"Can A Christian Lose Their Salvation?" Debate

Here is the description posted on YouTube:

Watch as Trent Horn of Catholic Answers and Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries debate the theology surrounding the topic: "Can A Christian Lose Their Salvation?" This debate was moderated by Michael O'Fallon on January 18, 2017. Sovereign Alliance sponsored the event at the 2017 G3 Conference in Atlanta, Georgia with over 1,300 audience members in attendance.

Of course, I think James White was on the right side of this debate.

"Aquinas Is Not A Safe Guide For Protestants" Debate

Toward the end of last year and the beginning of this year there was a minor, although interesting debate on The Aquila Report , a conservative, Presbyterian news and commentary website. The debate began with a two part series of articles by Dewey Roberts:

Aquinas Is Not A Safe Guide For Protestants: Reading Aquinas with care and caution (October 16, 2016)

Aquinas Not a Safe Guide for Protestants – Part 2: Why Aquinas is not a theologian you should closely study or follow (November 3, 2016)

In these articles the author also repeatedly points out the close affinity between the ideas of Aquinas and the teaching of Federal Vision theology (FV). In fact, he was led to read Aquinas because of the way FV proponents had been citing his teaching. At any rate, these two articles were then followed by a response from Travis James Campbell:

Should Ole Aquinas be Forgot and Never Brought to Mind: A Response to Dewey Roberts’ “Aquinas Not a Safe Guide for Protestants” (December 11, 2016)

This article then led to a response from Dewey Roberts:

Aquinas Is Still Not a Safe Guide for Protestants: A rejoinder to “Should Ole Aquinas be Forgot and Never Brought to Mind?” in the discussion on Aquinas (January 8, 2017)

There has not yet been another article posted in this debate, at least not that I have seen. However, I do encourage reading the articles that have been posted. In my opinion, both men raise some very important issues, but I have a definite affinity for Roberts' point of view. What do you think?

"What Child Is This? The Virgin Birth" by Bob Gonzales

Back in 2011 I posted some Teaching Notes on the Importance of the Virgin Birth, and I hope our readers found the post helpful. Today, as we look forward to celebrating the birth of our Savior this week, I would like to recommend a similar post by Bob Gonzales entitled What Child Is This? The Virgin Birth. Here is the introduction to the article:

In light of the approach of Christmas—a time when Christians celebrate the incarnation of Christ—I’d like to highlight the reality and importance of the virgin birth, or more properly, the virgin conception of Jesus Christ. Until recently, the virgin birth has been acknowledged as an important doctrine of the Christian faith. The early church fathers, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene and Chalcedon Creeds, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Reformed Belgic Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and the Westminster Confession of Faith all bear witness to the church’s faith in the virgin birth.

However, in recent years some Bible scholars have questioned the veracity and challenged the importance of this doctrine. Some within the church no longer believe it to be true.

In response to this growing problem, Bob goes on to demonstrate the importance of this doctrine from three Scriptural witness: Isaiah (7:14), Matthew (1:18-25), and Luke (1:26-27, 34-35; 3:23). After a brief exegesis of these passages, Bob then offers four reasons why the doctrine of the virgin birth is so important:

1. The virgin birth of Christ fosters faith in the incarnation of His divine nature and the moral purity of His human nature.

2. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ reminds us that God must initiate man’s salvation.

3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ calls for our commitment to the supernaturalism of Christianity.

4. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ tests the strength of our commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

I highly recommend reading the article as you prepare to celebrate the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ this week. It will help you remember why the doctrine is so crucial, and it will help you prepare to share this important truth with friends and loved ones who need to ehar it.

Helpful Responses to Andy Stanley's Aberrant Teaching

Many of you may be familiar with my own challenges to the teaching of Andy Stanley in a previous blog post entitled Is Andy Stanley Ashamed of the Bible? In that post I offered a critique of three of Andy's sermons and demonstrated how his disdain for expository preaching derives from a different view of Scripture. In fact, I have come to believe that Andy has departed from the orthodox faith in regard to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and his more recent assertions have only reinforced this belief. In light of these more recent assertions and teaching, then, I would recommend reading my previous post if you have not already done so, for in it I challenge many of the very kinds of things he has been continuing to say. But I would also like to recommend listening to the critique offered by James White (pictured right), which is contained in the videos below, as well as reading some recent articles over at the Pulpit & Pen blog, which are linked at the bottom of this post.

In order to set the table, many of you may already be familiar with Andy's recent comments made in an interview with Russell Moore. Here is the video containing the relevant comments:



In the Dividing Line video below, at about the 30 minute mark, James White begins to discuss Andy's statements. He challenges Andy's assertions in the interview, as well and some other statements made by him on his church's website. He also does a very good job of working through 1 Corinthians 1 and demonstrating the difference between Andy's perspective and that of the Apostle Paul.



In the next video below, James responds to Andy's sermon entitled The Bible Told Me So, the third part of a series entitled "Who Needs God," in which Andy continues to make the same kind of silly argument I had challenged in the sermons I had previously critiqued. Here is the description of the episode from the Dividing Line website:

There were three major topics on the DL today (after the opening discussion of some urgent situations where the people of God need to bring certain issues before the throne of grace): first, an article published today on Revelation 16:5 and the Textus Receptus; then, a rather lengthy review of Andy Stanley’s sermon from Sunday on the Bible and Christianity. About 2/3 of the way through we were joined by Dr. Tony Costa on the phone, but we pressed on and finished the sermon, commenting as we went along.  And then in the last half hour or so Tony and I discussed the double standards so often used by Islamic apologists. Two and a half hours long! Have the days of hour long Dividing Lines ended? Tune in next week to find out!

As you can see, James had as hard a time being brief in his critique of Andy as I did! But it is well worth listening to the entire critique, which begins at about the 41:30 mark.



