Welcome to an e-debate between Dr. Bob Wilkin and Kerry Gilliard. This is an ongoing debate, which will last from June 1-14. You will find the topics below followed by links to their respective comments. Stay tuned for more! 

Resolved; Repentance Isn't a Condition of Eternal Life    

Affirmative – Wilkin

Arguably the most important question is the one the Philippian jailer asked. The person who does what is required to have eternal life is the one who will spend eternity glorifying the Lord Jesus in His kingdom. And since we were created to glorify Him, that will bring us joy forever.

As I am debating a Calvinist, I shouldn’t have to make a case for justification by faith alone. However, I will, for that is what this debate is really about.

Repentance Isn’t Found in Paul’s Defense of His Gospel in Galatians

The gospel Paul preached to the Galatians was under attack by men we now call Judaizers (Gal 1:6-9). They were proclaiming justification by faith plus works. They did not deny the death and resurrection of Jesus or the importance of faith. They did, however, say that faith was not enough. One must also be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they said.

Paul defends his gospel in Galatians. Chapter 2 verses 15 and 16 are his thesis statement. A man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. That’s it.

Not once in Galatians do we find reference to repentance. Surely if repentance were a condition of justification Paul would say so in Galatians. That he does not proves the point.

Repentance Isn’t Found in the Only Evangelistic Book in the Bible

The Gospel of John is evangelistic (John 20:31 ). No other book is. All other books are written to those who already believe. This isn’t to say that we don’t find mention of the saving message elsewhere. But it is to say that we surely will find a full orbed presentation of the saving message in John.

The words metanoeo and metanoia, repent and repentance, are not found even once in John’s Gospel. This is the gospel of belief. Ninety-nine times pisteuo, believe, occurs. Over and over again we are told that the one who believes in Jesus has everlasting life (e.g., 3:16, 18, 36; 4:10ff.; 5:24 ; 6:47 ; 11:25 -27).

The author was a disciple of John the Baptist and was schooled in the doctrine of repentance. He speaks of repentance in the Book of Revelation. That we don’t find it in his evangelistic book is telling.

These Aren’t Arguments from Silence

Some would object that these are arguments from silence. Actually, as Zane Hodges has shown in his book Harmony with God, they are arguments about silence.

If I wrote a book on the best basketball players in the NBA today and I did not mention Karl Malone, it would be clear that I didn’t consider him one of the best today. My failure to mention him would be an argument about silence, not from it. So too on this issue. That Galatians and John are dealing with justification and yet neither mentions repentance is proof that repentance is not a condition of justification/eternal life.

The Sole Condition of Justification is Faith in Jesus

Galatians 2:15-16 makes this clear. So does John 6:47. And so do over 150 other passages in the Bible.

Therefore, unless repentance is another name for faith, then repentance cannot be a condition for eternal life.

Repentance Isn’t Faith

That repentance isn’t faith is clear in a statement like, “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15 ). It is also clear in the many passages which call upon believers to repent.

Repentance is a decision to turn from one’s sins and get right with God (Luke 15). This is something which believers who are out of fellowship with God are called upon do. However, even unbelievers can decide to turn from their sins in an effort to get right with God. Their repentance, though not a condition of eternal life, might result in God opening their eyes to the truth of the gospel (Acts 10:1-11:18; 16:13-15).

Conclusion: Repentance Isn’t a Condition of Justification

 Since justification is by faith alone, it isn’t by also by repentance or baptism or discipleship or commitment or works or anything else. The sole condition of justification before God is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Calvinists who say that repentance is a condition of justification need to rethink their position. They are contradicting themselves and denying the key cry of the Reformation: Sola Fide, by faith alone.

Of course, non-Calvinists who cling to repentance as a condition of eternal life likewise need to reconsider. Both need to realize that if the sole condition of eternal life is believing that Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him, and if they have never believed that, then they are lost no matter how committed they are, no matter how much they love God, no matter how sincere they are, and no matter how orthodox the rest of their theology may be.

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31 ). That’s it. That truly is good news.

Negative – Gilliard

Prolegomena

Before we discuss whether or not repentance is necessary for eternal life, it is necessary to define what repentance is according to its' usage in scripture. 


A Visible and Real Change

Simply put, repentance is a change of mind based on a challenge, situation or circumstance that is followed by actions confirming this change of mind.  Intellectually, repentance is a change of mind about an idea, person, place, thing or event.  Emotionally, repentance connotes a 180 degree shift in ones' emotional appraisal of that idea, person, place, thing or event.  Volitionally, a person is moved to actions that are consistent with that mental and emotional change.   In a salvific sense, repentance is turning from sin and turning to God.  Biblical repentance involves all three of these aspects.

A simple example of this is given in the book of Acts at the end of Peter's Pentecost sermon.   Acts 2:37 tells us that the people were 'cut to the heart' (emotional). Verse 41 tells us that those who accepted the message (intellectual) were baptized (volitional).  All three elements of repentance are present here.  The negative aspect of repentance here is turning from sin (in this case, the collective sin of the crowd by handing Jesus over to be crucified, as set out in vv. 22-36) while the positive aspect is of them turning to God and being baptized because of their turning (repentance - v. 38).

To be sure, there are false types of repentance in scripture.  Judas, for example, was sorrowful (Matthew 27:3) and even went and turned the money back into the chief priests.   But Judas, while intellectually and emotionally realizing his wrong, did not turn from his sin toward God for salvation, but turned toward himself and his own remorse, ultimately ending in his own suicide (v. 5).


Demonstrated To Be Necessary
     In Acts 17:30,  Paul states this fact to the dwellers and philosophers at Mars Hill: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent."  The immediate context (vv. 22-31) show that the idolatry of the people of Athens (vv. 16-17) what Paul called the people to repent of.   This could not simply be a 'change of mind'  without a turning from the sin of idolatry to belief in the one true God. It must (by definition of what idolatry is) involve turning from idolatry. In verse 30, Paul gives the reason that the people should repent and abandon their practice of idolatry; the coming judgment of God upon all humanity by the Son of God. Eternal salvation is surely in view in this passage; the context will not allow for anything else.
     Likewise, in Acts 26:19-20, Paul states in his testimony: "Upon this, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but to those first in Damascus, and Jerusalem, and to all the country of Judea, and to the nations, I announced the command to repent and to turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance."  The immediate context (v. 16-18) show that eternal salvation was in view and was the object of this repentance that Paul preached.  Verse 20 shows that repentance, like faith, has fruit.  That fruit is not simply a changed mind, but a changed life as a result of that changed mind.
     A few chapters earlier in Acts 3:19, Peter explicitly connects repentance as a condition for eternal life.  The immediate context (vv. 3:12-4:4) show that the object of this repentance is from sin (v. 26) to God (4:3-4).  The passage speaks for itself and is, for the most part, beyond dispute.


The Link of Repentance to Faith
It is my belief that the scriptures teach that repentance is simply the flip side of true and saving faith (Mark 1:15, Hebrews 6:1) and a fruit of regeneration.  Like faith, in many passages, repentance is viewed as something humans do.  But in other passages of scripture, just as faith is viewed as a gift granted to unworthy men so that they may believe (John 6:44, 65, Phil. 1:29), so too repentance is presented as a gift of God, granted to men so that they may turn from their sinful ways and turn to Him in faith.  Examples of this are found in passages such as Acts 5:31, 11:18,  and most explicitly in 2 Timothy 2:25.  The two, while distinct, are not divorced from oneanother.

Repentance (in the salvific sense) can no more be considered a 'work' than a person choosing to positively respond to Christ in faith.  It is God who grants repentance from dead works to eternal life.  In Ezekiel 36:22-33, we see a perfect illustration of the sovereign God at work in salvation.  It is God who cleanses from sin (v. 25),  it is God who puts a new heart in the person, removing the old heart of stone (v. 26), it is God who then puts His Spirit in the person and moves the person to follow His laws and decrees (v. 27).   It is God who works in the person, both to will and to do (Philippians 2:13).   With these things in mind, the charge that preaching repentance as a part of the gospel is, in effect, 'preaching works' is groundless. 


