Repentance
A Natural Condition ·
Faith A Second Natural
Condition ·
The Relation of Faith And
Repentance ·
The Order Of Faith And
Repentance · Trust And
Grace
The Meaning
of "Law" Under Christ
Before going further with this study it is thought best to note the reasons for repentance and faith and their relation to each other.
Now, the nature of salvation and the provision of mercy in Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice determine the obligation of him who would be saved. These two things naturally demand "repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ."
Salvation, be it remembered, comprehends both freedom from the guilt of sin and freedom from the love and practice of it. Righteousness on the human side is as much God's plan as mercy on the divine side. God will not bestow pardon until one has died unto sin. Otherwise man would be left under the bondage of sin. The new creation in Christ Jesus is "unto good works." He that receives baptism is raised therefrom to "walk in newness of life." The Christian's life is to be a natural, not a forced, one. The saved person is to live the kind of life that appeals to him, just as the sinner follows the course that attracts him. Those in Christ are really "new creatures."
From the foregoing it is seen that repentance is naturally demanded. The desired results cannot be obtained apart from it. Hence, repentance is one of the fundamental principles connected with salvation; and the Scriptures so speak of repentance, naming it as comprehending the prerequisites of salvation.
And he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and [unto] remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46, 47.)
Here it is assumed that repentance must precede salvation. The nature both of repentance and of salvation justify this assumption. Repentance is a spiritual means to accomplish a spiritual end. It is, therefore, compatible with Christianity, which is a spiritual religion. Luke again uses repentance in this fundamental and comprehensive sense:
Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18.)
In this, as in the above passage, repentance includes faith in Christ. In the first passage repentance is associated with the atonement of Christ and is to be preached "in his name." In the second, faith is implied, because repentance is represented as reaching life, which would be impossible apart from faith in Christ. This comprehensive use of repentance is proper, because it is a fundamental principle of Christianity and is naturally adapted to accomplish the results desired of God.
And just so is faith a second fundamental prerequisite of salvation, because by it the merits of the atonement of Christ are appropriated. As we have previously explained, faith is the proper response of the guilty soul to the blood of Christ. The atonement of Christ, then, fixes faith as a condition of salvation. By faith one relics upon, or accepts, the blood in the sense in which it was set forth by God. Hence the usual association of faith with grace. It is principle answering to principle. Grace is God offering, and faith is man accepting, salvation. The benevolent principle of unmerited favor on God's part is met with the appropriate response of faith, trust, on man's part. Hence such passages as Eph. 2:8 and John 3:16:
For by grace have ye been saved through faith.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Try to substitute something for faith in the above Scriptures that does not answer to the grace of God. Suppose we say:
For by grace have ye been saved through your benevolence to the poor.
It is easily seen that benevolence cannot take the place of faith. Benevolence to the poor is not a proper response to the atonement. It may not in any sense relate to the grace of God in Christ. And just so nothing can take the place of faith, or trust. It alone can do what God wants done; there is no substitute.
Faith and repentance have not, therefore, been arbitrarily named as conditions of salvation. They are necessities by nature. Each is a spiritual means to a spiritual end. Nothing else stands related, naturally, to salvation as do faith and repentance. If other conditions exist, they exist by divine arrangement, and must in some way relate to these two requirements. We shall see about this matter later.
Not only are faith and repentance natural conditions of salvation; they are by nature inseparable that is, where one exists the other cannot be lacking. And this relation is not an arbitrary one. Theory has nothing to do with it. It is simply the natural order of things.