James does a good job of pointing out the theological issues with Andy, not to mention the fact that he simply doesn't know what he is talking about in much of what he says (unless he is deliberately distorting the most basic facts of Church history). At any rate, we need to warn our brothers and sisters in Christ about the real danger of ignorant, liberal, unorthodox teachers like Andy Stanley, and I appreciate James so ably helping us in this regard.

I also appreciate the efforts of Bud Ahlheim over at the Pulpit & Pen blog, who has written a series of recent posts about these issues:

SBC Conference: “Get The Spotlight Off The Bible” (Courtesy of Russell Moore & Andy Stanley)

Superstar Mega-church Son of A (Hopefully Ashamed) Preacher Man Andy Stanley: Scripture Can’t Be Defended  

Andy Stanley: You’re Not Smart Enough If You’re Not In “One of Our Churches” (Doubling Down on Unnecessary Scripture)

Although I would have stated a few things a bit differently, I certainly agree with Bud's conclusions regarding Andy's view of Scripture and the Church. As always, we welcome your comments.

The Danger of "The Soft Prosperity Gospel"

Erik Raymond has written a thought-provoking and needed article entitled The Soft Prosperity Gospel, and I hope all of you will read it. Here is the introduction to the article:

What do you think of when you read the words prosperity gospel? Odds are that your stomach turns a bit as you think about the preachers on television who speak to very large crowds and appeal to even more people in their books. Queasiness is the reaction one should have to the brand of Christianity trumpeted by prosperity preachers. This is because the prosperity gospel is not a gospel at all but rather a damnable perversion of the true gospel. Its preachers herald a message of self-improvement that runs painfully contrary to several key biblical realities. They minimize the purpose of suffering, discourage self-denial, and make the Christian life about the accumulation of stuff. To do this they turn Jesus from the self-giving, sin-atoning, wrath-satisfying, guilt-removing Savior into an eager butler who fetches all of our desires and gives us our best life now.

The prosperity gospel shrinks the gospel down to an unfiltered pursuit of our desires. It shifts the message from the spiritual to the materialistic. Let’s be clear about this: the prosperity gospel is about us rather than God.

Eric further states that:

We would be naive to think that prosperity thinking is limited to those who cruise around in their expensive private jets or overtly speak in self-help platitudes fit for fortune cookies. No, prosperity thinking has gone viral today. Being more nuanced and subtle than you may think, prosperity thinking is very active in the church. And because it undermines our understanding and application of the gospel, its effect is cataclysmic. Like a computer virus, it drains the vitality and productivity of the covenant community. And you know the worst part? We may not even recognize where we’ve been affected by it.

Let’s call this the “soft” prosperity gospel. It is not so loud and ostentatious. It is more mainstream, polished, and even American. Here are a few ways that you can tell that you may be nibbling at the hook of a soft-prosperity gospel without, perhaps, even knowing it.

Eric then gets into several areas in which we may have been infected with the virus of the false prosperity gospel without even realizing it. I highly recommend reading what he has to say here. As always, your feedback is welcome.

Shepherds Must Protect Their Flocks

There seems to be an ever increasing disdain among Evangelicals for any teaching that is confrontational, for any teaching that exposes errors or false doctrines and warns the people of God about such dangers. They see such teaching as too "negative" or "judgmental" or "intolerant." They often even see it as "unloving" and "mean-spirited." They seem to think that "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15, italics mine) can only be done by compromising the truth, and they cannot see the utter inconsistency of such a notion. They seem to forget that the same Jesus who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34) also frequently demonstrated His love for us by confronting false teaching in no uncertain terms. Thus they fail to see that we cannot love each other as Jesus has loved us without confronting the false teaching that is all around us. So, today I would just like to post a brief reminder concerning the role of pastors as guardians of the Church, who serve as under-shepherds of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great shepherd of the sheep, and who are called to help protect His flock against wolves in sheep's clothing.

The Teaching of Jesus

Many of the blog's readers will recognize the metaphor of wolves in sheep's clothing as having come from our Lord Jesus himself, who taught that there are some who may profess to be true believers and true teachers of the Word but who in reality are not. They profess and pretend to be sheep, but they are actually wolves. Consider these words from His Sermon on the Mount:

NKJ  Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

As a fellow elder has often said, "Our Lord Jesus has called each one of us to be a fruit inspector." We must look for the evil fruit of false teaching and false living in order to see the wolves for who they really are, and the task will not be easy, for such wolves are very often so self-deceived that even they believe their own lies. This is plain in what Jesus goes on to say about such people in the following context:

NKJ  Matthew 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" 23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

Such wolves in sheep's clothing are so self-deceived that they will even stand before the Lord Jesus Himself and claim to be genuine. But our Lord assures us that we need not be deceived by them, for we may know them by their fruits. He also warns us that false teaching can be like leaven:

NKJ  Matthew 16:6-12 Then Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread." 8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?-- but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Thus false teaching -- as the teaching of the Pharisees surely was -- is like leaven, of which even a small amount may have a pervasive impact. Jesus lovingly warned His disciples of such dangers, but He also frequently confronted false teachers in the presence of His disciples so that they could see in Him a model for their own future ministry. Consider, for example, these words of rebuke spoken to the Pharisees:

NKJ  Matthew 23:1-15 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' 8 But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. 13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

This is only a portion of Jesus' rebuke of the false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, but I am sure it is enough to make the point! Further examples from His ministry should not be necessary, so we will consider a few example from the ministry of the Apostles.

The Teaching of the Apostles

The first major heresy that the Church battled was the false gospel of works salvation, as certain false teachers were claiming that the Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. This false doctrine led to the first Church council. As Luke tells us, "some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.' Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:5-6 NKJ). Luke then goes on to describe how the Apostles and elders led the Church to a adopt a Biblical stance regarding the problem. In other words, the Apostles and elders sought to protect the Church by dealing with this matter and refusing to let the false teaching go unchecked.

