In the article "Lordship and Free Grace Salvation: Repentance in Luke-Acts"[1], Jon Pruitt also has a very biased way of categorizing Bible verses as either favoring Lordship or Free Grace Salvation. For example, Pruitt begins by discussing the Greek word epistrephomai, from epistrephō, which means "to turn". (The Greek word epistrephō is mentioned several times in the New Testament in connection with repentance. For example, see Acts 3:19, 11:21, 26:20.) The first occurrence of epistrephō in Luke-Acts is Luke 1:16-17. So according to the Law of First Mention (at least in Luke-Acts), this passage is very significant. And what does it say? It says that the turning is an inward turning of the heart! "And he [John the Baptist] will go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn [epistrepsai] the hearts...." (Luke 1:17; cf. Malachi 4:6). Commenting on Luke 1:16-17, even Pruitt admits: "The angel prophesies that John will return the hearts of the people back to God."[2] This of course supports the Free Grace view of repentance as an internal turning or change of heart/mind.[3] Yet amazingly, Pruitt concludes that "this instance is neutral to the Lordship-Free Grace debate." How is it neutral when it clearly supports the Free Grace view of repentance? If Pruitt were honest with what Free Grace theology teaches, he would point out what Charles Ryrie and others have said in reference to the traditional Free Grace view of repentance. For example, in 1961 Charles Ryrie wrote: “Change of mind is the meaning of the word repent. This is not mere sorrow for sin, though that may be involved; nor is it a mere mental assent to facts. It is the kind of basic change of mind that will result in a change of life and is perhaps best conveyed by the phrase ‘change of heart’ (cf. Rom. 2:5, where lack of repentance is described as an ‘unrepentant heart’).”[4]
ENDNOTES:
[1] Jon Pruitt, "Lordship and Free Grace Salvation: Repentance in Luke-Acts" (April 2008), Liberty University, Senior Honors Theses.
[2] Ibid., p. 8.
[3] For example, Lewis Sperry Chafer (the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote the following about repentance: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times". (L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948], vol. 7, p. 265, emphasis his.)
[4] Charles Ryrie, The Acts of the Apostles - Everyman's Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1961), p. 21, comment on Acts 2:38-41. For more information see my blog post titled: "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians".
Should we really ascribe to Ryrie's comments suggesting that ascent is inadequate, and that true repentance WILL result in a change of life?
ReplyDeleteHi Tom,
ReplyDeleteI had the same thoughts in regards to that quote by Ryrie, but I don't think we have to interpret his statement the way you seem to be taking it. For example, Ryrie said that "the meaning of the word repent" is not "a mere mental assent to facts." In other words, it is more than a mental assent to facts, it is a "change of mind"! For example, a person can mentally assent to the facts of the gospel without trusting in Christ for salvation. Or to say it another way: a lost person can agree that Jesus died for their sins, but still not change their mind and believe in Him for salvation. So while I did question Ryrie's statement as you did, to me it doesn't pose any real theological problem. And in regards to when Ryrie said that repentance "will result in a change of life", again, I don't think we have to interpret that the way Lordship Salvationists do. Notice that Ryrie doesn't say "an outward change of life". So the way that I understand Ryrie's comment is in the sense of 2 Corinthians 5:17, but not the way Lordship proponents interpret it. In other words, as a result of salvation there IS "a change of life" in the sense that the saved individual is "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17)! This is a SPIRITUAL change in the life of the person. In the words of Jesus to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, the person is "born again"/"born from above". Nicodemus didn't understand. He thought Jesus was talking physically. But Jesus was talking SPIRITUALLY. The new birth is an invisible reality, but a reality nonetheless. And how this change of life manifests itself is different for everyone. What's more, the change may not be visible to everyone. Indeed, the change may not even be visible to the person who got saved! In other words, the newly saved person may look the same 5 minutes after he got saved as he did 5 minutes before he got saved! But there IS a change: it is from the old to the new. God sees it, even if others don't. The Bible even says, "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart." But again, how this change manifests itself is different for everyone.
All this relates to what I have been discussing in the comments of my blog post titled "Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith" (posted May 22, 2020). There is a statement by Ryrie from his book So Great Salvation that I think helps clarify what he's saying here about "a change of life". It's when he says:
"For another thing, our Lord said that when someone is converted there is joy in the presence of the angels of God (Luke 15:10). Would that not be fruit that a converted-on-his-death-bed-and-immediately-dying person bears? Not necessarily fruit to be seen by other people (unless there be some moments just before death where family and friends might see or even hear of the change). But fruit seen and appreciated by angels in heaven. The account of a deathbed conversion may bear fruit in the lives of others not so long or long after the person dies. Reports of this happening at funeral services are not uncommon. So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or heaven), sometime (regularly and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately). Fruit, then, furnishes evidence of saving faith. The evidence may be strong or weak, erratic or regular, visible or not. But a saving, living faith works." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [1989 Edition], pp. 46-47.)
Thank you for the reply, I respect and appreciate what you have to say; they're certainly some fair considerations. Some of Ryrie's statements are unfortunately wide open for interpretation and sometimes feels difficult to pair with our message as we attempt to make clear the true Gospel. I feel that the message is only muddied and confused by unclear statements, even by decent, well intended teachers and not only those who do indeed perpetuate a false gospel. I don't pretend to know what exactly Ryrie's intent was behind any one of his statements, but it's similar lingo that's identified bad teachers elsewhere. And though I've read a little and listened a little to Ryrie's words, I haven't read enough to make a confident conclusion for myself as far as his true stand. But that's kind of the point here, is that it should never be confusing or misleading to the hearer at any given juncture; at least that's what we should be striving to carefully do. Anyway, thanks again. And by the way, I'm new to your specific works, haven't read much hear yet, but I appreciated the work you did on the historical usage of "repent". Thanks
ReplyDeleteHi Tom,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful reply. I think there's a lot of truth and wisdom in what you're saying.
Thanks for the feedback on my blog post on the meaning of repentance. Actually, I'm still updating it as I have time. I'm in the process of converting most all of the endnotes into footnotes. Instead of citing the sources after each specific quote, I thought it might be better to instead use footnotes and put the source information (the bibliographic information) at the end of the article. I'm still not sure if that the best way to cite the sources in the blog post, but I thought it might be, so that's what I'm working on now.
In regards to the quote by Ryrie that you referred to, let me just share a few thoughts. I don't want to give the impression that I agree with Ryrie on every single point of doctrine, because that's not the case. For example, I don't agree with him 100% on how he interprets 1 John 3:6 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Yet personally, I believe he is one of the greatest theologians of my lifetime and I respect him greatly in the Lord and I value his insights. He has helped me understand theology probably more than any other Bible teacher, with maybe a few exceptions. When I have a question on any particular point of doctrine, I see what Ryrie has to say and I usually find that he explains it better than most. I do wish that some of his statements were more clear, or that he would clarify some of his statements more. And I don't claim to know the intent behind his statements, other than what he has written. I try to take his statements at face value, and without a Lordship twist. I think the most helpful statement for me that he wrote explaining his position on fruit-bearing in the life of a believer is the one that I quoted in my previous comment. I find myself going back to that statement of his again and again.
Also let me just say that from what I have read of Ryrie, I'm sure he too would definitely agree with you when you said, "But that's kind of the point here, is that it should never be confusing or misleading to the hearer at any given juncture; at least that's what we should be striving to carefully do."
I think we can and should always strive to be more clear/as clear as possible, especially with the Gospel!