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,
The old writers often mention exercises of this sort when they discuss fruits of repentance. But although they do not place the force of repentance in them - my readers will pardon me for saying what I think - it seems to me that they depend too much on exercises. And if any man will wisely weigh the matter, he will agree with me, I trust, that they have in two respects gone beyond measure. For when they urged so much and commended with such immoderate praises that bodily discipline, they succeeded in making making the people embrace it with greater zeal; but they somewhat obscured what ought to have been of far greater importance. Secondly, in afflicting punishments they were somewhat more rigid than the gentleness of the church would call for"
This is best evinced in the historical antecedent of the doctrine of penance. This praxis within the Roman Catholic Church was contrived from a mistranslation of the word "repent" in Matthew 4:17 by the Latin Vulgate (the official translation of the RCC). Therein repent was rendered poenitentiam agite, or do penance. In so doing the words and meaning of Christ was distorted and misconstrued. The sordid emphasis placed upon outward acts of penance or repentance, which were in effect meritorious, is alien to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Luther vociferously established. He wrote his vicar, "I venture to say they are wrong who make more of an act in Latin than of the change of heart in Greek"
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.
Credo ut Intelligam
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
