Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action, part 3

Advocates of the RNC (the view that repentance does not always result in a change of action), in light of the overwhelming case against them from the lexica and from the uses of metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament, make several arguments for their position that they hope will overturn the crushing weight of Biblical usage.  First, they argue that the RAC (the view that repentance always results in a change of action) is an affirmation of justification by works.  Only on the RNC position is salvation allegedly by faith alone.  Faith is affirmed to be an absolute synonym with repentance, and faith is said to exclude any trust in Jesus Christ to make one different;  one trusts Christ only to escape from hell, not to get a new heart and life.  Christ is divided;  He is not received as the Mediator who is at once Prophet, Priest, and King, one undivided Person who is both Savior and Lord.  Rather, faith allegedly picks and chooses among Christ’s offices and roles and receives only those of them that promise escape from hell, not those that promise freedom from the dominion of sin.  However, such a RNC argument is nonsense.  The RAC does not affirm that the sinner is justified through the instrumentality of a “repentance” that is actually some sort of process of doing good deeds.  On the contrary, the RAC affirms that repentance is not good works, but that repentance results in good works.  The RAC recognizes the Biblical fact that repentance and faith take place at the same moment in time, so that a sinner cannot savingly repent without repenting of his sin of unbelief, and a sinner cannot believe in Jesus Christ without trusting Christ for both deliverance from hell and a new heart.  The New Covenant or Testament promises both the forgiveness of sin and freedom from sin’s dominion:  “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Hebrews 8:10-12).  The New Covenant privilege of forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant privilege of having God’s laws in one’s mind and heart are indissolubly connected.  Justification is certainly by faith alone (Romans 3:20-28), but saving faith will always lead to a change of heart and action (James 2:14-26).  The RAC is salvation by works only if Paul taught salvation by works when he included Ephesians 2:10 after Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:8 after Titus 3:5-7, Romans 6-8 after Romans 3-5, or 2 Timothy 1:9a before 2 Timothy 1:9b.  The RNC must not only ignore the New Testament usage of metanoeo and metanoia but also cut out of the Bible the context of many of the precious declarations in the New Testament that salvation is not based on works.  Indeed, the RNC even needs to purge the very promises of the New Covenant itself (Hebrews 8:10-12).  The RAC is not salvation by works, but a glorious salvation by faith alone that does not leave the sinner in his sin but actually saves the sinner from sin by shattering sin’s dominion.  On the other hand, the RNC actually is antinomianism.

Second, the RNC points out that the word repentance does not appear in the gospel of John.  Since, the RNC affirms, John promises salvation simply to belief, and belief does not involve trusting in Christ for deliverance from the dominion of sin, but only for freedom from hell, the RAC must be an erroneous definition of repentance, all the lexical and Biblical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.  However, John’s gospel is filled with evidence that saving faith always results in a changed life.  For example, the classic presentation of salvation by faith in John 3:1-3:21 indicates both that salvation is by faith alone (3:15-18) and that saving faith and regeneration lead to a changed life (John 3:8, 19-21).  When Christ won to Himself the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-42), He explained to her that salvation leads one to true worship of the Father (John 4:23-24).  Her life also became strikingly different, as evidenced by her actions (John 4:28-29).  In chapter five, John recorded Christ’s preaching both “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24) and “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28-29), almost in the same breath.  In John six, Christ preached:  “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (6:29, 47), and the chapter concludes with the fact that those who go back and turn away from Christ (6:66) are people who have not really believed (6:64, 69).  One could go through practically every chapter and discourse of Christ in John’s gospel and see both the fact that eternal life is received by the instrumentality of faith alone and the fact that faith receives Christ both for salvation from sin’s penalty and salvation from sin’s power, that Christ is received as a Savior both from sin’s eternal consequences and sin’s inward corruption.  The gospel of John is filled with the doctrine of the RAC, and contains no evidence whatsoever for the RNC.

Third, the RNC advocate will mention that various Biblical texts speak of God’s repentance (e. g., Genesis 6:6).  Since God is sinless and does not need to turn from sin, the RNC avers, the RAC view is an error and repentance is simply a change of mind that may not result in any change of action.  However, the fact is that just as God has no sin to turn from, so He never changes His mind;  He is immutable (Malachi 3:6; 1 Samuel 15:29).  Texts that speak of God’s repentance are examples of the many verses where anthropomorphic language, or other similar sorts of language from the created order, are employed to figuratively describe God.  When the prayer of a believer enters into God’s ears (Psalm 18:6), Scripture means that God hears the prayer of His own, just like a man hears when sounds enter into his ears.  When a believer is hidden under the shadow of God’s wings (Psalm 17:8; 36:7), the believer is protected by God, just as baby birds are protected under the wings of a mother bird. When God rides upon a cherub to deliver His people (Psalm 18:10), he provides help for His own like a man or an army that ride upon horses to come to the aid of their friends.  When God is said to repent, He does not cease being immutable, literally change His mind, or turn from sin, but He people are treated differently as a result of His repentance—His figurative change of mind results in people experiencing His acting differently towards them, just as a man who repents acts differently as a result.  When God repented of making the human race, He changed His gracious ways towards humanity and destroyed mankind with a flood (Genesis 6:6-7).  When the Lord repented of the bondage to foreign powers He had laid upon Israel for the nation’s sins, He delivered Israel by raising up judges (Judges 2:18-19).  When God repented of making Saul king, He changed His actions toward Saul, deposed him, and set up David (1 Samuel 15:35-16:1).  There are no examples in Scripture where God repented and nothing changed.  The anthropomorphic language predicating repentance in God supports the RAC, not the RNC.

