A Response to Bob Wilkin
by Jonathan Perreault
Recently a friend of mine alerted me
to two articles by Bob Wilkin that he wrote in response to Charlie Bing’s GraceNotes 92 & 93, which are
excerpts (quotes) from an article I wrote titled “The Meaning of Repentance:
Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”. Wilkin’s critique is
posted in a two-part series on the GES blog.[1] After reading Wilkin’s two articles,
I would like to share a few thoughts in reply.
Only three
quotes in our articles suggest that repentance is a change of heart?
In his article “Is Repentance a
Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1,” Wilkin writes: “In their
second article, they mention a change of heart six times, once each by Bing in
the introduction and conclusion, and four times in a quote by Weymouth.
Therefore, only three of their fifty-one quotes suggest that repentance is
a change of heart. If their quotes are any indication, very few pastors or
scholars have called repentance a change of heart.”[2]
So much could be said in response to
Wilkin's statement above, but I will try to be brief. First of all, in regards
to repentance being called “a change of heart”, it was not my primary intention
to show that repentance is a change of heart. Rather, my primary intention was
to show that repentance is “a change of mind.” This is what Wayne Grudem challenged
in his critique of Bing’s “change of mind” view of repentance, and so that’s
what I was responding to.[3]
Second, Wilkin seems to be quite
mistaken in his analysis of our articles, in regards to all the references to
“change of heart” (and/or “heart”). Dr. Bing made it very clear in the
introduction to GraceNotes 92 (Part 1
of 2) that he was only mentioning a sample of quotes from the full article
(“The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and
Theologians”). In other words, Dr. Bing made it clear that the selection of
quotes cited in his article was only a small sampling of the total number of
quotes from my article. So for Wilkin to not take these other quotes into
consideration in his analysis shows that he is not being fair nor objective in
his analysis. There are many more statements in the full article which indicate
that repentance is a change of heart, not simply the three statements mentioned
by Wilkin.
Are we
contradicting the faith alone message?
I don’t believe that Wilkin is
accurate when he says: “To suggest that one must change his mind concerning his
sins in order to be born again is to contradict the faith-alone message.
Changing our minds about our sins is not a synonym for faith in Christ.”[4] Wilkin
goes on to say that “a change of mind concerning one’s sins is not the same as the
traditional change-of-mind view of repentance, which is about changing one’s
mind about Christ, not his sins.”[5]
To begin with, Wilkin is quite mistaken in his understanding of
“the traditional change-of-mind view of repentance” when he says that it “is
about changing one’s mind about Christ, not his sins.” That is incorrect. The
traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance affirms that in
order to be saved an individual must recognize that he or she is a lost sinner
and that his or her sins separate them from a holy God.[6] This realization is
an integral part of saving repentance. In 1950, Dr. Ironside set forth this
understanding of biblical repentance when he wrote the following for an article
in The Sunday School Times:
“Repentance. Some
Gospel preachers seem to be afraid to stress the importance of repentance,
evidently thinking of it as meritorious, and therefore contrary to the grace of
God. Repentance is simply a change of mind which involves a changed attitude
toward self, sin, and God. In other words, it is the sinner’s confessed
recognition of his lost condition and his need of a Saviour. Apart from
repentance there can be no saving faith.”[7]
Robert Lightner (another traditional Free Grace author) wrote
similarly concerning repentance in his book Sin,
Salvation, and the Savior:
“The word repentance means
a change of mind.…many make repentance a separate and additional condition for
salvation. This is not true in the Word. There is no question about it:
repentance is necessary for salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as
included in believing and not as an additional and separate condition to faith.
All who have trusted Christ as Savior have changed their minds regarding Him
and their sin.”[8]
“Repentance in Scripture has to do
with a change of mind. Evangelicals [largely] agree no one can be saved who
does not change his mind about himself and his need, his sin which separates
him from God, and about Christ as the only Savior.”[9]
The
Theological Wordbook (written by Free Grace authors) also affirms the same
understanding of biblical repentance (as including a change of mind about one’s
sins). In the entry for “Repentance” on page 297 it says:
“The primary New
Testament word for repentance is metanoia, ‘to change one’s mind.’
