Calvinists seem to think that the Free Grace "change
of mind" definition of repentance does not go back to the Reformers. For
example, Wayne Grudem in his book misrepresenting Free Grace theology writes
the following: "Many [Free Grace supporters] understand repentance to mean simply a 'change of mind'....It is a
definition unique to Free Grace supporters, without scholarly support from
the academic community or any standard Greek reference works."[1] But I have to wonder how much research Grudem did for his book, because even a cursory review of the academic literature reveals that in fact
many in "the academic community" define repentance precisely that way: as a
"change of mind"![2] Here's a prominent example. It was none other than Theodore Beza who
said that the word "Repent" in the Greek "signifieth a changing of our mindes
and hearts from evil to better."[3] Yes, Theodore Beza wrote that![4] Who
is Theodore Beza? He just happens to be one of the most notable Calvinists of the Protestant
Reformation! But apparently not someone "from the academic community", at least according to Grudem.[5] But if Theodore Beza is not "scholarly" and is not
"from the academic community", what does that say about Calvinism?! Grudem seems to be quite ill-informed and confused!
Let me help to clear up the confusion by presenting some real facts. Theodore Beza lived from 1519-1605. He was a contemporary and associate of John Calvin. The Encyclopedia Britannica website says that Theodore Beza "assisted and later succeeded John Calvin as a leader of the Protestant Reformation centred at Geneva."[6] Along with Calvin, Beza was
one of the main reformers of the Protestant Reformation in Geneva. In fact, there's a
statue of Beza on the Reformation Wall in Geneva, Switzerland. Beza's statue stands alongside the statues of John Calvin and John Knox. Beza was also a scholar in his own right; he published
several editions of the Greek New Testament. Beza lived most of his life in
Geneva, Switzerland.
How did Theodore Beza define the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2, the first
mention of that word in the New Testament? Notice what Beza says in his notes on Matthew 3:2 in the Geneva Bible:
"And sayde, c Repent ye: for the d kingdom of heaven is at hand. [Matt. 3:2] ....
c The word in the Greek tongue, signifieth a changing of our mindes and hearts from evil to better.
d The kingdom of Messias, whose government shall be heavenly, and nothing but heavenly."[7]
“Well it hath pleased God in this our latter age, to remove this cloak [of darkness], the Scriptures are made plain unto us, and this new Testament, by these notes of Beza, so plain both for the meaning itself of every sentence, and for the plain light of every word, and kind of speech, that no man can pretend that former excuse [of not understanding the hard sayings]. I dare avouche it, and who so readeth it, shall so find it, that there is not one hard sentence, nor dark speech, nor doubtful word, but is so opened, and hath such light given it, that children may go through with it, & the simplest that are may walk without any guide, without wandering and going astray.” –Laurence Tomson, from the Preface to the Geneva Bible New Testament.[8]
ENDNOTES:
[1] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers: 2016), p. 70, ellipsis added.
[2] See my blog post titled: "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians."
[3] Theodore Beza, Geneva Bible, NT, translated and revised by Laurence Tomson (London: Christopher Barker, 1586), no page number. See note "c" on the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 in the Geneva Bible. Note: Both Free Grace theologians and Calvinists agree that, as the Reformed theologian John Piper has said quite succinctly: "In repentance the functions of mind and heart are not completely distinct". (Piper, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 245.) In regards to "the biblical use of the term 'heart'", John Macarthur similarly affirms: "The Old Testament says, 'As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.' [Prov. 23:7.] I believe the heart is really the equivalent of the mind." (MacArthur, "Bible Questions and Answers, Part 33B", Oct. 5, 1985.) In other words, when Beza says that the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 means "a changing of our minds and hearts", it is essentially the same as saying that "Repent" means "a change of mind". For more information on the connection between the mind and heart, see my blog post titled: "What is the Difference Between 'Heart' and 'Mind' in Scripture?"
[4] For more information see the article: "Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament" (a doctoral thesis for Oxford University) by Irena Dorota Backus. In particular, see the section (pp. 27-39) titled: "Laurence Tomson's translation of Beza's Latin New Testament (1576)". It is helpful to understand that Tomson's 1576 English translation of Beza's Latin annotations is based "very largely" on L'Oiseleur's 1574 French edition of Beza's Latin New Testament. Tomson "certainly" also referenced the 1565 edition of Beza's Greek N.T. (Ibid., pp. 32, 39.) It was to L'Oiseleur that Beza entrusted the task of translating his Latin annotations into French. Backus explains that "his [L'Oiseleur's] principal concern, he says, was to produce a work which could pass for Beza's own." (Ibid., p. 28.) Backus further explains that some of the notes in L'Oiseleur's 1574 edition are paraphrases or abbreviations of Beza's annotations, and some of the other notes are from Camerarius "where there is no doctrinal difference between his note and Beza's." (Ibid., pp. 27-29.) On the whole then, it seems safe to say that the marginal note for the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 in the Geneva-Tomson New Testament is essentially Beza's: if not exactly, at least essentially. This conclusion is supported by the fact that it is consistent with how Beza translates Matthew 3:2 in his Latin New Testament, where he is well-known for using the Latin word Resipiscite (meaning "to recover one's senses," i.e. to change one's mind) rather than poenitentia ("repentance") to translate the Greek word Metanoeite. In other words, it is entirely consistent for Beza to say in his annotations on Matthew 3:2 concerning the word "Repent": "The word in the Greek tongue, signifieth a changing of our mindes and hearts from evil to better."