The theological, non-grammatical and non-lexical arguments for the RNC are entirely unconvincing.  Indeed, they actually provide further support for the RAC.  The overwhelming grammatical and lexical evidence for the RAC remains untouched, and is actually strongly supplemented by theological support from invalid RNC argumentation.

Advocates of the RNC also frequently abuse or misuse Greek lexica to support their heresy on repentance.[i]  The kind of shallow abuse of lexica that is sadly characteristic of “Baptist” advocates of the RNC heresy could appear were a RNC to note BDAG definition 1 for metanoeo, “change one’s mind,” and the fact that, while metanoia is defined as “repentance, turning about, conversion,” the words “primarily a change of mind” are also present in the lexicon.  The RNC, assuming that the lexical definition of the word as “change of mind” proves that the word means only a change of mind, and a particular kind of change of mind, one that may result in nothing, could then pretend to have support from BDAG for the RNC position.  Such a conclusion represents an extreme misreading of the lexicon, for:  1.) The lexicon places none—not a single one—of the 34 New Testament uses of metanoeo underneath the definition in question.  It gives no indication that this is a use that is found in the New Testament at all.  2.) References listed under definition #1 in BDAG in extrabiblical Greek, whether to the Shepherd of Hermas, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Josephus, and so on, actually refer to a change of mind that results in a change of action—the RAC position—as is evident if one actually looks at the passages.  The RNC needs to demonstrate that at least one of the texts referenced in BDAG actually is a clear instance of its doctrine—which has not been done.

The RNC could also appeal to the Liddell-Scott lexicon of classical or pre-Koiné Greek for alleged evidence, noting the definition in the lexicon of “perceive afterwards or too late.”  Here again the entire lack of any evidence for this meaning in the New Testament must be ignored.  It is also noteworthy that, with one exception, the listed examples of this definition are from the Greek of the 5^th century B. C. (Epicharmus, Democritus).  Similarly, the examples for “change one’s mind or purpose,” which, in any case, suit the RAC position, as one who changes his purpose will actually act differently, are all from the 5^th or 4^th century B. C., while the definition “repent,” which the lexicon presents as that of the “NT,” and which includes a good number of examples from Koiné Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, is certainly an affirmation of the RAC position.  Liddell-Scott defines metanoia as “change of mind or heart, repentance, regret,” placing the New Testament examples in this category, and categorizing the meaning “afterthought, correction” as one restricted to rhetoric and cited as present only in an extrabiblical rhetorical treatise.  The history of the development of metanoeo and metanoia is traced in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel;  cf. also Metanoeo and metamelei in Greek Literature until 100 A. D., Including Discussion of Their Cognates and of their Hebrew Equivalents, Effie Freeman Thompson, pgs. 358-377 of Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament Issued Under the Direction of the Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, 2^nd series, vol. 1.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago, 1908.  Thompson, who made a “[d]iligent search . . . for all the instances of the words under consideration, with a view to including all the works of all the known authors in each period” (pg. 353), noted that metanoeo and metanoia moved away from a purely intellectual sense that was present, although not exclusively so, in early Greek.  In relation to Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, he notes:  “[In] non-Jewish post-Aristotelian writers to about 100 A. D. . . . passages continaing metanoeo show that . . . there is no instance of . . . purely intellectual action. The change is that of feeling or will . . . In the Old Testament Apocrypha and other Jewish writings to about 100 A. D. . . . metanoia means change of purpose . . . this change is (a) moral; (b) from worse to better; (c) internal; (d) necessarily accompanied by change of conduct” (pgs. 362, 368-9).  Philo is cited as affirming:  “[T]he man has lost his reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth, says that he has changed his purpose (metanenohkenai [a form of metanoeo, “to repent,” in this tense and sentence, “says that he has repented”] when he is still doing wrong” (pg. 369)—the RAC exactly.  In contemporary “Palestinian writers, there is no instance of the intellectual simply; but there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action” (pg. 375).  Coming to the New Testament usage, Thompson writes:  “An examination of the instances of metanoeo shows that . . . the verb is always used of a change of purpose which the context clearly indicates to be moral . . . this change is from evil to good purpose . . . is never used when the reference is to change of opinion merely . . . is always internal, and . . . results in external conduct . . . metanoia reveal[s] a meaning analogous to that of the verb . . . metanoia does not strictly include outward conduct or reform of life . . . [but] this is the product of metanoia . . . lupe [sorrow] is not inherent in metanoia, but . . . it produces the latter[.] . . . The New Testament writers in no instance employ [repentance] to express the action solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use it exclusively to indicate the action of the will” (pgs. 372-373).  Thompson concludes:  “In the New Testament, metanoeo and metanoia . . . are never used to indicate merely intellectual action. . . . [T]hey are always used to express volitional action . . . the change of purpose . . . from evil to good. . . . [T]hey always express internal change . . . [and] they require change in the outward expression of life as a necessary consequent . . . [t]he fullest content [is] found in the . . . radical change in the primary choice by which the whole soul is turned away from evil to good” (pgs. 376-377).  The RAC is obviously validated by a historical study of the development of the meaning of metanoeo and metanoia, while the RNC is obliterated.

