Calvinists because it contains marginal notes that promote the theology of John Calvin. The Geneva Bible may as well be called "The John Calvin Study Bible" because it was Calvin who first penned the marginal notes found within its pages. The Preface to the Geneva Bible also features a 16-page letter written by Calvin in which he endorses the Geneva Bible. In light of all this, it's interesting what the Geneva Bible's marginal note for the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 says, because the marginal note actually supports the Free Grace definition of repentance!

Those who are familiar with the history of the Geneva Bible know that the marginal notes have been updated since it was first published, which I will get to in just a minute. So in order to understand what I'm talking about in this post you need to understand that there are the original marginal notes and the revised marginal notes. Of course the original marginal note for Matthew 3:2 written by John Calvin in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible conveys his view of repentance: sorrow for sin and changing one's life for the better.[1] Calvin's marginal note for the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 reads: "Or, be sorry for your past faults, and amend." But is this the true meaning of the Greek word in the New Testament?

In 1576 Laurence Tomson (1539-1608), a staunch Calvinist, revised the text and marginal notes of the New Testament in the Geneva Bible.[2] Tomson's notes on the New Testament are based largely on his translation of Theodore Beza's text and Annotations. (Beza was a disciple of John Calvin who lived most of his life in Geneva.) What's interesting is that in contrast to John Calvin, Tomson (following Beza) actually goes back to the original Greek of the New Testament to define the word "Repent"! In updated editions of the Geneva Bible with Tomson New Testament, the marginal note for the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 now says: "The word in the Greek tongue signifieth a changing of our minds and hearts from evil to better." This is very significant because Reformed theologians such as Wayne Grudem, for example, argue that the Free Grace "change of mind" definition of repentance is not supported by any standard lexicon or other reference work on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament.[3] But here in the Geneva Bible we have a Calvinist saying exactly the opposite!

Unfortunately, the updated Geneva Bible sometimes still translates the word "Repent" as "Amend your lives" (e.g. Mt. 4:17; Lk. 13:3, 5, Acts 3:19, etc. in the Geneva Bible), but that's what I would expect from a Bible written largely under the influence of John Calvin. Do people have to "amend their lives" to get saved? That's works salvation!

Thank you Laurence Tomson for going back to the original Greek, at least in Matthew 3:2, to define the word "Repent"!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Although the marginal notes in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible may not have been personally written by Calvin himself, the Genevan revisers were at least "in consultation with" him. For more information see the article "The Geneva Bible (1557-1560)", excerpted from the article "English Versions" by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon in the Dictionary of the Bible edited by James Hastings, and published by Charles Scribner's Sons of New York in 1909 (www.bible-researcher.com/geneva6.html). Irene Backus furthermore notes that the Genevan revisers were "considerably influenced by" Calvin's 1558 revision of the French Geneva Bible. For more information see the doctoral thesis by Irena Dorota Backus, "Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament", p. 20.

[2] For more information see the book: Hope's Anchor: A History of the Geneva Bible, Vol. 6 (London: The Olive Tree, 1974), by Lewis Lupton.

[3] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway, 2016), pp. 63-64.

What Free Grace Books Don't Teach the "Crossless" or "Groundless" Gospels?

Some time ago I received an email asking if I could recommend any books in relation to Free Grace Theology that don't teach the crossless or groundless gospels? The actual question was: "What books in relation to Free Grace Theology don't teach the crossless or groundless gospels?" I was able to give my recommendations, and then I thought that others might have the same question. So here are some of my thoughts on what Free Grace books don't teach the "crossless" or "groundless" gospels.

    

The Bible is of course the number one source of Free Grace Theology! In Romans 3:24 the apostle Paul  makes it clear that we are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus". You might be wondering, "What version of the Bible should I use?" Personally, I like the New American Standard Bible (NASB). I believe this was also the translation preferred by Dr. Charles Ryrie. Besides the Bible, some other good Free Grace books that I can recommend are ones that are authored by men such as: D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield, William R. Newell, H. A. Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, Warren Wiersbe, David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindoll, Roy B. Zuck, John Walvoord, Norman Geisler, Charlie Bing, — there's more but that's probably enough to get you started.