Now, repentance is simply the turning of the soul to God and away from Satan. The impenitent person is at enmity against God; he is in rebellion against him. God's grace through Christ is rejected. He is in practical unbelief. Faith that saves, that accepts Christ as Savior, means trust, or reliance. A faith that means only the belief of facts cannot reach the blood; it is not by nature qualified to do so. This faith may be possessed apart from repentance. Millions possess it and make no pretentions to Christianity. Until faith takes on the nature of trust it is not saving faith. To believe "on" Christ or "in" Christ is to thrust one's soul upon him for salvation from sin. Repentance is the turning away from sin, and faith is the acceptance of the remedy for sin. Repentance shades off into trust. The impenitent is rejecting Christ; the penitent is receiving him,
Logically, repentance precedes faith that means trust in Christ. Actually, they are coexistent. No penitent person lacks faith, and no trusting person lacks penitence. Certainly faith that signifies belief of facts must naturally precede both repentance and trust. No unbeliever in the existence of God and the divinity of Christ would either repent or trust in Christ. But a faith that goes no further than to admit facts about God and Christ is not saving faith. There is no turning of the soul away from sin and no actual reliance upon the blood of Christ in such a faith. Paul recognized these facts; hence his language to the Ephesian elders. He said he testified
both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21.)
Here is the logical order: repentance toward God, against whom all sins are committed, and, therefore, to whom all sinners are responsible; and faith toward Jesus Christ, God's remedy for sins. Who will accept a remedy for sins who has not repented of his sins? How can the impenitent person trust in Christ? It is simply impossible.
I desire here to call attention to some excellent reasonings on this point by R. Milligan in his "Commentary on Hebrews." The following comments are taken from his discussion of the expression "faith toward God" as found in Heb. 6:2:
It is evident, therefore, that the first element of gospel faith is belief, a firm intellectual conviction, resting on the evidence submitted, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God; and that there is, in fact, "no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12.) Under favorable circumstances, this conviction begets, as we have seen, godly sorrow in the heart; and, at the same time, some degree of confidence and trust in Christ, as the Son of God and Savior of sinners. But however strong may be the belief, or intellectual conviction of the sinner, touching the person and character of Jesus as the Son of God, his trust (which may be regarded as the second element of faith) both in God and in Christ will of necessity be comparatively weak until he repents. This arises necessarily out of the conditions of offered pardon. The promise of salvation is to those who believe, repent, and reform. How, then, can the impenitent sinner trust confidently in God or in Christ? Manifestly, this is impossible. He may, indeed, under the firm persuasion that Jesus has by the grace of God tasted death for every man, cherish some degree of hope, and repose some degree of trust in God, even before he fully repents of his sins, and resolves to reform his life; nay, indeed, this he must do, if he ever repents. But it is not until the will of the sinner is wholly subjected to the will of God that he can fully trust in God and rely on him for every needed blessing. And hence it is that faith and repentance have a mutual and reflex influence on each other. Faith leads to repentance, while repentance again serves greatly to increase our faith, and especially that element of it which relates to the heart and which we call trust in God.
The order, then, according to Milligan, is faith in the sense of belief of facts, repentance toward God, and trust. I heartily agree with him in this arrangement. Indeed, it seems wholly necessary. The only opinion to which I could possibly dissent is that the sinner does to some degree trust in God and in Christ in his impenitence. In a general sense this is admitted. But I am not sure whether it is possible to trust in God and in Christ in the particular sense of accepting Christ as a personal Savior before repentance. The sinner can and must trust in God that he will keep his word, and that Christ is a possible Savior. These things he must do before he repents. But that in his impenitence he can to any degree actually rely upon the blood of Christ for salvation is doubtful. But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that the sinner cannot fully trust in God and in Christ as his Savior until he has repented, Upon this point I heartily agree with Milligan.
But some may wonder what can be the significance of these things, granting that they are true. First of all, it is absolutely necessary to recognize trust as an element of faith. This is the element in faith that takes hold of the blood of Christ and makes it a personal blessing. I see no way whereby the blood of Christ can benefit man apart from trust. As it has been said again and again, trust or reliance is the proper response of the lost soul to the atonement. Trust, then, is the element in faith that answers to the grace of God. Hence, we have the divine formula, "By grace through faith," the faith here contemplated being trust. Then if there be no trust, grace is made void. One who does not trust in Christ has mistaken views of him as a Savior.