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that repentance is a change of mind that always results in a change of action (the RAC position).  The idea that repentance is a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of action, the RNC position, is totally unbiblical.  The RNC is a very serious, very dangerous, and Satanic corruption of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  Its advocates should consider the warning of Galatians 1:8-9, and tremble:  “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”  Anyone who seeks to bring the RNC heresy into one of Christ’s churches should be immediately confronted.  Believers should not give place to such false teachers,  “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Galatians 2:5).  Christians who are being led astray and confused by attacks on the gospel such as the RNC should be immediately confronted, and those who are making room for such error by their teaching should be immediately, specifically, strongly, pointedly, publicly, and directly confronted by name (Galatians 2:4-14; Acts 15:1-2).  True churches must warn against assaults on the gospel such as the RNC and maintain strict and total ecclesiastical separation from its advocates (Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11).  They must also boldly preach repentance and faith to every creature, so that they not only negatively oppose error, but by their true doctrine and practice adorn the truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47).

-TDR

---

[i] The following paragraph appeared in a footnote in part #1 of this series, but it was important enough to reproduce in the text here.

Lure Them In, pt. 5

Gospel-centeredness and my "lure them in" series dovetailed in my mind on Tuesday this week after my Monday post.  The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not a means to lure.  So how could the gospel relate to luring them in?  The popular discussion concerns whether you're center bound (gospel centered) or boundary driven.  I may have just lost you.

Recently, the center bound in the discussion seems to be led by D. A. Carson, one of the heads of The Gospel Coalition.  He also argues that the gospel is diminished by those who might separate over other biblical doctrine and practice other than the gospel.  Carson essentially says that it is the gospel that binds us together and the other beliefs are not essential for fellowship.  That opens pandoras box for methodology.

I would be boundary driven, the boundary being the truth, which we can know, it is certain, and all of it is important.   Others seem to be dabbling with boundary driven, seeing it as the only acceptable explanation, two recent representatives being Phil Johnson and Kevin Bauder.  From my observation, these two, and their like-minded thinkers, swing back and forth between center bound and boundary driven, because they can't find a way to bridge the gap between scriptural separation and unity, almost entirely due to their ecclesiology.   Bauder and Johnson look at the boundary differently, sees the lines drawn in different places.  It isn't the truth that is the boundary, but the essentials or the fundamentals, the important things, and coming to some kind of consensus about what those are.  They have no biblical basis for this practice, but it makes the best sense, given their predicaments.  How can you have unity with all believers and yet separate over doctrine?  And which doctrines should we separate over?  That discussion continues ad infinitum (the answer is in our book A Pure Church, for those who have not bought it, barely still in pre-publication---buy here).

Ultimately, however, being center bound is a church methodology to lure in more people to an evangelical or fundamentalist church.  The gospel is 'about' the only entrance requirement, and people know that, so they are more comfortable with that church.  I've said that there are new words coined to describe this methodology, but one of them is "contextualization."  A church can have a wide range of stances on the cultural issues.   This all fits with the church of the postmodern age.  It does sort of cement down the one doctrine of salvation (although that isn't even fully settled---for instance, will Lordship of Christ be emphasized or not, or does it matter?), but there is a large emphasis on freedom that is attractive to the flesh.  People get to have eternity settled, while still getting most of their pick of the world.  Whatever kind of music you want or like now sounds like a doctrine---it's gospel boundedness.  You're better than everyone else when you get what you want.  What a deal!

The people attending these gospel or center bound churches know the benefits.  They might not be able to explain the attraction for them, but they know they have a difference from the boundary driven churches.  This is the lure.  It's all very sophisticated, and purposefully so.  Look at our Congress, which knows the benefit of 7000 pages in order to get their way to pass.

From what I've written so far, you may think that gospel or center bound and boundary driven are the only two ways.  Like about everything else today, there is a third way.   You can google "the third way," and get a lot.  Before I even typed "the third way," I assumed there was a wikipedia article on it, and there was!  It's the "centrist position."  We've arrived at centrist in the theological world.  I recently saw this way represented in the writings of the very popular evangelical, Tim Keller.

Keller has written a book to talk about his success in New York City at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, called Center Church.  Interesting, huh?  Center.  Definitely a play on words.  He succeeds, like Bill Clinton thought he did, by finding the center.  It's not like center is a new concept.  It's dialecticism.  You have a thesis (center bound) and a antithesis (boundary driven) and from that comes an synthesis (the third way, Keller's way).   I say it's a play on words, because Keller is also in the center of the city, and the goal here with Keller, is to make his church the center of the culture of New York City.  Many other churches there haven't succeeded (gotten big), so people really do want to know "how he did it!"  Why would they even think "he did it?"  After all, Jesus did it, didn't He?  Ooops.  Maybe not.  Nobody needs an explanation if Jesus did it.  That would be in the Bible.  You would just need to read it. But since there's something he's doing that is different, we need a book to explain it (a big one, 400 large pages).  And he lets you know that his success really did come from going to a lot of different sources to get it figured out.  He shares them with us.

If any of you have seen Martin Bashir on MSNBC (I don't have cable or TV, but see clips of him at Real Clear Politics), you would wonder about his closeness with Tim Keller.  My biblical belief and practice would clash big time with a Martin Bashir, disabling any possibility of coexistence.  Biblical Christianity and the things that Martin Bashir says and stands for could not harmonize with the Bible.  And yet Tim Keller and him get along fine (as much as I can know, I believe Bashir attends Keller's church).  Keller's church growth philosophy will help you understand a Bashir and Keller relationship.

Those reading, those who like to read here, but won't comment, comment very infrequently, or anonymously, might be upset about how I'm reading Keller's "Center Church."  He doesn't mean centrist!  He means center-bound!   I read his introduction and the tenth chapter, those offered free.  From the top, he tells you that this is a third way, a middle position.  It's either a play on words or a pretty big coincidence.   He gives two ways on the spectrum of church growth---success on the left and faithfulness on the right.  His way is the third way, fruitfulness in the center.  This ought to be heavily criticized by Phil Johnson, at least as he describes what "fruitfulness" means and how it is being redefined or perhaps dumbed down by the new Calvinists and other church growth advocates.