The Apostle Paul also later set an example for all future pastors to follow when he regularly confronted false teaching. Here are just a couple of passages in which he made this aspect of the pastor's responsibility very clear:

NKJ Acts 20:28-31 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Paul clearly commands the elders to watch out for the flock as they shepherd them, especially against the false teachers that will arise, even from among their own ranks. He clearly sees this as one of the reasons the Holy Spirit had appointed them as overseers, and he himself was willing to spend time doing this "day and night."

In fact, Paul even had to protect the Church from false apostles at times, such as those he warned the Corinthian believers about:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

 Another example from the ministry of Paul can be found in his words to the Colossian Christians:

NKJ Colossians 1:24-29 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,  25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. 29 To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. (Italics mine.)

Also, in Titus 1:7-9, Paul lists some of the requirements for elders, and among these requirements he says that an elder must hold fast "the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict." And some of the reasons for this requirement are given in the following verses: "For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain" (vss. 10-11). So, again, it is clear that the elders are responsible for guarding the churches against false doctrine.

Conclusion

I hope all of the blog's readers have been sufficiently reminded of the important role that pastors have to play in protecting the flock of Jesus Christ from wolves in sheep's clothing. This role requires them to be willing to expose false teaching and to confront false teachers whenever and wherever they pose a threat. Evangelical Christians must therefore reject the false notion that pastors who do so are simply being negative or unloving. Instead, they must embrace this role as one of the ways in which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great shepherd of the sheep, has called pastors to love His people.

Did Jesus Exist? Michael Kruger's Response to Valerie Tarico

Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina, has recently written a brief, yet excellent, response to an article by Valerie Tarico posted at RawStory website and entitled Here Are 5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed. Michael's response is entitled Did Jesus Even Exist? Responding to 5 Objections Raised by @rawstory, and here is the conclusion to that article:

In the end, Tarico has provided few reasons to think we should doubt the existence of Jesus. On the contrary, each of her suggested reasons, when explored more fully, reveal that we actually have very solid reasons to believe in the existence of Jesus.

In short, the scholarly consensus on this matter exists for a reason. Scholars may disagree about a great many things regarding Jesus. But his existence is not one of them.

I recommend reading the article. It isn't very long, and it is definitely worth it.

By the way, Michael has also written one of my favorite books on the canonicity of the New Testament entitled Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. I highly recommend it!

Happy Reformation Day!

Most Evangelicals who celebrate Reformation Day do so on October 31, which is the day that Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenburg in 1517. The debate that ensued led to a full outbreak of reformation and to Luther's trial at the Diet of Worms in 1521. So, I offer the above video as a reminder of this important occasion in the history of the Church. The clip is taken from the excellent 1953 film, Martin Luther, in which Luther was wonderfully portrayed by Niall MacGinnis. I really like the way the film employs Luther's famous hymn, A Mighty Fortress is Our God, in the background.

For those who are interested, here is the complete film:

John Piper Explains Why He Hates the "Prosperity Gospel"

In the video above, John Piper explains why he abominates -- or hates -- the "prosperity gospel." He lists several reasons. He rightly says that it is another gospel, and he cites Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy:

NKJ 1 Timothy 6:6-9 Now godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

John also cites our Lord Jesus, when He said that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:24). He explains how it is that prosperity preachers actually encourage people to adopt the sinful attitudes that will lead to their destruction.

John then gives as another reason that he abominates the "prosperity gospel" the fact that the preachers of it take their theology to lots of poor people around the world, giving them false hope with a false gospel and taking their money -- what little they have -- in the process. They also leave many of these Christian people unprepared for the suffering of the Christian life.

John also speaks about how the preachers of the "prosperity gospel" undermine the mission of the Church by teaching people that the suffering necessary is a bad thing. On this point he also speaks of the over-realized eschatology of the "prosperity gospel."

John ends the video by saying:

It's a tragic thing that one of our greatest exports of America is the prosperity gospel. People are being destroyed by it. Christians are being weakened by it. God is being dishonored by it. And souls are perishing because of it. And a lotta guys are getting rich on it!

I recommend watching all of this excellent video. It is just over ten minutes long, and it is well worth the time.

Carey Nieuwhof Offers Some Bad Advice to American Pastors Regarding Same Sex Marriage

On June 29 a Canadian pastor named Carey Nieuwhof posted an article on his blog entitled Some Advice on Same-Sex Marriage for US Church Leaders From a Canadian. His intent was to offer advice to American pastors in the light of the June 26 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same sex marriage in our country. In this article Carey offers five "perspectives" that he hopes "are helpful as church leaders of various positions on the subject think and pray through a way forward." I will briefly address each of them.

First, Carey reminds us that "The church has always been counter-cultural," and here he has a few good things to say. For example, he reminds us that:

If you think about it, regardless of your theological position, all your views as a Christian are counter-cultural and always will be. If your views are cultural, you’re probably not reading the scriptures closely enough.

We’re at our best when we offer an alternative, not just a reflection of a diluted or hijacked spirituality.

I agree. We need not fear that our culture is forcing us to actually be as counter-cultural as we are called to be, nor to be seen as such. But, as we shall see, Carey doesn't remain faithful to such an understanding in what follows, since his advice begins to sound more like something one would hear in our culture than what one would derive from Scripture.

Second, Carey asserts that "It’s actually strange to ask non-Christians to hold Christian values," and it is here that he begins to get off track, so I will spend some time quoting portions of this section of the article and offering my responses as I go.

The question Christians in a post-Christian culture have to ask themselves is this:

     Why would we expect non-Christians to behave like Christians?

If you believe sex is a gift given by God to be experienced between a man and a woman within marriage, why would you expect people who don’t follow Christ to embrace that?

Why would we expect people who don’t profess to be Christians to:

     Wait until marriage to have sex?

     Clean up their language?

     Stop smoking weed?

     Be faithful to one person for life?

