A Critique of Bill Fallon's View of Repentance, Part 1

Bill Fallon of FreeGraceResources.org has written a 10-Part "Repentance" Word Study in which he attempts to prove the non-traditional view of Zane Hodges, which is that "repentance" (Grk. metanoia) is not required for salvation but rather is required in order to achieve some supposed "harmony with God" (something akin to "enlightenment" in Zen Buddism?) prior to and acting as an impetus toward saving faith.

It should be noted at the outset that my critique of Mr. Fallon's "Repentance" Word Study is not meant to be exhaustive. I will simply "hit the highlights" and draw attention to a few key particulars where Mr. Fallon's "harmony with God" view of repentance especially diverges from the Scriptural teaching on the subject and from the traditional Free Grace view of it.

On the positive side, I did find Mr. Fallon's study on repentance to be an interesting and thought-provoking read. Obviously I don't completely agree with it in all aspects, although of course there were areas of agreement. I applaud Mr. Fallon's desire to keep the gospel of God's grace free and unencumbered by man-made additions. In regards to this, the "Conclusion and Summary" of his Word Study (Part 7) is quite good in terms of his overall goal of keeping the gospel free. But as he said, we must also be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water." Unfortunately this is exactly what Mr. Fallon has done with "Repentance" as it relates to eternal salvation! He argues that it's not required. And thus, for all intents and purposes, he has in effect "thrown it out" as far as eternal life is concerned. In his view, repentance is a false addition to the saving message that needs to be "thrown out" of gospel presentations. Notice the irony: Fallon tried to "throw out the bathwater" (legalism) but ended up throwing out the "baby" (biblical metanoia). How sad! How unbiblical! But in terms of presentation, I'd say that Mr. Fallon's study was a fair summary of the "harmony with God" view of repentance. And to the same extent, it was a (mostly) fair interaction with the traditional Free Grace view of repentance as "a change of mind" (Grk. metanoia). He obviously disagrees with the traditional Free Grace view, but I appreciated Mr. Fallon's humility, notably when he said in reference to the "change of mind" (i.e. traditional Free Grace) view of repentance: "There are Bible teachers who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me who endorse that teaching."[1] 

Mr. Fallon's "Engulfed Room" Illustration

In an effort to move beyond the traditional "change of mind" definition of metanoia, Mr. Fallon employs the following illustration of an engulfed room to argue that one can move from ignorance to belief without actually "changing" their mind. He presents the scenario as follows: 

"Let me illustrate. (An illustration does not prove doctrine; it seeks to illustrate and clarify doctrine). Suppose that you and I were in a room in a large building and I told you that the next room was fully engulfed in flames. Would you believe me? Your answer would likely depend upon several factors; Do you have any other related input? Do I have a sufficient pattern of trustworthiness with you? Are you having a bad day? etc. Now suppose that you open the door and immediately were almost overcome with the heat and the flames, it would matter little whether or not you believed me before as it would be almost impossible for you to doubt the truth of my warning then. Now, more directly related to this matter, suppose you were in the same room in the same situation except that I was not there to warn you. You might not have been thinking about anything, especially about the condition of the next room or what I might have told you if I had been there; You open the door and immediately are almost overcome with heat and flames; Now what? Did you change your mind about the condition of the next room? Of course not. You were not even thinking about it. You encountered a very convincing realization. You had not believed anything either way about the condition of the next room until you opened the door."[2]

Why Mr. Fallon's Illustration is Flawed

The central error in Mr. Fallon's illustration is his restrictive definition of what it means to "change one's mind." Fallon argues that the man didn't change his mind because he "was not even thinking about" a fire in the next room, and so how could he change his mind? Fallon says that the man didn't believe anything either way about the condition of the next room until he opened the door and realized the truth. Only then did he believe it. But ironically, Mr. Fallon's illustration actually proves that the man did change his mind! How so? Precisely because he realized the truth and believed it! (The man obviously didn't realize it or believe it beforehand, thus a change of mind occurred when he believed.) The man didn't need to be aware of the fire or preemptively deny it in order to change his mind about it. Because even if the man wasn't previously thinking about a fire in the next room, there was a change of mind from believing nothing about it to suddenly believing it! The fact is, the man didn't believe it until he did. That is obviously a change of mind. Whatever reason the man had for not believing it (e.g. ignorance, etc.) is beside the point. Actively or knowingly disbelieving something is not a requirement for a change of mind. If new facts are presented and a person believes something for the first time, they obviously believe differently than they did before. By definition that is a change of mind. The point is: There was a change of mind from "not even thinking about it" to then suddenly thinking about it and actually believing it! The "thinking about it" is obviously part of believing because there must be content to believe. And "not thinking about it" is contrasted with "thinking about it," so by definition there is a change of mind. In other words, omission (not thinking about the fire) followed by commission (believing in the fire) constitutes a change. The reality is: you either believe there is a fire, or you don't. Since the man didn't before and does now, his mind has changed. I should also point out that the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means "after-mind" or "change of mind." It does not require a "reversal" of a specific previous thought, but rather a new direction of the mind. Even a man walking in total darkness who suddenly sees a light has changed his "mind" (perception/direction) regarding the path. To summarize: Mr. Fallon has made a category error by conflating active rejection with a simple unbelief. A person does not need to be actively "anti-fire" to change their mind upon seeing flames; one only needs to move from a state of ignorance to a state of conviction. To say it another way, moving from a state of non-belief or simple unawareness ("zero") to a state of vivid conviction ("one") is, by definition, a change of mind.