Keller unveils in his book the "secrets" to Redeemer's fruitfulness.  Perhaps you didn't know that it was a secret after 2000 years.  Here's a secret:  it's not a secret.  The Bible is plain.  Church growth, how it is to occur is clear.  If it's a secret, then it can't be what the Bible teaches.  This isn't one of the mysteries of godliness or of the church or of the gospel.  It's no mystery.

One mystery to me is how that a Presbyterian, who has this so-called strong view of the sovereignty of God, has 400 pages for us to show how churches can grow.  You need a manual with much more material than the Bible to know what you should do, to understand what new measures you must take for church growth.  Others have obviously not gotten it.  Like so many others, Keller uses Spurgeon to justify it, as if Spurgeon were around today he would consider jazz to be an acceptable and preferable alternative for worship on an evening Lord's Day (that's Redeemer's jazz time---the two evening sessions), homosexuality to be a subject to avoid preaching against in a regular service in highly homosexual New York City, and Martin Bashir to be great pals with.

My take on Keller's book is that it is the Hyles Church Manual for the new Calvinist.  It is the Rick Warren Purpose Driven Church for the new Calvinist.  It's essentially Church Growth for Geeks (no offense intended).  Church Growth for Smarties (in contrast to Dummies).

At risk of my being respectable to a segment of my readership (to remind them why it is that they don't like to have their name in the comment section), which is likely already shot, evangelicalism and now fundamentalism has already been rife with "third way" thinking.  Their Bible is the product of the third way.  You've got the traditional text, the text received by the churches, accepted by those who believe in a biblical doctrine of preservation, conservative and historic bibliology, and then you've got secular and "scientific" textual criticism, so you come to a third way.  The latter represents respectable thinking.  The former represents Bible teaching, albeit unacceptable to keep believing wholesale.  So you find a third way.  We've done this with our Bible.  We've also got old earth creationism.  That's a third way.  The third way is the way to acceptability in the world, supposedly without giving up the faith.  Today we've got the third way position on inerrancy, represented by those like Daniel Wallace.  The third way is everywhere.

One "pastor" came to Keller and said, "I've tried the Willow Creek model.  I'm ready to try the Redeemer model."  Keller doesn't dispute that.  He's got a model to follow.  He's got the secret to lure them in.

Gospel-Centeredness and Moralism

We got into a little bit of a discussion about gospel-centered preaching here in the comment section in the previous few weeks, but thoughts about gospel-centeredness have crossed my mind a lot recently.  And then my family and I were on vacation last week where we usually go and attended the church we usually attend when we're there on a Wednesday night.  There isn't a church like ours in that area (even close), so the church we attend is based on conservative doctrine and expository preaching.  With that being said, their pastor was gone and the replacement man preached an obviously gospel-centered sermon.  He even quoted from some of the most well-known of the more conservative evangelical gospel-centered types.

The man teaching was doing a series, it seemed, off and on, through 2 Corinthians, and he did preach a text there.  I was able to follow along with his sermon, but that was because I knew what he was doing.  I also knew that my family wouldn't be able to stay with what he was saying, even though they hear expository sermons almost exclusively at our church.  I interpreted the sermon in the car afterwards.  It was hard to do.  Because he took that gospel-centered approach, he didn't preach the passage, even though he, well, preached the passage.

The word "gospel" didn't appear in the text, but he said it again and again, at least two or three dozen times, probably more.  My wife wrote a note to me, "What does he mean by 'gospel'?"  That was difficult to say, but I wrote something like, "the impact of the saving grace of God in one's life."  That didn't get it cleared up for her.  It wasn't that he didn't have anything to say that was good.  He obviously really studied.  But he wasn't preaching what the passage was saying because he was so attempting to connect it to the gospel.  Sure, every passage relates to the gospel.  They all relate to Jesus in some way.  I was thinking, "Please stop; just preach the passage, man."

That sermon got me then thinking about gospel-centeredness and then moralism.  Nobody wants to be a moralist.  It's a bad thing to be a moralist.  Mark that down.  Note to self:   "Self, don't be a moralist."  There we go.  In order to avoid being a moralist, gospel-centeredness, and then we get the wacky-ness I witnessed unexepectedly after the discussion in the comment section last week.  It reminded me, in a sense, of revivalist type preaching I once heard that didn't start with a very good hermeneutic.  In both cases some kind of bad ju-ju cranks out of the play-doh mold.

The more I thought about gospel-centered versus moralism, the more it came to me that it was straining at a gnat---as if moralism is a real problem in our society---too many morals, ya know.  Scorched earth.  Dropping napalm on the safety-patrol.  They just want to get you across the street.  Please.

I've been preaching through 1 Corinthians on Sunday mornings, am now in chapter 16, about through. I asked myself if the Apostle Paul was gospel-centered, and I believe that many gospel-centered folk would judge him not.  For instance, in 1 Corinthians 16, Paul motivated the Corinthians to give a bigger offering for the needy Jerusalem church, told them that if they didn't give a big enough one, he wouldn't accompany it.  When Paul dealt with the problems at Corinth, he got moralistic.  He said, to get you to do the right thing, I had to use rough speech on you.  That sounds moralistic.  To get them to change, he used sarcasm.  In 2 Corinthians, Paul didn't always use the gospel as motivation for living right.  It was one motivation, but he used much more than that.  The grace of God enables believers to do everything, but that's not put at the center of every single moral.  Multiple examples just in 1 Corinthians in dealing with Corinthian bad morals.