[5] I say this tongue-in-cheek to make the point, because of course Grudem would say that Theodore Beza is someone "from the academic community"!
[6] "Theodore Beza," Britannica, www.britannica.com/biography/Theodore-Beza (accessed August 2, 2022).
[7] Theordore Beza, Geneva Bible, NT, translated and revised by Laurence Tomson (London: Christopher Barker, 1586), no page number. See note "c" on the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 in the Geneva Bible. Note: In regards to when Beza says that the word "Repent" in Greek signifies "a changing of our minds and hearts", it should be pointed out that Charles Bing (the Free Grace author whom Grudem referenced) has made it clear that in his view "it is also accurate to translate the word repentance as a change of heart." (Cited by Grudem in his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, p. 56, footnote 13, italics his. Also see the article by Dr. Bing titled: "Repentance: What's in a Word.") So the traditional Free Grace definition of repentance as "a change of mind and heart" (op. cit.) goes back at least to the Protestant Reformation since it was also Beza's definition of the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2! Thus, contrary to what Grudem would have us believe, the traditional Free Grace definition of repentance does indeed have "scholarly support from the academic community"! For more examples of "scholarly support from the academic community" see my article titled: "Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance."
[8] For more information see my blog posted titled: "The Geneva Bible definition of 'Repent' in Matthew 3:2."
6 comments:
This is so interesting. I haven't read Grudem's book, no desire to really, but this isn't the first thing I've heard about how he's off the mark. What's crazy to me is I keep seeing all these old authors and old hymn writers seem to really 'get it' when it comes to Grace, Salvation, and God's Love for us.
I'm curious though and maybe you can help me out here. Do we see God's free grace on display before Jesus came into the picture?
Todd
I had a question about the moral law as opposed to the ceremonial law. There are some who say that while the ceremonial and civil law are now obsolete, the moral law (now called the Law of Christ) is still in effect for the believer. They saw that this is the meaning behind passages in 1 John that talk about those who sin (breaking the moral law) and also passages like in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. They argue that while Jesus indeed fulfilled the ceremonial law, He never meant to abolish the moral law ("...not one jot nor tittle of this law will pass away...) and that verses suggesting we are not saved by works are in reference to circumcision and other works of the ceremonial law. This would seem to make sense in light of passages like in Galatians that warn against works of the flesh, etc. Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, and a number of Arminian teachers all hold to this view, and say that those who say otherwise are just excusing sinfulness and are in danger of sending ignorant people to hell by insisting that the moral law is defunct. What would your response be?
To Anonymous: a follow-up question. Are you saying that Christ only died to free us from the effects of breaking ceremonial and civil laws? As I read what you are saying here, the effects of breaking the moral law are not nailed to the cross, correct? Break the moral law - you go to hell? "those who say otherwise are just excusing sinfulness and are in danger of sending ignorant people to hell by insisting that the moral law is defunct".
Correct me if I am wrong though.
To Todd and/or Administrator:
No, you've misunderstood me, but I probably didn't explain it well. Let me re-post my last comment with some adjustments and maybe that will help make more sense of it.
"I had a question about the moral law [10 commandments] as opposed to the ceremonial law. There are some who say [specifically a friend of mine who was telling me about this, no idea what denomination she is] that while the ceremonial and civil law are now obsolete, the moral law [also paid for on the cross] (now called the Law of Christ) is still in effect for the believer [paid for, but now she says we have to obey these 10 commandments either to keep salvation or prove it's genuine or something]. They [she and those like her] says that this is the meaning behind passages in 1 John that talk about those who sin (breaking the moral law) [she says that 'those who sin' in 1 John refers only to the sin of breaking the 10 commandments] and also passages like in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [be not deceived, no adulterer, etc. has any place in the Kingdom of God, because they broke one of the 10]. They argue that while Jesus indeed fulfilled the ceremonial law [moral law too], He never meant to abolish [forever do away with] the moral law ("...not one jot nor tittle of this law will pass away...) and that verses suggesting we are not saved by works are in reference to circumcision and other works of the ceremonial law [in other words, we won't lose or disprove salvation by not keeping the ceremonial laws, but not so for the moral law]. This would seem to make sense [to her/them] in light of passages like in Galatians that warn against works of the flesh [summed up in the big 10 or something], etc. Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, and a number of Arminian teachers all hold to this view, and say that those who say otherwise are just excusing sinfulness [to allow anyone who breaks one of the 'big ones' to think they're still going to heaven, falsely] and are in danger of sending ignorant people to hell by insisting that the moral law is defunct. What would your response be [meaning, how does one even respond to that? it seems so foreign, almost Catholic]?"