     Pass laws like the entire nation was Christian?

Seriously? Why?

Most people today are not pretending to be Christians. So why would they adopt Christian values or morals? 

My counter-question for Carey is, "Why would God expect people created in His image to behave like it? Seriously? Why?" But to ask the question is to answer it. It is because He made them, right? So He has the right to expect them to live as the moral creatures He created them to be, and He has the right to judge them when they don't. Surely Carey must know this. Surely he must understand that all men are under the judgment of God precisely because they fail to live up to His moral standard. And surely he must know that "Christian values or morals" are not just standards we have chosen to adopt from some list of our own making but rather are the very standards that God has revealed in His Word as what He expects of all men everywhere. In fact, such an understanding of God's right to hold all men accountable for their sins against Him and His own standard of righteousness is presupposed in the early preaching of the Gospel as seen in the New Testament. For example:

NKJ Acts 17:22-31 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

Thus Paul preached repentance from sin in the light of God's sovereign right to judge all mankind. He clearly said that God "now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained," namely Jesus Christ our Lord. This was the same message that the Apostles had preached to the religious Jews (Acts 2:22-39; 3:12-19). Indeed, when Paul later stood trial before Herod Agrippa, he spoke of his Gospel ministry this way:

NKJ Acts 26:19-20 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

Thus the Apostle Paul had no problem telling pagan Gentiles that God as their Creator had the right to call them to repentance for their sins, and we know that among such sins Paul included the sin of homosexuality (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:9). In fact, when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians in order to explain his preaching of the Gospel to them (Rom. 1:9-15), he spent a great deal of time showing how he taught that all men, including pagan Gentiles, are guilty of sin before God and in need of forgiveness and salvation, and he specifically confronted the rampant homosexuality of his day:

 NKJ Romans 1:16-27 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Thus there can be no doubt that Paul saw the confrontation of sin and the need for repentance from sin as necessary to a proper preaching of the Gospel. And there can be no doubt that the sins he confronted included the sin of homosexuality. Paul clearly believed that God, the Creator of all mankind, has the right to challenge their sin and to call them to repentance from sin and to faith in Christ. He did not give any indication in any of his writings that he thought it pointless to call men to "adopt Christian values or morals," because he clearly saw such values as God's values by which all men are judged. How can Carey possibly not know these things? They are basic to a Biblical worldview and to a Biblical preaching of the Gospel.

It is also worth pointing out that there may be some category confusion for many believers who read Carey's post. For example, although writing to suggest how we should respond to a U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning gay marriage, Carey also asks questions about whether or not we should expect non-Christians to "clean up their language" or "pass laws like the entire nation was Christian." Yet Carey must know that there is a significant difference between issues like using foul language on the one hand and completely rebelling against God's intention for men and women as He created them on the other. That he would even ask such questions so indiscriminately, treating such issues as though they belong in the same category, reveals an apparent lack of understanding in Carey of just how serious an issue gay marriage really is. In addition, we must be clear that Christians who take a strong stand against the sins of homosexuality and gay marriage are not trying to "pass laws like the entire nation was Christian." We are not, for example, trying to require everyone to attend church on Sundays, regularly read the Bible, or take part in the Lord's Supper. We understand full well that there are certain practices we take part in that are unique to us as Christians and that we would not expect non-Christians to take part in (indeed, we would refuse to allow them to take part in the Lord's Supper). But human sexuality and marriage are not among such things. They are common to all human beings. Yet Carey makes it sound as though we are expecting people to "behave like Christians" when we are simply expecting them to behave like human beings created in the image of God, something which God Himself expects of them.

Please don’t get me wrong.

I’m a pastor. I completely believe that the [sic] Jesus is not only the Way, but that God’s way is the best way.

When you follow biblical teachings about how to live life, your life simply goes better. It just does. I 100 percent agree.

I do everything I personally can to align my life with the teachings of scripture, and I’m passionate about helping every follower of Christ do the same.

But what’s the logic behind judging people who don’t follow Jesus for behaving like people who don’t follow Jesus?

Why would you hold the world to the same standard you hold the church?

So, the real reason people should follow Christ is that their lives will "go better"? Not because they are sinners who deserve judgment and can only find forgiveness and salvation through repentance and faith in Christ? Does Carey think following Christ is like joining a country club? Can anyone who takes the Bible seriously really say something like this?

In addition, that Carey would even ask such a question as "Why would you hold the world to the same standard you hold the church?" reveals a postmodern mindset that is foreign to a Biblical worldview. It appears to assume that values are determined by groups of people and that we should not expect others to adopt our values unless and until they have decided to join our group, and then because they want a life that "goes better." Such a mindset certainly doesn't sound like anything the our Lord Jesus would accept.

First, non-Christians usually act more consistently with their value system than you do.

It’s difficult for a non-Christian to be a hypocrite because they tend to live out what they believe.

Once again Carey reveals a mindset that is foreign to a Biblical worldview. After all, how can he possibly say that "It’s difficult for a non-Christian to be a hypocrite because they tend to live out what they believe" unless he refuses to accept what Paul says when he asserts that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). How could anyone possibly be more hypocritical than to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness"!?

Chances are they are better at living out their values than you or I are. Jesus never blamed pagans for acting like pagans.

But he did speak out against religious people for acting hypocritically. Think about that.

Really? "Jesus never blamed pagans for acting like pagans"? Then why, after His resurrection, and as the time approached to take the Gospel to the pagan Gentiles, did Jesus teach His disciples that repentance from sin should be preached to them? For example:

NKJ Luke 24:44-47 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Why would Jesus think it necessary to preach "repentance and remission of sins" to all the pagan nations if He didn't blame them for "acting like pagans"? Or why did Jesus use the pagan Gentiles as examples of sinful behavior to be avoided if He did not blame them for "acting like pagans"? For example:

NKJ Matthew 6:7-8 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

NKJ Matthew 6:31-32 Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

NKJ Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Again, does Carey really think that Jesus didn't blame the pagan Gentiles for the sinful attitudes and actions that make them such bad examples to follow?