Not only does one have mistaken views of Christ as a Savior who does not recognize trust as an element of faith, but he has wrong conceptions of Christianity generally. If the saving degree of faith does not signify trust, then Christ is nothing more than a lawgiver; and if Christ is no more than a lawgiver, superseding or succeeding Moses, his death was in vain, and man must save himself or be lost; and if man must save himself, he is, therefore, placed upon the principle of justification by works; and we have seen that this principle leaves no place for the atonement of Christ. Fulfilling the conditions whereby one is to express his trust in Christ for salvation would degenerate into mere works of righteousness whereby one seeks to merit God's mercy.
But Christianity is not a legalistic system consisting of law and works, but a system of grace, the blessings of which are conditioned on faith.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17.)
For sin shall not have dominion over you for ye are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14.)
Man is not now under an administration of law, attempting justification by works of righteousness and receiving only such blessings as he deserves; but he is under an administration of grace, trusting in the merits of the blood of Christ for salvation and receiving blessings he does not merit. The above Scriptures are not contrasting two laws, one given by Moses and one by Christ. They are contrasting methods of divine administration, one of law and one of grace. Under law God metes out justice to man; under grace he metes out mercy.
Herein lie the chief differences between the old and the new covenants. The old was a covenant of works; the new, a covenant of grace. The old demanded works of human righteousness, the new demands faith in Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. And Christ as a satisfactory sin offering is the basis of the change in covenants. No place is found under law for an offering that can take away sins. Such a sacrifice implies grace, not law; mercy, not justice; faith, not works. The new covenant promised by God through the prophets was a superior covenant, with a superior priesthood, a superior sacrifice, and superior blessings. The old covenant was founded upon an imperfect priesthood and the blood of animals; the new covenant is founded upon a perfect priesthood and the blood of Christ. Under the old covenant full forgiveness of sins was impossible, while under the new God says:
I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more. (Heb. 8:12.)
Mercy, then, in the special sense of forgiveness is the predominating characteristic of the new covenant. But under law it was different. We see, therefore, that the change from the old to the new covenant was not a mere change of laws, but a change in method of administration. Man was taken from under the rule of law and placed under the rule of grace. "Ye are not under law, but under grace." This is far from saying: "Ye are not under the law given by Moses, but under the law given by Christ." It was grace that came through Jesus Christ.
Being, therefore, under grace, we are of necessity under the principle of faith, for grace and faith imply each other. What is offered by grace must be accepted by faith. And the all-sufficiency of the atonement of Christ calls for faith in the sense of trust or reliance. Herein lies the importance of the relation, as to the order, of repentance and faith. If the faith that saves precedes repentance, there is no trust or reliance in it. It is impossible. And if there is no trust in faith, then the implication follows that there is nothing in which to trust. This is to ignore the blood of Christ. Furthermore, if saving faith precedes repentance, then faith is nothing more than belief of facts. This is legalistic faith, and necessarily places man under law. Under law there is no place for a meritorious atonement, and hence no place for faith in the sense of trust. Hence, Paul wrote the Galatians:
Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith: and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them. (Gal. 3:11, 12.)
By saying "the law is not of faith" Paul did not mean that under law man could not believe in the existence of God. The apostle was discussing the faith that saves; and faith that saves must be directed toward a sacrifice for sins. But the sacrifices of the law could not take away sins. Hence, under law there was no saving faith.
