Good post and thorough thinking. Thank you for sharing.

I have often wondered if the Rich Young Ruler interupted Jesus. Our Lord mentioned all the latter commandments--except the last one. When the Lord told him to go and sell all, that was basically asking the last one "Thou shalt not covet" exposing the man's true god -- greed, which Colossians tells us is idolatry. So he didn't really worship God as outlined in the first few commandments -- he was an idol worshipper. So in his self-deception he thought he was right and ready. In reading his heart, Jesus knew who was really his god.

Blessings,
Iris

 

Surely the vehicle by which "the self" imposed itself upon the rich young ruler was the sin of avarice - which you rightly remind us is as idolatry (since it is the worship of mammon). The root problem, that is, the reason we worship mammon is because we want to trust it to feed, clothe, house, and protect us. We want to say when we eat, what we eat, what we wear, where we live - we want to rule ourselves with regards to these things - and it is because we desire to rule ourselves that we desire the means to do so - money. Idolatry always boils down to self worship.

Good observation Iris - I am thankful someone read it - since it took forever to write... lol.

 

This is a very thoughtful and balanced post. I agree totally. When one comes to Christ for salvation, He will always put His finger on the defining sin in that person's life. If he or she is unwilling to turn from that sin, he/she will not be saved. Jesus did the same thing with the woman at the well in Jn.4. He dealt with her sin. The difference is that she was repentant and the rich young ruler was not.

Sorry to be so wordy.

 

Garry - right you are (about the woman at the well in Samaria). When Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God His command was to, "repent and believe in the gospel." (c.f. Mark 1:15) Christ plainly said of Himself that he had not come to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repent (c.f. Luke 5:32) and on more than one occasion Christ intoned that "unless you repent you will likewise perish" - He made it plain by teaching that there is joy in heaven over even one sinner (an unregenerate person) who repents (turns to God/is saved).

I mean we read in Acts 11:18 the description of what happened at Cornelius' house - in describing the salvation of the Gentiles Luke records that God had "also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." Not repentance to "life more abundantly" as though you had it and repentance only makes it nicer - but rather that you don't get life without it.

What do we do with a verse like Acts 3:10 ("Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out")? Clearly conversion hinges upon repentance - at least according to a plain reading of scripture.

I think the most clear, concise description of the gospel is given in Acts 20:21 - where Paul describes the gospel that he was preaching everywhere in this way: ...testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think what happens though is that people either forget that God grants repentance at the moment the gospel is received or they never understood that that was how it happened for them. Such as these (I suppose) would be correct in railing against the strawman - the idea that we "repent-first-then-believe" - as though repentance was a human work that we do in order to produce saving faith.

I think what goes on at the moment of salvation is difficult to articulate, such that in an effort to identify exactly how one believes unto salvation some describe repentance as preceding faith - as though the two could be separated or were not related. These only mean to describe that the nature of true saving faith includes God given repentance - and having poorly articulated the matter they inadvertantly produce in their audience the idea that they really think repentance is a human work that they must produce themselves in order to believe, and indeed prior to ever believing. That usually isn't how they understand it, but it can come across that way. If you asked these same people if they believed you had to repent in your own strength in order to believe they would quickly assure you that it doesn't work that way.

I don't know of anyone who imagines that in order to believe the gospel we must start repenting first so as to prime the pump of faith - that isn't it at all.

Truly, it is difficult to try and articulate the fact that one cannot believe in a vacuum, but that faith and repentance are intermixed - and that both are granted by God in the very same moment - being generated not of man but by and through God - and are given to the man as a gift at the very instant God determined to make the gospel salvific in that person's life.

There are some who hear this articulated poorly, and project into it the idea that someone is teaching that -the person- must repent in order to believe, instead of understanding what is really being said - that God produces repentance in everyone in whom the gospel is producing life. God doesn't produce life except through the repentance that He himself gives at the very moment of salvation.

 

Maybe that's why I appear to "care more about converting believers to Calvinism than the lost to Christ."

Easy believism is so prevalent that whether it's doctrinal positions, or signs of repentance, I get more excited because there is evidence that this thing is true, whereas, I cannot discern men's hearts.

 

Craver VII - I hear you. I get excited when a long time believer suddenly "gets it."

 

An "antinomian gospel" ... that is a new one, Daniel. I have heard the word "antinomian" plenty in the last year, but not as a descriptor for "gospel." When thinking about the bare definition of the word "antinomian", it kinda makes me chuckle that you would combine those two words.

Hey, and no fair to stop commenting on someone's blog for weeks and then do a post linking to them. I feel like you were talking behind my back!
(just kiddin)

 

Rose, as I mentioned in my post, I wasn't originally planning on posting - in fact, most of what is written here was actually copied and pasted out of the comment section of your blog. I was in the process of posting a comment over there, when I reasoned that the length of my post would make your meta too long and clumsy.

So I began working on it over here, and by the time I posted it, the conversation over at your blog had moved on, and honestly, I didn't want to debate the idea as though my comment had to do with you, or Ms. Elliot in particular - it didn't. Your post merely was the catalyst to my own post - such that I wasn't so much "replying" to anything you said but rather I was using your post as a springboard to my own thoughts on the matter.

So I had considered posting one of those "that's nice - here's what I think <link> <link> kinda posts - but that really isn't my style.

To be sure, I wanted to discuss the idea that repentance is granted at the same time that faith is granted, and your post just ignited that for me. So instead of commenting over there, I just used all that energy and posted it here. I mentioned what I was on about up front - to give the post some context, and even to point people back to your blog should they want to know how I came to discuss that - but I didn't think of it as clandestine, I wasn't writing to rebut, but to explain what I think the truth is.

You have never heard the term "antinomian gospel" before?

I wish I could take credit for coining it, but it is hundreds of years old (at least). Any gospel that leads to, or makes provision for, or merely excuses post-conversion "lawlessness" is correctly labeled an "antinomian gospel."

When we talk about a receiving Christ as a business transaction that leaves us "just as we are" we are not talking about a tranformation or a new creation - we are talking about an intellectual persuasion that results in perpetual stagnation. It isn't that one must do good works to demonstrate that their salvation was genuine - it is that anyone who thinks they are saved who hasn't been granted a repentant faith by God is not obeying the gospel - they are just assenting to the facts.

 

Daniel dear,
I was merely feigning offence. I am sorry if it came across as though you had to go into all that explanation about the comment and the post.

"God receives us just as we are, but He loves us enough not to leave us just as we are." Is that how you would put it?

 

Rose, I am glad I gave no offense.

I wouldn't put it the way you did, but more like:

"God receives us through a faith and repentance that He Himself grants to us."

The point is not that we have to repent in order to believe, but rather that every legitimate faith is accompanied with genuine (though not necessarily consistent) repentance.