The context determines the purpose for the change. One other word, metamelomai,
‘to regret, to be sorry’ (2 Cor. 7:8-10), adds little to the understanding of
the doctrine of repentance. As stated above, the early occurrences of the term repentance pertained
to the approaching kingdom (Matt. 3:2) and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3).
‘Forgiveness’ and ‘kingdom’ were well-known subjects to the Israelites, but
with the coming of Christ some distinctions became apparent and the people needed to change their thinking
about these issues.”[10]
The entry for “Repentance” in The Theological Wordbook goes on to say:
“Jesus spoke about repentance in
relation to several subjects: the kingdom (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15); judgment
(Matt. 11:20-21; 12:41; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5); faith (Mark 1:15);
forgiveness of sins by unbelievers (Luke 5:32; 24:47); and forgiveness of
believers’ sins (17:3-4). The context of each of these verses shows why a
change was necessary. In some cases the context mentions the consequences for
those who do not repent (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). Repentance
and faith are closely related concepts, as seen in Acts 20:21. From the
teachings of Christ in the above passages, in the Gospels, it appears that when
the term repentance was used in relation to salvation it was
almost an interchangeable synonym for faith, rather than an action distinct
from faith.”
“In their preaching of the gospel
the apostles often mentioned repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 17:30;
20:21; 26:20). Peter related human repentance to God’s forgiveness of sins
(2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22). In Paul’s defense before King Agrippa he declared
that the message God gave him to preach included ‘repentance’ and ‘turning to
God’ (implying faith in God). He also stated that the way believers lived
should give evidence of their repentance (26:20).”[11]
I made a similar point in my blog post titled “‘Free Grace’
Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance” when I said (in
regards to the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” understanding of
repentance): “Yes, like Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit,
unsaved people must understand that they are sinners who have sinned! This is
part of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3).” I went on to say that “in order
to be converted a person realizes that he or she is headed toward a Christless
eternity, and has ‘a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction’
of going to that Christless eternity. They see their need for a Savior and
trust in Christ alone to save them from sin, death, and Hell.”[12]
Of course I don't agree with the
Lordship Salvation understanding of repentance. They teach that repentance
involves turning from sins in the sense of cleaning up one’s life (meaning a
change of behavior) in order to be saved. That's what I’m arguing against! This
is why in my article “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients,
Lexicons, and Theologians”[13], I repeatedly clarified or corrected some of the
quotes when the authors were unclear about what it means to turn from sins. For
example, notice the brackets that I inserted in the following statement from Abbot-Smith’s Lexicon for clarification:
“metanoeo...to change
one's mind or purpose, hence, to
repent; in NT...of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn.
16:8-9]….”[14]
Similarly, in the following
statement by John Bunyan, notice the brackets that I included to clarify the
proper (i.e. biblical) understanding:
“Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a
turning of it from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], and the
devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in
him.”[15]
I made the same clarification
several other times throughout the article. For example, notice the brackets
that I inserted in the following statement by John R. Rice:
“The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, meaning literally a change of mind. That is, a change of
heart attitude. But the change is from unbelief to faith. To repent means to
turn from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9]. Saving faith means to turn
to Christ, relying on Him for salvation.”[16]
So for Mr. Wilkin to say that I am
suggesting something “to contradict the faith-alone message” is hardly the
case! What I said in my blog post “Is the Grace Evangelical Society Misunderstanding
McGee on Repentance?” bears repeating: “If anything, the ‘turning from sins’
(to use Shawn Lazar's words) is when the unsaved turn from their false
confidences to trust in Christ alone for salvation (see John 16:8-9).”[17]
Are we not allowed to quote “the
church fathers”?
In his article “Is Repentance a
Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1,” Wilkin writes: “The
church fathers were not clear on the grace of God. They believed in and
taught works salvation. So did about half of the fifty-one people cited [in GraceNotes 92 & 93]”. Wilkin seems
to be missing the point in regards to why we quoted the church fathers.[18] Just
because we may agree with some of the church fathers on specific points of
doctrine does not mean that we completely endorse everything they taught.
Another way to say it would be: Just because the church fathers were not always
clear on the grace of God doesn’t mean that we throw out everything they ever
said. That would be like the proverbial “throwing the baby out with the
bathwater”! Even the apostle Paul tells us to “examine everything carefully, hold
fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
I have discussed this same issue
with a dear brother in Christ named Holger Friedrich, who translated Dr.