While I think it has been conclusively shown that man under Christ is not under law in the common acceptation of that term, yet there is a sense in which he is under law to Christ. I shall ask the reader to note carefully the reasons already given why grace is not law. Remember the contrast plainly implied by more than one writer. Paul wrote: "For ye are not under law, but under grace." We are forced to believe that the apostle did not exclude the law of Moses only, but all law as such. He had in mind two different modes of divine government--one of law and one of grace. It was to these two forms of administration that he referred in Rom. 3:27. The principle of works under law necessitates boasting; at least, admits boasting. But the principle of faith--that is, the administration of which faith is the rule--leaves no room for boasting. Under law, a system that provides no meritorious sacrifice, works become the means whereby man attempts to attain justification. Hence, works are the principle in this case. Under grace, where a sin offering, such as Christ, is found, faith is the principle whereby man seeks justification. Faith here might be called a "law" in the sense of principle or rule. Moffatt uses the word "principle" instead of "law." On Rom. 3:27 Hodge, in his "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans," has this to say regarding the meaning of the word "law" in this place:
In this connection, the phrases "by what law," "the law of works," and "the law of faith," are peculiar, as the word law is not used in its ordinary sense. The general idea, however, of a rule of action is retained. "By what rule? by that which requires works? Nay; by that which requires faith."
Again, in Rom. 8:2 we have the word "law." What is its meaning here? Let us first notice the context. In the seventh chapter Paul had explained the relation of law and sin, showing that law, instead of freeing one from sin, revives lust. Why does law do this? First, because of the "law of sin" which is in our members, and, second, because law is unable to crucify this law of sin. Prohibitions of law revive sin in the unregenerate person. True, law can define sin and show its exceeding sinfulness; but it cannot give power to obey against this tremendous evil influence. Hence, law leaves man a helpless victim of sin, showing him his need of a Savior, but supplying none. In this way God ordained law to lead to Christ. Hence the cry:
Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
Paul answers this question, saying God would deliver him "though Jesus Christ our Lord." Then the eighth chapter opens a brighter scene:
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
But why is there no condemnation under Christ? And what is the condemnation Paul has in mind? The condemnation referred to is the condemnation resulting from being under law. Law could not overcome the "law of sin" in man. Instead, by it lust was revived. Human effort proved futile. The will to do right might be present, but the power to accomplish it was lacking. But it is different under grace. Justification provides for the crucifixion of this "old man," the "law of sin." Christ by his death takes man from under law and places him under grace. The Holy Spirit is given the child of God for the purpose of crucifying lust and thus enabling man to live righteously. Now, these statements are proved by the following Scripture:
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. . . . But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. . . . So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Now we are ready to determine the meaning of the phrase, "the law of the Spirit of life." Does it mean a law given by Christ, a different one from the old, but law in the same sense, nevertheless? If so, why can such a law deliver man from the "law of sin" which is in him any more than the old law? Did not God give the old law? Are not most of the Ten Commandments found in the new covenant? Not as a part of the old law as such, but included in the new, nevertheless. Is the command, "Thou shalt not covet," easier to obey under grace than under law? Paul said this prohibition under law wrought in him through the law all manner of coveting. Does this same prohibition increase coveting under Christ? If so, wherein is the new covenant better than the old? But there is a vital difference. What the law was unable to do, God through Christ accomplishes. The law was unable to deliver man from the "law of sin" in his members. Christ can and does deliver him. How? Paul answers:
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
Since man is delivered by the "law of the Spirit, what is this law? The "law of the Spirit" is contrasted by Paul with the "law of sin." But what is this "law of sin"? Was it the law of Moses? Now, it is true that the law of Moses could not give life. It is also true that the law of Moses revived sin. In the first place, this "law of sin and of death" was the source of bondage from which, through Christ, man was to be delivered. It was the source of bondage because it was the source of sin. Now, what was, and what is yet, the real cause of sin? Not the law of Moses or any other law in the same sense, but the "law of sin" which is in man's members. In other words, the "law of sin" in Rom. 8:2 is the "law of sin" in Rom. 7:23. But the "law of sin" in Rom. 7:23 was not the law of Moses, but the principle of sin in man. The law of Moses revived this "law of sin" in man and caused him to sin more. Now, for this "law of sin" grace gives man another principle of life, the "law of the Spirit." This "law of the Spirit" as the antithesis of the "law of sin" is the new principle in man that leads to righteousness, just as the "law of sin" led to sin. And since this new principle leads to righteousness and not to sin, it frees man from the bondage of sin. The "law of the Spirit" is not, therefore, a law given by the Spirit supplanting the law of Moses--that is, it is not a law in the sense of a code. It is a principle, not prohibitions. It is the direction given the justified person in Christ toward righteousness. It is the exact opposite of the source of sin. It is called the "law of the Spirit" because the Spirit in man is the source of this new tendency toward righteousness.