Preaching against sin doesn't mean that you are telling people, "If you stop doing that, that's a way really to impress God."  Or if you have strong morals, it's because you aren't gospel-centered.  That's the way that it reads today, as an excuse for lesser morals, or let's just say, immorality.  Immorality isn't just fornication or adultery.  Some of the morality Paul was telling the Corinthians to practice, for instance, he used creation order and the authority in the Godhead (1 Corinthians 11) as a basis for doing something that today would be called moralism, that is, dress standards.  If you've got a dress standard today, and you preach on it, you'll very often, almost always, be called a moralist.

So gospel-centered is used as cover for not preaching morals.  And so we've got all kinds of immorality.  This cheapens the grace of God.  The gospel is a grace that does actually change.  It brings morality.  If you don't preach on morality, you won't get morality in a church.  And churches aren't preaching on it, because they want to be gospel-centered.  It's a shame.  It isn't moral.  And it isn't the gospel.

Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action, part 2

New Testament usage provides crystal-clear evidence for repentance as a change of mind that results in a change of action.  Consider the following representative texts with metanoeo:

Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Christ refers to what took place in Jonah 3:5-10:

So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

When the Lord Jesus spoke of repentance, he spoke of the kind of change of mind or heart of the kind that took place at Nineveh, when the Ninevites “believed God . . . and . . . turn[ed] every one from his evil way,” where “their works” were evidence that they had “turned.”  Christ’s doctrine of repentance was the RAC (the view that Repentance Always results in Change), not the RNC (the view that Repentance may Not result in Change).

Luke 15:7, 10:  I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. . . . Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

In the single parable (Luke 15:3) of Luke 15, Christ illustrates the conversion of publicans and sinners (15:1-2) by the restoration of a lost sheep, coin, and son, while the unconverted and self-righteous Pharisees who thought they did not need to repent (Luke 15:2; cf. 5:31-32; 19:7-10) are illustrated by another son (cf. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Romans 9:4) who was not willing to enter his father’s house but greatly dishonored his father because of his perceived superiority to the restored lost son (15:25-32).  When Christ spoke of repentance, he spoke of the attitude expressed by the words of the son that was lost but then found:  “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (Luke 15:18-19).  Such an attitude expresses the RAC doctrine of repentance.

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance [metanoia].

When the Apostles preached repentance, they preached that repentance results in “works meet for repentance.”  They also connected repentance with turning or being converted;  cf. Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”  To turn or be converted is to “change direction, turn around . . . to change belief or course of conduct . . . to change one’s mind or course of action . . . turn, return.”[i]  Paul explains what takes place when men repent, are converted, and are born again:  “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).  Conversion is to turn to God and to turn away from idolatry and other sins.  It is to turn to God from sin with the purpose of serving the living and true God and waiting for the return of His Son.  Such a doctrine is plainly the RAC.

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The Apostle John recorded Christ’s message that when one repented he would “do . . . works” as a result.  Christ commanded that one “repent of her fornication” (Revelation 2:21) and warned that those who do not “repent of their deeds” would enter “into great tribulation” (Revelation 2:22).  That is, those unsaved people who do not “repent of their deeds” will miss the Rapture and enter into the “great tribulation” (Revelation 7:14; Matthew 24:21) with the rest of the unsaved, those who “repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts” (Revelation 9:20-21), those who “blasphemed the name of God . . . and . . . repented not to give him glory. . . . blasphemed the God of heaven . . . and repented not of their deeds” (Revelation 16:9, 11).  The Apostle John taught, through the inspiration of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, the RAC position on repentance, not the RNC.

The noun metanoia likewise provides clear evidence for the RAC.  Matthew 3:1-12 records the preaching of John the Baptist on repentance:

1   In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,  2 And saying, Repent [metanoeo] ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.  4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.  5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,  6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7   But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance [metanoia]:  9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.  10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance [metanoia]: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:  12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

The first Baptist preacher taught that repentance resulted in visible “fruit” (v. 8) without which there was no evidence that conversion had taken place and therefore without which baptism should not be administered, as baptism was on account of (eis, “unto”) repentance (v. 10).  Repentance results in “mak[ing] straight paths for your feet . . . [and] follow[ing] . . . holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:13-14; Matthew 3:3; Isaiah 35:8; 40:1-3).  Repentance results in fruit, because everyone that has not repented and received a new heart so that he is a good tree that brings forth good fruit will be cast into hell fire (v. 10).  Such teaching was the repentance preached by the first Baptist and also by Christ (Matthew 3:2; 4:17), and all Baptists today should preach—indeed, are commanded to preach (Luke 24:47), the same message as Christ and John—the RAC doctrine.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance [metanoia] for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.  10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance [metanoia] to salvation not to be repented[ii] of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.  11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Paul taught that repentance, a result of godly sorrow over sin, leads to people being careful to avoid sin, clearing themselves from it, having indignation against it, being afraid of it, being indignant against it, being afraid to commit it, having vehement desire to avoid it, being zealous for righteousness, and a desire to revenge themselves upon it.[iii]  Paul clearly taught that repentance leads to a change of action—the RAC position.

Many texts with metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament fit the RAC position.  Thus, the burden of proof is on the RNC position to prove that one can repent without a change of action following.  However, not a single text in the New Testament speaks of a “repentance” that does not result in a change of action.[iv]  The RNC position is completely absent from the pages of the New Testament.