Mr. Fallon's Misrepresentation of L. S. Chafer

I would also like to address the fact that Mr. Fallon completely misrepresents a statement by L. S. Chafer. Mr. Fallon quotes Chafer, but only partially and inaccurately. Referring to Chafer, Fallon states that "though he was a proponent of 'repent/change of mind and believe in Jesus' view, [Chafer] honestly admits that there is no Biblical support that repentance is required for receiving eternal life."[3] Fallon then quotes the statement by Chafer when he says: "From this overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence [the absence of repentance in John, only one occurrence in Romans, its absence in Paul's reply of Acts 16:31], it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation."[4] But Mr. Fallon is quite mistaken in his conclusion because in light of the larger context of what Chafer wrote, it's clear that what he meant is that "the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a [separate] condition of salvation [in addition to faith in Christ, because repentance is included in believing]." This is abundantly clear from the context of what Chafer wrote leading up to Chafer's statement that Fallon took out of context.[5] This understanding of Chafer's statement is also quite clear from statements he made elsewhere to the same effect. For example, in his classic book Grace, Chafer says: "Repentance, which means 'a change of mind,' is never excluded from the terms of salvation; it is included as an essential part of believing."[6] And in his book Dispensationalism, Chafer similarly declares that "the requirement on the human side for present salvation is belief in Christ as Savior, which belief includes all the repentance (which is a change of mind) that a spiritually dead person can produce."[7] It is regrettable that Mr. Fallon resorts to intellectual sleight of hand in his attempt to lend a veneer of credibility to his false view of repentance, specifically by distorting Chafer's actual position on the subject.

Bible Verses Showing Repentance is Required for Salvation

Is repentance required for salvation? What does the Bible say? In regards to this, Mr. Fallon writes: "A basic Scriptural argument is that of all the 112 references to repent and its cognates in the Bible that I can find no statement made to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified, i.e. eternally saved. If this is so, then we are on 'very thin ice' claiming that repentance is also required when the Bible never states that it is required and is extremely clear that we simply need to believe in Jesus to save us." In response to Mr. Fallon, it is important to notice what he does and doesn't say. Notice that Mr. Fallon is careful not to be dogmatic on the issue. Instead, Fallon says "I can find no statement," which is obviously quite different than saying "There is no statement." In like manner, Fallon's conclusion is quite tentative in that he says: "If this is so," rather than the more dogmatic "this is so." I appreciate that Mr. Fallon is hedging or qualifying his statement and not being dogmatic. However, the point I'm making is that his conclusion is still false. His conclusion is that the Bible makes "no statement to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified." Mr. Fallon's conclusion is false because the Bible does in fact make statements to the effect that the unsaved must repent in order to be justified! Notice the following Bible verses, which are merely a representative sampling of the vast weight of biblical evidence that could be cited:

1) Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." This has to do with eternal salvation. The gospel saves! Commenting on this Bible verse, Mr. Fallon says: "The only Bible verse which uses the term 'repent and believe' is Mark 1:15. The context is the exhortation to believe the 'gospel of the kingdom.' This was a message to national Israel and it had to do with the earthly kingdom offered to them and not to eternal life. The Jews wanted the Kingdom but the leaders rejected their King."[8] What Mr. Fallon apparently fails to realize is that individual Israelites needed eternal salvation (from their sins!) in order to enter Christ's earthly kingdom. Jesus makes this clear in the Gospels (see Matt. 18:3, 21:28-32, 22:1-14; Mk. 8:10-12, 10:15; Jn. 3:3-5). Mr. Fallon is correct that in Mark 1:15, Jesus is speaking to the Jews. But strangely, Mr. Fallon appears to be under the false impression that the Jews didn't need eternal salvation! It should go without saying that Jesus "came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15)—which obviously includes the nation of Israel (i.e. the Jews). As Jesus said during His ministry to them: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Commenting on Mark 1:15, Chafer states: "The Scriptures bear an uncomplicated testimony to the sinfulness of man; even the sins of those who wrote the Bible are exposed. The Old Testament declares: 'For there is no man that sinneth not' (1 Kings 8:46); 'For in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Ps. 143:2); 'Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?' (Prov. 20:9); 'For there is not a just man on the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not' (Eccl. 7:20). With the same end in view, the New Testament is even more emphatic. The universal practice of sin is presupposed by Christ (cf. Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 24:47; John 3:3-5). The preaching of the gospel is itself an implication that salvation is needed by all. Apart from redemption, man is wrong in the sight of God. Those who fail to receive the saving grace of God are in every instance condemned."[9] 

2) Luke 5:32 - "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners." Interestingly, although Mr. Fallon cites Luke 5:32 as an example of a Bible verse in which the words "repentance" and "sinner" both occur in the same verse, yet he never once expounds on it anywhere in his entire study on repentance. And I wonder why? Jesus came to save sinners! (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). This obviously has reference to eternal salvation, not a supposed preparatory act prior to saving faith. The fact is: Luke 5:32 clearly refers to eternal salvation, and thus it refutes Mr. Fallon's view that repentance is not required in order to receive eternal life. Ironically, Bob Wilkin actually affirms that Luke 5:32 refers to eternal salvation! I say "ironically" because Wilkin has since changed his view of repentance to align with the new view of repentance put forth by Zane Hodges, namely that "repentance" is merely a preparatory act where the unbeliever abandons sin and gets "in harmony with God" prior to saving faith. But before Wilkin changed his view on repentance, this is what he wrote in regards to Luke 5:32. Under the heading "Gospel - Acts Passages in Which Repentance Is a Change of Mind about Christ and a Condition of Salvation," Wilkin discusses Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; and Luke 5:32. And this is what he says: "Several passages in the Gospels and Acts use 'repentance' as a virtual synonym for eternal salvation. Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17, and Luke 5:32 are parallel accounts. I have selected Mark's account as representative. In Mark 2:17 Jesus responded to scribes and Pharisees who were grumbling because Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He said: 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.' All are sinners. Jesus was not suggesting that some didn't need Him. Rather He was asserting the opposite. All who see their need are invited by Him to heed His call: 'Repent' and be saved. 'Repentance' is used here as a metonymy of cause for the effect. The cause is changing one's mind about Christ, believing in Him. The effect is eternal salvation. Thus Jesus was saying in effect: I have not come to call those who think that they are righteous, but those who recognize that they are sinners, to eternal salvation."[10] Amen!

3) Luke 24:45-48 - "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, 'So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." Jesus says that the repentance is "for forgiveness of sins"! The oldest NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance for forgiveness of sins" (Lk. 24:47, NASB). The more recent NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance and remission of sins" (Lk. 24:47, KJV, NKJV). But as the NT scholar Alfred Plummer notes in his commentary on Luke 24:47, "The eis ["for"] (א B, Boh. Syr.) was corrected [i.e. emended] to kai ["and"] (A C D N X etc.) on account of the second eis. The eis is confirmed by [Lk.] 3.3; Mt. 26.28; Mk. 1.4: compare tēn metanoian eis zōēn (Acts 11.18). Compare also Mt. 28.19."[11] Thus, in Luke 24:47 the correct reading is "repentance for the forgiveness of sins"!

4) Acts 17:30 - "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent..." This is part of the apostle Paul's sermon on Mars Hill to the unsaved Gentiles. Clearly, the context is in regards to eternal salvation (see Acts 17:31). Concerning the word "repent" in Acts 17:30, Chafer lists it as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[12] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[13] Clearly, Paul's command to "repent" in Acts 17:30 has as its result eternal salvation. This is made clear by the context (see Acts 17:34). Once again citing Acts 17:30, Chafer affirms "that such repentance as is possible to an unsaved person in this dispensation is included in the one act of believing."[14] The fact that Paul's statement in Acts 17:30 pertains to eternal salvation is furthermore confirmed by his specific mention that God "winked at" (KJV) or "overlooked" (NKJV) sin in the Old Testament prior to the Cross. This is analogous to Paul's statement in Romans 3:25 that God in His forbearance "passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25b-26, NASB). Chafer notes this connection between Acts 17:30 and Romans 3:25 on several occasions, and affirms that it pertains to "Salvation Before and After the Cross".[15] 

