Repentance Law or Grace ? - Glenn Conjurske
Repentance: Law or Grace?
by Glenn Conjurske
Paul speaks of some “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (I Tim. 1:7). Alas, today the same must be said of many who think themselves teachers of grace. A host have followed in the wake of Sir Robert Anderson, who says, “Are faith and the Spirit’s work enough? or is not repentance no less a necessity, if men are to be saved? I meet this question boldly and at once by denouncing it as based, not so much on ignorance as on deep-seated and systematic error. The repentance which thus obtrudes itself and claims notice in every sermon is not the friend of the gospel, but an enemy.”
I meet this assertion just as boldly, and counter that Sir Robert’s position is indeed “deep-seated and systematic error,” and nothing else. But I am not accustomed to deal in assertions, but in arguments, and by the help of God I hope to give the reader a few of them in this article.
Anderson offers a couple of arguments also, but they are weak and insufficient. Says he, “Neither as verb nor noun does it [repentance] occur in the Epistle to the Romans—-God’s great doctrinal treatise on redemption and righteousness—-save in the warnings of the 2nd chapter. And the Gospel of John—-pre-eminently the gospel-book of the Bible—-will be searched in vain for a single mention of it. The beloved disciple wrote his Gospel, that men might believe and live, and his Epistle followed, to confirm believers in the simplicity and certainty of their faith; but yet, from end to end of them, the word `repent’ or `repentance’ never once occurs.”
This last is utterly unworthy the name of an argument, for the dullest of minds must be able to perceive that the thing may be present where the word is not. Anderson surely believed in the Trinity, though the word never once occurs in all the Bible. The word “repentance” is not in John, but the doctrine of repentance is there plainly enough, as I have shown elsewhere. And even if the doctrine could not be found in John, it would yet prove nothing, for John’s are not the only books in the Bible. This argument from the supposed silence of one portion of Scripture must at best be very precarious. But it is worse than precarious. It is in reality the special pleading of a man determined to maintain his own doctrine in spite of the plain statements of Scripture.
Again, he argues also from the silence of the book of Romans—-yet he is compelled to admit that repentance does occur in the book of Romans, albeit only “in the warnings of the 2nd chapter.” But where else would he expect to find it? Paul puts repentance where it belongs, at the beginning of the gospel. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1) consisted of the preaching of repentance by John the Baptist. And against all of his prejudices, Anderson is yet forced to admit that the book of Romans does contain the doctrine of repentance. He must admit that “Romans—-God’s great doctrinal treatise on redemption and righteousness”—-does contain the word “repentance,” though it be only in the second chapter. The absence of the term from the rest of the book is no argument at all, for (not to insist upon the fact that the doctrine of repentance is plainly present in the sixth and eighth chapters) Paul was not obliged to repeat in every chapter what he had so plainly and so strongly insisted upon already. It had been much more to Anderson’s purpose to explain why repentance is present in one portion of the book, than to call attention to its absence from the rest of the book. The fact is, we can prove anything if we argue from the silence of certain portions of Scripture, while we ignore the positive statements of other scriptures. But Anderson’s arguments do prove one thing: they do prove the real weakness of his cause. They do prove how hard pressed he is for arguments. A man who has good arrows in his quiver does not resort to bad ones.
Anderson grants us also, “Salvation there cannot be without repentance, any more than without faith; but the soundest and fullest gospel-preaching need not include any mention of the word.” We can grant that—-that sound gospel preaching need not mention the word “repentance.” But if it does not contain the doctrine of repentance it is certainly not sound—-and we hardly suppose it is the word which troubles Anderson and his ilk, but the doctrine. These men have reduced repentance to a non-entity, and therefore it is of course superfluous to mention it. So William Pettingill: “…repentance is a necessary part of saving faith. Strictly speaking, the word repentance means `a change of mind.’ . . . Since it is not possible for an unbeliever to become a believer without changing his mind, it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it.”
