"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" Jeremiah 23:29, KJV.
The following is a comment that I recently shared regarding the "ivory tower" silence we see from the non-traditional Free Grace camp when it comes to discussing their "harmony with God" view of repentance, with those who would challenge it from the Bible:
"...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.
So 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)."
I also want to point out the flawed methodology of Bob Wilkin's new view of repentance (as supposedly "harmony with God"), specifically when he says the following: "Since John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ and everlasting life (John 20:31), it is highly unlikely that John would leave out the words repent and repentance and yet include the concept if repentance were a condition of everlasting life. He'd want to be as clear as possible. Besides, John used those words a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in his Gospel. As Hodges says, that is an argument about silence, not an argument from silence. See Zane Hodges, Harmony with God (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 2001), 5-11 (see also 13-21)." (Wilkin, "Is the Concept of Repentance Found in John’s Gospel, and if so, What Difference Does It Make?" Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Spring 2019], p. 25, endnote 3.)
ReplyDeleteWikin's statement is flawed because obviously Hodges is citing JOHN'S SILENCE on the word repentance AS EVIDENCE for his new "harmony with God" view, which is to same as an argument from silence. So Hodges' and Wilkin's statements that their view is not based on an argument from silence but rather an argument about silence is merely equivocation. Because however they phrase it, it's the same idea: Hodges is building his case on the absence of evidence (which he calls "an argument about silence") and concluding that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Furthermore, in regards to Wilkin's statement that John uses the word "repentance" in Revelation but not in his Gospel, other theological terms are entirely absent in John's Gospel but are found in Revelation: for example, the word "gospel" occurs Rev. 14:6 but is absent in John; the word "church" occurs in Rev. 1:4, 1:11, 1:20; 2:1, 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 (etc.) but is absent in John, and the word "justified" occurs in Rev. 22:11 but is absent in John. Other theological terms that are absent from both John and Revelation are the words "baptism" (the noun is absent in both John and Revelation, although the verb is present in John), "justification," and "Christian". But hopefully no one will say that those concepts are missing! Thus Wilkin's argument about the word "repentance" occurring "a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in [John's] Gospel" is entirely beside the point and does not prove that the concept is absent from John's Gospel. The word "gospel" doesn't even occur in John's Gospel (!), but is found in Revelation. But who would say that the concept is absent from John's Gospel? Indeed, the very reason that John's Gospel is called a "Gospel" is precisely because the concept of "gospel" is contained probably on every page in the book, even though the word itself is never used.
Furthermore, Wilkin fails to account for the fact that John's vocabulary for "believing" often carries the conceptual weight of "turning" (e.g., John 12:40 uses strephÅ, "to turn"; cf. Acts 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9), suggesting that for John, the response of faith is inherently a repentant response, even if he prefers different terminology. Wilkin's statement that "John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ" conveys the same idea of a "change of mind," which is thus inherent in saving faith. Wilkin's statement that John's purpose is leading people to "faith" implicitly requires a metanoia — a change of mind — regarding one's previous unbelief. Therefore, Wilkin is essentially arguing that the concept is absent while simultaneously acknowledging a purpose that makes the concept a logical necessity.