    

Let me just add one more thought; it should be obvious but let me just mention it for those who might say something like: "So-and-so doesn't agree with you on such and such." I'm not saying that I agree with these men on every single point of doctrine. They don't even agree with each other on every point of doctrine, by the way! For example, I remember listening to Dr. J. Vernon McGee on the radio one time and he was explaining his understanding of Hebrews 6:4-9. McGee mentioned the notes in The Scofield Reference Bible and said that he didn't agree with Scofield's interpretation. Here's what McGee said: "Well, personally I cannot accept this. This was the viewpoint of Matthew Henry. It was the viewpoint of Grant, and Darby, and Dr. C. I. Scofield in his reference Bible, and I certainly recommend that Bible. But I don't think the notes are inspired, and I do not accept that interpretation." Obviously these men's writings aren't inspired. But they have written some very helpful books and I generally recommend them and generally agree with them. The brand of Free Grace promoted by these men is what's called "traditional Free Grace Theology".

Louis Berkhof on Biblical Repentance

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) was a Reformed theologian, yet Free Grace authors consistently cite him in support of their “a change of mind” definition of repentance.¹ Why is this? I have already pointed out several reasons for this in my article: “Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance” (see # 5: “Grudem misrepresents Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof”). I won't repeat those reasons in this article, but here I want to mention yet another statement by Berkhof showing that he does indeed understand repentance in the Bible in the sense of “a change of mind”. Notice what Berkhof says in his Systematic Theology under the heading “THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF REPENTANCE”: 

“According to Scripture repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance.” ²

These statements by Louis Berkhof concerning repentance are indeed (as Charles Bing says in his book Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response) “supporting comments” to the biblical understanding of repentance as “a change of mind” !

ENDNOTES:

¹ See G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 68; Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Santa Monica, 2003), p. 10; Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response (Xulon Press: 2010), pp. 69, 82.

² Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), p. 487. First published in 2 volumes by the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, 1932. Systematic Theology, 1938. Combined edition with new preface, 1996 by the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Note: As I alluded to above, both G. Michael Cocoris and Charles Bing quote this exact statement by Berkhof.

The Scofield Reference Bible on "Repentance"

Repentance, in O.T., Summary, Zechariah 8:14, note:

Repentance (O.T.), Summary: In the O.T., repentance is the English word used to translate the Heb. nacham, to be "eased" or "comforted." It is used of both God and man. Notwithstanding the literal meaning of nacham, it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3. 2; Acts 17. 30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind.¹

Repentance, in N.T., Summary, Acts 17:30, note:

Repentance is the trans. of a Gr. word (metanoia—metanoeo) meaning, "to have another mind," "to change the mind," and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7. 8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may "work" repentance, is not repentance. The son in Mt. 21. 28, 29 illustrates true repentance. Saving faith (Heb. 11. 39, note) includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance.²

ENDNOTES:

¹ C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 972.

² Ibid., p. 1174.

Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 1

Dr. Charles Ryrie

I grew up in a Free Grace church, and this is how I first came to know about Charles Ryrie and his writings. My dad started taking my family and I to this particular church in 1989. I was only about 10 years old. I remember one of the things that made an impression on me was that it seemed like everyone in the church had a Ryrie Study Bible. At the time I didn't understand why, I just thought it was some kind of requirement or something. So of course I was excited when one day my dad gave me my very own Ryrie Study Bible! Like everyone else's, mine had a brown cover and it was in the New American Standard translation. I remember one time in church I accidentally ripped a page in my Ryrie Study Bible and my dad looked at me as if I had committed the unpardonable sin!  I also remember that during the Sunday morning service the pastor often read excerpts from Bob Wilkin's newsletters. (This was before the Grace Evangelical Society started promoting the "crossless gospel".) Now I'd like to explain why this background, especially concerning Charles Ryrie, is important and what does it have to do with the topic of this post?

There are several misleading statements (Q&As) on the back cover of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" book that I think need to be discussed and corrected. The book I'm referring to is titled "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway Publishers, 2016). The first misleading Q&A on the back cover says: 

"Must the gospel message include a call for people to repent of their sins? 'No,' say Free Grace advocates."