But certainly Christ and his apostles thought otherwise, for they mentioned it continually. But it is really amazing how the teachers of the modern church labor to rid the gospel of repentance. They have an argument (or an assertion) for every facet of the subject, but put all of those arguments together, and you will find them a mass of contradictions. First, repentance is law, not grace. Then, it is an integral part of saving faith. Next, it is a mere change of mind. Next, it is only for the Jews. Then, we must do it, but need not mention it. Next “repent” is a mere synonym of “believe.” The fact is, there is not a grain of truth in any of these assertions, for they all contradict the plain Scriptures of truth, as much as some of them contradict each other.
Once more Robert Anderson: “Faith and repentance are not successive stages on the road to life; they are not independent guides to direct the pilgrim’s path; they are not separate acts to be successively accomplished by the sinner as a condition of his salvation.” The only one of these three assertions which is true is the second, and it is mere rhetoric. But if repentance and faith are not separate and successive acts, why did the Lord preach “repent ye, AND believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15)? Why did the apostle Paul preach “repentance toward God, AND faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21)? We shall of course be told that when Christ preached “repent YE,” he did not mean “ye men,” but “YE JEWS.” But this is mere assertion, and the all-sufficient answer to it is, “He did not”—-for one assertion without proof is as good as another. It is plain also that this contention cannot be applied to Paul’s preaching, for he preached “both to the Jews, and ALSO to the Greeks, repentance toward God, AND faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” But here we are told that this repentance, which Paul preached, is a mere change of mind. I do not stay to answer this, except to affirm that it is false, for here I endeavor only to prove that, whatever repentance may consist of, it belongs to grace, not law.
For it must be understood that the settled antipathy—-the determined opposition—-of these men to the Bible doctrine of repentance is built upon its supposed inconsistency with salvation by grace. Wherever they see any conditions of any kind annexed to the grace of God, wherever they see any insistence upon any form of human responsibility, wherever they see anything required of men, they immediately affirm that this is law, not grace. But the only thing which they prove by it is that they understand neither law nor grace, and certainly have no proper understanding of the difference between them. It is not the existence of conditions which distinguishes the law, but the nature of those conditions. The law requires perfection, where grace makes provision for our lack of perfection.
Yet grace has conditions. They must all grant that faith is a condition of salvation, though they often labor to make it appear otherwise. Believing, they say, is nothing which we do, but the gift of God, wrought “in us, not by us.” To this I need only say that if believing is nothing which we do, it is strange enough that God so often requires us to do it. Did he give us the Holy Scriptures on purpose to confuse and mislead us? But again, it is said that believing is not doing anything at all, but is rather ceasing to do anything. But this is mere begging of the question, mere playing with words, mere trifling with holy things, for (even if that were a proper account of faith, which it is not) to cease to do anything is as much an act of the will as to begin it. The plain truth is, faith is a condition of salvation.
Grace has conditions, and one of those conditions is repentance. And the real fact is, repentance must belong to grace, and cannot belong to law. The very nature of law absolutely excludes it. There is no place for repentance under law. The principle of law says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. 3:10). The first moment a man fails to continue in those things, and do them, he is cursed, and no place of repentance is so much as offered him. He may repent from the moment of his fall to the end of eternity, and it will avail him not one whit, if he is under law.
Understand, now, I speak of the principle of law, and not of the Mosaic system. The Mosaic system is full of grace. Anyone who will not acknowledge this must deny that ever a man was saved from Moses to Christ, for they certainly know that no man can be justified under the law—-that every man who is under the law is under the curse. The first half of the text quoted above affirms, “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” That is, as many as operate upon that principle, as many as belong to that sphere. They are all under the curse, for none have continued in all things written in the law to do them, and there is no mercy in the law, no forgiveness for transgressions, no place of repentance, and no hope for those who once fall. This is the principle of law. It demands perfection, and settles for nothing less. The law says, “This do, and thou shalt live,” but it never dreams of “This fail to do, and thou mayest be forgiven.” The moment forgiveness is contemplated, we have left the ground of law entirely, and are standing on the ground of grace. In days when thinking was deeper than it generally is today, and theology sounder, men used to know this, though few enough seem to have an inkling of the matter today. Thus Richard Baxter: “The Law of pure Works, taught not Repentance as a means to pardon, nor required any but despairing Repentance: for it gave no hope of pardon. To preach Repentance therefore as a means to pardon, is not to preach that Law, but the Covenant of Grace, and Christ, that gives Repentance to Israel, and Remission of sin.”