Summary
One should simply think of repentance as a component of the salvation that God provides for sinful humanity.  The grace of God that brings salvation teaches those who obey it and believe it to say 'NO' to worldly passions and lusts. Not perfectly, but progressively.  This necessarily involves turning from them in order to turn to God.  Repentance is as much a condition of eternal life as faith is a condition of eternal life.  The two go hand in hand –  "Without faith, repentance becomes despair, and without repentance, faith is only presumption. No one can believe who does not repent, and no one really repents who does not believe." ( W. Graham Scroggie, St. Mark ; London: Harper & Brothers, n.d., pp. 33-34)

Response to First Negative by Wilkin

Response to Arguments Set Forth by Kerry Gilliard Suggesting

That Repentance Is a Condition of Eternal Life

What Gilliard Didn’t Say

            No explanation of the absence of repentance in Galatians. If Galatians is Paul’s defense of his gospel, why no mention of repentance? Clearly if repentance were a condition of justification, Paul would have said so in Galatians.

            No explanation of the absence of repentance in John. The only evangelistic book in the entire Bible is John (John 20:31 ). John repeatedly says that the sole condition of eternal life is faith. Not once does he even mention repentance. If repentance were a condition of eternal life, John would have said so. 

            No explanation of how justification is by faith alone plus repentance. If justification is by faith alone, then clearly repentance can’t be a condition. Yet Gilliard says it is, without explaining how justification can be sola fide if that is true.

            No explanation of why the woman at the well wasn’t told to repent. Jesus pointed out her sinfulness to prove that He was the Messiah. Yet he didn’t tell her she had to turn from her sin. Nor does John even report whether she did after she believed. Surely if repentance were a condition, Jesus would have called upon her to repent.

What Gilliard Did Say

            Repentance is turning from sin. I agree that repentance is turning from sin and turning to God. I also agree that the actions which follow repentance are not repentance itself, but the fruit of repentance. Whether this is a work or not isn’t the point. Turning from sins isn’t believing.
 
            Acts 2:38 . I agree that Acts 2:37 shows that the Jews listening to Peter that day believed what he was saying, that Jesus indeed is the Messiah. Thus, according to John 20:31, they were born again at that moment, before Peter called them to repent and be baptized. Gilliard seems to be suggesting that until they volitionally submitted to baptism they had not yet exercised faith. If so, then baptism is another condition of eternal life.

            Acts 17:30 . It is true that Acts 17:30 is a call for all men everywhere to repent. Surely it includes, though is not limited to, turning from idolatry. And yes, we do find in the context some coming to faith and gaining eternal life. However, what we don’t find, and this Gilliard fails to observe, is repentance being stated as a condition of eternal life. If repentance were a condition, then why didn’t Luke state in v 34, “However, some men joined him and repented,” or “However, some men joined him and believed and repented”? Why is it that belief only is mentioned if both belief and repentance are required and Luke is trying to show that?

            Acts 26:19-20. Yes, Paul called Gentiles to repent. Yet he doesn’t say he called them to repent to gain eternal life. Gilliard fails to point out something that doesn’t support his argument. He mentions that in vv 16-18 Paul discusses Jesus’ words to him about eternal salvation. But he fails to mention that in those very words Jesus told Paul that the condition of forgiveness and positional sanctification was “by faith in Me” (v 18). That Jesus indicated the sole condition was faith in Him is telling.

            Acts 3:19 indisputably shows repentance is a condition of eternal life. Gillard says that “the passage speaks for itself and is, for the most part, beyond dispute.” However, the text does not say what he suggests it does.

            The issue here is the kingdom coming for Israel . That is what “the times of refreshing” refers to. This sort of corporate language occurs nowhere in sermons to Gentiles. Israel had long been awaiting deliverance from Gentile domination. Peter is here reoffering the kingdom to Israel .

            Remember that while the sole condition of individual justification is faith, the condition of national deliverance of Israel was two-fold: “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15 ). Until there is national faith and repentance on the part of the nation of Israel , the kingdom will not come.

            Repentance is the flip side of saving faith. The idea that repentance is the flip side of faith is a popular yet unbiblical notion. Nowhere in the Bible do we see faith illustrated as the front side of a coin or repentance as the back side.

            The illustration makes no sense. If the coin illustrates what one must do to have eternal life, then the coin is made up of two parts. Half of the coin is faith and half is repentance. Therefore, the illustration teaches that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith plus repentance.

            Why limit the illustration to two sides? Why not make it a die with 6 sides? We could include not only repentance and faith but also baptism, prayer, active involvement in church, and confession of Christ. If faith isn’t the only condition of eternal life, then we could ultimately bring in all the commands of God as additional conditions.

            Repentance is imperfect and progressive. In his summary Gilliard indicates that one who repents does so “not perfectly, but progressively.” But if “repentance is as much a condition of eternal life as faith” as Gilliard says, and if one doesn’t repent all at once, but progressively over his lifetime, then one will not have eternal life until his progressive repentance is completed (and presumably perfected). Logically if repentance is a condition of eternal life, then one doesn’t gain eternal life until and unless he keeps on repenting till death.

Conclusion:

Repentance Isn’t Faith and Isn’t a Condition of Eternal Life

            Gilliard admits that repentance isn’t faith. Yet he never explains how justification is by faith alone and yet also by repentance. Nor does he explain the absence of repentance in Galatians and John. He implies that baptism is another condition of eternal life. Yet the Lord Jesus promised, “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (John 6:47 ). It really is that simple.

Response to First Affirmative by Gilliard

Confusion?

Dr. Wilkin’s opening statement begins by attempting to shift the focus of this debate to a position that I do not hold, nor do any Calvinists hold – that repentance is necessary for justification. All due respect, the land of Oz has called; they want the Scarecrow back and request that you stop beating him up. The two terms are not synonymous. It is an error to confuse them. Justification is an aspect or a component of salvation, just as sanctification, election and glorification are all aspects or components of salvation.

What’s Galatians All About Here ?

Dr. Wilkin writes that because Paul never addresses repentance in the book of Galatians, it must not be a part of the gospel. What is the purpose of Paul’s writing to the church at Galatia in the first place ? Well, Paul writes to the church at Galatia as believers. Unlike his other letters (at least in my observation), he does not assume a mixed audience here and does not seek to be overtly evangelistic in his presentation of the gospel message (unlike his request to the folks at the church of Corinth to ‘test themselves’). His concern here is doctrinal correction on the attempt to add ‘keeping of the law of Moses’ to the gospel. The bulk of the letter is spent demonstrating the dichotomy between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and the freedom of one versus the curse of the other. Paul focuses on walking in Christ and showing themselves to be Christ’s disciples ( 5:16 -26) by the fruit of their lives and the responsibility of believers to one another. So not finding the words ‘repent’ or ‘repentance’ in Galatians says nothing. Paul was dealing with a different issue – namely the addition to the gospel of works for salvation.

What About John ?

The same argument used on Galatians by Dr. Wilkin is also applied to the book of John. In response to this argument, John MacArthur has rightly noted that our Lord never once used the word grace during his teaching. I’m sure that Dr. Wilkin wouldn’t use that same logic to say that Jesus never taught grace in his teachings. This would be bad argumentation, especially since the claim about John is easily demonstrated to be false (The Gospel According to the Apostles by John MacArthur [W Publishing Group, 1993, 2000], p. 82.

My sheep listen to my voice;

I know them, and they follow me.
(John 10:27)

How can one claim to follow Jesus and not turn from their sin ? Jesus’s calls for men to follow Him (Luke 9:23 -26, 14:27 -33) were never separate calls to discipleship after conversion, but to conversion itself. These calls were made to a mixed multitude and they all rightly understood the high level of demand he made when he told them “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.” (John 12:25-26, ESV). And they understood the cost – they had to turn from their lives (lose it) and take hold of Christ. Only by ignoring the force of these verses or selectively looking only for the words repent and repentance, but not looking for the teaching can one come to the erroneous conclusion that repentance is not taught in the gospel of John. God only need say something once for it to be true and binding.

Further, John’s purpose in writing, while evangelistic, was primarily to show Who Jesus was and is – the God of the Universe (1:1-18; 5:18 -24; 8:58 , 10:30 , etc…). This is why you find John’s gospel littered with multiplicitous ‘I AM’ statements from Jesus. Keeping this in mind, would this not make any profession of following Him and serving necessarily entail forsaking one’s sins and turning to Him in faith even more apparent and necessary (John 3:18-21) ?

Faith and Faithfulness

John 3:36 reads: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. This verse directly ties the obedience implicit to repentance to eternal life. Christ’s commands were not simply to believe in Him, but to follow Him (c.f. John 12:26 ). When Christ’s disciples picked up to follow him, they turned from their fishing business, tax businesses, etc… and turned to Him (Matthew 19:27 ). Faith implies faithfulness, not simple mental assent. The reformers differentiated the three aspects of saving faith – notitia (which is the belief in something that is true), assensus (your mental assent to what is true) and fiducia (personal trust and action upon that truth). James spends chapter 2 of his book discussing the type of faith that the believer should exhibit – not a dead faith that mentally assents in what is true, but a faith which lays hold of Christ and does His will as He commanded (James 2:18-19; John 15:8, 14). Our good friend John lays this out again in his general epistle (1 John 2:1-6). True believers cannot simply say ‘I believe’ or ‘I love God’ and not turn from their sins. John calls those people liars. Because of the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, all true believers WILL repent and turn from their sins to Christ in faith.