That answer is misleading because Charles Ryrie, a well-known "Free Grace advocate" (he was, for example, the 2008 recipient of the Free Grace Alliance's annual Trophy of Grace Award), has said:

"But if repentance means changing your mind about the particular sin of rejecting Christ, then that kind of repentance saves, and of course it is the same as faith in Christ. This is what Peter asked the crowd to do on the day of Pentecost [in Acts chapter 2]. They were to change their minds about Jesus of Nazareth. Formerly they had considered Him to be only a blasphemous human being claiming to be God; now they changed their minds and saw Him as the God-man Saviour whom they would trust for salvation. That kind of repentance saves, and everyone who is saved has repented in that sense." (Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972], p. 139.)

Elsewhere Ryrie similarly says:

"This is what Peter meant by repentance when he was asked by the people what they should do in the light of his message (Acts 2:38). The word repent means, of course, to change one's mind about something. But what that something is is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context. . . . The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 175-176.)

Some Free Grace advocates (like Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin for example) probably would give a "No" answer to the question posed on the back cover of Grudem's book. But Grudem doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge this. Instead, he makes it sound as if all Free Grace advocates would answer "No"—which of course is not true, as I have pointed out above.

But there's more! There's a second Q&A on the back cover of Grudem's book that is similarly misleading. It says:

"Is evidence of a changed life an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? 'No, again,' these advocates say."

Again, let's see what Charles Ryrie says in regards to the question. Does Ryrie say that evidence of a changed life is not an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? By no means! In fact, he says quite the opposite. Notice the following statements by Ryrie:

"Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], p. 45.)

"Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], see pp. 132-134.)

I think all this is important to point out because Grudem is really not being honest with what Free Grace advocates have said, or maybe he just hasn't done his research. Either way, Grudem's book is misrepresenting Free Grace Theology and I would ask him to please contact his publisher and ask them to correct it.

How Crossway Publishers Discriminates Against Free Grace Authors

Crossway Publishers says on it's website that it "exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing" and that it publishes "gospel-centered books." But what gospel are they promoting: the gospel of God's free grace (Rom 3:24), or perhaps something else?

Dr. Charlie Bing's statement about Crossway Publishers is revealing, and I'm going to reproduce it below. To give his statement some context, Dr. Bing is a Free Grace theologian and published author writing a review of Wayne Grudem's book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway Publishers, 2016). At the end of his review, Dr. Bing shares the following information under the heading "Finally, Some Unfortunate Misstatements and Misrepresentations":

"Dr. Grudem also unfairly tries to minimize the academic credibility of Free Grace teachers. He says, rightly so, that many Free Grace authors self-publish or publish with little known publishers (p. 138). He mentions two exceptions: Zane Hodges who published with Zondervan (but he did not mention Bob Wilkin who also published with Zondervan), and myself who published with Kregel. But then he says that my book with Kregel, Simply by Grace, is out of print! [order here] I was so surprised to read this that I immediately contacted the head of Kregel to ask him if this was true. Absolutely not, he said. The fact is, there have been three printings and more than seven foreign translations of this book. I don't know where Dr. Grudem got his information or why he would even want to say this (After correspondence with Dr. Grudem, he said he would tell Crossway to correct the error). There are some other Free Grace authors who have published with major publishers too. But the argument that Free Grace authors don't have academic credibility because they do not have major publishers is akin to the argument that creationists are not credible scientists because they are not professors in our universities. The sobering truth is that evolutionists are in control of who teaches in their universities, and the Reformed Calvinists are largely in control of the publishing industry (and the academic organizations). For example, I know that Crossway, who published Dr. Grudem's book, was asked if they would publish a response by some well-qualified Free Grace scholars. They refused to do so. A couple of years ago, we heard that Dr. Grudem was going to present essentially this same critique of Free Grace theology at the Evangelical Society's Annual Meeting. I submitted a proposal that simply addressed misunderstandings about Free Grace theology (not an attack or direct response to Dr. Grudem), yet I was denied. I have reflected the Free Grace position in books and credible journal articles and presented at least four times in previous years at ETS with no problem. But it seems that all Free Grace presentation proposals were denied that year, though these people have presented before. Dr. Grudem is a recent past president of ETS, as is Thomas Schreiner. What are we to think? I'll leave you to your own conclusions.^"1

I don't want to imply that only Crossway Publishers discriminates against Free Grace authors. There are, no doubt, other publishers and organizations that try to censor Free Grace views, as Dr. Bing implies when he says that "the Reformed Calvinists are largely in control of the publishing industry (and the academic organizations)." 