Bing’s GraceNotes numbers 92 & 93 (and others) into the
German language. Mr. Friedrich made the following very insightful comment. He
said: “So it looks like a lot of people have understood the meaning of metanoia over
the centuries but surprisingly few have applied it to teach salvation by grace
alone through faith alone. Or the ones who did were just not famous enough so
that their teachings have not been preserved in writing. Or they were persecuted
and their writings burned.”[19] Personally, I think Mr. Friedrich’s analysis is
a better way to frame the discussion, rather than the way Wilkin portrayed it.
Because we don’t necessarily have to agree with everything someone says; they
may speak truth related to one area of doctrine, but be wrong on something
else. For example, who will agree with everything Augustine taught? If I
remember correctly, he believed and advocated baptismal regeneration! Yet we
cite Augustine as an authority on many doctrinal issues, and rightly so. Dr.
J. Vernon McGee affirms: “Augustine is one of the great men who has affected
the church and the world. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism quote him to
sustain their positions.”[20] To give another example, Dr. Scofield in the
“INTRODUCTION” section of his Scofield Reference Bible quotes Augustine
in regards to distinguishing the dispensations in Scripture. Scofield writes: “Augustine
said: ‘Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.’”[21] And the same
can be said about the church fathers in general. For example, in Norman Geisler’s Systematic
Theology, he discusses various topics of theology and cites the church
fathers to provide a “historical basis” for his beliefs. He titles these
sections, for example: “Church Fathers on the Bible”, “Early Church Fathers on
God's Infinity”, “Medieval Church Fathers on God's Impassibility”, etc.[22] Obviously, Geisler would not
agree with everything these church fathers have taught, even on salvation. Yet
he still quotes them on various doctrinal topics. In the same way, in my
article “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and
Theologians,” I quoted several of the church fathers on the meaning of
repentance, while not necessarily endorsing or agreeing with everything they
taught.
To give another example, I did a
quick google search for every time the phrase “church fathers” appears on the
Grace Evangelical Society (GES) website, and the first search result that came
up was to a book review for a book titled Jehovah's Witnesses on Trial: The
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers. In the book review, the reviewer
says, “The author produces a strong case from the quotes of the early church
fathers that they believed that the soul exists after death, that Christ was
resurrected bodily, that they expected to go to heaven immediately after death,
and that the fate of the wicked is eternal torment in hell and not
annihilation. Every early father quoted, as well as many others not quoted, by
the Jehovah’s Witnesses testifies clearly and unambiguously that Jesus is God.”[23] So
the reviewer makes a similar point to mine, namely that we can agree with the
church fathers on some areas of doctrine, while not necessarily endorsing
everything they wrote or believed.
We don’t
give enough context for the quotes?
I would also like to respond to Wilkin in
regards to when he says, “If the authors had given more of the context of these
quotes, we’d have a better idea of what was meant.”[24] In a similar statement
Wilkin says: “The reason those quotes are ambiguous is because the authors
did not provide enough context.”[25]
I find these statements by Wilkin surprising, seeing that in the original
article I provided nearly 100 pages of
quotations! For a blog post, I’d say that’s more than enough context.
It also comes across as if Wilkin is
really not being honest with what is written in the articles, because in the
very first paragraph of the abbreviated article “Quotes on Repentance as a
Change of Mind, Part 1” (GraceNotes
number 92), Dr. Bing specifically says: “The information below is selected from
an article by Jonathan Perrault. You can find his article with more complete
quotes and bibliology in the Grace Research Room at GraceLife.org or at the
author’s web site FreeGraceFreeSpeech.blogspot.com. The selections and sources
below are abbreviated to save space.”[26] So at the outset, Dr. Bing clearly
says that his articles are abbreviated and that more information can be found
by reading the full article on my website. But Wilkin doesn’t bother to mention
this. Instead, he makes it sound like we took statements out of context, when
in fact the very opposite is true. In writing the article I was actually
concerned that I was making the quotes too long, not too short!
Answering
Wilkin’s Critique of Five Quotes
Following is my response to Wilkin’s
critique of five quotes that are found in my article The Meaning of Repentance. Dr. Bing also included these five quotes
in his two abbreviated GraceNotes
articles.
What about
the quote on repentance from the Shepherd of Hermas?