5) Acts 20:21 - "solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is part of Paul's farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus, and it is a summary of the message he proclaimed. Thus, to say that repentance is not required for eternal salvation is to in effect say that Paul didn't proclaim eternal salvation. Because Paul summarized his message as "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously the apostle Paul proclaimed eternal salvation, which included "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Commenting on Acts 20:21 and the phrase "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus," A. T. Robertson affirms: "These two elements run through the Epistle to the Romans which Paul had recently written and sent from Corinth. These two elements appear in all Paul's preaching whether 'to Jews or Gentiles, to philosophers at Athens or to peasants at Lystra, he preached repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus' (Knowling)."[16] Similarly, Chafer includes Acts 20:21 in his list of salvation passages evidencing that repentance as a change of mind "is a part of believing".[17] 

6) Acts 26:20 - "[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 must be read and interpreted in light of Acts 26:18-19, which lead up to it and provide the background context. G. Michael Cocoris (citing Bob Wilkin's dissertation on repentance) quotes Acts 26:20 and then says: "In the context of Paul's speech, 'repent, turn to God' in verse 20 is the same as faith in Christ in verse 18, because verse 19 and 20 are an explanation of verse 18 (Wilkin, dissertation, p. 90). Ironside says that Paul is simply insisting that [spiritually] sick people must recognize and acknowledge the incurableness of their terrible disease, so far as human help is concerned, in order that they may cast themselves in faith upon the Great Physician (Ironside, Except Ye Repent, pp. 62-63)."[18] Charles Ryrie gives a wonderful explanation of the text from a traditional Free Grace perspective when he write the following 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."[19]

7) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Chafer clearing understands this verse as pertaining to eternal salvation, particularly when he writes the following: "[It is written:] 'God so loved the world.' At once and with sublime propriety the whole enterprise of saving men is declared to arise in the love of God. Indeed, it is the ruined cosmos world which He loves; but this truth only enhances the lofty, yet gracious, character of that love. This is not a love for an elect company alone—as though the title, The Cosmos World, could ever be applied to the elect company who are saved out of it and whom the cosmos hates (John 15:18)—but it is a love for the cosmos which hates, which is lost, and which needs to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). What, indeed, would be the present wretchedness and the future despair of all men were it not for the supreme revelation that 'God is love'?"[20] Similar to Acts 17:30, Chafer lists 2 Peter 3:9 as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[21] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[22] 

Having surveyed these seven representative passages of Holy Writ in regards to the word "repentance" (Grk. metanoia, a change of mind), it can be concluded that the Bible does in fact require this repentance in order for unbelievers to obtain eternal life/eternal salvation. This is confirmed by  respected Free Grace theologians such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, H. A. Ironside, Charles Ryrie, and G. Michael Cocoris, just to name a few. Therefore, Mr. Fallon's contention that "Repentance is not presented in the Word of God as being a requirement for eternal life"[23] is not only false, but furthermore it is a serious misrepresentation of the truth of God's Word in regards to a most important subject of eternal consequence and yes, eternal salvation: the great doctrine of REPENTANCE.

References:

[1] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations".

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., endnote 7, brackets added.

[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 376, brackets added by Mr. Fallon.

[5] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, pp. 372-378. See under the heading "REPENT AND BELIEVE."

[6] L. S. Chafer, Grace, 1922 Edition, p. 18.

[7] L. S. Chafer, "Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December, 1936), Vol. 93, Number 372, pp. 436-437.

[8] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Conclusion and Summary, footnote 1.

[9] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 281.

[10] Bob Wilkin, "Repentance and Salvation, Part 4: New Testament Repentance: Repentance in the Gospels and Acts," bible.org.

[11] Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 563. 

[12] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377.

[13] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[14] L. S. Chafer, Salvation, p. 49, emphasis his.

[15] See L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 1930 Edition, pp. 39-40; L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Revised Edition, p. 183. See under the heading: "Salvation Before and After the Cross."

[16] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 350, commentary on Acts 20:21.

[17] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, pg. 265.

[18] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible, p. 55.  

[19] Charles C. Ryrie, "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.

[20] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 394.

[21] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377. 

[22] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[23] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations," emphasis his.