WDJT ?

Jesus, in Luke’s account of the Great Commission, tells His disciples the following: "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem . You are witnesses of these things. " (Luke 24:46-48, ESV) Not simply ‘faith’, but repentance AND faith. The same message Peter, Paul, and the other apostles faithfully taught. To teach any other message is to teach another gospel (Galatians 1:6-8).

Question 1 – Wilkin

In your response you say I’m guilty of “attempting to shift the focus of this debate to a position that I do not hold, nor do any Calvinists hold – that repentance is necessary for justification.” You then explain, “The two terms [repentance and salvation] are not synonymous. It is an error to confuse them. Justification is an aspect or a component of salvation…”

What is your biblical support for the suggestion that the condition of justification (faith alone) is less than the condition of regeneration (faith plus repentance in your view)? And, if takes more to be regenerated than to be justified, then doesn’t this mean that justification precedes regeneration and that there are some people who are justified but not regenerated?

Answer 1 Gilliard       

Your question (again) attributes things to me I do not believe. I believe that because mankind is dead in sin, he cannot, will not and has no desire to respond positively to the gospel (Romans 3:10 -18, 8:6-9). I do not affirm libertarian free will. It is not until God sovereignly opens the heart of the individual will they even be willing and/or able to believe the gospel message. This is illustrated (as I mentioned in my opener) in Ezekiel 36:22-33. This is what regeneration is – new life, given and granted by God's grace and mercy alone according to His will and purpose. It is the new birth that Jesus spoke of in John 3 – not an act that man engages himself in the process of making himself become, but a gift of God to enable man to serve Him. The fruit of this new life is both faith AND repentance. God gives new life to the individual, a new heart, a new will now inclined and able to do good for Him (Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13-14). When a man exercises faith in Christ, he is actively saying 'I turn from my sin and turn to You'. I explained this as well in my opener.

Logically and scripturally, regeneration precedes faith and repentance. The 'condition' of regeneration is God opening the heart to believe the truth and turn to Christ. I think your imprecision in defining terms has led to your confusion over what I believe and what we're really discussing.

Question 1 from Gilliard

In your opening statement, you write: "Calvinists who say that repentance is a condition of justification need to rethink their position. They are contradicting themselves and denying the key cry of the Reformation: Sola Fide, by faith alone. "

After reading Calvin's definition of repentance (Institutes 3.3.5-11  - http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/bk3ch03.html#five.htm ) and sola fide (Institutes 3.16.1 -  http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/bk3ch16.html ), as well as Luther's definition of justification by faith alone (Preface to Romans - http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html) and repentance (Theses 1-4 - http://www.theologicallycorrect.com/studycenter/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=20 ), how can you claim that I am denying what the reformers taught in this debate ?  Further, how can you claim that you are remaining true to what they taught ?

Answer 1 from – Wilkin

The debate, as I understood it, is whether repentance is a condition of eternal life. The debate is not about what Calvin, Luther, and the other Reformers taught about repentance and eternal life.

So here’s my answer to your two-part question.

First, you ask, “how can you claim that I am denying what the reformers taught?”

If you read what I wrote, you will see I did not claim that you were “denying what the reformers taught.” I said, “Calvinists who say that repentance is a condition of justification need to rethink their position. They are contradicting themselves and denying the key cry of the Reformation: Sola Fide, by faith alone.” If Calvin and Luther taught that turning from sins is a condition of eternal life, then they contradicted themselves.

Second, you ask “how can you claim that you are remaining true to what [the Reformers] taught?”

I didn’t make that claim either. Nor do I now. I don’t care if my views correspond with what Calvin or Luther or any other man held. I care that my views correspond with Scripture.

The very fact that you ask this question shows that you are concerned with whether your view corresponds with tradition. My point is that your concern should be elsewhere. Your concern should be that your view corresponds with Scripture.

Question 2 from Wilkin

Gilliard ends his rebuttal to my first affirmative presentation by saying, “To teach any other message [than faith and repentance as conditions of regeneration] is to teach another gospel (Galatians 1:6-8).” This leads to the following multi-part question:

Aren’t you saying that any time anyone fails call the unbeliever to turn from his sins when evangelizing that they are preaching a false gospel? If so, how do you explain the way Jesus evangelized the woman at the well in John 4 and the man-born blind in John 9, the way Peter evangelized Cornelius in Acts 10, and the way Paul evangelized the Philippian jailer in Acts 16? All of these would thus seem to be false gospel presentations.

And on a practical level, does this mean that when you evangelize you tell a person everything that is sin so that they will know precisely what they must give up in order to be born again? If you don’t need to be specific, why not? What if the person later discovers something that God calls sin is something that they aren’t willing to give up? Wouldn’t that mean that they were never saved in the first place and that you had shared a false gospel with them?

Answer 2 from Gilliard

Saying that I teach repentance and faith as conditions of 'regeneration' is false.

Please go back to the answer to question #1 and re-read how I define regeneration.

Repentance and Faith are two aspects of the one act of CONVERSION - turning FROM sin, TO God FOR salvation. Hebrews 6:1 lists both as foundations of the Christian faith.

When Jesus talked to the woman at the well, she turned from sinful living to go tell others about Him (4:29); Cornelius was already living a repentant life and was well spoken of in the Jewish nation (Acts 10:30-33); the jailer changed his former pattern of persecution (v. 24) to welcoming Paul and Silas into his home joyfully as brothers in Christ (v. 34). None of them understood pistis and pisteuo to simply mean intellectual assent devoid of volitional action.

Practically, we need to do as Paul did in Acts 17 – call men to repent and believe. The Christian life beyond that is a constant pattern of repentance – because the Spirit of God dwells in the believer, he/she does not continue to sin (1 John 2:1-6,29, 3:3-9). True believers pursue righteousness, ultimately – because the Spirit of God doesn't give birth to an 'abortion', but to 'new life'. Though believers do sin (sometimes for extended periods like David), the attitude toward sin, our heart's response and the overall direction of our walk will always be toward righteousness (like David). Those who esteem their sin worthy of hanging onto live under presumption, not salvation.

Question 2 from Gilliard

Passages such as Matthew 7:21-23, Luke 9:23-26, 14:27-33 and John 12:24-26 are pretty high demands by Jesus. Who was Jesus speaking to in these passages and what did Jesus mean when he told men to follow him ? Was He speaking of eternal life in these passages ?

Answer 2 from Wilkin

That Gilliard thinks these are calls to regeneration is remarkable coming from a Calvinist who says he believes in justification by faith alone. Clearly he believes in justification by works.

Additionally, if he believes, as he clearly does, that we must follow Jesus’ example to get into the kingdom, then he believes in the example view of the atonement.

Matthew 7:21-23 concerns kingdom entrance. “That day” refers to The Great White Throne Judgment of Rev 20:11-15. “The will of the Father” is believing in Jesus as John 6:39-40 shows.

Luke 9:23-26 and John 12:24-26 concern the paradoxical principle that in order to gain our lives we must lose them. The believer who gives up his life (psyche) now will rule with Christ and share the associated blessings in the life to come. The one who does not will lose out on the fullness of life he could have had.

Luke 14:27-33 concerns the high cost of discipleship.

In all these passages Jesus was speaking to the eleven, people who were already born again. There were unbelievers present as well. However, He did not intend anyone to understand discipleship truth as conditions of justification.

When Jesus called for them to follow Him, He was alluding to His soon death and departure. At the point Jesus gave these exhortations, His disciples literally followed Him everywhere He went. Once He departed, they were to continue to follow His example. They were to take up their own crosses, to suffer for Him.  

Question 3 from Bob Wilkin

The resolution of this debate is that repentance isn’t a condition of eternal life.

You are supposedly defending the negative position. In other words, you are supposed to be saying that repentance is a condition of eternal life.

            Yet in your response to my first question you said that “Logically and scripturally, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.” Thus you have now admitted that repentance isn’t a condition of eternal life. You have now conceded the debate.

            If that is not the case, please explain how repentance isn’t a condition of regeneration, but is a condition of eternal life. Are there regenerate people who are still spiritually dead? If regeneration isn’t the impartation of eternal life, please explain what it is.