So what can Free Grace people do about it? Personally, I think I'm going to vote with my wallet. As my dad says, "I'll take my business elsewhere." Thank you very much! In fact, I will happily take my business elsewhere: like to some vendor on Amazon selling the same book used. That way I get the book at a better price and I'm not supporting the error of Calvinism promoted by Crossway Publishers.

ENDNOTE:

¹ Charles C. Bing, A Review of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel.

"Free Grace" Theology: 7 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance

This article is Part 2 of a previous article I wrote titled: “Free Grace  Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”. In this follow-up article, I’m going to cite yet another example of how Wayne Grudem misrepresents both Dr. Bing and the Bible in regards to biblical repentance. 

    

In Grudem's book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, one of the things he says is: “In order to evaluate Bing’s ‘change of mind’ definition [of repentance], in the next two sections we need to examine evidence from Greek lexicons and from English translations of the Bible.”[1] In my previous article which I mentioned above, I showed how Grudem misrepresented the Greek lexicons. In this article I will show how Grudem misrepresents English translations of the Bible.

In evaluating Bing’s “change of mind” definition of repentance, Grudem makes a bold claim in regards to how the English translations of the Bible translate the Greek word metanoeō. Grudem claims that: “ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY ‘REPENT!’ AND NOT ‘CHANGE YOUR MIND!’”[2] In the next sentence, Grudem similarly declares that “the definition of repentance as a mere ‘change of mind’...differs from all widely known English Bible translations.”[3] Grudem then proceeds to quote several Bible verses from the New Testament which translate the Greek words metanoeō and metanoia as repent and repentance, but strangely he never once mentions how repentance (including the word metanoeō in the Septuagint) is translated in the Old Testament! This is especially odd considering the fact that Grudem is evaluating Charlie Bing’s understanding of repentance as “a change of mind,” and Bing does in fact discuss how the word repent is translated in the Old Testament. For example, under the heading “The Meaning of Metanoeō” (p. 69), Dr. Bing discusses the Hebrew word shub and the Hebrew word nacham. Concerning the Hebrew word nacham, Bing writes the following: 

“In the LXX [the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament] the verb [metanoeō] often translates the Hebrew n`h~m [naham, also spelled nacham], ‘to be sorry, to comfort oneself’ (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [BDB, by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1980], s.v. ‘n`h~m [naham],’ pp. 636-37) which shows an emotional element. It is significant, however, that n`h~m [naham] occurs 108 times in the Old Testament, but is used only three times of the repentance of men (Job 42:6; Jer. 8:6; 31:19); and none of these refer to salvation from eternal judgment. For further discussion, see Robert N. Wilkin, ‘Repentance and Salvation, Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament,’ JOTGES 2 (Spring 1989): 26.”[4]

Although Grudem quotes from page 69 of Bing’s book, Grudem never once mentions Bing’s statements on that very page about the Hebrew word nacham. Why is this? Could it be because the Hebrew word nacham (the word often translated metanoeō in the Septuagint) is frequently used in the Old Testament in reference to God Himself and is translated into English in a number of places as “change His mind”! For instance, the New American Standard Bible (NASB), a “widely known English Bible translation,”[5] translates the Hebrew word nacham (metanoeō in the Greek Septuagint or LXX) as “change His mind” in the following instances: 

“And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēsei in LXX]; for He is not a man that He should change His mind [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēsai in LXX].” (1 Samuel 15:29, NASB) 

“For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark, because I have spoken, I have purposed, and I will not change My mind [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēsō in LXX], nor will I turn from it.” (Jeremiah 4:28, NASB) 

“if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēsō in LXX] of the good with which I had promised to bless it.” (Jeremiah 18:10, NASB) 

“The LORD changed His mind [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēson in LXX] about this. ‘It shall not be,’ said the LORD.” (Amos 7:3, NASB) 

“The LORD changed His mind [Heb. nacham / Gr. metanoēson in LXX] about this. ‘This too shall not be,’ said the Lord GOD.” (Amos 7:6, NASB) 

What's more, when I looked up these verses in several of the other "widely known English Bible translations" such as the NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV for example, I noticed that Grudem again misrepresents the facts when he says on page 66 of his book: "These verses and others like them with the English word repent give further evidence that no committee of English Bible translators has agreed with Bing definition, 'change of mind.'" Here Grudem is either not being honest with the facts or he has simply not done his research, because the truth is that actually several committees of English Bible translators have agreed with Bing's definition of repent in the sense of "a change of mind"! I want to point out several more examples in addition to the ones that I mentioned above. Notice how some of the other "widely known English Bible translations" besides the NASB render the same verses:

"Furthermore, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie or change His mind [not: repent], for He is not man who changes his mind [not: repents]." (1 Samuel 15:29, HCSB.)