We must also take into account the teaching Jesus gave that refers to universal standards for all men everywhere, such as when He cited the creation passage from Genesis regarding God's intention for marriage:

NKJ Matthew 19:3-6 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [Gen. 1:27] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh '? [Gen. 2:24] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Does Carey really think that Jesus wouldn't blame pagan Gentiles for "acting like pagans" in denying God's intention for marriage between one man and one woman? As we have seen above, the Apostle Paul -- who learned His Gospel preaching from Jesus (Gal. 1:11-12) -- certainly didn't understand our Lord's teaching this way. Thus I would suggest that Carey is the one who should take some more time to "think about that" before he takes it upon himself to advise the rest of us.

Third, Carey reminds American "church leaders" that "You’ve been dealing with sex outside of traditional marriage for a LONG time." Here again I will quote at some length a portion of Carey's article and offer my own response.

If you believe gay sex is sinful, it’s really no morally different than straight sex outside of marriage. 

Be honest, pretty much every unmarried person in your church is having sex (yes, even the Christians). 

I know you want to believe that’s not true (trust me, I want to believe that’s not true), but why don’t you ask around? You’ll discover that only a few really surrender their sexuality. 

Not to mention the married folks that struggle with porn, lust and a long list of other dysfunctions. 

If you believe gay marriage is not God’s design, you’re really dealing with the same issue you’ve been dealing with all along—sex outside of its God-given context.
You don’t need to treat it any differently...

By the way, if you don’t deal with straight sex outside of marriage, don’t start being inconsistent and speak out against gay sex. 

And you may want to start dealing with gluttony and gossip and greed while you’re at it... 

At least be consistent…humbly address all forms of sex outside of marriage.

There is a sense in which Carey makes a good point here. If we believe that gay sex and gay marriage are both sins against God, we should treat them as such and should not fail to deal with other sins that also violate God's intentions for human sexuality and marriage. But he doesn't seem to grasp the fact that this is precisely what most of us conservative Evangelicals -- who are more interested in allowing the Bible to dictate our approach than he seems to be -- are actually doing, despite the fact that there is great pressure being exerted on us not to do so.

Furthermore, Carey is simply wrong when he asserts of "gay sex" or "gay marriage" that "it’s really no morally different than straight sex outside of marriage." For not only does "gay sex" violate God's moral standard for sex between a man and a woman in marriage, but it also violates His intention in creating them male and female in the first place. Thus it is not simply the same thing, especially given the fact that there has not been a large movement among sexually promiscuous heterosexual people to redefine marriage as properly being between two men or two women rather than only a man and a woman. Yet this is precisely what has happened due to those who argue for so-called "gay rights."

Fourth, Carey asserts that "The early church never looked to the government for guidance." Although I might take issue with the way Carey states a few things in this section of the article, I have no problem with the main idea and thus will move on to the final point.

Fifth, Carey asserts that "Our judgment of LGBT people is destroying any potential relationship." Here Carey again gets way off track, as the following assertions clearly demonstrate:

Even the first 72 hour of social media reaction [after the June 2015 Supreme Court decision] has driven a deeper wedge between Christian leaders and the LGBT community Jesus loves (yes, Jesus died for the world because he loves it). 

Judgment is a terrible evangelism strategy. 

People don’t line up to be judged. 

If you want to keep being ineffective at reaching unchurched people, keep judging them.

Judging outsiders is un-Christian. Paul told us to stop judging people outside the church. 

Jesus said God will judge us by the same standard with which we judge others.

Once again we hear the same basic idea that most unbelievers like to point out to us, namely that Christians aren't supposed to judge. But Carey fails to grasp -- as do most unbelievers who say essentially the same thing -- that there is a difference between sinful judgment of others from a standpoint of arrogance and hypocrisy and a righteous judgment based on God's Word. In fact, he fails to see that we aren't really judging the LGBT community at all -- God's Word is judging them, and we are simply declaring what His Word says, as we have been called to do.

Carey also provides a couple of links to Scripture in the text cited above, and both are misapplied by him. First, he links 1 Corinthians 5:12 to the words to stop judging people outside the church. To be sure, in this verse the Apostle Paul writes, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" But a look at the larger passage will show that Carey is taking these words out of context. Here is the whole passage:

NKJ  1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles-- that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

Even a cursory reading of this passage will reveal what most Bible scholars and commentators agree to be true about it, namely that it is dealing with a matter of church discipline. Thus, when Paul says that we do not "judge" those who are "outside" (vss. 12-13) -- i.e. who are not named among the brethren (vs. 11) -- he means that we do not adopt the disciplinary practice of avoiding them as we would avoid a sinning brother (vss. 9-11). Paul isn't dealing at all with whether or not we should make moral judgments about the sins of unbelievers, something which he himself does in this very passage when he refers to them as "sexually immoral" (vs. 9). Nor is Paul dealing with whether or not we should tell such immoral people the truth about their sins and call them to repentance, something which we have already seen above that Paul clearly did as a regular part of his Gospel preaching.

Second, Carey links Matthew 7:1-2 to the words God will judge us by the same standard with which we judge others. Good grief! Has he really adopted the same ridiculous misinterpretation of this verse that so many unbelievers seem to have adopted whenever they ignorantly remind us that "Christians aren't supposed to judge"? As with the preceding passage, a look at this passage in its larger context will reveal that Carey is once again wrong. Here is the whole passage:

NKJ  Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye"; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Notice that Jesus is not saying that we should refuse to make moral judgments about the actions of others or refuse to confront their sins. In fact, He assumes that we must make such moral judgments if we are to properly confront their sins. Thus when He says, "First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye," He assumes that we will indeed seek to remove the speck from our brother's eye. Jesus is warning us against hypocritical judgment of others that refuses to take our own sin into account when we seek to correct them, but He assumes that we ought to try to correct them if we love them. I'm sure that Jesus would agree with the Old Testament teaching in this regard about how to truly love our neighbor:

NKJ Leviticus 19:17-18 You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. 

