What exactly do I mean by that? Let me be more specific. There’s an article on the logos.com website by Timothy Miller titled, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Something Different?” (January 27, 2023). After reading the article, I can say that a more accurate title would be: “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or a Change of Lifestyle?” because that’s what Miller is really asking. And so the title is cleverly subtle in that it does not reveal the true beliefs of the author. This is not necessarily wrong in and of itself. The real issue, of course, is what is the author hinting at? And therein lies the problem, because what the author is hinting at is a view of repentance that is anything but biblical! Miller’s questioning of biblical repentance reminds me of the serpent's hiss to Eve in the garden of Eden, when he very cunningly cast doubt on God's Word with the question: “Did God really say…?” (Gen. 3:1). May we not be deceived! The apostle Paul says, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11: 3-4, KJV, emphasis added). Paul goes on to remind us that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Lewis Sperry Chafer has well said: “Satan’s life-purpose is to be ‘like the Most High’ (Isa. 14:14), and he appears ‘as an angel of light,’ and his ministers ‘as the ministers of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:13-15). His ministers, being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone, unrelated to any human virtue.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 1918 Edition, p. 101.) That this is indeed Miller’s view of repentance becomes more clear as he explains it further in his article.
While Miller admits that repentance is a “change of mind,” what is troubling (cf. Gal. 1:7, KJV) is that he redefines it to mean “a change of lifestyle”. Miller contends that this is the true meaning of the Greek word metanoia, the word translated “repentance” in the New Testament. But it's obvious that Miller has allowed his theological tail to wag the hermeneutical dog (cf. Phil. 3:2). Just to give one example, Miller quotes a Jewish mystic named Philo as an authority on biblical repentance! Does Miller preach from the writings of Philo on Sunday morning? I hope not. Yet he appeals to Philo as an authority on biblical repentance! But the reader needs to understand that Philo’s definition of repentance is works-based! Because even according to Miller, Philo defines metanoia as “a sinless walk [that] must replace the former sinning.” This is metanoia (repentance) according to Philo; this is how he defines repentance! According to Philo it's “a sinless walk” that must replace the former sinning! So right there, that clearly is works, is it not? No doubt about it. It’s clearly works! If Miller is saying that's the definition of repentance (which he is), and if he’s saying that repentance is required for salvation (which he is), then what he’s essentially saying is that “a sinless walk” is required for salvation. That's work-salvation! But obviously Miller isn’t going to blatantly come out and say: “I believe in work-salvation.” (A wolf doesn’t always look like a wolf! See Matthew 7:15.) Miller isn't going to say that because that's obviously NOT what the Bible teaches. That's my point. If he can say it some other way and subtly insert works into salvation, that's what he’s going to do. And that's what he does. Because by saying that repentance means “a sinless walk,” he's in essence redefining faith as a work. If repentance is part of faith (and we agree that it is) and if repentance is therefore required for salvation and you're defining it by saying it means “a sinless walk,” then you're essentially saying that a person must have a sinless walk in order to be saved. That's works-salvation! And the unfortunate part about it is that most people probably won't make that connection. They probably won't think through it logically the way that I just did. They'll simply take Miller's word for it without critically evaluating it or thinking too deeply about it. They might say something like: “That’s what Doctor Miller says, and you know he’s a published author and he teaches at a Bible cemetery – I mean seminary, and his article is on the logos.com website ... so it must be true! ... I guess ‘repentance’ must mean what Philo says: ‘a sinless walk’. I better clean up my life in order to get saved, or at least prove I'm saved! There’s no such thing as a free lunch, right?” Au contraire! In regards to Miller’s view of repentance, red warning lights should be flashing in your brain. The Bible says that Eternal Life is a free gift – no strings attached! (See John 3:16, 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 6:23, etc.). In other words, the problem with Miller’s view of repentance is that it's in reality works-salvation! But it’s very subtle (as the devil often is: 2 Cor 11:3-4, 13-14; Gal. 1:6-9). Because it's covered with a veneer of orthodoxy, or at least a veneer of religiosity.
