Repentance and Faith in the Gospel and Acts

[Beards]

Hello Puritan Board!

I’ve been attempting to understand repentance and faith, and I need some help. Going through “Christ the Lord” by Michael Horton, I see how repentance is not faith and is something that follows from faith. As Kim Riddelbarger writes in the book “repentance will never unite us to Christ, nor will repentance every justify is. We cannot be saved without it, yet we are not saved by it” (105). Berkhof and A.A. Hodge also agree here that repentance is a fruit of faith, not the act by which we are saved (104). This also seems to follow with our confessional standards. For example, Heidelberg distinguishes faith and repentance, putting repentance in Part 3 of gratitude and tying it with conversion (sanctification) in Lord’s day 33.

My question is, if this is true, what do we make of New Testament texts that seem to make repentance the instrumental cause of justification, connecting it with salvation rather than gratitude? I’m thinking primarily of Luke 24:47, which says that the gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be declared, and Acts 2:38, where Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. I am aware that there are many similar places in Acts as well. Don’t these texts go against the Protestant conception of faith and repentance?

Help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[arapahoepark]

My best guess is that it's a synecdoche, where one is mentioned the other is also in the mind of Luke.

 

[MyCrows]

My question is, if this is true, what do we make of New Testament texts that seem to make repentance the instrumental cause of justification, connecting it with salvation rather than gratitude?

I don't know that I would say they seem to make repentance the "instrumental cause", but maybe that they seem to make it occur prior to faith.

I know there are some theologians who say that repentance occurs logically (as opposed to chronologically) prior to faith, seeing as we would not even be able to exercise faith without our disposition towards Christ being changed.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A number of things may be said in response, and should be in the course of this thread. But perhaps it would be good if you would explain why you think the two texts you adduced read to you as if repentance was being set forth there as instrumental in cause of justification. Lk.24:47 addresses the duty of preaching and vital subjects thereof, saying nothing explicit I can see about justification before God, or the atonement for sin Christ accomplished, or how these matters are united in those who belong to God. The two terms "repentance" and "remission" might reasonably be recognized as "law" and "gospel" respectively, i.e. the whole counsel of God, without going into the detail the entire Gospel of Luke expresses.

Similarly, Act.2:38 speaks directly to the "forgiveness of sins," yet does not say that such an act of God is thereby the basis on which acceptance by God (i.e. justification) is possible. Peter truthfully proclaims that personal repentance is kind of "prerequisite" for a personal apprehension of God's forgiving mercy; but this is very different from reckoning the work of repentance as effecting divine forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin is, of course, inseparable from justification but is a distinct act from the "not guilty" verdict that is at the heart of justification. The "not guilty" verdict is pronounced of Christ (Act.2:36) who had no sin to forgive, and by extension is declared for anyone who is "in Christ." We do not work repentance, from which God is then willing to regard us "in Christ." Faith looks to Christ (and does no work) which is why we recognize it as the one fit instrument for conveying to us the benefits of redemption.

What we do read in Act.2:44 is that all who believed were united to one another in the church, which is the body of Christ, the context for union with Christ. One argument Trent outlines above is that here in Act.2:38ff we recognize a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is put for the whole. Peter spent the better part of his message proclaiming Christ to the hearers and putting them on notice that they were presently alienated from him whom alone God had approved. These men needed to know they might be recovered back into covenant with God through Christ despite their former carelessness. A true response of faith would accept the propriety of repentance, followed by baptism.

The last thing I will include in this post is the observation that when we pass from records of historical events and speeches into directly didactic (teaching) texts, there we encounter plain expressions putting the unambiguous emphasis on faith as the instrument of justification. We never find Paul or Peter or others reorienting the Christian to repentance-priority over faith, see Rom.3:26-30; 5:1; Gal.2:16ff; Php.3:9; Heb.10:38; 2Pet.1:1. In other words, we lack precisely the balance or weight of texts that would move us away from such a clear priority of faith, by an appeal to inferences and analogies drawn from texts that speak with less precision or with more rhetorical summons. There is nothing amiss about the texts you have set forth, unless by them one aims to impose else on them than they allege themselves.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Hello Puritan Board!

...

My question is, if this is true, what do we make of New Testament texts that seem to make repentance the instrumental cause of justification, connecting it with salvation rather than gratitude? I’m thinking primarily of Luke 24:47, which says that the gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be declared, and Acts 2:38, where Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. I am aware that there are many similar places in Acts as well. Don’t these texts go against the Protestant conception of faith and repentance?