"The earth will mourn and the heavens will be draped in black because of my decree against my people. I have made up my mind [not: repented] and will not change it." (Jeremiah 4:28, NLT.)

"And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in My sight, not listening to My voice, then I will change My mind [not: repent] about the good that I had intended to do to it." (Jeremiah 18:9-10 NRSV.)

"And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider [not: repent] the good I had intended to do for it."(Jeremiah 18:9-10, NIV.)

"The LORD decided not to do this [not: repented]. 'It will not happen,' the LORD said." (Amos 7:3, NET Bible. There is a translation note in the NET Bible after the words "decided not to do this."  The translation note reads: "Or 'changed his mind about this.'")

"The LORD decided not to do this [not: repented]. The Sovereign LORD said, 'This will not happen either.'" (Amos 7:6 NET Bible. There is a translation note in the NET Bible after the words "decided not to do this." The translation note reads: "Or 'changed his mind about this.'")

Grudem in his book unfortunately never mentions any of these Bible verses which support Dr. Bing's definition of repentance as a "change of mind".

    

Interestingly, in an article titled "The Repentance of God," Lester J. Kuyper notes that in the Pentateuch, the scholars who translated the Greek Septuagint (LXX) shied away from having God repent, because to them: "Repentance or changeableness seemed to be at variance with the omniscience of God....This scruple, however, did not bother the Greek translators of the rest of the OT, for they rather consistently translate NHM [nacham] with metanoeo". Kuyper goes on to say: "The point to be made here is that the LXX apart from the Pentateuch understood this verb [NHM] to mean a change in mind or purpose which occurred when it is said that Jahweh repented."[6] 

    

Sadly, Grudem never once mentions these relevant Old Testament Bible verses which Dr. Bing alluded to in his book.[7] Instead, Grudem simply glosses over a few Bible verses of his own liking (none from the Old Testament), and then quickly concludes “that no committee of English Bible translators has agreed with Bing’s definition, ‘change of mind.’”[8] But here Grudem misrepresents both Dr. Bing and the Bible by failing to mention Dr. Bing’s statements on metanoeō in the LXX and failing to mention the relevant Bible verses in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word nacham and the Greek word metanoeō (in the LXX) are both translated in several instances as “change His mind” in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and similarly in several of the other "widely known English Bible translations"!

    

Grudem makes several remarks in his book about how we should arrive at the proper definition and understanding of saving faith. Grudem's statements about faith are also relevant to repentance because in the Bible, faith and repentance are closely connected (see Jonah 3:5; Matt. 12:41; Acts 20:21, etc.). Grudem correctly points out on page 49 of his book that it "is simply incorrect theological reasoning" to base our understanding of saving faith on only one book in the Bible. He writes:

“The early church rightly condemned the teachings of Marcion (c. AD 85-160), whose canon of Scripture included only eleven books (no Old Testament, and in the New Testament only a shortened Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's thirteen epistles). . . . If other verses in other books of the Bible give us further teaching about the nature of saving faith [and biblical repentance], then we should use those verses as well to help us understand faith [and repentance]. These other verses are also part of "all Scripture," which is given to us by God to be "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). . . . We should use every relevant passage in the whole Bible to define the nature of saving faith [and repentance].”[9] 

Grudem is correct here in urging us to take into consideration both Old Testament and New Testament: "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), to help us understand saving faith. Should we not also appeal to both the Old Testament and New Testament when seeking to understand biblical repentance? Grudem would do well to apply his reasoning equally to both faith and repentance! But unfortunately in the chapter of his book where he deals with the subject of repentance (Chapter 2: "No Call to Repent of Sins"), Grudem only quotes three Bibles verses from the Old Testament, all from the book of Isaiah (Isa. 6:5 [Grudem quotes Isaiah 6:5 but incorrectly gives the verse reference as "Isa. 6:15."], 55:6-7), and provides no exegesis to show if these verses even support his understanding of repentance. In fact, thinking of Grudem's bold claim that supposedly "ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY 'REPENT!' AND NOT 'CHANGE YOUR MIND!'"[10], the three Bible verses that Grudem quotes from the Old Testament don't even meet his qualification that "ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY 'REPENT!'" So how did Grudem pick these three Bible verses if they don't even use the word "repent"?