Now, I suppose someone like Carey might try to argue that this passage is directed to Israelites whose neighbors were expected to share their same moral values and thus that it doesn't apply to the way in which we are to love pagans. But I would simply point out that he should not, then, try to apply a passage about taking a speck out of your brother's eye to pagans either. However, if the principle of judgment that Jesus teaches is aptly applied to our treatment of pagans, then I fail to see how the principle of confrontation of sin contained in the Old Testament command to love our neighbor should not apply.

I will finish by agreeing with Carey about one important thing, namely that "the LGBT community" are among those whom "Jesus loves (yes, Jesus died for the world because he loves it)." However, Jesus also said to His earthly brothers that "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). And He warned His disciples that, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20). Carey apparently thinks that we could not possibly be loving the people of the world as we ought to if they ever feel judged by us or hate us, but our Lord Jesus would most definitely disagree with him! Carey apparently also thinks it possible to be "counter-cultural" without being hated by the world, but, again, our Lord Jesus would most definitely disagree with him!

In conclusion, then, I would simply say that Carey ought not seek to advise "church leaders" here in the U.S. -- or anywhere else for that matter -- until he has learned his Bible a lot better. After all, some of us do know how to read the Bible, and we can tell when someone is distorting its teaching.

Update 7 July 2017

I ran across this post by Paul Carter today, and it also has some good points made in response to Carey's "advice."

Here We stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage

Yesterday I added my signature to the document entitled Here We stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage. The document may be found online at the website of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Here is the text of the declaration for your consideration:

As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the court’s ruling that redefines marriage. The state did not create the family, and should not try to recreate the family in its own image. We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court’s actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good. 

The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that marriage consists of one man and one woman. From Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely bound to the complementarity of man and woman. This truth is not negotiable. The Lord Jesus himself said that marriage is from the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6), so no human institution has the authority to redefine marriage any more than a human institution has the authority to redefine the gospel, which marriage mysteriously reflects (Eph. 5:32). The Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage demonstrates mistaken judgment by disregarding what history and countless civilizations have passed on to us, but it also represents an aftermath that evangelicals themselves, sadly, are not guiltless in contributing to. Too often, professing evangelicals have failed to model the ideals we so dearly cherish and believe are central to gospel proclamation. 

Evangelical churches must be faithful to the biblical witness on marriage regardless of the cultural shift. Evangelical churches in America now find themselves in a new moral landscape that calls us to minister in a context growing more hostile to a biblical sexual ethic. This is not new in the history of the church. From its earliest beginnings, whether on the margins of society or in a place of influence, the church is defined by the gospel. We insist that the gospel brings good news to all people, regardless of whether the culture considers the news good or not. 

The gospel must inform our approach to public witness. As evangelicals animated by the good news that God offers reconciliation through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus, we commit to:

• Respect and pray for our governing authorities even as we work through the democratic process to rebuild a culture of marriage (Rom. 13:1-7);

• the truth about biblical marriage in a way that brings healing to a sexually broken culture;

• affirm the biblical mandate that all persons, including LGBT persons, are created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect;

• love our neighbors regardless of whatever disagreements arise as a result of conflicting beliefs about marriage;

• live respectfully and civilly alongside those who may disagree with us for the sake of the common good;

• cultivate a common culture of religious liberty that allows the freedom to live and believe differently to prosper.

The redefinition of marriage should not entail the erosion of religious liberty. In the coming years, evangelical institutions could be pressed to sacrifice their sacred beliefs about marriage and sexuality in order to accommodate whatever demands the culture and law require. We do not have the option to meet those demands without violating our consciences and surrendering the gospel. We will not allow the government to coerce or infringe upon the rights of institutions to live by the sacred belief that only men and women can enter into marriage. 

The gospel of Jesus Christ determines the shape and tone of our ministry. Christian theology considers its teachings about marriage both timeless and unchanging, and therefore we must stand firm in this belief. Outrage and panic are not the responses of those confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus. While we believe the Supreme Court has erred in its ruling, we pledge to stand steadfastly, faithfully witnessing to the biblical teaching that marriage is the chief cornerstone of society, designed to unite men, women, and children. We promise to proclaim and live this truth at all costs, with convictions that are communicated with kindness and love.

I hope that more pastors will join me in publicly taking such a stand.

The Doctrine of Conversion: Understanding Faith and Repentance (Teaching Outline)

Introduction: For some time now there has been a misunderstanding of the doctrine of conversion among many who would call themselves Evangelical Christians. For example, there have been attempts to redefine either faith or repentance, or both. There have also been attempts to separate repentance from faith and even to say that repentance has nothing to do with saving faith. Teachers of such a view abound, and they can be very winsome and sound quite orthodox in some of their assertions. Notice, for example, the way in which one popular advocate of such thinking, Zane Hodges, speaks of faith and repentance with regard to conversion:

Faith alone (not repentance and faith) is the sole condition for justification and eternal life. (p. 144)

There can be no compromise on this point if we wish to preserve and to proclaim the biblical truth of sola fide [“faith alone”]. To make repentance a condition for eternal salvation is nothing less than a regression toward Roman Catholic dogma. (Absolutely Free, p. 145)

This sounds quite Biblical and orthodox to many sincere Christians when they first hear it. After all, don't we all want to preserve the true Gospel that salvation is by grace through faith alone? Of course we do! But the problem with Hodges' view here is that it ignores the possibility that a Biblical understanding of faith includes and even presupposes repentance and that, therefore, when the Apostles taught the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, they had in mind a repentant faith. In my view, this is precisely what the Apostles meant when they spoke of trusting in Christ for salvation. This is why I think Wayne Grudem – whose work I will be citing a number of times in this post – has done a better job of Biblically and succinctly defining conversion as “our willing response to the gospel call, in which we sincerely repent of sins and place our trust in Christ for salvation” (Systematic Theology, p. 1238). Today I hope to explain why I think this definition is correct. This means we are going to spend our time on a brief survey of some of the Biblical teaching on faith and repentance. In the process we will seek to understand 1) the proper meaning of both faith and repentance, 2) the proper relationship between faith and repentance, and 3) that both faith and repentance are gifts from God.