In his first critique of the five
quotes, Wilkin writes: “First quote. One
of the early church fathers was the Shepherd of Hermas (circa AD 140). The
authors favorably give this citation: ‘These are they that heard the word, and
would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their
remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and
go back again after their evil desires’ (Vision 3, Chapter 7, Lightfoot
translation, italics added). That sounds like works salvation because the
problem here is someone returning to his evil desires and evil actions.”[27]
To me, that quote doesn’t sound like works salvation; it
sounds like repentance means a change of mind!
Notice
how Wilkin changes the subject from the meaning of repentance to focus instead
on baptismal regeneration. That’s obviously not the point of our study. The
scope of our articles was specifically in regards to the meaning of the Greek
words metanoia (“repentance”) and metanoeo (“repent”). Wilkin is dodging the obvious statement to focus on
something else. In this regard he is acting like a magician who tries to divert
the audience’s attention so they don’t see him pull a fast one. Notice that
Wilkin never interacts with the point we are making, which has to do with the
meaning of repentance (the meaning of metanoeo),
which we see from The Shepherd of Hermes
that it clearly means “they change their minds”!
Furthermore,
Wilkin’s completely negative view of the Shepherd
of Hermas (one of the early church fathers) seems very one-sided and out of
balance, even compared to other writings on the GES website! For example, a
more balanced view of the teachings of the church fathers is given by Ken Yates
when he says: “Very few, if any, contemporary Lordship Salvation or Free Grace
proponents would accept certain things
the Apostolic Fathers said about justification, the sacraments, and the role of
works in eternal salvation.”[28]
One
of the “certain things” that of course we do not accept is the teaching of
baptismal regeneration. Yet in regards to other teachings, the Shepherd of Hermas can be helpful in
providing a historical basis for doctrines which we do hold to be true. For instance,
consider the following examples from Free Grace theologians who (in contrast to
Wilkin) favorably cite the Shepherd of
Hermas on various topics of Bible doctrine:
Lewis
Sperry Chafer in volume 4 of his Systematic
Theology favorably cites the Shepherd
of Hermas in regards to his views on the tribulation and the Millennium.[29]
Charles
Ryrie in his book The Basis of the
Premillennial Faith quotes from the Shepherd
of Hermas and says that this document (among others from “THE ANCIENT
PERIOD”) provides “evidence for the historicity of premillenialism by tracing
eschatological beliefs throughout the various periods of church history.”[30] This
is exactly what I’ve done in my article by quoting the Shepherd of Hermas in regards to the meaning of repentance!
Norman
Geiser in his Systematic Theology
cites the Shepherd of Hermas as part
of “The Historical Basis” for important doctrines of the Bible such as God’s
righteousness, God’s truthfulness, and Christ’s imminent return.[31] Geisler
also has a section in his Systematic
Theology titled “CHURCH FATHERS ON THE BIBLE” in which he says that the Shepherd of Hermas is one of the early
Christian writings which alludes to the New Testament as Scripture.[32] Geisler
then concludes by saying: “Taken together, this important early material
demonstrates that by about A.D. 150 the early church, both East and West,
accepted the New Testament claim for divine inspiration.”[33] Elsewhere Geisler
also says that the Shepherd of Hermas
is “powerful” external evidence to the historicity of Paul’s early epistles.[34]
What about the quote on repentance
by Edward Fisher?
In his second critique of the five
quotes, Wilkin writes: “Second quote. In
1646 Edward Fisher wrote, ‘the word repent, in the original, signifies
a change of our minds from false waies [ways] to the right, and of our
hearts from evil to good…’ (The Marrow of Modern Divinity, italics
added). That too is antithetical to the Free Grace position since the issue is
a need to turn from evil to good behavior. While that book was essentially
advocating a Free Grace position (see this journal article by
Makidon), that quotation does not indicate that advocacy.”[35]
Wilkin is reading too much into the quote (indeed, he is
misrepresenting the statement) when he says that “the issue is a need to turn
from evil to good behavior.” The word “behavior” is added by Wilkin. If Wilkin
would have read the full quote that I provided in my article, this would have
been obvious to him. The full quote is as follows: “First, that the
word repent, in the original, signifies a change of our minds from
false waies [ways] to the right, and of our hearts from evil to good; as that
son in the Gospel, said he would not go work in his father’s vineyard, yet
afterwards saith the Teacher, he repented and went (Mat. 21.