-TDR

---

[i] Epistrepho, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), W. Arndt, F. Danker, & W. Bauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.  The complete list of epistrepho texts is: Matt 9:22; 10:13; 12:44; 13:15; 24:18; Mark 4:12; 5:30; 8:33; 13:16; Luke 1:16–17; 2:20, 39; 8:55; 17:4, 31; 22:32; John 12:40; 21:20; Acts 3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27; 2 Cor 3:16; Gal 4:9; 1 Th 1:9; James 5:19–20; 1 Pet 2:25; 2 Pet 2:21–22; Rev 1:12.

[ii] The adjective ametameletos, related to the verb metamelomai (not metanoeo) for repentance in the sense of regret or remorse; cf. 2 Corinthians 7:7, where “repent” is metamelomai.

[iii] The context is the individual who was under church discipline for immorality;  the desires to oppose sin mentioned in the passage are connected to the concrete manifestations of sin in persons involved in it.

[iv] Note the complete list of metanoeo texts: Matt 3:2; 4:17; 11:20–21; 12:41; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3–4; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Cor 12:21; Rev 2:5, 16, 21–22; 3:3, 19; 9:20–21; 16:9, 11.  Also note the complete list of metanoia texts:  Matt 3:8, 11; 9:13; Mark 1:4; 2:17; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9–10; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:1, 6; 12:17; 2 Pet 3:9.

Popular Evangelical Historian on Truth Serum about the Church

Carl Trueman, professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, department chair of Church History, author, and Cornerstone Presbyterian Church pastor, is very popular with conservative evangelicals---highly respected.  With that as a first consideration, if you didn't know already because you are not a regular reader of my blog here or when I wrote constantly at Jackhammer, then know that I believe the unity taught in the New Testament is local only unity, the unity of Christ's assembly.  Churches are where unity resides.  Alright, so with those two thoughts, consider this recent quote by Trueman at his blog (sent to me by D4 or David O via email):

I do not think that evangelical unity is particularly important or something to which we should aspire. Christian unity is; but Christian unity, if it is to be achieved this side of glory, will be a churchly unity. Evangelicalism is a non-churchly category. It does not organize churches. It does not ordain people. It does not disciple people. All these things are done by specific churches in specific places under specific leadership (both in terms of structure and personalities). The church is a creation of God; the parachurch is not. And Christian unity, if it is ever to be achieved on earth, requires churches talking to each other as churches. Being a pessimist, I myself doubt that such unity will ever be achieved this side of glory; but formal churchly interaction is the necessary precondition even for making it hypothetically conceivable.

Does that sound like something I would have already written and would have been savaged by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists?  You will find this in our new book, A Pure Church (order here), in the sections on unity, that aspect, much of which I wrote.  You are generally never hearing today what he wrote in this paragraph.

Unity must be in the church, the local church, which is the only church.  The Bible teaches unity and separation.  If unity was all believers, then we could never separate.  The only way for biblical unity and biblical separation to coexist is if the unity is in the church.  That's also what the Bible teaches.  The place of one accord, one mind, and one spirit is in the church.  True unity comes from purity.  Only a church has the God-given tools to keep purity, and, therefore, unity.

Now, Trueman is not obviously local only in ecclesiology.  He is just stating the obvious.  That's one reason he's popular.  A lot of times he will say exactly what he thinks.  He doesn't seem to care what the repercussions are.  He's a favorite to listen to and read because of this trait.  On this issue of unity, he is saying what could only be true.

The only way to keep from devaluing doctrine is by seeing unity in the church.  A church can unify on all of what God said.  A church comes together based on belief and practice.  This is not the kind of unity of all believers.  You don't see unity between all believers.  You only see it in churches.  Trueman sees this.  He just hasn't come to the reason why or explain it.  Again, our book does.  Get it now while it is in prepublication.  It will be out in 4 weeks or less.  Buy it now!

Election 2012: Do Rich People Like Romney Really Pay Less Taxes?

In order to win the election, the Obama-Biden campaign is counting an even greater amount of stupidity than normal from the American population.  Part of the no-voter ID push of the democrat party is counting on people who are too stupid or lazy to get a free voter ID.   Those kind of people are very easy to fool, a necessity for the Obama-Biden campaign strategy, which is why they don't want that impediment.

How will Obama-Biden fool the gullible?  Many ways, but it's all about symbolism and style over substance.  They don't want people to think.   They are going for emotion and feeling, especially using envy, greed, anger, and lust.

This post will deal only with one particular stupid strategy.   Here's how it goes.  Romney is as rich as Midas with his car elevator and equestrian jumping horses.  Despite that, Romney doesn't pay as many taxes as you do.  And then he wants to raise your taxes even more for even greater tax breaks for him and other rich people.

This whole campaign diversion is a joke.  It should have people rolling on the floor with laughter, but it doesn't.  People believe it and it fuels their envy, greed, and anger.  Romney really does want to take their money away from them.  That's how he got it in the first place.  And he didn't even build his business.  The government did.

First, if Romney wasn't paying his taxes, the government would investigate and know.  After all, the IRS has already seen his tax forms.  If there was something illegal there, the IRS would see it.  The fact that we haven't heard about it means that there isn't anything.  So everything in the Romney taxes is legal, and if President Obama was against the tax law, he should have taken care of it himself during his four years as President.  The first two years of his presidency, he had both houses of congress.  Romney operated under the laws of the government led by Obama himself.  If Obama has anything to complain about, then he has only himself to blame that Romney took advantage of the Obama administration tax law.

The Obama-Biden campaign are again expecting stupidity, so much so that their voters can't see through this ruse.   They believe that Romney, like some kind of powerful svengali that has control over the whole American government to hide his money from paying taxes.  The truth is that he has simply followed American tax law.  If there was something wrong, he especially has their attention.  They would nail him.