I. We need to understand the proper meaning of both faith and repentance.

Since we are dealing here with conversion, then of course we are interested in understanding what the Bible teaches about initial saving faith and repentance rather than with the ongoing need of faith and repentance in the life of a believer. With this distinction in mind, we will focus first on faith and then on repentance.

First, the Bible teaches that saving faith is more than mere intellectual assent and that it involves personal trust in Christ to save us from our sins. This understanding of saving faith is reflected in the way that it is described as receiving Christ. For example:

NKJ  John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name ….”

To believe in Christ is to receive Him. This refers to a personal acceptance of Christ as He has revealed Himself to us, not merely to an intellectual knowledge of, or assent to, facts about Him.

NKJ  John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Wayne Grudem is again helpful in explaining the sense of the Greek phrase employed by John and commonly used in the New Testament:

John 3:16 tells us that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Here John uses a surprising phrase when he does not simply say, “whoever believes him” (that is, believes that what he says is true and able to be trusted), but rather, “whoever believes in him.” The Greek phrase pisteuo eis auton could also be translated “believe into him” with the sense of trust or confidence that goes into and rests in Jesus as a person. Leon Morris can say, “Faith, for John, is an activity which takes men right out of themselves and makes them one with Christ.”  He understands the Greek phrase pisteuo eis to be a significant indication that New Testament faith is not just intellectual assent but includes a “moral element of personal trust.” Such an expression was rare or perhaps nonexistent in the secular Greek found outside the New Testament, but it was well suited to express the personal trust in Christ that is involved in saving faith. (Systematic Theology, p. 711)

So, to believe in Christ is to personally trust in Him. But believing in Christ can also be described as coming to Him. This again refers to a personal encounter with Him, not simply an intellectual knowledge of, or assent to, facts about Him. For example:

NKJ  John 6:35 “And Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”

After considering such passages, it is easy to see why James warns against equating faith with mere intellectual assent:

NKJ  James 2:19 “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe – and tremble!”

There is a huge difference between believing the right things about Jesus and actually trusting in Him for salvation! For example, when I explain saving faith to children, I like to show them a chair and ask them if they think I should believe that it will hold me if I sit in it. They typically reply that of course it will. But then I explain to them that believing that the chair will hold me is not the same thing as trusting the chair to hold me. I trust the chair to hold me only when I sit in it. This is why Wayne Grudem is again correct to assert in his Systematic Theology that “Saving faith is trust in Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God” (p. 710).

Second, the Bible teaches that repentance is a turning from sin to follow Christ. Here it is important to consider examples from both the Old and New Testaments, since the New Testament Greek terminology is heavily influenced by the Old Testament Hebrew terminology, and since the Scriptural concept of repentance has been under such attack these days. 

Examples from the Old Testament

As we look at these texts, it is quite easy to see what the true nature of repentance is, that it involves sorrow for and turning from sin. We will begin with an example from the Book of Job:

NKJ  Job 42:5-6 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; 6 therefore I despise myself, and repent [נחם, nāḥam] in dust and ashes.

The Hebrew nāḥam means “1. to regret: a) to become remorseful... b) to regret something [lists Job 42:6]... 2. to be sorry, come to regret something …” (HALOT # 6096, BibleWorks).

NKJ  Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return [שׁוּב, šûḇ, often transliterated shûv] to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.

The Hebrew šûḇ here means “to turn around, repent” (HALOT # 9407, BibleWorks).

NKJ  Jeremiah 8:6 I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented [נחם, nāḥam] of his wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Everyone turned [שׁוּב, šûḇ] to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle.

NKJ  Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them: “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn [שׁוּב, šûḇ] from his way and live. Turn [שׁוּב, šûḇ], turn [שׁוּב, šûḇ] from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”

NKJ  Joel 2:12-13 “Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “return [שׁוּב, šûḇ] to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; 13 and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return [שׁוּב, šûḇ] to the LORD, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster.

So, as pointed out above, these passages demonstrate that repentance involves a sorrow for and a turning from sin.

Examples from the New Testament

We will see in the following passages that the New testament concept of repentance is the same as in the Old Testament. We will begin with an example from the Gospel of Luke:

NKJ  Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance [μετάνοια, metánoia], and do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

The Greek noun metánoia means “repentance, change of heart, turning from one's sins, change of way” (UBS Greek Lexicon #3986, BibleWorks). Paul's use of the word in his second epistle to the Corinthian church lays great stress on the idea of sorrow for sin that leads to turning away from it: 

NKJ  2 Corinthians 7:8-10 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance [μετάνοια, metánoia]. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance [μετάνοια, metánoia] leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Having  gotten a grip on the meaning of the Greek noun metánoia, we may now turn our attention briefly to the related verb metanoéō. For example:

NKJ  Acts 3:19 Repent [μετανοέω, metanoéō] therefore and be converted [ἐπιστρέφω, epistréphō], that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

The Greek verb metanoéō means “repent, have a change of heart, turn from one's sins, change one's ways” (UBS Greek Lexicon # 3985, BibleWorks). The Greek verb epistréphō used here in conjunction with metanoéō, may be defined thusly: “intrans. (including midd. and aor. pass.) turn back, return; turn to; turn around; trans. turn, turn back” (UBS Greek Lexicon #2511, BibleWorks). Note the similarity in meaning of these terms to the Hebrew šûḇ in the Old Testament.