29), that is, he changed his mind and went.”[36] So in contrast to what Wilkin
would have us believe, the issue is a change of mind, not a change of behavior!
In
a 1972 Master’s thesis for Wheaton College titled “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the
New Testament,” Roger Post comments on the words of Jesus in
Matthew 21:29 and affirms that there is a biblical distinction to be made
between repentance and the works which should follow. Post writes: “Apparently
Jesus felt that the two words ‘and went’ were essential to the meaning of His
story. He did not generally waste words. It would appear then that the change
of action, described by the words ‘and went,’ was not included in the word
‘repented.’ Thus one could well question the productive value of a repentance
that did not cause a change in actions, but he could not legitimately question
the repentance itself.”[37] In other words, when Jesus says “and went” in
Matthew 21:29, that is a fruit of repentance, not repentance itself. Wilkin
fails to make this biblical distinction. He appeals to Luke 3:8 in support of
his view of repentance as turning from sins (i.e. a change of behavior). But
Luke 3:8 indicates that behavior changes are “fruits that are consistent with
repentance” (NASB), not repentance itself. Wilkin tries to equate repentance
with the fruits of repentance, but the Bible clearly makes a distinction
between the two (see also Matt. 3:8; cf. Acts 26:20).
What about the quote on repentance from Cremer’s
Lexicon?
In
his third critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: “Third quote. Cremer’s
Lexicon of 1892 said, “Repentance [is] the faculty of moral reflection”
(italics added). Works salvation is once again suggested since the issue here
is moral reflection, not belief in Christ.”[38]
How does “moral reflection” equate to “Works salvation”?
Wilkin never explains. Instead, he simply proposes it as fact and expects the
reader to agree with him. If we follow Wilkin’s logic, then apparently merely reflecting
on morality (right and wrong) is works salvation! But such logic fails to take
into consideration that a person can obviously reflect upon the fact that according
to the Bible, morality and good works don’t
save! Similarly, why can’t “moral reflection” simply be a person’s
recognition of his or her sinful condition, or a recognition of what sin really
is? Indeed, this seems to be the apostle Paul’s whole point in Romans 3:9-20.
But actually, we can leave that whole discussion aside
because Cremer doesn’t even say: “Repentance [is] the faculty of moral
reflection” (as Wilkin would have us believe). What Cremer actually says is: “metanoia, ē, change of mind, repentance….In the N.T., and especially in Luke,
corresponding with metanoein [to
repent], it is = repentance, with
reference to nous [the mind, intellect, thought] as the faculty of moral
reflection” (bold added). Cremer is saying that in the New Testament, the
words metanoia and metanoein both signify repentance “with
reference to nous [the mind] as the faculty of moral
reflection”. So rather than saying: “Repentance [is] the faculty of moral
reflection” (as Wilkin says), Cremer is instead referring to “nous [the mind] as the faculty of moral reflection”. So all Cremer is saying is that New Testament
repentance has to do with (or has reference to) the mind, which is the faculty of moral reflection. That’s not
works salvation, that’s repentance as a change of mind!
What about the quote on repentance
from the Weymouth New Testament?
In his fourth critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: “Fourth
quote. The authors cite the 1903 Weymouth New Testament (WNT) by
Richard Francis Weymouth. They indicate that his translation of Luke 3:8 reads,
“‘Live lives which shall prove your change of heart.’ This is the
proper order, first change your minds and hearts (repent), and then as a result
of your repentance, ‘let your lives prove your change of heart’” (italics
added). All of the italicized words are not found in the WNT, though the
authors indicate that they are. It actually reads, “Live lives which shall
prove your change of heart; and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have
Abraham as our forefather,’ for I tell you that God can raise up descendants
for Abraham from these stones.” The point is that Weymouth believed that
repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle. That is not Free Grace
theology.”[39]
The statement Wilkin is referring to includes not only the
quote from the Weymouth NT, but also my commentary following.[40] Dr. Bing correctly
distinguished between the two by placing quotation marks around the actual
Bible verse(s) from the Weymouth NT.[41] Apparently Wilkin did not read the
full quote from my article on repentance (as Dr. Bing suggested); if Wilkin
had, he would have seen this distinction all the more clearly.