Answer 3 from Gilliard

I think your confusion lies in the fact that you continuously use some terms (justification, eternal life, regeneration) interchangeably when they are not all synonymous.

To expound on the definition of regeneration I've already given, regeneration/the new birth is NOT a human act - it is a gift of God imparted on sinful man IN ORDER that he/she might believe and obey the gospel message. Romans 3:10-18, 8:6-9, 1 Cor. 2:14 and a host of other passages all speak clearly of man's inability and unwillingness to believe the gospel message. It is not until God goes into a man and changes his heart of stone to a heart of flesh (this is what regeneration is – Ezekiel 36:22-33) that this person becomes able and then willing to believe the gospel message. This is what Jesus taught in John 6:44-66. Conversion is the act of turning FROM sin and TO God in faith for salvation. This is what Hebrews 6:1 and other passages teach. Justification is a legal declaration by which God declares that the person is free from the penalty of sin, based on the shed blood of Christ and His active obedience imputed on their behalf. Justification is by faith alone apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28-4:25). ALL of these are simply aspects or components of salvation. The very reformers you claimed previously ( http://www.faithalone.org/resources/debate.pdf ) yet say you don't care about in this debate, but most importantly, the Bible, teaches these things.

Question 3 from Gilliard

Your constant argument has been for simple intellectual assent coupled with assent to the promises of God for assurance as the basis of eternal life and that no turning from sin is necessary.

Given that false faith is possible as Scripture addresses this issue, in what way did James determine what was genuine faith and what was a false faith? How about the apostle John in 1 John 2:29 ? Do the demons of James 2 have true and saving faith ?

Answer 3 from Wilkin

Faith is a conviction that something is true. In Gilliard’s view unless one’s faith is united with works then it isn’t faith. Thus works become de facto conditions of eternal life.

James 2 does not concern false faith. It concerns faith that is “dead” or “unprofitable.” Notice that 2:14 and 2:16 begin and end with ti to ophelos, “What good is it?” or “What does it profit?” Clearly the deadness of v 17 doesn’t mean that the faith is false or non existent.

Say you believe God’s command that a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church. Yet when she asks you to take out the trash, you yell at her and tell her to shut up and do it herself. That would clearly be an example of faith that is dead or unprofitable.

Do the demons believe in monotheism? Of course. Why aren’t they born again? Because there is no regeneration for demons. Jesus offers eternal life only to living human beings. Is Gilliard suggesting that Scripture is wrong when it says that demons believe that God is one, or that demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Is that false faith?

Finally, 1 John 2:29 merely says that if you find someone living righteously you are observing a born of God person. It doesn’t say that all born of God people live righteously. The previous verse, 2:28 , makes it clear that some believers (“little children”) will be ashamed before Him at His coming.  

Question 4 from Wilkin

Here is part of Gilliard’s answer to my second question:

When Jesus talked to the woman at the well, she turned from sinful living to go tell others about Him (4:29); Cornelius was already living a repentant life and was well spoken of in the Jewish nation (Acts 10:30-33); the jailer changed his former pattern of persecution (v. 24) to welcoming Paul and Silas into his home joyfully as brothers in Christ (v. 34). None of them understood pistis and pisteuo to simply mean intellectual assent devoid of volitional action.

This lead to the following follow-up question:

What evidence do you have from the Bible that the woman at the well “turned from sinful living” as you assert? And how can you say that Cornelius was already living a repentant life when he was not yet born again (see 10:44-48 and 11:14)? While I agree he was, you said earlier that both faith and repentance were the fruit of regeneration and that the spiritually dead could neither believe or repent. Is this an exception to that rule? What evidence do you have that “none of them understood pistis and pisteuo to simply mean intellectual assent devoid of volitional action”? And, if faith includes willful action, then faith includes works, does it not? For are not volitional actions works?

Answer 4 from Gilliard

Question 4 from Gilliard

In your answer to question #2 you said:
" ……… John 12:24-26 concern the paradoxical principle that in order to gain our lives we must lose them. The believer who gives up his life (psyche) now will rule with Christ and share the associated blessings in the life to come. The one who does not will lose out on the fullness of life he could have had."

And also:

" In all these passages Jesus was speaking to the eleven, people who were already born again. There were unbelievers present as well."

As well as:

" When Jesus called for them to follow Him, He was alluding to His soon death and departure. At the point Jesus gave these exhortations, His disciples literally followed Him everywhere He went. Once He departed, they were to continue to follow His example. They were to take up their own crosses, to suffer for Him."

While Luke 9 does say he was specifically and privately speaking to his disciples, how can you exegetically defend such a position, when the text clearly says:

1. Jesus is speaking to the entire multitude, not just believers (vv. 20-22, 34, 35, c.f. – Luke 14:25)
2. Verse 25 directly and explicitly connect following Jesus with eternal life
3. Verse 40 uses a stronger term as a synonymn for turning/repentance – epistrephw – in a soteriological context ( vv. 37-50), quoting Isaiah 6.

Answer 4 from Wilkin

1. Jesus did not intend anyone to think that discipleship is a condition of eternal life. His remarks were directed to believing disciples. I acknowledged that unbelievers heard what He said.

2. Luke 9:25 doesn’t mention eternal life. Evidently you have jumped to John 12 without saying so. John 12:25 refers not to the present possession of eternal life, as is common in John (“He who believes in Me has everlasting life” John 6:47; see also 3:16; 5:24; 11:26), but to a possible future keeping of our lives “for eternal life.” Unless you believe Jesus is denying eternal security here, He is speaking of keeping fullness of eternal life into the life to come. We find this same idea in Matt 19:29 and Gal 6:7-9. If Jesus makes it clear that the believer has, present tense, everlasting life, then John 12:25 is not referring to regeneration, but to eternal rewards.

3. The context in Isaiah is not soteriological. The issue in Isaiah is national healing, not individual regeneration. It is true that in John 12:37 Jesus spoke of Jews in His day who didn’t believe in Him. Verses 39-40 explain why they continued to disbelieve in spite of powerful attesting miracles. Like the Jews in Isaiah’s day, most in the nation were hardened and hence unbelieving. But reading on to v 42 shows that “even among the rulers many believed in Him.” The issue in John 12, as in the entire book, is believing in Jesus, not turning from sins.

Question 5 from Wilkin

I ask that you print my question before your answer this time. When you “answered” my third question, you didn’t put the question and hence you failed to answer the question. I’ll try again by restating my 3^rd question.

In your response to my first question you said that “Logically and scripturally, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.” Since you say that regeneration precedes repentance, how can you also say that repentance is a condition for eternal life?

            I will elaborate a bit on the question so you don’t misunderstand. In answer to my third question you defined regeneration as “the new birth.” I thought, and maybe I’m wrong here, that you understand the new birth to be spiritual birth, the gaining of eternal life. If so, you believe that regeneration is the gaining of eternal life. Hence if you believe that regeneration precedes repentance, you also believe that the gaining of eternal life precedes repentance. If not, please explain what the new birth is.

Answer 5 from Gilliard

I've defined regeneration more than sufficiently in three of the answers to your questions. I believe (and have suspected) that laying out an ordo salutis will adequately answer your questions.

Election (Eph. 1:3-11). God, from eternity past, Sovereignly looks at a sinful humanity that doesn't fear or seek God and is unable to comprehend spiritual truth, justly deserving condemnation and in His mercy, according to His love, decides to save some men.

Regeneration (John 6:65). God divinely enables man by giving him the principle of new life and changing his spiritual disposition from God-hating to God-seeking. He only does this for His elect.

Effectual call to salvation (John 6:37-40). Those whom God elected, He effectively calls. Jesus says that 'All who the Father has given to me WILL come.' Those who are the elect will – with 100% certainty – come to Jesus.

Conversion (Hebrews 6:1) – The elect, drawn to God by God, aware of their own sinfulness and its' horror, turn from their sin to God.

Justification (Romans 3:28-5:1). A legal declaration by God declaring the sinner to be just and free from sin and granted eternal life, appropriated by faith alone apart from works.

While these four aspects or components of conversion logically go in this order, temporally they may all occur in an instant. Each one is necessary for the other to occur. Eternal life is not granted until one believes, one will not believe until one repents, one cannot repent unless it is granted to him by God.

Question 5 from Gilliard

You have asserted that James 2 is not talking about false faith. You have defined faith simply as "…. a conviction that something is true ." Does scripture address the issue of false faith at all ? How do you define what a false faith is Biblically ? Based upon your definition of faith, have you entertained the possibility that thousands of folks with "….a conviction that something is true" can simply believe that something true about Christ, yet their lives never show any consistent and visible evidence of Christ living in them ? What is a hearer of the word, but not a doer ?