To cite another example besides Philo, Miller quotes Bauer’s Lexicon as if Bauer agrees that biblical repentance is a work! All because Bauer says that metanoia (repentance) is “primarily a change of mind” and then he says that it focuses on “the need of change in view of responsibility to deity”. But Miller is reading too much of his preconceived theological viewpoint into those words, because a “need for change” is not necessarily outward change as Miller suggests. In light of the fact that Bauer initially said that metanoia is “primarily a change of mind,” it is perfectly consistent and appropriate to interpret “the need for change” to be an internal change. The point I’m making is that Bauer doesn’t say “a change of lifestyle” as Miller wants us to believe. Rather, the “change in view of responsibility of deity” (to quote Bauer) is a change of mind. This becomes all the more apparent seeing that Bauer includes Hebrews 12:17 in his list of Bible verses under the gloss definition of metanoia. In regards to Hebrews 12:17, even Wayne Grudem, the Reformed theologian, has said that in Hebrews 12:17, metanoia is “simply a change of mind”! [FIND QUOTE FROM MY REPENTANCE QUOTES ARTICLE.] So Miller’s argument trying to use Bauer’s Lexicon to show that repentance is a change of lifestyle is self-refuting and unbiblical. (Note: Also see the marginal note on Hebrews 12:17 in the 1611 King James Bible. The marginal note on “place of repentance” says: “or way to change his mind”.)
In regards to misrepresenting Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance, I’ve noticed that this is a common tactic among Calvinists and those who promote “Lordship Salvation”. For example, Wayne Gruden misrepresented Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance in his book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (for more information see my article titled “Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”), and Bill Mounce misrepresented Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance in his book Greek For the Rest of Us (for more information see my article titled “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”). And now Timothy Miller is following in their footsteps! This is a tragic example of “the blind leading the blind” (cf. Matthew 15:14). Miller probably realizes it's the best play they have in order to try to manufacture support for their position (because Bauer is considered one of, if not the authority on the subject). But the problem is that Bauer’s definition of New Testament repentance doesn't support the “Lordship” view of it. Since Lordship Salvationists don't have a factual argument or support for their (unbiblical) view of repentance, they twist the facts in an attempt to bolster their case.
Is salvation “by grace alone” or not? If you're relying on your works or your lifestyle to get saved or prove you're saved, then you're NOT trusting in Christ alone! You're looking at yourself and thinking, “Well, I guess I have to live a certain kind of way to get saved or prove I'm saved.” That's subtly adding works into the whole equation of salvation, when the Bible clearly teaches: Faith + Nothing = Salvation! (See the excellent article by J. Vernon McGee titled “Faith + 0 = Salvation”.) Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But if a person must also have “a sinless walk” (as Philo says), then salvation would not be by faith alone. Because having or maintaining “a sinless walk” is works! Having or requiring a certain type of lifestyle before or after salvation – that's not faith alone, that's works! That's NOT how a person is saved. The Bible clearly says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to God's mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:5). In other words, salvation is NOT by having “a sinless walk”. That's works-righteousness, and that’s NOT how a person is saved. Why do I say that? Because first of all, no one on this side of heaven can truly have “a sinless walk”. So if that's what is required for salvation, then no one (including you!) would ever be saved because “there is none righteous, no not one” (Rom.3:10). We all “fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Ecclesiastes says there's not a just man living who never sins (Eccl. 7:20). Solomon said that. The wisest man in the world said that. The Bible says that. So if a theologian is quoting Philo and saying that repentance in the Bible means “a sinless walk” (and repentance is required for salvation), then no one would ever get saved! Apparently Mr. Miller hasn't thoroughly evaluated his view of repentance in light of God’s Word, because if he truly believes in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, he would never say that sort of thing. Or maybe he just hasn't “connected all the dots” yet. Or maybe he actually does believe in works-salvation! But of course he's not going to outright admit that, because that's obviously unbiblical. So either he hasn't thought through his view of repentance in light of the clear teaching of God's Word on how a person is saved, or else he's subtly trying to deceive people, right? He’s either saying it ignorantly or blatantly, right? So either way it's a problem. And that's why I'm writing this Free Grace response, because I want to warn people and I want people to think more about it than simply swallowing what Miller says “hook, line, and sinker”. As Christians, we need to think critically and analyze these teachings in light of God’s Word (in distinction to Philo!) because, as the Apostle Paul says: “Examine everything [how?] carefully, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). So we need to think very carefully and critically about what is being taught. That's why I'm examining Timothy Miller’s article on repentance and why I’m writing this response, because according to the Bible, repentance is NOT “a sinless walk”! It might be repentance according to Philo, but not according to the Bible. If Miller wants to quote Philo that's fine, but don't go and say it's biblical repentance because it's not. I hope he’s not intentionally trying to deceive people. But the problem is that whether it’s intentional or not, unfortunately either way he’s still deceiving people. The word metanoia in the Greek means to have “a change of mind” (cf. Heb. 12:17). If you want to define that as “a change of heart” that's fine; the point is: it's an internal change, not an external change. Whereas “a sinless walk” is an external change; that's not biblical repentance. So that's one problem with Miller’s article and with his view of repentance.