Furthermore, Wilkin is actually misrepresenting Weymouth by
saying that “Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your
lifestyle.” As Dr. Bing and I pointed out in our articles, Weymouth has a
footnote for the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2 that says: “repent] Or ‘change your
minds.’” So
while Wilkin says that “Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to
change your lifestyle”—what Weymouth actually believed is that in the New
Testament, the word “Repent” means “change your minds”![42]
Weymouth
makes a similar statement in his notes on Matthew 3:8 (a parallel passage to
Luke 3:8). Commenting on the words “change of heart” in Matthew 3:8 in the
Weymouth NT, Weymouth writes: “Change of
heart] or ‘change of mind.’ Such is the exact meaning of the word commonly,
and not wrongly, rendered ‘repentance.’”[43] So Wilkin is incorrect to say that
“Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle.”
Wilkin is misrepresenting Weymouth and confusing repentance with the “fruits
that are consistent with repentance” (Lk. 3:8, NASB).
What about the quote on repentance
by J. Dwight Pentecost?
In his last critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: “Fifth
quote. The authors cite J. Dwight Pentecost as writing in 1965, “From the Word
of God, we discover that the word translated ‘repent’ means ‘a change of mind.’
It means, literally, ‘a turning about’; not so much a physical turning about as
a mental turning around, a change of course, a change of direction, a change of
attitude” (Things Which Become Sound Doctrine, italics added). While
Pentecost is often associated with Free Grace Theology, that quote is at best
confusing and at worst a reflection of soft Lordship Salvation.”[44]
I don’t think Wilkin is being fair in his criticism of Dr. Pentecost,
who has been a pillar of traditional Free Grace theology for probably over 50
years. To say that Pentecost is here advocating “soft Lordship Salvation” strains
credulity. Dr. Pentecost clearly limits the “change of course” to a mental activity.
The context of his statement makes this clear.
Is church history necessarily
antithetical to the Bible?
In
conclusion, Wilkin says: “Finally, we know what
Biblical repentance is by studying the Bible, not by studying church history.”[45]
I find this objection by Wilkin highly ironic and quite disingenuous
in light of the fact that he himself wrote a study on repentance titled “The
Doctrine of Repentance in Church History”![46] Furthermore, Wilkin’s statement
only begs the question: Why can’t church history help us to understand Biblical
repentance? It should be obvious that church history and the Bible are not necessarily
antithetical to each other as Wilkin tries to portray them. Indeed, the apostle
Paul says that he “handed down” the gospel as he himself had received it from
others before him (see 1 Cor. 15:3,
NASB). Is this not “church history”?[47] And what’s more, it’s Biblical! So the
two things (church history and the Bible) are not necessarily antithetical or
mutually exclusive. In another place the apostle
Paul wrote the following words to Timothy, his spiritual son in the faith:
“You
therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the
things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these
entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:1-2, NASB 1977, emphasis added). Now of
course it’s debatable to what extent the church fathers have been “faithful” in
handing down and passing along Bible doctrine, or to what extent they have be
“faithful” in teaching the truth of God’s Word, but that’s another discussion,
is it not? The fact of the matter (and the point that I’m making here) is that
“studying church history” is not antithetical to “studying the Bible” if church
history is also teaching the Bible
and handing down the doctrines taught in
the Bible. In that case we would still be studying the Bible. To give some examples of this, are we not studying the
Bible when we read old sermons delivered by Spurgeon, Moody, or other great
preachers of the past? Do they not quote Scripture? Someone could look at that
and say, “That’s just church history; that’s not studying the Bible.” But of
course that would not be true, because these preachers are leading us to the
Bible itself! We even have a biblical example of this in Acts chapter 8. When
Philip came up to the Ethiopian eunuch reading from the book of Isaiah (Isaiah
53, to be exact), and Philip asked him, “Do you understand what you’re
reading?” the eunuch replied, “How can I unless someone teaches me?” And how
did Philip respond? Did he say, “I can’t teach you anything from the Bible because
I’m just a ‘church father’ and that would just be church history?” No, of
course not! The Bible says, “Then
Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture
he preached Jesus to him.” Indeed, church history (or more specifically, “faithful men”
throughout church history) can teach us many things about the Bible and about
Jesus, as is clear from the previous examples. (After all, isn’t this why God
“gave to the church…teachers”? See
Ephesians 4:11-12.) I emphasized this same point in the Preface to the first
edition of my article when I said: “Ultimately, a biblical understanding of
repentance is based upon what the Bible says, and that is why in the following
quotes from Bible scholars, they set forth the meaning of the New Testament
word for repentance, which is the Greek word metanoia. It is the meaning of this word with which we are
concerned, and with which these quotes have to do.”[48]
ENDNOTES:
[1] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 1” faithalone.org/blog/is-repentance-a-change-of-mind-or-heart-concerning-our-sins-part-1/
(GES blog, November 5, 2021); Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or
Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” faithalone.org/blog/is-repentance-a-change-of-mind-or-heart-concerning-our-sins-part-2/
(GES blog, November 8, 2021).