Answer 5 from Wilkin

First, the Bible never uses the expression “false faith.” However, it does speak of “false brethren” (Gal 2:4). The Judaizers believed some correct things about Jesus, but they didn’t believe in justification by faith alone.

The Bible “addresses the issue of false faith” if you mean a conviction of heretical things like justification by faith plus works. It does not, however, address a type of faith that believes the saving message, that Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him, yet which is not “real” faith since it lacks sufficient good works.

Second, yes the vast majority of people in Christendom are, in my understanding, unregenerate. Now I don’t know how many of the 2 billion or so “Christians” in the world today have attesting good works. But that isn’t the issue. See Matt 7:22. The issue is the conviction that by faith in Jesus, unalloyed with any works, one has eternal life. Since my opponent doesn’t believe that, I’m concerned about his eternal destiny.

Third, a doer of the word in James is defined as “a doer of the WORK” (James 1:25). James 1:21-2:26 is the “be swift to hear” (1:19) section of the book. In it James calls the regenerate readers (1:18) to not merely “hear” what God says, but to be receptive hearers who do the works of God. Doing the works won’t make them regenerate or even prove they are. It proves that they are hearing God and that their faith is productive.

Wilkin's Closing Statement

Repentance Isn’t a Condition of Justification or Regeneration

Gilliard said that there is no condition for regeneration and that the sole condition of justification is faith. Hence he conceded the debate.

By my fifth question, he saw the problem and was forced to change his own definition of regeneration!

In his answer to my first question he said, “This is what regeneration is – new life.” Then in his third answer he reiterated, “Regeneration/the new birth is not a human act…” By his own definition regeneration is “new life” and “the new birth.”

Yet in his fifth answer we read a new definition. “Regeneration (John 6:65). God divine ly enables man by giving him the principle of new life and changing his spiritual disposition from God-hating to God-seeking” (italics added).

Whereas before he defined regeneration as “new birth” and “the new life,” now it is the principle of new life. What is that? It is a creation by Gilliard in order to escape the dilemma in which he finds himself. Note too that his defense of this new definition is based on a verse, John 6:65, that doesn’t even mention regeneration.

Since repentance isn’t a condition of justification or regeneration, it isn’t a condition of eternal life.

Repentance Isn’t Found in Galatians or John

Gilliard’s answer was that Paul wasn’t presenting his gospel in Galatians. Yet Gilliard fails to explain Gal 2:15-16 and 3:6-14. In those places Paul explains his gospel. And he never mentions repentance.

Gilliard’s answer concerning John’s Gospel is that in John 12:40 the word epistrephein, to turn, occurs. First, the context doesn’t show that this turning is a condition of eternal life. It shows that faith in Jesus is the only condition. Second, this is evading the issue. If metanoia is a condition of eternal life, why didn’t John say so? He mentions pisteuein 99 times. Why not at least one mention of metanoia or metanoein?

Repentance Isn’t Faith

Gilliard acknowledged that repentance isn’t faith.

Conclusion: Repentance Isn’t a Condition of Eternal Life

We have seen in this debate that the sole condition of eternal life is faith in Jesus Christ. Repentance and following Christ are conditions of sanctification, not justification or regeneration.

The reason I agreed to this debate was a desire to help Gilliard and those who believe as he does to reconsider. Is it possible your view of the gospel is incorrect? Are you open to asking God to show you whether it is incorrect?

I know for sure I am eternally secure. Those with the beliefs of Gilliard do not have that certainty. They must look at their works and works can’t provide certainty.

I want Gilliard to know for sure he is eternally secure and then to share that wonderful good news with others. That is a message people are dying to hear. He can only do that if he believes that the sole condition of eternal life is faith in Jesus Christ.  

Gilliard's Closing Statement

This debate has been interesting. I will close by commenting on what I believe to be the weaknesses of my opponent's view and the end result of it.

Wrong Definition of Faith

Bob has defined faith simply as the conviction that something is true. This definition, however, does not deal adequately with the fact that what one believes is true may necessarily be false. Many children walk around with the conviction that the easter bunny is a real being, though it is demonstratably a false belief. At the start of the debate, I laid out the Biblical model of what true and saving faith is and contains based on James 2 and other scriptures.

Wrong View of Conversion

Much of Bob's confusion in his responses has been over the issue of regeneration. His constant confusing of 'regeneration' with 'eternal life' leads to 'regeneration by faith' rather than eternal life being granted or conferred upon a believer by faith apart from works. Dangerous to Bob's position is the fact that it now makes faith a work that men do in order to obtain eternal life, contradicting the scriptures.

Refusal To Deal With the Text of Scripture

Bob denies what the text explicitly has said in John 12:24-26; that Jesus's demands that those who follow Him must serve Him and there are implications for eternal life. Ignoring the text (see question #4), Bob simply says 'it doesn't say that'. Such a refusal to deal with the plain text of scripture is mind-boggling to me.

Refusal to Deal With The Reality of False Hope

Bob denies what James 2 explicitly teaches – that one can have a 'false faith'. A simple mental assent which does not produce a change in the life of a person is a dead faith and no faith at all. Contra his view, the entire second chapter of 1 John teaches that because of the indwelling of the Spirit, the fruit of a repentant life is produced. I pointed out Biblical examples of this in each of his examples where he sought to show that repentance was not necessary for eternal life.

Bad Argumentation to Support Bad Theology

Bob has consistently read one narrow definition of what Jesus meant when He said 'follow Me' into every text where the terms occur, instead of allowing the context to define what Jesus Himself means by the terms. Two texts I've cited (John 12 and Luke 14) directly connect 'follow me' to eternal life. He simply ignores their force and provides no exegesis. Further, he never provides an answer to the fact that using 'arguments about silence', one can say that Jesus never taught about grace in the book of John. This shows the invalidity of his use of the method of argumentation.

Much more could be said, but I shall end here. I pray that my opponent would seriously consider the hard demands of John 12:24-26 and Luke 14:27-33 and teach the Biblical model of conversion – repentance and faith for eternal life.

First Question from the Audience for Dr. Wilkin:

My question is simple. Let's say a person "repented of sins" before he placed his faith in Christ. Would you agree or disagree with this statement:

If he believes that his repentance is part of his salvation, he is not saved, but if he does not believe it is a part of his salvation, but is simply necessary to get him to where he can believe, he is saved. 

First Answer by Wilkin

Thanks for this excellent question. Actually, no one has ever asked me this question before, and I’ve fielded lots of questions about repentance. So I am very pleased to get it and stretch my thinking.

First, repenting of sins before one comes to faith in Christ is fantastic. I believe I’ve mentioned in previous remarks that a decision to turn from one’s sin and then actually turning from them (the fruit of repentance) can put a person in a position where they are more open to hearing the good news. And in order to believe we must first hear. I believe that Lydia and Cornelius in Acts 16 and Acts 10 are examples. While repentance isn’t a condition of eternal life, it can put a person in a position to be open to hear and then believe.

Second, if a person believes that turning from sins is required for him to gain eternal life, then he doesn’t believe the gospel. If he has never believed that the sole condition is faith in Christ, he has never been born again. If, however, he formerly believed he has eternal life simply by faith, and today he believes turning from sins is required, then he is still born again, even though he no longer believes the gospel.

Third, if a person is convinced that turning from sins “is not part of his salvation, but is simply necessary to get him to where he can believe,” I’m not sure if that person is born again or not. I’d want to ask him a few questions.

The key word is necessary. That seems to contradict the first part of the statement that turning from sins “is not part of his salvation.” If it is necessary, it would be a condition and hence a part. I see the statement as contradictory and hence confusing.

Here’s a good question to ask someone who said something like that. Is it possible for a person to believe in Jesus without repenting of his sins first? If his answer is no, then he believes that repentance is a necessary precursor to faith, and hence that repentance is a condition. If his answer is yes, then he believes that repentance is not a condition.

I hope this helps.

Gilliard's Response to Bob Wilkin's First Answer

Dr. Wilkin responded above. These are my comments on the question.

I don't have too much of a comment on this one. I would caution breaking repentance too far apart from the salvific experience when speaking of conversion. As I explained in my last answer to my last question from Bob, repentance and faith (conversion) happens in a moment - when we slow that 'moment' down frame by frame and view it (like on video), we see the person making the mental/emotional acknowledgment of the holiness of God vs their sinful state, them manifest a desire to turn from sin and mentally determine to turn from sin to Christ in their will and place their faith in Him.

