The biblical foundation for this relationship is rooted in Paul’s own description of his gospel ministry:
"[Paul] kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Acts 26:20, NASB 1977.
Drawing on this preaching of Paul in Acts 26:20, as well as 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Ryrie clarifies that while a person can change their mind about sin without turning to God, one cannot truly trust Christ as Savior without both changing their mind and turning to God. Here is Ryrie's summary statement on the topic:
SUMMARY: "In Acts 26:20, quoted above, Paul preached that men 'should repent and TURN to God.' But everyone who simply believes the gospel is by that act turning to God. This is well illustrated by Paul's statement about the Thessalonians, 'How ye TURNED TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). A MAN MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT HIS SINS AND YET NOT TURN TO GOD. HE MAY TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THE MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL TO BE GOD'S MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND TRUSTS JESUS CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR MUST OF NECESSITY IN SO DOING BOTH CHANGE HIS MIND AND TURN TO GOD IN THE ACT OF FAITH." (Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 414.)
Ryrie's summary statement reminds us that repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other. Therefore when a person trusts in Christ alone for salvation, they have repented! So let's be clear on what repentance is and what it's not: it is not a separate step in addition to faith alone in Christ alone, but actually is part of believing! Thus New Testament "repentance" (Gr. metanoia) is perfectly consistent with salvation by grace through faith, and how could it ever be otherwise? This understanding of repentance keeps salvation by grace completely free and also answers the charge of adding extra conditions to the gospel, because it makes clear that repentance is part of believing, not an extra step in the salvation process. This keeps the focus where it belongs: entirely on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ!
_____
Source: Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, "903: Soteriology and Evangelism" Teaching Notes, pp. 43-44, emphasis his. Note: This class was part of the core Th.M. curriculum as taught by Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary, circa 1980.
I agree with your article . How would you respond to those who say that repentance is not part of the salvation message since it doesn't appear in John's Gospel, which(they say) is the only evangelistic book in the Bible?
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the argument some people like to use. But I'd say that's an argument from silence. They are treating the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. That's a logical fallacy! Maybe an illustration will help to explain what I'm trying to say. What those people are concluding because the word "repentance" is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in John's Gospel is analogous to saying, "Since the word 'God' is never once mentioned anywhere in the book of Esther, 'God' is therefore absent from the book." Well, hopefully we know better! God is working behind the scenes in the book of Esther and is working "all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). Just because the word "God" is never explicitly mentioned in the book of Esther, it DOESN'T mean He's absent! And the same is true in regards to the word "repentance" in John's Gospel. Just because the word "repentance" isn't mentioned in John's Gospel, it DOESN'T mean that the concept or the reality is absent.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure if we thought about it a little longer, we could come up with many more examples to illustrate the reductionist (and fallacious) reasoning I just described. But I think you see my point. The objector might respond by saying, "But John's Gospel is all that a person needs to know to be saved." I would answer by saying, "Yes, and you agree that the difference between unbelief and belief involves a change of mind, right?" To disagree with that is like saying an unbeliever can get saved without changing their mind! Or it's like saying an unbeliever can get saved without ever believing. To suggest one can believe without repenting is to suggest that one can move from unbelief to belief without ever changing their mind about what is true. That is a psychological and logical impossibility.
Interestingly, while John doesn't use the noun "repentance," in his Gospel, he constantly uses the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuĊ) over 90 times. In the New Testament, the call to "repent and believe" (Mk. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:21) is like two sides of the same coin. John simply focuses on the one side of the coin, so to speak. Since Paul summarizes his gospel as "repentance toward God and faith toward Christ" (Acts 20:21), and Mark summarizes Jesus' message as "repent and believe" (Mark 1:15), it becomes clear that when John uses the word "believe," he is using a "shorthand" term that encompasses the entire turning-to-God process that other writers describe with both words.
The truth is that "repentance" (Gr. metanoia, a change of mind) is an integral part of saving faith. Therefore, the word "repentance" doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned since the concept (a change of thinking) is obvious from the command to "believe". No one would be commanded to believe if they already believed! So a change of thinking is implied and is obvious from the context and from the command to believe. "Repentance" takes place when an unsaved person (an unbeliever) changes his or her mind and believes (trusts) in Christ for salvation.
For more information, see my blog post titled "Is Repentance Another Condition for Salvation in Addition to Faith Alone?" (FGFS, March 1, 2022).
And I might add that we will probably hear crickets from the non-traditional Free Gracers who teach the view that I'm critiquing. Despite whatever excuse they give, the lack of engagement suggests that their view cannot stand up to the scrutiny of open dialog and debate from a biblical perspective! Hence their complete and total silence on the matter other than to discuss it within the safe confines of their own ivory towers, where Zane Hodges ideologues offer no challenge to their weak and already disproven arguments.
ReplyDeleteSo much for "iron sharpening iron" (Prov. 27:17) — but that assumes their view is "iron," which it is not. Their non-traditional view of repentance as supposedly "harmony with God" is brittle clay that shatters when hit by the hammer of "Thus saith the Lord"! As the Bible says, "Is not my Word like fire, saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 23:29).
For more information, see my blog post titled "The Hammer and the Clay: Why Hodges' View of Repentance Shatters Under Scrutiny" (FGFS, January 1, 2026). Happy New Year!
ReplyDelete