[2] Bob Wilkin,
“Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1” (GES blog,
November 5, 2021).
[3] Wilkin even admits this when he says: “Grudem does
discuss Bing’s view of repentance and salvation, but only quoting selectively
from his dissertation. He misses Bing’s discussion of repentance as a change of
heart that includes an inner change of moral direction.” (Bob Wilkin, “Does
Free Grace Theology Diminish the Gospel? A Review of Wayne Grudem’s ‘Free Grace Theology’: Five Ways it
Diminishes the Gospel, Part 1” [GES blog, September 1, 2016].)
[4] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 1” (GES blog, November 5, 2021).
[5] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
[6] See also GraceNotes
22, “Repentance: What’s in a Word” (gracelife.org).
[7] H. A. Ironside, “PAUL, WORLD EVANGELIST”. The
Sunday School Times, September 9, 1950, Volume 92, Number 36, p. 9, comment
on Acts 26:9-20 (archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1950-09-09_92_36/page/8/mode/2up).
[8] Robert P. Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and
Salvation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991), p. 167.
[9] Ibid., p. 212.
[10] Wendell G. Johnston, Charles R. Swindoll, General
Editor, Roy B. Zuck, Managing Editor, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville:
Word Publishing, 2000), p. 297, bold added.
[11] Ibid., pp. 297-298.
[12] Jonathan Perreault, “‘Free Grace’ Theology: 6 Ways
Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance” (Free
Grace Free Speech blog, December 14, 2019).
[13] Jonathan Perreault, “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes
from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians” (Free Grace Free Speech blog, May 28, 2021).
[14] George Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon
of the New Testament (London: T. & T. Clark, 1922), p. 287.
[15] John Bunyan “Of Repentance.” George
Offor, Editor, The Whole Works of John Bunyan (London: 1862),
vol. 2, p. 600.
[16] John R. Rice, Acts: Filled With the Spirit, A
Verse-by-Verse Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Murfreesboro: Sword
of the Lord Publishers, 1963), pp. 93-94, commentary on Acts 2:37-40.
[17] Jonathan Perreault, “Is the Grace Evangelical Society
Misunderstanding McGee on Repentance?” (Free
Grace Free Speech blog, April 10, 2021).
[18] Rich Keller, the webmaster for the gracelife.org
website, gives the following excellent analysis of Wilkin’s statement. Keller
writes: “It’s
really called the argument from fallacy. It is a form of non sequitur fallacy
Bob is employing. If, in a list of claims a person makes, one of the claims is
false, it does not follow, at least in every situation, that all of the other
claims are false. Just because the Church father’s were wrong on a number of
things doesn’t mean they weren’t right on this one.” Mr. Keller goes on to say:
“In this [GES] article I had to chuckle as Bob uses the church father’s as correct on sola fide … ‘Does Your Mind
Need Changing? Repentance Reconsidered – Grace Evangelical Society’ (faithalone.org)
[Wilkin writes:] ‘Another way of saying this is that there is but one condition
of justification before God - faith in Christ (see Rom 3:28; 4:1-8; Gal 2:16;
3:6-16). Justification is by faith alone - sola fide as the Reformers put it so
succinctly in Latin. Since eternal salvation is by faith alone’ …not sure why
he’s quoting them because they were wrong on so many other things”. (Rich Keller,
personal e-mail correspondence, November 28, 2021. Reprinted by permission.
Ellipsis his. Editor’s Note: I added
quotation marks around the title of the GES article.)