First Question from the Audience for Kerry Gilliard:

What comfort can you provide to the "repetitive aisle-walker"? Or to the one who repeatedly attempts to be willing to repent of all known sins, but is never sure he is "willing enough"? Does your system allow for a means of immediate assurance upon belief? Or, must such a one wait possibly years for assurance he has been justified? 

First Answer by Gilliard

Thanks for your question, Derron. A number of issues indicate (to me) that there is a root problem with such an action outside of simply the issue of assurance.

1. Altar calls are unbiblical. The Holy Spirit convicted folks and brought them to faith for thousands of years prior to the advent of the convoluted altar call system. Folks heard the gospel, heard the call to repentance and faith in Christ and as the Spirit of God moved on the hearts of men, they came to faith. No 'sinners prayer' needed. This 'system' has gotten many folks looking back to 'walking down the ailse' as the definitive time of their conversion, when it fact it may NOT be. Our public confession of faith, according to scripture, is to be BAPTISM, not walking down an ailse…or even 'standing up' where you are.

Two short articles:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mr98/julaug/mr9804altarcall.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=704

2. The issue of false hope. Matthew 13:20-21 gives an example of one who has what I would term 'false faith'. It looks real, may even function similar to for a time… but it's fake. Some may treat 'coming up front' as a sort of 'pennance' (not repentance) that would playcate God's wrath upon them. The real problem may be that they trust in Christ in a 'name only' profession of faith. Their hope lies in their contriteness before God being acceptable rather than in Christ alone for their salvation. Others still, seeking only 'fire insurance', direct their 'faith' toward the promises of God (made to believers) rather than to God Himself. It is easier to say "I believe" than to actually believe and follow Him as He commands (John 12:24-26).

3. The entire Christian life is a pattern of repentance. The entire Christian life should be characterized by turning from sin and turning to God. We initially repent at the time of conversion (Hebrews 6:1), turning from our own dead works, religiosity or non-religiousity, and turn to Christ and then continuously as we struggle with the flesh throughout our walk (Romans 7), we turn from sins to Christ (1 John 1:8-9). Some repetitive ailse walkers may have may have confused the repentance we as believers constantly have to go through when we sin, with 'pennance', thinking that he must 'get right' with God all over again. They miss the entire message of Hebrews 6:1-6 – we cannot hit the 'reset' button when we stumble and fall – only continue where we left off. Paul calls the Christian walk a 'race' - we all know that in a race, when someone falls, they don't go back to the starting line… instead, they get up, dust off, and start running from where they are.

4. A misunderstanding of biblical sanctification. Biblically, the perfection (Matthew 5:4Cool and the obedience (John 3:36) God commands are impossible apart from Him. It is here we realize that God is Sovereign in all of salvation, including sanctification. It is God working in the believer, both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:11-12). God begins the work in believers and will perfect it (Phil. 1:6). Practically, day by day, we rely and rest upon Christ. Our hope for all areas of our lives, lie in Him. When we sin, it is to Him alone we turn, asking for forgiveness. When we grow, it is from His word alone that we have hidden in our hearts and that we have continually meditated upon. When we pray, our focus is upon His will being done, not ours. We have confidence, knowing that as we abide daily in Him, so He abides with us. When we fall, we know that His righteousness and perfect obedience, imputed on our behalf, form the basis of our forgiveness and continual 'perfect' standing before God the Father. When we do good and serve others, it is with the strength and abilities that He gives, not with anything we may THINK we have in ourselves.

Lastly, I think your question also puts something in the hands of the believer/preacher that was not meant to be done – simply, that our job is to give folks CHRIST, not 'assurance'. True assurance comes from knowing and abiding in Christ, not simply assenting to a promise in scripture that was directed toward those who already believe. What some folks now walk around with is presumption. Since this debate, I've been deep into the scriptures, especially over in 1 John 2 –5. True assurance is based upon:

1 John 2:3-6 – By this we KNOW (ginosko – know intimately and experientially). What is the 'this' that John speaks of here ?

1 John 3:4-9 – tells us that one who is born of God cannot go on practicing sin because the Spirit of God dwells in them. An unbroken 'carnal Christian' pattern of sin is not simply a mark of immaturity – it's a mark of non-conversion.

1 John 3:19-21 – tells us that the basis of assurance, as we examine ourselves, is in the visible fruit of our lives. Our conscience will condemn us if we simply hold onto false hope and not Christ. And God knows the heart of man.

1 John 4:12-16 – again, the marks of a true believer are to love God and love oneanother. By this we KNOW who the children of God are.

1 John 5:10-13 – John points the finger internally. We KNOW we have eternal life if we have believed in Christ.

Neither you, nor anyone else can guarantee a person 100% assurance simply on their profession of faith, because you do not know the heart of the individual person and whether or not they are truly seeking Christ or fire insurance. Offer them Christ. Tell them to abide in Him, as John 15 says. HIS word is true – if you abide in Him, you will bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be His disciples (John 15:1-11). The onus is on the person to follow the commands of scripture, not simply wait until it's comfortable or convenient to do so.

Bob Wilkin's Response to Gilliard's First Answer

While he denies it, Gilliard’s view makes the sensitive person prone to the types of problems you mention. He or she cannot know if they have repented of all sins, since they don’t know everything the Bible calls sin. Even if they somehow convinced themselves that they completely understood and were able to retain all of the positive and negative commands of Scripture, one would still be prone to the question you ask about whether he is willing enough. Worse yet, if repentance is a decision to turn from one’s sins and not merely a willingness—which is the view both Gilliard and I are taking, then no amount of willingness is enough. The proof would be in the fruit of repentance, which is righteousness.

Not only does Gilliard’s system no allow for assurance, that is certainty, at the moment of belief, even years of good works cannot provide it. For in his view one must persevere till death. And that we know from Scripture we cannot be sure we will do (1 Cor 9:24-27).

Unless one believes that faith in Jesus Christ is the sole condition of eternal life, he ends up with no assurance and with an abiding fear that he will spend eternity in the lake of fire. That isn’t the way God wants His children to live (John 11:25-27).

Two questions for Kerry Gilliard:

The nature of the debate, as I understand it, is to address the question, Is repentance necessary for eternal life? It would appear that your affirmative answer is based on this logical sequence:
1. Regeneration-which is the impartation of the principle of new life through new birth (Gilliard: answer 5)
2. Repentance-turn from sins following Christ in discipleship (Gilliard: Response to First Affirmative)
3. Justification- imputation of righteousness and impartation of eternal life (Gilliard: answer 5)

Questions:

1. Since your argument collapses if you cannot distinguish between the impartation of new life in the new birth experience and the subsequent impartation of eternal life in justification, what precisely is your distinction between regenerate life and eternal life?

2. Do we get eternal life when we believe in Christ or after we follow Christ? If it is when we believe in Christ (but before we follow Christ), then you would appear to deny in terms of logical sequence that repentance in terms of following Christ is necessary for the reception of eternal life.

Thank you,
Marty Cauley

Kerry Gilliard’s Response to the Third Question from the Audience

I think your assumption of my argument collapsing is a bit premature, Marty. :)

Secondly, your opening three statements misrepresent what I have written. It's called a strawman attack. To correct your misinterpretation (and answer your questions), I direct you back to my answer to question #5:

1. Regeneration (John 6:65). God divinely enables man by giving him the principle of new life and changing his spiritual disposition from God-hating to God-seeking. He only does this for His elect.

2. Conversion (Hebrews 6:1) – The elect, drawn to God by God, aware of their own sinfulness and its' horror, turn from their sin to God.

3. Justification (Romans 3:28-5:1). A legal declaration by God declaring the sinner to be just and free from sin and granted eternal life, appropriated by faith alone apart from works.

While these four aspects or components of conversion logically go in this order, temporally they may all occur in an instant. Each one is necessary for the other to occur . Eternal life is not granted until one believes, one will not believe until one repents, one cannot repent unless it is granted to him by God.

If I used the same language YOU used, then there would be a problem. I don't. :) Further, if I actually believed what you say I believe, that would be a problem. I don't. As I began to write in a draft one one of my answers to Bob (but didn't) - you would do well to go read up on the reformed view from a reformed theologian and not simply what someone ELSE has said about what reformed theologians believe. And then, you would also do well to honestly interact with what they have SAID and MEAN when they use certain terms versus what your interpretation of those terms are and your version of what you THINK they mean. It's a huge problem I've seen coming from the FG side of the fence both in discussions on the GES message board and in articles written by FG advocates.

Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology (3 Volumes) is a good place for you to begin.
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/theology/books/chodge/st-Index.html

as is Arthur Custance's The Sovereignty of Grace
http://www.custance.org/Library/SOG/index.shtml (newer formatted version)

</soapbox>

Continuing with my answer, very simply, nowhere in scripture are we declared to have eternal life until we believe. In regeneration, God implants the principle/necessary means/new life (and here's where language gets sketchy) in a person in order that he may respond positively to the gospel. At the time one believes in Christ, he/she is declared just by God on the basis of faith alone apart from works. Adoption also occurs at this time (Rom. 8:11) as well as sealing by the Spirit (Eph. 1:13, 4:30). They say that at the time one believes, they then have eternal life - that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I would compare it somewhat to the academy awards. The judges know beforehand who will win. Although the award is sealed in an envelope and a trophy has been carved out ahead of time and engraved with the name of the person, the person has not yet officially won the award. Their name hasn't been called as the winner and they haven't responded yet to their name being called. Before their name is announced, they are not (by the general public) considered to be the winner of the award.

Now this is a rough analogy, but it serves its' purpose for now. Until the person's name is called, they aren't officially the winner of the award. Until the person believes, they do not have eternal life. They are not considered as having eternal life (from a scriptural perspective) until they do so. Eternal life, while a declarative statement, also involves being declared just, sealing by the Holy Spirit, adoption as a child of God, and all the other wonderful things that God does at the time a person says 'I Believe'. These are and always have been, distinct from regeneration. The error in the FG view always has been confusing these terms. 

Bob Wilkin’s Response to the Third Question from the Audience

I didn’t realize that Gilliard said that eternal life is imparted at the moment of justification. If so, then since Gilliard says that justification is by faith alone, he would necessarily deny repentance as a condition of eternal life. If not, then there are justified people who lack eternal life, which doesn’t make sense.

The point about following Christ as a condition of eternal life is one that Gilliard threw in a few times and left hanging. I think this question raises a valid concern. If believing isn’t enough for gaining eternal life, but repentance and following Christ are also needed, then surely eternal life is received literally in time after regeneration and also after justification. Indeed, could not weeks, months, or even years pass before a regenerate and justified person actually began following Christ? This doesn’t fit the teachings of Scripture.

Question for Bob Wilkin:

If "whoever has been born of God does not sin" and "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9 NKJV), how can a sinner become regenerate without experiencing repentance of sin?

-Dan Gehrmann

Bob Wilkin’s Response to the Fourth Question from the Audience

Hi Dan,

Great question.

There are about 7 major interpretations of what 1 John 3:9 means. Some think it means believers can’t sin habitually, which is explained vaguely as meaning believers sin and sin often, but are not enslaved to any particular sin for very long. How long that time period can be is never defined.

My view is the new nature view. In this view the believer never ever sins as an expression of his or her born-of-God nature. We cannot sin as an expression of our born of God self because God seed abides in us.

I think John is saying that we should view ourselves as essentially sinless at the core of our being. We do sin, as John makes clear in 1 John 1:8, 10 and 5:18. However, that is not our essential eternal self.

As David Needham argues in his book Birthright, we should see ourselves as slaves of God and freed from slavery to sin (Romans 6). Believers who have defeated attitudes don’t get it. We have God’s life, His seed, in us! That is awesome.

If you compare 3:9 with 3:5-6, I think it is clear that John is speaking absolutely and not in some undefined confusing habitual way. Jesus never ever sins (3:5). Nor does anyone who abides in Him (3:6). Sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ and it is never an expression of our born of God self.

I hope this helps. I might point out that this question only indirectly deals with the repentance issue since John never uses the words repent or repentance in First John. He is writing to mature believers who are in fellowship with God (1 John 2:12-14) and hence the means for them to stay in fellowship is to confess their sins as they walk in the light of God’s Word (1 John 1:9). Repentance is for the person who is out of fellowship with God, and that is not the people John is addressing.


Kerry Gilliard’s Response to the Fourth Question from the Audience

Good question Dan. You know my answer. Of course, those who don't see sin as a major barrier to any type of 'upward' communication with God just breeze by or ignore the force of this and other passages in the NT that talk about the severity and heinous nature of sin. Nothing but the straight reading of the text does it justice, IMO.

Question for Gilliard

I agree with your statement that even though Jesus never uses the word grace in the book of John, He teaches about grace consistently throughout the entire book.

The purpose of the book of John is evangelistic (John 20:30-31) and God’s plan of salvation is explained on numerous occasions throughout the whole book.

On how many of these occasions is repentance taught as necessary for salvation even though the actual word is not used?

Can you briefly comment on three of the clearest examples where repentance is taught in John?

Are there any passages in the book where God’s plan of salvations is discussed but repentance is not taught and if so why is repentance omitted in these instances?

- Kevin Blobaum

Kerry Gilliard’s Response to the Fifth Question from the Audience

Thanks for your question Kevin. As a prologue to answering your question, let me say that the tendency among FG advocates to isolate John and play the 'numbers game' with metanoia and metanoeo vs pistis and pisteuo is bad heremeneutics. Any isolation of one book apart from the rest of the canon of scripture will lead to error in teaching. The whole counsel of God needs to be consulted. God need only teach something ONCE in order for it to be true and worthy of our obedience and attention. Further, He need not say it in every[i] book of scripture in order for it to be true. For example, I still believe in a literal 1000 year rule of Christ as taught in Rev. 20:2-7, yet this is the only place that it is [i]explicitly taught in scripture, using the word for thousand, chilioi. Is it wrong to believe that since only Revelation mentions a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and span of time between the resurrection of the just and the unjust, versus the hundreds of other 'last day' passages (e.g. John 6:40, Daniel 11 and 12, 1 Cor. 15:50-59), that we should look dubiously on that teaching, as many postmillennial and amillennial folks argue? On a related note, I also believe that the purpose of the book of John was not only for evangelism, but also to portray the person of Jesus as God (hence the many I AM statements, 5:18, 10:30, etc…). John is 93% original material. I don't think John wanted us to take his gospel alone as the model for evangelism, but in concert with the other gospel accounts. To do so is to engage in the Jewish practice of putting more weight and authority in some books and not in others.

Food for thought.

I believe that the NT writers, as well as the reformers, all held that repentance was a part of the gospel (Luke 24:46-48, Acts 17:29-31, Hebrews 6:1 and the documents I linked to in a previous post to Bob), so they would understand every instance of 'believe', 'obey' and 'follow me' in the gospel of John to include turning from sin AND turning to Christ. However, I believe there are three direct texts which implicitly or explicitly teach repentance and two examples given in John that show the results of a changed life. They are, John 3:18-21, 3:35-36 and 12:25-41.

The latter of the three, I have already pointed out. Unless you disjoint the text at 12:37 from its preceding verses, there's no way you can miss (especially 25-26) Jesus's statement and John's application as being contingent upon eternal life. In John 3:18-21, we are told that the wicked will not come to the light, lest their deeds be seen and exposed, but those who live by truth will come to the light. In John 3:36, we find the word epitheho, which can be variously translated as disobedience, non-compliance and unbelief. I think John's point here was that following Christ was not simply intellectual assent to fact, but was the kind of faith that carried with it real fruit – turning from sin, not just turning to Christ in name only.

I have mentioned the woman at the well in John 4 already, as Bob has questioned me on her, but her story needs to be spoken of again. The words of Richard Belcher at this point are apropos:

Quote:

The text doesn't even state clearly that she was saved, but we can draw some inferences from her words and actions. When she hurried to tell others of her encounter with Christ, it can be assumed that she had been touched by her experience with Him. Had she not faced the reality of her sin as Christ reminded her of an immoral life? Had Christ not revealed Himself to her? Did she not go and herald His person to others? Is not the change in her life evident to the men of the city with whom she shares her witness? Did not the men she witnessed to, when they had believed, refer to Christ as the Savior of the world ?

Thus in the encounter between Christ and the woman, sin is a reality to her, a change of life is evident, a joy so great over her experience is present that she must tell others, and Christ is seen as Savior (Savior from what, if not from sin?). Scripture does not tell us everything, but it tells us enough to see the expected elements of saving faith. (A Layman's Guide to the Lordship Controversy, Crowne Publications; Southbridge, MA, 1990, p. 64).

The second example is the man born blind in John 9. Belcher comments:

Quote:

But the blind man is also an example of a submissive heart in salvation. In the evolution of his understanding of Christ, he moved from seeing Him as a man to recognizing Him as "Lord" (v. 37-38). God had opened his eyes and in response he bowed and worshipped Christ. Surely this was a recognition and submission to the person and authority of Christ, for the very heart and core of worship is submission. (ibid, p. 66).