But suppose that I am all in error—-suppose that repentance belongs to the law, and not the gospel—-and mark what the consequence must be. If repentance is law, not grace, then the plain fact is, the Lord Jesus, among his last words to his apostles, after his resurrection, commissioned them to go into all the world and preach the LAW to every creature. For he enjoined upon them “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47).
Yet observe, there is no possibility that this is law, for the reader will note that repentance is here joined to remission of sins, of which the law knows nothing. There is no forgiveness of sins possible under law. The very foundation principle of law absolutely excludes it. Forgiveness is precisely what the law never can proffer, upon any terms whatsoever, and the fact that the forgiveness of sins is here made consequent upon repentance is the full proof that repentance belongs to grace, not law. And yet with such scriptures as this before their eyes, men will solemnly affirm that repentance is law, not grace. That is indeed a “deep-seated and systematic error,” which can so blind the eyes of good and intelligent men.
But worse than this, if repentance belongs to law, not grace, then Christ not only commissioned his apostles to preach the law to all the world, but he himself was guilty of preaching the most consummate confusion, for he preached, in one breath, “repent ye, AND believe the gospel.” If repentance is of the law, then the message which Christ preached consisted of, “Meet the demands of the law, and believe the gospel.” Let him believe this who can. We shall of course be told that “the gospel” which Christ thus preached is not “the gospel.” It is some other gospel, “the gospel of the kingdom,” or some half-breed, half law, half grace gospel, and not “the gospel of the grace of God.” But this is grasping at straws. In their eagerness to overturn the scriptural doctrine of repentance, these men forget to examine their arguments to see whether they have any semblance of truth about them. The truth is this: nothing which can be called “the gospel” can be anything but grace. I care nothing whether it is “the gospel of the kingdom,” or “the gospel of God,” or “the gospel of the grace of God,”
—-whether Paul’s gospel, Peter’s gospel, the gospel of Christ, or what have you—-if it is gospel, it is grace, and therefore not law. When Christ preached “repent ye, and believe the gospel,” he was not preaching the law in the first half of his sentence, and the gospel in the second half. He was preaching grace, pure grace, and only grace. Was the Savior of the world guilty of preaching in the same sentence, in the same breath, both law and grace? Oh, ye poor, blind teachers of “grace,” who are always wiser than the Son of God, always wiser than the apostles of Christ, always wiser than Holy Scripture, can there be any possible excuse for your doctrine?
Would ye could bear with me a little, while I quote a few words from one of the strongest exponents of grace in history. C. H. Mackintosh says, “But let us turn for a moment to Acts. iii. Here the preacher, after charging his hearers with the same awful act of wickedness, enmity, and rebellion against God, even the rejection and murder of His Son, adds these remarkable words, `And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But these things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” The reader will note that here again repentance is made the condition of the forgiveness of sins. That is, it is made the condition of grace. Mackintosh continues: “It is not possible to conceive anything higher or fuller than the grace that shines out here. It is a part of the divine response to the prayer of Christ, `Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ This surely is royal grace. It is victorious grace—-grace reigning through righteousness.”
To C.H.M., then, the offer of forgiveness upon the condition of repentance was abounding grace. He saw nothing of law here. One more word from C.H.M., and I have done. “It is vanity and folly, or worse, to talk about its being legal to preach repentance, to say that it tarnishes the lustre of the gospel of the grace of God to call upon men dead in trespasses and sins to repent, and do works meet for repentance. Was Paul legal in his preaching? Did he not preach a clear, full, rich, and divine gospel? Have we got in advance of Paul? Do we preach a clearer gospel than he? How utterly preposterous the notion!”
The plain truth is, repentance belongs to grace, and to the gospel, and those who do not preach repentance, as Christ and his apostles preached it, do not preach the true gospel of the grace of God.
Glenn Conjurske