So she says, yes, we are saved by faith alone, but then when Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments [the 10]" and similar passages, along with the other verses I mentioned, are meaning that while, yes, we're saved by faith alone, we still have to observe the 10 commandments in order to either keep our salvation or prove it's genuine or something like that. I was having trouble understanding her, to be honest.
Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. If not, let me know what is unclear, and I'll try to explain it better. I know Calvinists think that if you commit a major sin, or sin for any length of time, then you prove you're not saved, and I know Arminians think you can lose salvation, but I had never heard anything about a denomination that believes you have to keep the moral law, or 10 commandments now. This is new to me.
Hi Anonymous,
Yeah, it's new to me too. Maybe ask her if she keeps the Sabbath? Isn't that one of the Ten Commandments? And if I remember correctly, the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was death, by stoning! (See Numbers 15:32-36.)
Anyway, maybe ask your friend how she understands Bible verses that say that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, e.g. Romans 6:14, "for you are not under the Law, but under grace."
It's typical for legalists to want to divide the Mosaic Law into divisions such as, for example, the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law, and then say that the only one that applies to Christians today is the moral Law. But the Law was a unit; cherry-picking the Mosaic Law is never, to my knowledge, set forth in the New Testament as an option for Christians today. On the contrary, those who desire to keep the Law as a rule of life are under obligation to keep the whole Law, "everything written in the book of the Law" (see Gal. 3:10).
[Continued below....]
I'd like to share with you an excellent statement by J. Hampton Keathley, III. Keathley writes the following in an article titled "The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament" (on the bible.org website):
"The Mosaic Law was an indivisible unit, and is that which was terminated by the Lord Jesus. Though the Law is usually divided into three parts, as described above, it is important to see that it was an indivisible unit. Thus, when Paul stated that we are not under the Law, this included all three parts, including the Ten Commandments. Some will agree that parts of the Old Testament Law have been done away, but assert the Ten Commandments are supposedly still in force today. But all three parts of the Law were designed to function as a unit to guide Israel in all of its life. The Ten Commandments cannot be separated from the rest. Further, even though most recognize this three-fold division, the Jews so numbered all the commands that they approached the Law as a unit. Ryrie notes that,
“...the Jewish people either did not acknowledge it (the three-fold division) or at least did not insist on it. Rather they divided the 613 commandments of the Law into twelve families of commandments which were then subdivided into twelve additional families of positive and twelve additional families of negative commands.”[10]
Further, that it is a unit is evident by the fact that the recognition of any of its features, i.e., as a meritorious system of righteousness with God, obligates the person to fulfill the entire Law, as we are taught by both Paul and James (cf. Gal. 3:10, 12; 5:3; Jam. 2:8-11).
Further evidence that the Law is a unit is the penalty of death for disobedience is attached to all three parts of the Law.
Noticing the penalties attached to certain commands further emphasizes the unitized character of the Law. When the command to keep the Sabbath (one of the “commandments”) was violated by a man who gathered sticks on that day, the penalty was death by stoning (Num. 15:32-36). When the people of Israel violated the command concerning the Sabbatical Year for the land (one of the “judgments”), God sent them into captivity where many died (Jer. 25:11). When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord (one of the “ordinances”), they immediately died (Lev. 10:1-7). Clearly these commands from various parts of the Law were equally binding and the punishment equally severe. The Law was a unit.[11]
Finally, three times in 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 Paul declares that the Mosaic system is done away or abolished (vss. 7, 11, 13). In commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:7-13, Chafer wrote:
It is the law as crystallized in the ten commandments which is in view; for that law alone was ‘written and engraven in stones.’ In the midst of the strongest possible contrast between the reign of the teachings of the law and the teachings of grace, it is declared that these commandments were ‘done away’ and ‘abolished.’ It should be recognized that the old was abolished to make place for the new, which far excels in glory. The passing of the law is not, therefore, a loss; it is rather an inestimable gain.”[12]
The citations from Keathley's statement are below:
[10] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.
[11] Ryrie, electronic media.
[12] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV, 242.
The link to Keathley's article on the bible.org website is here: https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
I hope this helps!
Post a Comment