Inform Your 'Faith'

  As was elucidated in the last installment repentance, from a biblical vantage point, is especially concerned with the disposition of the heart.  When outward or external exercises and exhibitions become paramount biblical repentance is consequently reduced to a medieval pseudo-repentance that is eerily compatible with the decree of the fourth Lateral Council in 1215 wherein a latent formulaic externalism began to be propounded.  Within that decree it was ratified, "All believers...must faithfully confess their sins in person at least once a year to their own priest, and must make the effort to carry out the imposed penance according to their ability." (emphasis mine) Such posturing is noxiously obsessed with a ritualistic formalism devoid of concern or attention for true and genuine repentance of the heart and mind. After referring to those who propagated that "repentance consists chiefly" in outward acts Calvin concluded that, "This delusion of theirs must be removed." Kudos John Calvin...kudos. (It must be noted though that confession and penance within the Roman Catholic construct was initially contrived with a healthy focus on genuine repentance of the heart and mind that produced outward acts that would compliment that repentance)

  Among some for instance, public confession is demanded as a form of repentance or fruit of repentance as a precursor to forgiveness.  For this misguided ilk such outward acts of contrition or penance (among an omnibus list of acts) is what repentance consists of. And even if they would not concede that statement, perhaps because they "define" repentance technically aright, they nevertheless are exponents of its devastating effects by their implements and ecclesiastical requisites.  As John Calvin acutely recognized, "when the term 'repentance' is applied to this external profession, it is improperly diverted from its true meaning...For it is not so much a turning to God as a confession of guilt, together with a beseeching of God to avert punishment and accusation."  

  Now there may very well be those who would argue that such measures are required to validate a genuine repentance.  I think such a tall tale is worthy of consideration. (Again, as I have previously stated, fruits will accompany genuine repentance; but lasting fruit and genuine fruit will arise from a truly repentant heart not by way of force or coercion.  Fruit produced from the latter is temporary.) The pitfall of such a nominalistic approach is that a determinative formula is not provided within the scope of scripture. Imposing or demanding certain exercises of repentance leads invariably to forced contrition and coerced confession.  How sure can the priestly or clerical caste be that the penitent is genuine? Is it within their purview to determine or probe the depths of the human heart and psyche? Are ministers such perspicacious judges that they can assuredly do so?  These are considerations a minister must keep in mind when handling any who repent within the church. 

  When Paul addressed repentance in II Corinthians 7 for instance he referred to the fruits or palpable manifestations of their repentance.  In acknowledging them he attributes the "products", so to speak, of their repentance that was worked in them to the sadness or sorrow "used by God" and not the sadness caused by Paul (vs.9).  He revels in the eagerness produced in them through godly grief that yielded the fruits...not by them accomplishing certain imposed external acts of penance.  Paul aggrandized what the godly sorrow produced "in" them (vs.11).  Moreover, Paul's focal point was not merely upon the outward acts that could evince the nominal sadness Paul may have caused but on the inward sorrow or disposition subsequently producing outward repentance.

   What is more, Paul did not exhibit disbelief regarding the repentance reported by Titus.  He didn't undertake an "apostolic" examination to establish the purity of their posture. 

   This dynamic proved to be of major interest within the medieval church.  As required acts of systematic penance were more and more demanded and imposed the question of the priests ability to determine the sincerity of contrition and penance burgeoned.  Gabriel Biel, a scholastic at the University of Tubingen, especially gave voice to this effervescent question in his Exposition of the Canon of the Mass.  The salient concern of course was whether the priestly ilk was moving beyond their post by determining sincerity of heart through measuring that sincerity through the external acts defined by way of ecclesiastical prerogative.  As observed by doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan concerning this matter, "The priest" could not "know whether or not the contrition or the confession of the penitent were sincere; for that matter, the penitent himself did 'not have a consciousness or sense' even of every mortal sin as was proved by the prayer of David, 'Cleanse me of my secrets.' " 

   This raised serious problems germane to the practical, pastoral, and theological application/s of granting absolution/forgiveness.  Antoninus Pierozzi, a 15th century penitential scholar, grappled with this dilemma of sincerity when questioning, "Is a confession valid if it has been made by someone who is not contrite, who does not sorrow sufficiently for his sins or does not intend to refrain from them in the future?" (Confessional; emphasis mine)  The crux of his concerns however rise and fall upon his concern of sufficient sorrow. Sufficient by whose dictates. Sufficient by whose demands. Sufficient by whose prerogative? 

   At this juncture Thomas Aquinas was culled from.  He made two distinctions of sorrow comprising attrition and contrition. Attrition is a sorrow arising from self love or selfish motives. Contrition, on the other hand, is sorrow arising from love of God. These are acute distinctions that can be established and substantiated within holy writ.  However, this in no way gives place for the minister to determine the sincerity of the repentant.  The challenge of judging whether the confession/repentance was genuine remained.  This is because gauging such motives are outside the abilities and authority of man.  As Martin Luther maintained, "no one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition" and that consequently there could be no assurance of forgiveness based on the quality or quantity of ones contrition, which could never be worthy or sufficient.