Help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Good day Colin,

You may find a read through John Brown of Wamphray's Life of Justification Opened edifying on this matter. Here is an excerpt on Acts 2:38 and Luke 24:47 towards an answer to your question:

"Obj. 2. He [Richard Baxter] citeth next Act. 2:38—Repent & be baptized every one of you,—for the remission of sins. Ans[wer]. (1) This would plead for Repentance alone, without Faith. (2) It would plead for as great an interest for Baptisme, as for Repentance: Neither of which can be owned, as true. Therefore the true meaning of the place is, Turn from your former way of seeking salvation, by your own corrupt Imaginations & Superstitions, which led you, out of blinde zeal, to crucifie the Lord Christ; & embrace the Gospel of Salvation, now preached to you through that Lord, whom ye crucified, that ye may receive Remission of sins, through Faith in him; & be baptized, that you may have the outward signe of your professing of having Remission of sins through him, & a seal of Remission, granted to you, through him. And this may be cleared from the promise subjoined, & ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost, which is no where promised unto Repentance; but unto the faith of the Gospel, and the receiving of Christ therein, & was accordingly bestowed Act. 8:12. with 15, 17; & 9:17; & 13:52; & 15:7, 8; & 19; 1:2, 6. And what Peter exhorted then unto, they did vers. 41. And what was it, that they did? They gladly received his word, that is; willingly and cheerfully they embraced the Gospel, and so were added to the Church."

. . .

Obj. 4. He [Baxter] citeth in the Margine Luk. 24:47. And that Repentance & Remission of sins should be preached in his name. And Luk. 15:7. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner, that repenteth. Ans[wer]. This last place maketh no mention of Pardon, or of Justification, & only saith, that Repentance will Include Faith, & doth import the whole Conversion of a sinner unto God, whereof Faith in Christ is the first & chiefe step. As to the other place, we told before, that by Repentance here is understood all that duty, which is called for in the Gospel, this being a short summe of the whole preaching of the Gospel, & that therefore by Remission of sins all the blessings & favours, that sinners need & are promised in the Gospel, must be understood. So that this maketh nothing against us: Yea if these two expressions were strickly to be taken, it would give ground to inferre, that Repentance alone were the Condition of Remission. But what saith all this to the purpose now in hand? do any of these expressions give the least coloure to inferre, that Repentance strickly taken hath the same use & Interest in Justification, that Faith hath?"

Much shorter would be James Durham's little article on repentance in his commentary on Revelation. Here is a short excerpt (to be kept in context with all that he says in this article) that may help as well:

1. We say, Repentance is necessary not only by necessity of precept, but also of mids, necessitate & praecepti & medii, that is, not only as a duty laid on by God; but as a mean appointed by Him for attaining that end; to wit, remission of sins: in which respect, a penitent, or repenting sinner, may be said to be using the means how pardon is attained, and to be in the way of obtaining it, which cannot be said of a sinner that repenteth not. For although Repentance, as absolutely considered in it self, doth not make a penitent any nearer unto remission; yet it being considered in respect of Gods contrivance, and of the order which He hath laid down, and the promise which He hath subjoyned to it, it may well be called a way and mean for attaining to pardon.

2. Beside this, there is a kind of congruity and suitablnesse in this order which God hath laid down, by subjoyning the promise of pardon to it, thus it is more suitable that a penitent sinner should have pardon, than an impenitent: because he is a more congruous object (to speak so) for grace to shew it self gracious upon, than if there were a continuing in security. Neither hath this congruity any causality or merit in it; but only doth shew Gods wise contrivance in appointing a mids suitable to His end, which is the glorifying of His Grace; and the making of Himself to be precious to the sinner.

3. Repentance concurreth in the obtaining of pardon, by qualifying the sinner in reference to the promise, wherein pardon is proposed: which is not to be understood, as if this qualification were a thing previous to a saving work of Gods Grace, or, as if it did dispose the subject for receiving of any inherent quality: Or, lastly, as if there were any merit in it to commend the person so qualified unto God, for the attaining of pardon: these things we have already rejected; But it may be said to qualifie a person in these two respects, 1. That it putteth one within the reach of the promise, which speaketh pardon to none but to such who are so qualified: and thus it qualifieth the person meerly with respect to the promise, and the qualification contained it: and so a true penitent sinner, may be said to be qualified for remission, and may take hold of the promises that make offer of the same, which no other, not so qualified, can do: because the promises are peculiarly holden forth to such who are so qualified. 2. It qualifieth the sinner in reference to the promise, as it doth dispose him to accept the offered salvation freely, and to rest upon Christ alone for that end. Thus it qualifieth for obtaining of pardon, as felt poverty qualifieth a proud begger to receive willingly an offered almes, and to be thankfull for it: neither is the almes the lesse free, that it requireth one sensible of poverty to receive it: but it is rather the more free, and acknowledged to be so, when it is conferred: even so it is here.

 

[timfost]

Faith is a turning to Christ, repentance is a turning away from sin. Both faith and repentance turn us in the same direction-- to Christ! In this way, they are two sides of the same coin.

By themselves, neither faith or repentance save us. It is through faith and repentance that we are engrafted into Christ and receive his benefits.

 

[arapahoepark]

I thought this interesting from Alan Thompson's Acts of the Risen Lord (I'd recommend both he and Michael Ovey's work on repentance on this). He says to note the audience. Some perhaps needed to be told to repent but, notice their actions with some of them: they are told to repent and we are told they believed.

When researching this same question I ran across a blog from a cage stage new perspectivist whose views are very disturbing. In essence when he sees repentance mentioned, he believes that there is no command to believe (no pun intended) since faith, according to Wright, is how to tell who is part of the community. Logically, it falls flat on its face. How can you repent for something if you don't believe the message? This cage stager also draws conclusions and distinctions where there aren't any and can't seem to connec the dots so many others have and Luke evidently wants us to.