To answer the third part of your question, as mentioned earlier, I believe repentance is either explicitly taught or assumed as a part of the call to salvation in every passage in John. I do not believe it was necessary for God to mention in every instance the word 'repent', 'repentance' or 'turn' – people understood that a disciple was a doer, not just a hearer. People also understood that mental assent without Lordship was not simply an 'option'. This is why when Jesus put hard demands out there in passages like John 6, Luke 9 and 14, people turned from Him and didn't follow. They counted the cost and were unwilling to pay it. 

Bob Wilkin’s Response to the Fifth Question from the Audience

This is an excellent point. If repentance is a condition of eternal life, where do we find this in John? We don't. We don't find using the word. Nor do we find it using the concept.

John's Gospel is called the Gospel of Belief because believe (pisteuw) is used 99 times in the book. The one and only condition of eternal life in John is believing in Jesus for eternal life.

Kevin's last point is also excellent. If Jesus everomitted repentance in His evangelizing, then the idea that repentance is a condition of eternal life collapses. Gilliard says that we cannot share the saving message without sharing repentance. Yet Jesus did this all the time! Does this mean that He was sharing a false gospel?

Sixth Question from the Audience

Question for Dr. Wilkin:

Quote:
Regarding repentance, several times you have written that if LS were consistent they would include sins of omission as well as commission on lists of sins to give up.

Let me ask my question in the form of a hypothetical:

Suppose a person had made a profession of faith at age 9 in the church he had attended all his life up to that point. Suppose further that this person realizes later that he had not really believed the Gospel. And let's say he never misses a church service from age 9 to age 20, and then at age 20 decides to trust Christ for salvation. Such a person would have attained a great deal of Biblical and theological knowledge--assuming this is a well-taught church. If repentance in the sense of turning from sins (or being willing to do so) is considered by this 20 year old, then issues normally thought of as existing only in the post-justification time of life become issues about which this hypothetical person must decide as a prerequisite to his justification --if we accept the lordship view. For example--some of the things commonly called sins of omission must be decided upon--that is, the person must be willing to be baptized, go to church, pray, read Scripture, give, witness. And the person must at the very least be willing to do these things as a prerequisite to justification--if lordship salvation is correct.

I am not saying LS is right. But I am saying that -- if I am interpreting your reasoning correctly -- lordship salvation's view of repentance would actually make it impossible for this hypothetical 20 year old to be saved. For he must take cognizance of all possible sins of omission as he considers what would be involved in repentance for himself. In other words, logically, perfection becomes the condition for salvation for this person. But since perfection is impossible, then this makes the LS view suspect here.

Am I drawing fair conclusions from what you have written?

Thank you.

Derron Rose

Bob Wilkin’s Response to the Sixth Question from the Audience

Yes, Derron, you are drawing fair conclusions. I'd have a few minor differences with the way you stated things. But I agree with your overall point.

I do not consider believing in Jesus a decision, as you call it. We are either convinced or not convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him. There is no decision to believe, though a person can decide to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in his life (John 16:9-11) and read his Bible, prayer, attend church, and ask people what he must do to have eternal life. That is not, however, quite the same as deciding to believe.

Regarding your hypothetical, the 20 year old may well already have repented. I do not define repentance as a willingness to turn from sins, as you seem to, but a decision to do so. Deciding to turn from sins is stronger than merely being willing, which is quite vague as to what it means.

I personally decided to turn from all my sins and made a total surrender of my life to Christ at age 14. But I didn't come to faith until age 20 because until then I thought that surrender and commitment and obedience were conditions of eternal life. So to come to faith a person must realize that faith is the sole condition of eternal life, not repentance and faith, commitment and faith, or whatever.

Finally, your question can be answered by a leading Reformed theologian and Lordship Salvation advocate. In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Dr. J. I. Packer says the following:

Quote:

The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may make on their lives…In our own presentation of Christ's gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness. In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything; or else our evangelizing becomes a sort of confidence trick [con game]. And where there is no clear knowledge, and hence no realistic recognition of the real claims that Christ makes, there can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation,
—Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, emphasis added,p. 73.

Note that if a person doesn't have "a realistic recognition of the real claims that Christ makes, there can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation." Thus when we evangelize we need to explain every sin that must be forsaken, both sins of commission and sins of omission. Anything less would fall short of a "realistic recognition of the real claims [plural] that Christ makes."

Lest you think Packer is out of line in this regard, the same sentiment can be found in The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works by John MacArthur and Christ's Call to Discipleship by the late James Montgomery Boice, to give just a few more examples. Telling people to turn from sins is not enough, according to Lordship Salvation. You must be specific. You must preach the law and tell a person everything that they must turn from. Until a person is aware of all that the Bible calls sin, he can't repent, and he can't gain eternal life, according to Lordship Salvation, and Gilliard.

Kerry Gilliard’s Response to the Sixth Question from the Audience

Derron, have you read MacArthur, Calvin, Belcher, Chantry, Luther or have you read what others have written about them? I ask this because your entire question is based on a strawman presentation of LS. While I would not say you should read everything put out by every LS advocate, I do believe you should read the strongest arguments in print by such folks. I have Hodges' "Absolutely Free" on order (I used the copy in CTS's library for some of my initial research) and I've availed myself to read all of Bob's 6-part series on repentance + additional articles on faithalone.org so I would understand his position and not selectively quote or misrepresent what he believes. I don't usually see this graciousness returned from the FG side, unfortunately (this debate is but one in a string of examples). Belcher notes it as well on pp. 71-78 (citing several examples), Al Dager notes it over at in regard to Ryrie's critique of MacArthur and the list goes on.

Food for thought.

What MacArthur says regarding sins of omission and commission:

Quote:

Q. I love Christ, but I struggle constantly with sin in my life. Should I doubt my salvation?
Mac: No. The perpetual struggle with sin was even Paul's experience (Rom. 7:7-25). All of us struggle continually with sinful thoughts, sinful attitudes, sinful habits, and sinful desires. It is those who do not struggle -- those who deliberately and eagerly revel in their sin -- who need to have their false sense of security shaken. (TGAJ 2nd Ed. P. 275)

The LS position has never taught that one must turn from a list of known sins (omission or commission) – simply to turn from sin as the dominant principle in one's life. This does include both known and unknown sins… but the object in view is not just specific sins, but sin in general. And if the person were in an LS church, they would be taught that their good works up to that point were worth nothing. Neither do they “maintain” justification nor are they a part of the ground of justification. So nothing in your hypothetical situation would have that person be unable to be saved. The LS position never has and never will teach “perfection.” I defer to two of MacArthur's comments here as well:

Quote:

Q. Why do you use language like "forsake everything", "death to self," and "unconditional surrender"? The absoluteness of those demands is intimidating. Aren't you afraid you'll turn people away from Christ?

JM: Actually, it was Jesus himself who said "Whosover he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33 kjv). And he said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily , and follow Me" (Luke 9:23).

Jesus also preached "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell" (Mark 9:43-47). And "For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. … And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt. 10:35,38). And "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).

It was Jesus, after all, who first stated, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).

We could go on and on quoting from Jesus' hard sayings, which He often preached to unbelieving multitudes but never offset with any qualification. Clearly he was insisting on wholehearted commitment. He did not soften his demands with words that would accommodate the halfhearted.

Our Lord was certainly not fearful that people would be turned away by such hard demands. He said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me" (John 6:37). Likewise, I am confident that those being drawn by the Father and convicted by the Holy Spirit will not be turned away by the straightforward truth of His Word. (TGAJ, 2nd Edition, p. 276)


And on the issue of assurance:


Quote:

JM: First of all, I do not believe it is the task of the evangelist to "offer assurance." That is the Holy Spirit's work: "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16) …

Both objective and subjective means of assurance are spoken of in Romans 15:4: "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance [subjective] and the encouragement of the Scriptures [objective] we might have hope.”

And it is also important to understand what Scripture is teaching about subjective assurance. It is not that we seek assurance in our works, but that we gain assurance from sensing the Spirit's work in us. Again, it is the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

We do not gain assurance by convincing our intellect that we are saved. True assurance is not an academic issue. There are no formulas that can bring it about. It is an important part of the lifelong growth process of the Christian life. (TGAJ, 2nd Edition pp. 273-274)

Comments or Suggestions Webmaster

© 2004 Grace Evangelical Society
ges@faithalone.org
(972) 257-1160