Second, a big chunk of the people Obama-Biden is attempting to fool and succeeding are those who don't even pay taxes.  They aren't going to pay more taxes if Romney pays less.  They don't even get that.  Obama tells them that Romney causes their taxes to be high because he pays so little, and yet they don't pay any at all.  Over 40% of Americans pay nothing and actually receive benefits from the federal government, mainly in the form of earned income credit.  They don't know they aren't paying any taxes.  That's how stupid they are.  Obama-Biden knows this.

Third, and please get this.  Rich people do not pay a smaller percentage of taxes than poor and middle class people.  They pay way more taxes than the poor and middle class.  The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes in the United States.  That seems like something simple for people to understand, but they don't get it.  They are paying enough taxes.  They are paying too much. The problem is that almost 50% of the people of the United States do not pay federal income tax at all.  That's what is unfair.  

People hear that Romney pays 13-14% of his income in taxes and then they hear that some secretary of Warren Buffet pays more than Buffet and Romney.  And they don't get it!   The very rich, the most wealthy pay  35% of their income in federal income taxes.  They do.   When Romney gets a paycheck on what he's earned, he pays 35%.  Romney doesn't get a paycheck anymore.  All that he earns is based on money he already has earned.  He takes money that has already been taxed at a very high rate and then he invests that money.  The money he receives from investments is called capital gains.  The stupid people don't know this.  Capital gains is taxed at a lesser rate than the money someone has earned through his own labor.  It is a form of double taxation.  He's already been taxed once on that money and he's getting taxed again when he makes money from investing it.

The capital gains tax is kept low to encourage investment.  When rich people invest their money it causes business to grow and produces more jobs.  More people have jobs because of those investments.  Many people know this.  The people that Obama-Biden target with their campaign don't understand this.  They could understand it if they weren't so stupid.  Obama and Biden want them to stay this way.  It helps them win elections, retain power.  It's not good for America, but it's good for them.

Obama-Biden say that Romney wants to pay even less taxes than he already does.  He would like to pay only 1% or not pay anything at all so that taxes can be raised on the middle class.  That's all a lie.  A big, ugly, divisive lie.  In order to cause job creation, Romney-Ryan talk about lowering capital gains tax for those earning below 250,000.  They should make it more than 250,000, but they already know that they'll be demagogued even more if they do.  So they present a less productive plan so as not to be the object of another big lie.  Obama-Biden say that they don't want to pay any taxes at all, so that you have to pay all of them.  What Romney-Ryan say is that they want to lower or eliminate capital gains taxes in order to encourage investment.  Other countries, that are even more socialist than we are, have a smaller capital gains tax. 

Why don't Romney and Ryan talk about this lie?  They do.  But the explanation for why Obama-Biden are lying is more difficult to follow than the lie itself.  The lie is kept simple for the stupid masses.  The exposure of the lie is hard for them to follow because you've got to use a term like "capital gains" and you immediately lose that audience.  Romney and Ryan know this, so they barely even try.  It's tough to watch.  It's not only that.  They also can't bring up the subject of taxes because it plays into the Obama-Biden campaign strategy.   They've got to keep it at something simple that stupid people can understand---jobs, jobs, jobs.  The only other message that might stick right now is that Obamacare took 716 billion from Medicare.  It probably won't help win, but it will keep the issue of Medicare at a draw between the two campaigns, instead of a straight loss for Romney-Ryan.

Obama-Biden would say that they want to have a better education for our children.  I don't believe it.  If kids were smarter, they would see through the Obama-Biden lies.  What Obama-Biden want is more money for the teachers union to buy their votes.  But that's another issue, isn't it?

Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action, part 1

For approximately the first two-thousand years of Baptist history, Baptist churches—the churches established by the Lord Jesus Christ—have defended the fact that when a lost sinner repents and is born again, a change of action will necessarily follow.  The fact that repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of action is the historic Baptist position. There are no Baptist confessional statements that deny that repentance will result in a change of action or that positively affirm that repentance is only a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of action.  The idea that repentance is only a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of action is a new and different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) from the one that has been preached by Baptists throughout the course of the church age, for it is a different gospel from the one taught in the Bible.

The historic Baptist doctrine that repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of action will be referenced below as the RAC (Repentance Always results in Change) position, and the new position that repentance is a change of mind that may not result in a change of action will be referenced below as the RNC (Repentance does Not always result in Change) position.

Old Testament Evidence Affirms the RAC

Briefly, the verbs shub[i] and nacham[ii] are used in the Old Testament for the concept of repentance.  Nacham emphasizes the emotional aspect of repentance, conveying the idea of “to be sorry, to come to regret something,”[iii] and is found with reference to human repentance in texts such as Job 42:6:  “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”  Shub means “to turn back . . . turn back to God . . . turning around . . . be converted . . . turn away from, abandon . . . a course of action . . . to desist . . . from doing wrong.”[iv]  It is a very common verb, appearing in passages such as the following representative texts:

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent (shub, Qal[v]), and turn yourselves (shub, Hiphil) from your idols; and turn away (shub, Hiphil) your faces from all your abominations. . . . But if the wicked will turn (shub, Qal) from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. . . . Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return (shub, Qal) from his ways, and live? . . . Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent (shub, Qal), and turn yourselves (shub, Hiphil) from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:[vi] for why will ye die, O house of Israel? . . . Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn (shub, Qal) from it; if he do not turn (shub, Qal) from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. . . . Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn (shub, Qal) from his way and live: turn (shub, Qal) ye, turn (shub, Qal) ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:21, 23, 30-31; 33:9, 11)

It is obvious that the RAC is the Old Testament doctrine of repentance—and the gospel is received in the same manner in both the Old and New Testament (Hebrews 11:1-2; Romans 4).  The RNC finds no support from the first three-fourths of the Word of God.