    By extension ministers are a maleversation who  presumptuously seek to dictate the sincerity of a repentant believer or unbeliever, when their is manifest evidence, on the grounds of their own making or through their capricious contrivances. In so doing repentance is then twisted into a manufactured contrition that is inescapably ineffectual.

  Sincerity is not contingent upon whether or not a penitent meets the pretentious demands of a misguided, delusional minister suffering from a sordid god complex.  For, "what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of man which is in him." (I Cor.2:11)  Attempting to gauge what only the mind of God can know leads to a phantasmagoria of clerical abuses.  Man has not been endowed with the duty to prove or disprove the sincerity of anothers repentance through a litany of ministerial demands. Calvin casts many aspersions upon such "Scholastic" methodologies as described above:

   "They are so doggedly set in outward exercises that you gather nothing else from their huge volumes than that repentance is a discipline and austerity that serves partly to tame the flesh, partly to chastise and punish faults. They are wonderfully silent regarding the inward renewal of the mind, which bears with it true correction of life.  Among them there is , indeed, much talk concerning attrition and contrition.  They torture souls with many misgivings, and immerse them in a sea of trouble and anxiety.  But where they have seem to have wounded hearts deeply, they heal all the bitterness with a light sprinkling of ceremonies"  

    When handling the reality and nature of repentance it is incumbent upon all ministers to bear in mind that the experience of repentance will vary from person to person.Sinclair Ferguson posits that, "the actual experience of repentance will vary from person to person, as will the consciousness of their own sin." The variances within the existential outworking of repentance, i.e. the change of heart and mind, are not to be confined to human formulae.  Applying a sustained formula of mechanistic externalism to individual repentance reveals an ignorance of the biblical conceptions pertaining to the interplay of humankind and sin.   Herman Bavinck's comments on this aspect of repentance are perceptive:

   "Repentance is ,despite its oneness in essence, different in form according to the persons in whom it takes place and the circumstances in which it takes place...The moment we have eyes to see the richness of the spiritual life, we do away with the practice of judging others according to our puny measure. There are people who know of only one method, and regard no one as having repented unless he can speak of the same spiritual experiences which they have had or claim to have had...The true repentance does not consist of what men make of it, but what God says of it"  

   

     What is more, when ministers apply themselves to judge the purity of anyone who repents based upon imposed acts of repentance or penance they reach the nadir of turning the penitent toward themselves and their corresponding demands instead of God.  This breeds a Christian nominalism, which is expressed by a merely outward faith and public confession of sins.  Simeon, a theologian in the Eastern Church of the 10th and11th century, repudiated externalistic emphases, practice and definition of repentance. He wrote in his Discourses, " Let us endeavor to attain to purity of heart, which comes from paying heed to our ways and from constant confession of secret thoughts of the soul. For if we, moved by a penitent heart, daily and constantly confess these, it produces in us repentance for what we have done or even thought"

THIS CONSIDERATION OF COURSE DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT CONFESSED AND WHO HAVE SHOWN NO MEASURE OF REPENTANCE WHATSOEVER. ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE MADE CONFESSION, ADMITTED WRONG DOING, AND EVINCED THE MOVEMENT OF REPENTANCE.

    In the previous two blogs I delved into the topic of forgiveness.  Surely we need to constantly remind ourselves, as Christian's, of the enormity of our debt that has been payed for through the meritorious work of Christ Jesus along with the complimentary forgiveness of those debts.  In so doing we must maintain a posture of forgiveness; IF in fact we ourselves have been recipients of Father God's forgiveness in Christ. As Donald Guthrie remarks, "Those who ask for forgiveness and yet harbour an unforgiving attitude to others are asking the impossible. There may also be a sense in which our attitude towards forgiveness should bear some faint resemblance to God's forgiveness for which we are praying....The parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt.18:23-35) shows that one who accepted forgiveness is expected ipso facto to forgive."  A forgiving attitude, as espoused by the New Testament corpus and foreshadowed within the Old Testament construct, will be quick to fore go any outstanding debts.

    Conversely, the above posture does not nullify a Christian's personal responsibility to walk in and emphasize a sanctified state of repentance out of which confession and the like proceed.  A life of repentance is enjoined and urged upon the Christian community. 

    There is also a position which suggests that Christians are to forgive when no repentance/confession is to be found. This is undeniably without biblical precedent when the full scope of scriptural import germane to forgiveness, confession and repentance is properly given preponderance. As Peacemaker observes, often Christians are told to GIVE forgiveness for their own health or so that their sins can be forgiven, even if the sinner is unrepentant--this is unbiblical and destructive to the individual believer, the sinner who is unrepentant, and to the body of Christ, HIS Church, as well as to the non-believer. Unfortunately, most who address this fallacy do so at the expense of eschewing biblical forgiveness.