Another problem with Miller’s view of repentance is that it’s somewhat duplicitous, because on the one hand he agrees that repentance is a change of mind but then he basically says, “Well, it's actually more than that.” And that's where he subtly adds in works to the meaning of repentance. What Miller really believes is that, in his view, repentance is a change of behavior. But as a Protestant, Miller isn’t going to blatantly advocate a faith plus works gospel because that's too obvious. And maybe he doesn’t even believe that. Yet as I said, whether it’s intentional or not, the problem is that he's in effect adding in works to “salvation by faith alone”. (I’m in agreement with Daniel Wallace when he says that in the Gospel of Luke, and by implication in the other Gospels as well, repentance is included in faith. In other words, repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin.) And by adding works to faith alone, the gospel is ruined! In regards to this and specifically in the context of the meaning of repentance, Erasmus has well said: “And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined.” Notice that Eramus said "penance". (The Latin word can be translated as either "penance" or repentance," depending on the context.) Some people may think that Miller is not advocating penance. Maybe not explicitly, but as ChatGPT correctly points out (and yes I’m quoting artificial intelligence):
“When good works are added as a condition for salvation—whether explicitly (e.g., ‘You must perform good deeds to be saved’) or implicitly (e.g., ‘Repentance must involve a change in behavior to be genuine’)—it shifts the gospel’s focus from God’s grace to human effort. This addition mirrors the concept of penance by requiring external actions or changes to secure salvation. Is interpreting repentance as a change of behavior a form of penance? Yes, interpreting repentance as a change of behavior can function as a form of penance if the change of behavior is seen as necessary to obtain or prove salvation. The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, means a ‘change of mind,’ not a change of actions. When repentance is redefined as turning from sin [i.e. in the sense of a change of lifestyle] or altering one’s lifestyle, it introduces a performance-based element into the gospel. This aligns with the idea of penance because it implies that salvation requires visible acts of obedience or reform, rather than simple faith in Christ. By conflating repentance with behavioral change, the gospel risks being distorted into a system where salvation is earned or confirmed by works, rather than received as a free gift through faith alone [with no strings attached]. This shift undermines the biblical teaching that justification is by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28).”
This is important to understand because what Miller is saying is that repentance is not simply a change of mind; he's saying there's more! In effect, Miller is throwing something back on the sinner to do for salvation, i.e. change his (or her) lifestyle. And thus Miller is very subtly (and quite possibly inadvertently) adding in works to the meaning of repentance: works such as maintaining “a sinless walk” for example. That's repentance according to Philo, the Jewish mystic. And apparently that is repentance according to Timothy Miller. But that is definitely NOT repentance (metanoia) according to the Bible! And so on the one hand, Miller is saying that a change of lifestyle is part of repentance, but then on the other hand he's saying repentance leads to a changed life. So he's trying to have it both ways. And it’s really nonsensical actually, because if that’s true then the cause is the same as the effect. The root is the same as the fruit. And the means is also the end. That might work in New Age, Krishna, or Transcendental Meditation, or even in Buddhism, but that’s definitely NOT biblical repentance! In other words, using Miller’s definition of repentance: it’s a change of behavior that leads to a change of behavior? It’s a tautology! It’s a nonsensical redundancy because how can a changed life lead to something that it already is? And if repentance is a change of life, then the apostles’ statements about repentance and the fruit of repentance (cf. Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) are tautology indeed! I mean, if you're saying repentance is “a sinless walk” and then it leads to “a sinless walk”: that makes no sense! That would be like saying, “I'm going to fight this battle in order to win, but I've already won. There’s no need to fight the battle to get the victory if you already have the victory, right? But essentially that's what Miller is saying! He's saying that repentance is a changed life that leads to a changed life. Does that sound confusing? It is confusing! It just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. Because first of all it's not biblically accurate, and secondly it's not logically coherent: he's basically saying that the means is the end. Basic logic would say that the means leads to the end, right? “The way of the cross leads home.” The path is not the home, but it leads to the home. (Miller no doubt would agree with this, but that only highlights the inconsistency and absurdity of his view of repentance. Because when his view of repentance is analyzed logically, what he’s actually saying is that a change of life leads to a change of life, as I explained above.) According to Miller’s view of repentance, the means IS the end. The closest thing I can think of to where I've heard anything close to that is a Buddist proverb that says: “The destination is the journey.” But that's a Buddhist proverb! But logically that's exactly what Miller is saying in terms of repentance! Because he's basically saying that repentance is a changed lifestyle (that's the means of salvation according to Miller's definition), and then it leads to a changed lifestyle (that’s the result of salvation or the result repentance). So he's saying the means is the same as the end. That's Buddhism ladies and gentlemen! That's NOT biblical Christianity! And that's a big problem with Miller’s theological interpretation of repentance, because not only is it essentially works-righteousness or works-salvation, but furthermore it is logically absurd and self-refuting. Miller has unwittingly adopted the philosophy of Buddhism and has applied it to biblical (or in his case not so biblical) Christianity and specifically to the doctrine of repentance! I'm not saying that Miller did this intentionally; he may have just not completely thought through the logical implications of his beliefs.