Again we can see that Wayne Grudem defines the concept well when we writes that “Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ” (Systematic Theology, p. 713).

II. We need to understand the proper relationship between faith and repentance.

Again, since we are speaking of faith and repentance with respect to the doctrine of conversion, we are of course speaking of initial faith and repentance in Christ rather than the ongoing need to believe and repent in the Christian life. Thus we will focus our attention on those passages which speak of faith and repentance in the context of conversion rather than of the Christian life subsequent to conversion. In the process we will see that, although it is true that faith and repentance are not always mentioned together in Scripture, they are nevertheless two inseparable aspects of conversion and that the mention of one always presupposes and implies the other. Let's take a look at the basic ways in which Scripture refers to faith and repentance when addressing conversion, and I think you will see what I mean.

First, sometimes only faith is mentioned as necessary in coming to Christ for salvation. For example:

NKJ  John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

NKJ  Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

NKJ  Romans 10:9 ... that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Second, sometimes only repentance is mentioned as necessary in coming to Christ for salvation. For example:

NKJ  Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

NKJ  Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord ….

NKJ  Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent ….

How is it that the Apostles could thus preach repentance when proclaiming the Gospel if repentance isn't somehow essential? And why do these same Apostles sometimes demand faith and sometimes demand repentance if they do not see them as connected and even interchangeable? That they are so connected will become clear as we consider the next point.

Third, sometimes faith and repentance are mentioned together as necessary in coming to Christ for salvation. For example:

NKJ  Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

NKJ  Acts 20:17-21 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

NKJ  Hebrews 6:1-2 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Thus we see that faith and repentance are really “two sides of the same coin.” You cannot have one without the other, and when you assert one – at least in the same way that the Bible asserts it – you presuppose and imply the other. As Phil Johnson has put it, “repentance is turning from sin, and faith is turning to Christ, but it is one turn from sin to Christ” (Q&A session at the 2013 Springfield Bible Conference). Wayne Grudem also summarizes this relationship well when he writes that:

Scripture puts repentance and faith together as different aspects of the one act of coming to Christ for salvation. It is not that a person first turns from sin and next trusts in Christ, or first trusts in Christ and then turns from sin, but rather that both occur at the same time. When we turn to Christ for salvation from our sins, we are simultaneously turning away from the sins that we are asking Christ to save us from. If that were not true our turning to Christ for salvation from sin could hardly be a genuine turning to him or trusting in him. (Systematic Theology, p. 713)

Thus when we accurately proclaim that people are sinners deserving of God's wrath and punishment and hell, and when we accurately proclaim that they must trust in Christ to save them from their sins, then people will not trust in Him without repentance, and they will not repent without trusting in Him. This is no doubt why the Apostles didn't always see the need to stress both in the same way and in every instance. In a situation in which people had already recognized their sins before God and were clearly repentant, all that needed to be stressed was faith in Christ. And where people clearly believed the message about who Christ is as Savior and Lord, all that needed to be stressed was repentance from sin when coming to Him for salvation.

But before we finish our brief Biblical survey today, we must also understand that neither faith nor repentance are things we can do in and of ourselves. This leads us to our third and final major heading.

III. We need to understand that both faith and repentance are gifts from God.

Here we address another point of contention among Evangelical Christians today, for there are many who seem determined to confine both faith and repentance to the work of man even as they inconsistently decry works salvation. The Bible, on the other hand, sees both faith and repentance as coming from God.

First, the Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God. For example:

NKJ  John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Recall that earlier in the context Jesus used the terminology of coming to Him as equivalent to believing in Him (vs. 35). So, when Jesus says here that no one can come to Him unless it has been granted to him by the Father, He means that no one can believe in Him unless it has been granted to him by the Father.

NKJ  Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

As Anthony Hoekema has correctly argued, “the faith of those Gentiles who believed was a fruit of divine election and therefore clearly a gift of God” (Saved By Grace, p. 143).

NKJ  1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Paul clearly has in mind not merely a mouthing of the words “Jesus is Lord,” but rather a genuine statement of faith in Jesus as Lord, when he asserts that “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” This faith is seen, then, to be a product of the Spirit's working and thus a gift of God.

NKJ  Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God....

ESV  1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him.

Anthony Hoekema is again helpful in his discussion of this verse:

The Apostle John tells us, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten by God” (1 John 5:1, JB). The word rendered “has been begotten” (gegennetai) is in the perfect tense in the Greek, a tense which describes past action with abiding result. Everyone who has faith, John is therefore saying, reveals that he or she has been begotten or born of God and is still in that regenerate state. Since God is the sole author of regeneration, and since only regenerated persons can believe, we see again that faith is a gift of God. (Saved By Grace, p. 145)

Sadly, many do not see that they turn faith itself into a work of man when they deny that it is a gift from God and thus the work of God in man.

Second, the Bible teaches that repentance is a gift from God. For example:

NKJ  Acts 5:31 Him [the Lord Jesus] God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

NKJ  Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

NKJ  2 Timothy 2:25 ... in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth.

These passages make it quite clear that repentance is a gift from God, don't they? Sadly, however, again there are many who do not see that they turn repentance into a mere work of man when they deny that it is a gift from God and thus the work of God in man. And it is sad as well that so many today think that they defend the true Gospel when they deny that this essential work of God in man has no place in a man's conversion.

Conclusion: I will conclude by reminding you all that there is a very pernicious error floating around so-called “Evangelical” circles these days, namely the idea either that repentance has nothing to do with turning from sin or that, if repentance does involve turning from sin, it has nothing to do with conversion. Sadly, such teaching has led many to assume that they may be saved without turning from their sins at all! I pray that we will all see this heresy for what it is and not put asunder what God has joined together as two inseparable aspects of conversion, what we might call repentant faith.