    

The fact that the Hebrew word nacham and the Greek word metanoeō (in the LXX) are both translated in the NASB and in other "widely known English Bible translations" in several places as “change His mind” (in reference to God) and not "repent" as in most English Bible translations, poses a real problem for Grudem because his entire premise is that repentance in the Bible does not simply mean “a change of mind” but in his view it must also include things like "a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ." Thus it’s no surprise (but it is sad) that Grudem in his book omits any and all discussion of this relevant biblical material from the Old Testament cited by Dr. Bing that I have discussed in this article. Just more evidence that Grudem misrepresents both Dr. Bing and the Bible.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 56.

[2] Ibid., p. 64. It’s a bold claim to say that “ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS [OF THE BIBLE] SAY ‘REPENT!’ AND NOT ‘CHANGE YOUR MIND!’” Let's examine the first half of Grudem's premise. Is it true that all English translations of the Bible say "repent" for metanoeō, or is Grudem once again misrepresenting the facts? Let's take a closer look. Grudem in his book goes on to explain: “This verb [metanoeō] is translated as ‘repent’ in the following Bible versions: KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, HCSB, NLT, RSV, and NRSV.” (Ibid., p. 64.) Okay, but that’s not “ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS” as Grudem initially claimed. The truth is (and this is most obvious), not all English translations of the Bible say “repent” when translating the Greek word metanoeō. Personally, I like how J. B. Phillips translates Matthew 3:2 (and similar verses with the word metanoeō). The Phillips translation says, “You must change your hearts—for the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived!” This translation of Matthew 3:2 supports Dr. Bing’s understanding of repentance, and disproves Grudem's sweeping claim that "ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY 'REPENT!'" In regards to the fact that the Phillips translation of Matthew 3:2 (and similar verses) supports Dr. Bing's understanding of repentance, even Grudem affirms this in a footnote in his book (p. 56, footnote 13) when he writes: “Bing says that ‘it is also accurate to translate the word repentance as a change of heart.’” Charles Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How to Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages (The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2015), 51.” So we see that contrary to what Grudem has claimed, not “ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY ‘REPENT!’”

[3] Ibid., p. 64.

[4] Charles C. Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition (Xulon Press, 2010), p. 69, footnote 40.

[5] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, p. 64. Grudem has good things to say about the New American Standard Bible (NASB), although he personally prefers the English Standard Version (ESV). In an article titled "The Advantages of the English Standard Version (ESV) Translation," Grudem categorizes the NASB as an "essentially literal" translation and gives this summary: "In 1971, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) was published by the Lockman Foundation. It was precise and accurate in its word-for-word literalness, and for that reason it became especially popular among pastors who did verse-by-verse and word-for-word expository preaching." Grudem goes on to say that "the NASB, [is] widely respected for its accuracy" (pp. 8-9).

[6] Lester J. Kuyper, “The Repentance of God”, Reformed Review (Vol. 18, No. 4, May 1965), see pp. 6-7, bold added. Dr. Scofield understands the Hebrew word nacham similarly; his note on the word “Repentance” in the Old Testament in The Scofield Reference Bible is instructive. Commenting on the word “repented” in Zechariah 8:14, Dr. Scofield  writes the following: “Repentance (O.T.), Summary: In the O.T., repentance is the English word used to translate the Heb. nacham, to be ‘eased’ or ‘comforted.’ It is used of both God and man. Notwithstanding the literal meaning of nacham, it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3.2; Acts 17.30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such, as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind.” (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 Edition, p. 972, footnote 2.)

[7] See Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation, p. 69, footnote 40.

[8] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, p. 66.