    In my experience within the ranks of the independent church and some of the more liturgical denominations either mechanistic repentance is required for forgiveness or vacuous forgiveness is advocated without palpable repentance. Both extremes do great damage to the Church and are unequivocally without biblical warrant.

    Now that I have touched upon some initial considerations lets move on to a more focused handling of repentance/confession within biblical nomenclature. (Bear in mind I have already given credence to forgiveness in the last two blogs) What then are we to make of repentance? How is repentance to be conveyed within the church? What does holy writ establish relative to its emphases?

    Within the Old Testament corpus the Hebrew word Shub predominates the conceptions of repentance. It is interspersed throughout the book of Jeremiah 100 times for instance. Of course Jeremiah was a prophet who found himself encircled by an apostate Israel. That word connotes changing a course of action, turning away, and turning back. Now, Within the confines of the New Testament three words are used primarily in relation to repentance: 1.) epistrepho, carries the idea of turning back 2.) metamelomai, carries the idea of regret 3.) metaoeo, carries the idea of becoming cognizant of something afterwards. The latter is the more prevalent usage in the New Testament and conveys the notion of a changed mind that leads to a change of lifestyle. The overall schema of repentance is no less then a holistic turning from sin. So emphatic is the thrust of repentance that, it involves an "ongoing, dogged, persistent refusal to compromise with sin," as Sinclair Ferguson succinctly states.

    With that in mind to what is repentance directed.  Within the corpus of Scripture it pertains to both outward and inward acts. "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind" (James 4:8)  However, the former is always subordinated to the latter.  Those who ardently place a disproportionate amount of stock upon outward acts to the exclusion of "the inner disposition of the heart" (Calvin) do so without the consent or authority of scripture. According to this modus operandi the externalism is paramount. Isolated acts of sin become the objects of attention and complete focus as well as the measures taken to counteract those isolated acts vis a vis prescriptive remedies in the name of exercising "repentance." 

    Are fruits of repentance urged within holy writ. Inarguably.  However, as is clear within the whole teaching on the subject, those fruits proceed from an inner quality or source.  Christ helps us here in saying, "Every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt.16:20) A good tree is not known because of its fruit but by its fruit because of its inward condition.  Paul operates in much the same way when handling the concept of repentance.  When acknowledging the evident repentance of the Corinthians he associated it directly to a "godly sorrow" that was at work by "the will of God"(cf. II Cor.7:9-11)  This is true for Paul because, "the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret."(ibid)  Even Paul locates repentance within the inner disposition of the heart.

    Repentance is not to be restricted to individual acts of contrition, "for God looks into men's hearts," as John Calvin maintains.  Defining repentance or emphasizing repentance in this convoluted manner betrays the precedent of the inspired word of God.  All this does is promote a religious externalism or formalism that is sustained by an outward compunction.  Calvin opines,

  It would seem that the emphasis on isolated acts within the church has returned as a conceivable "Latinization" courses through the veigns of the Western psyche.  Within many a baptist and charismatic church decisional regeneration is espoused by way of altar calls, whereby a single act is enough to merit salvation and regeneration.  Within other circles repentance is overwhelming presented in a way that confines the action or movement of repentance to instances of course correct in relation to individual acts of sin that surface from time to time.  Both are misguided and erroneous.  As Sinclair Ferguson comments regarding repentance as an "isolated, completed act", "For us, as for the medieval church, repentance has been divorced from genuine regeneration."

   Biblical repentance, especially within the paradigmatic tapestry of the New Testament is the outworking of regeneration as a result of union with Christ.  To be sure the regenerate state of conversion will naturally surface in this way. However, believers still struggle with indwelling sin thus necessitating the need for it to actively cultivate a life and discipline of repentance; albeit not a mechanistic formula divorced from the washing of regeneration. Paul especially speaks to this when urging the Christian community to, "walk by the spirit" for in so doing "you will not carry out the desire of the flesh" (Gal.5:16-26) as well as "put on the new self that is being renewed..." (Col.3:1-13) Again, Ferguson asserts, "true repentance...arises in the context of our union with Jesus Christ; and since its goal is our restoration into the image of Christ, it involves the ongoing practical outworking of our union with Christ...that is, being conformed to Christ crucified and risen.

    Luther articulated a radical and lifelong character of repentance maintaining that repentance is the actual outworking of divine regeneration and renewal. Calvin goes so far as to define regeneration as repentance.(Institutes III.iii.1)

    Scripturally, the locus of attention is given to the heart within the landscape of repentance. As the prophet Joel enjoined, rend your heart and not your garments (Joel 2:13). This will be elucidated more in the next installment.