Hence, we must conclude that the term "law" in Rom. 8:2 does not refer to a code, but to a new principle of life given the saved under Christ. If "law of the Spirit" means a law given by the Spirit, meaning law in the sense of a code, then the "law of sin" would be a law given by sin. This interpretation is not admissible.
Again, in 1 Cor. 9:19-21 Paul represents himself as being in some sense under law. Hear him:
For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews: to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (1 Cor. 9:19-21.)
Now, Paul was not under the law of Moses. Neither was he, like the Gentiles, entirely without law to God. He was God's servant under Christ, having God's revealed will to define his rights, privileges, and responsibilities. He was not free with reference to God and Christ, but under law to each. Here law seems to be used in its broadest sense as signifying obligation. Paul was a chosen vessel unto God to preach Christ. Hence, he was bound under a lasting obligation. In this sense Paul was "not without law to God, but under law to Christ." Paul certainly had no intention, as he would have no need in his argument, of contradicting himself by asserting that he was under a legal system.
And, finally, James speaks of the Christian as being under "the perfect law, the law of liberty." (See chapter 1:25.) Now, Christianity is a law in the sense of imposing upon man obligations. These obligations, however, can be met; and hence man is not left in bondage as he was under the law of Moses. Simple law, such as that of Moses, enslaved because the "law of sin" in man is left unconquered. But grace crucifies this "old man," and hence makes it possible for its obligations to be met, thus leaving man free. Instead of James saying that man under Christ is under a pure legalistic system that enslaves, he is particular to assert that he is under a "perfect law, the law of liberty."
Seemingly we have wandered far from our original thought of this chapter regarding the order of repentance and faith. But the diversion is more apparent than real. The grace of God calls for faith in man. Now, this faith must include the element of trust in order to take hold of the grace of God. If grace is grace and not law, then faith must signify trust, not simply the belief of facts. Hence, it was necessary to show that man is not now under law, but under grace. Having clearly demonstrated this fact by Scriptural proof, it was thought best to notice those Scriptures that speak of man as being in some sense under law. Hence the apparent diversion. But notwithstanding man is under serious obligations to God and Christ, he is yet under the administration of grace, not of law.
When the facts of the gospel are preached, they may be received--that is, man may believe the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. This he may do and still be impenitent. Impenitence signifies rebellion against God and includes the rejection of his mercy through Christ. So long, then, as one is impenitent he will refuse Christ as Savior. But when impenitence gives place to penitence, one is prepared to accept him. But this acceptance is faith or trust. Hence, as to order, repentance logically precedes faith in the sense of trust. Actually they are inseparable--that is, genuine penitence implies trust, as trust guarantees repentance.
As to their meaning, repentance and faith are closely related. Repentance concerns both sin and the Savior. When one whole-heartedly turns from sin, he turns to the Savior from sin; and this turning to the Savior is faith in him. "Repentance unto life" involves faith in Christ, just as does "repentance unto remission of sins." (Acts 11:18; Luke 24:47.)
Though closely related, repentance and faith are not identical. Repentance properly relates to God, while faith that saves, in a special way, relates to Christ. Sins are committed against God, and hence repentance is properly toward him. But Christ crucified is God's remedy for sin. Faith, therefore, is to be in him.