[9] Ibid., pp. 49-50, 54-55. Note: Grudem affirms that repentance is implied together with faith. He writes that “we should regard repentance and faith as two closely connected parts of one overall action, parts that cannot be separated.” (Ibid., p. 45.)

[10] Ibid., p. 64.

A Review of Philip L. Simpson's "Response to the Free Grace Movement" (My Initial Thoughts)

I received an email from a friend of mine yesterday asking if I could "give a good refutation" to Philip L. Simpson's article titled: "Response to the Free Grace Movement". It must have been the Lord's perfect timing, because actually, writing a response to Simpson's article has been on my mind lately, even before my friend inquired about it. I asked my friend if I could post his question because I thought it was helpful to show the true nature of Lordship Salvation. My friend gave me permission to post his question, of which the following statements are excerpted:

Jon this scares me. can you look at it? https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html 

I replied by saying:

I've looked at the article. Why does it scare you?

My friend wrote back:

It seems to be proof Free Grace is false. Can you give a good refutation? It's my only hope. No, really. If Lordship Salvation is true, there's no hope for me!

In reply I sent my friend an email with some of my initial thoughts about Phillip L. Simpson's article which I will share in just a minute, but first I want to share what I wrote back to my friend in regards to when he said: "If Lordship Salvation is true, there's no hope for me!" I replied:

I like what you said about if Lordship Salvation is true then there's no hope for you, because it highlights how Lordship Salvation is law, not grace. I think people need to realize that Lordship Salvation is a works-based system of bondage where God's "grace" is only doled out to those who measure up to and maintain some standard of good works. So in essence, Lordship Salvation is a "pay to play" system of salvation reserved only for those who are willing to pay the ultimate price of full submission and total commitment to Christ's Lordship.

Now I'd like to share some of my initial thoughts about Simpson's article.  This is basically what I emailed back to my friend except that I have expanded on some thoughts for the sake of clarity:

I guess if I agreed with Bob Wilkin's version of Free Grace theology then Phillip L. Simpson's article might concern me. But I don't agree with Wilkin's version of Free Grace theology. Notice the subtitle of Simpson's article: "A Biblical Response to the Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and the Grace Evangelical Society [founded by Bob Wilkin]". Those three men cited by Simpson don't hold to the traditional Free Grace position on a number of theological issues, such as: the gospel, the definition of repentance [although Dillow says his views on repentance are "similar" to those of Charles Ryrie], repentance as a requirement for salvation, the definition of faith, the inevitability of spiritual fruit in the Christian's life [although Hodges believed that "there will be good works in the life of every believer in Christ"], eschatology (i.e. the definition of the overcomer, inheriting the kingdom, ruling and reigning with Christ, outer darkness), etc. So Phillip L. Simpson's article is really a response to non-traditional Free Grace Theology. Since I also (along with Simpson) disagree with the non-traditional Free Grace theology as espoused by Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and Bob Wilkin, I agree with many of the points Simpson makes in his article. 

But there is of course much that I disagree with in Simpson's article. I've read over his article a few times and I've noticed that it has a serious lack of exegesis. It's basically a gloss.[1] A more critical reviewer might call Simpson's article nothing more than proof-texting because he basically recites his Lordship Salvation theology and then lists a bunch of Bible verses without much, if any, explanation. I want to borrow a statement from the well-known Free Grace advocate Charlie Bing when he says something in reference to Wayne Grudem's book, but I want to also apply Bing's statements to Phillip L. Simpson's article because what Bing says is applicable to both. Dr. Bing writes, "there are a lot of biblical references. But biblical references do not an argument make (A concordance is also 'biblically saturated'). We call the use of biblical references without explanation, exposition, or exegesis in context 'proof-texting.' And that is what we find throughout most of the book."[2] This is also what I found when I read Simpson's article, but it's important to remember that proof-texting is not exegesis.

Also, may I say to anyone out there who may be doubtful or "on the fence" about Free Grace theology, I would ask that everyone (and this is very important): please recognize that there are at least two or three distinct variations of Free Grace theology being promoted today, namely: traditional Free Grace theology (such as that promoted by Charles Ryrie and Charlie Bing), and non-traditional Free Grace theology (such as that promoted by Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society). 

 

References:

[1] I use the word gloss with the meaning: "a deceptively attractive appearance" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). 

[2] Charles C. Bing, A Review of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, October 2016.