The point I'm making is that Miller’s view of supposedly biblical repentance has BIG problems. Because just to hone in on what I said earlier, he affirms that Paul tells the Gentiles to demonstrate their repentance by their deeds (Acts 26:20). So right there Miller is essentially admitting that repentance is different from the change of lifestyle that follows, right? That's the plain meaning of the verse. That's the plain meaning of what Paul says in Acts 26:20. (And Paul was always “setting forth the truth plainly,” 2 Cor. 4:2, NIV). But according to Miller, Paul would have to be equating repentance with what follows! In other words, Miller is saying that repentance is the changed life, the “sinless walk” (at least according to Philo), the good deeds. But the apostle Paul is saying no, those things are a result of repentance, not repentance itself. The changed life, the “sinless walk,” the good deeds – that is the fruit of repentance, not the root itself (see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). Even John Calvin saw a distinction between repentance and the fruit which should follow, and he affirmed that it is VERY IMPORTANT to maintain this distinction in order to keep the gospel from being corrupted. Notice what Calvin says in his commentary on Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8: “Yield therefore fruits worthy of repentance….It ought to be observed, that good works (Tit. iii. 8) are here called fruits of repentance: for repentance is an inward matter, which has its seat in the heart and soul, but afterwards yields its fruits in a change of life. But as the whole of this part of doctrine has been grievously corrupted by Popery, we must attend to this distinction, that repentance is an inward renewal of the man, which manifests itself in the outward life, as a tree produces its fruit.” (John Calvin, translated by Rev. William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke [Edinburgh: 1845], vol. 1, pp. 189-190, ellipsis added, comment on Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8.) These are basic distictions that Miller completely misses! Rather than maintaining the distinction between repentance and the fruit which should follow, he's instead trying to put the fruit into the root! That’s backwards! It’s not only backwards but it makes no sense because in essence what Miller is saying (when logically analyzed) is that repentance is the same as the fruit of repentance! That is incorrect, as even John Calvin pointed out! The fact of the matter is (and it should be plainly obvious), that repentance is repentance and the fruit of repentance is the fruit of repentance! They are two different things. Whereas Miller is conflating and confusing the two; he's confusing the root with the fruit. Repentance (a change of mind) is the root, good deeds (a change of life) are the fruit. In other words, the fruit of repentance is not repentance itself. But Miller doesn't recognize that biblical distinction; or if he does, he is not consistent in maintaining it. Rather, Miller argues that repentance is more than simply a change of mind. According to Philo whom he quotes approvingly, repentance is “a sinless walk”. Miller attempts to walk that back somewhat (no pun intended) in the conclusion of his article, when he says that an integral part of repentance is “a revolutionized life”: thus not necessarily “sinless,” just “revolutionized” – whatever that means! (I mean, didn’t Ghandi have “a revolutionized life”?!) So here again Miller is trying to say that repentance is “both/and”: a change of mind and a change of lifestyle. But in so doing he's confusing the means with the end, and the root with the fruit. How much simpler and clearer it is to say that repentance (metanoia) according to the Bible is simply a change of mind or heart! In other words, it's an internal change. The external change is the fruit and that should follow when there is true repentance. But let's keep it clear that repentance is the root, and the changed life is the fruit. This distinction needs to be stressed and even Louis Berkhof has said repentance is wholly internal and should not be confused with the external works that follow. [The quote is forthcoming.]
No comments:
Post a Comment