[19] Holger Friedrich, personal e-mail
correspondence, June 26, 2021. Reprinted by permission.
[20] J. Vernon McGee, Witnesses:
After He Died They Saw Him Alive
(Pasadena: Thru the Bible Radio Network, n.d.), p. 13.
[21] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1917), p. iii. See Roman numeral “X.” (10.) in the
“INTRODUCTION”.
[22] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Bloomington,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2011). See the 4 volumes in one, available on
archive.org.
[23] Book Review: “Jehovah’s
Witnesses on Trial: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers”. Posted in “Book
Reviews” on the GES website: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/jehovahs-witnesses-on-trial-the-testimony-of-the-early-church-fathers/.
Note: The author of the book is
Robert U. Finnerty. The book review on the GES website is by R. Michael Duffy.
[24] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a
Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1” (GES blog, November 5,
2021).
[25] Ibid.
[26] Charlie Bing, “Quotes on
Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1” (GraceNotes
– no. 92). This article is available
on the gracelife.org website.
[27] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a
Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” (GES blog, November 8,
2021).
[28] Kenneth Yates, “The Novelty of
Free Grace Theology, Part 1,” Journal of
the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 27, no. 52 (Spring 2014): p. 4,
emphasis added.
[29] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp. 272,
362.
[30]
Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the
Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953, 1981, 1989), pp.
18-19. Note: Ryrie quotes from The Shepherd of Hermas on page 20 of his
book The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.
Ryrie writes: “The Shepherd of Hermas.
This document, written sometime between 140 and 150 A.D. says: ‘You have escaped
from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt
the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His
mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great
tribulation that is coming.’ [Visions,
I, IV, 2.] Since some have tried to deny that this man was chiliastic in
belief, it should be mentioned that Berkhof, an amillennialist, admits that he
was. [Reformed Dogmatics, p. 270.]”
(Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the
Premillennial Faith, p. 20, emphasis his.)
[31]
Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: 4
Volumes in One (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers), pp. 1264, 1308,
3400. Note: The page numbers are
keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
[32]
Ibid., p. 348. Note: The page number
is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
[33]
Ibid., p. 348. Note: The page number
is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
[34]
Ibid., p. 593. Note: The page number
is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
[35] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
[36]
Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern
Divinity (London: 1647), fifth Edition, pp. 136, italics his. Note: In the original, the word “evil”
is spelled “evill”. The 1647 edition of the book can be read online using the
following link:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Marrow_of_Modern_Divinity_The_Fifth/hyJbmBkZAxEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq&pg=PP9&printsec=frontcover
[37]
Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words
Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s
Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, pp. 76-77. Note: The Greek word for “repented” in Matthew 21:29 is not metanoeo; it is metamelētheis, from metamelomai. Yet, as Dr. Scofield affirms: “The son in Mt. 21. 28,
29 illustrates true repentance.” (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1174. See note 2 for the word
“repent” in Acts 17:30.)
[38] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
[39]
Ibid.
[40]
Jonathan Perreault, “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients,
Lexicons, and Theologians” (Free Grace
Free Speech blog, May 28, 2021). Note:
See the section titled “Weymouth New
Testament (1903)”.
[41]
Charlie Bing, “Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 2” (GraceNotes – no. 93). www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=93&lang=eng
[42]
Richard Francis Weymouth, edited by Ernest Hampden-Cook, The New Testament in Modern Speech (London: James Clarke & Co.,
1915), p. 7. Note: See footnote 5 on
the word “Repent” in Matthew 3:2.
[43]
Ibid., p. 8. Note: See footnote 3 on
the words “change of heart” in Matthew 3:8.
[44] Bob Wilkin, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart
Concerning Our Sins? Part 2” (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
[45]
Ibid.
[46] See the article by Robert N. Wilkin in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society,
vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn 1988).
[47] J. Vernon McGee affirms: “the Good News that Christ has
taken away our sins has been passed from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to Paul,
the apostle, the early church fathers, and finally to our day to me and to
you!” (J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible,
Vol. 1: Genesis – Deuteronomy [Thomas Nelson, 1981], p. 401.)
[48] Jonathan
Perreault, “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and
Theologians”. Note: The first edition
of this article is available on the gracelife.org website in the Grace Research
Room. The second edition of the article is available on my website:
freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com.