New Testament Lexical Evidence Affirms the RAC

One Greek verb for repentance is metamelomai, meaning “to have regrets about something . . . be very sorry, regret . . . to change one’s mind.”[vii]  Metamelomai bears some similarities to the Old Testament verb nacham.  The Greek verb appears in New Testament texts such as:  “He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went” (Matthew 21:29).[viii]  The central words for the New Testament doctrine of repentance, however, are the verb metanoeo and the noun metanoia.

The standard New Testament Greek lexicon BDAG[ix] lists all verses with metanoeo in the New Testament[x] under the definition “feel remorse, repent, be converted,” including the mention of repentance “of . . . immorality . . . of . . . sins . . . repent and turn away.”

The Louw-Nida Greek lexicon defines metanoeo and metanoia as:  “[T]o change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness — ‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’ . . . Though in English a focal component of repent is the sorrow or contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis in metanoeo and metanoia seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act. Whether the focus is upon attitude or behavior varies somewhat in different contexts. . . . Though it would be possible to classify metanoeo and metanoia in [the category of words for] [t]hink[ing], the focal semantic feature of these terms is clearly behavioral rather than intellectual.”[xi]

Thayer’s Greek lexicon defines metanoeo as:  “to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent (to feel sorry that one has done this or that . . . used especially of those who, conscious of their sins and with manifest tokens of sorrow, are intent on obtaining God’s pardon . . . to change one’s mind for the better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins . . . [leading to] conduct worthy of a heart changed and abhorring sin.”  Metanoia is defined as:  “a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done . . . especially the change of mind of those who have begun to abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have determined to enter upon a better course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty amendment, the tokens and effects of which are good deeds. . . that change of mind by which we turn from, desist from, etc. . . . used . . . of the improved spiritual state resulting from deep sorrow for sin.”

The Theological Lexicon of the New Testament affirms:  “In the NT, metanoeō and metanoia . . . form an essential part of the kerygma [preaching] lexicon, urging ‘conversion’ to Christianity. There is no longer any question of distinguishing between change of thoughts, of heart, of actions. The change is that of the soul, of the whole person (the new creature), who is purified of stains and whose life is transformed, metamorphosed.”^[xii]

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament affirms concerning the New Testament usage of metanoeo and metanoia:  “Metanoeo . . . [is] radical conversion, a transformation of nature, a definitive turning from evil, a resolute turning to God in total obedience . . . [i]t affects the whole man, first and basically the centre of personal life, then logically his conduct at all times and in all situations, his thoughts, words and acts.”[xiii]

Christendom continued to speak of repentance as a change of mind that results in a change of life.  The standard Patristic Greek Lexicon edited by G. W. H. Lampe,[xiv] despite large pages of references to repentance (metanoia, metanoeo) in the patristic writers, never gives a single reference where repentance refers to a change of mind that does not result in a change of action, while it provides overwhelming evidence for the historic Baptist doctrine of repentance in vast numbers of passages in the writers of the early centuries of church history.[xv]

The lexica provide overwhelming evidence in favor of the RAC and against the RNC.  Were the RNC true, all standard lexica would have to be in error.

--TDR

---

[i] The verb appears 1,075 times in 956 verses, listed here in the order they are found in the Hebrew Bible:  Gen 3:19; 8:3, 7, 9, 12; 14:7, 16–17; 15:16; 16:9; 18:10, 14, 33; 20:7, 14; 21:32; 22:5, 19; 24:5–6, 8; 26:18; 27:44–45; 28:15, 21; 29:3; 30:31; 31:3, 13, 55; 32:6, 9; 33:16; 37:14, 22, 29–30; 38:22, 29; 40:13, 21; 41:13; 42:24–25, 28, 37; 43:2, 10, 12–13, 18, 21; 44:8, 13, 25; 48:21; 50:5, 14–15; Ex 4:7, 18–21; 5:22; 10:8; 13:17; 14:2, 26–28; 15:19; 19:8; 21:34; 22:26; 23:4; 24:14; 32:12, 27, 31; 33:11; 34:31, 35; Lev 6:4; 13:16; 14:39, 43; 22:13; 25:10, 13, 27–28, 41, 51–52; 26:26; 27:24; Num 5:7–8; 8:25; 10:36; 11:4; 13:25–26; 14:3–4, 36, 43; 16:50; 17:10; 18:9; 22:8, 34; 23:5–6, 16, 20; 24:25; 25:4, 11; 32:15, 18, 22; 33:7; 35:25, 28, 32; Deut 1:22, 25, 45; 3:20; 4:30, 39; 5:30; 13:17; 17:16; 20:5–8; 22:1–2; 23:13–14; 24:4, 13, 19; 28:31, 60, 68; 30:1–3, 8–10; 32:41, 43; Josh 1:15; 2:16, 22–23; 4:18; 5:2; 6:14; 7:3, 26; 8:21, 24, 26; 10:15, 21, 38, 43; 11:10; 14:7; 18:8; 19:12, 27, 29, 34; 20:6; 22:8–9, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32; 23:12; 24:20; Judg 2:19; 3:19; 5:29; 6:18; 7:3, 15; 8:9, 13, 33; 9:56–57; 11:8–9, 13, 31, 35, 39; 14:8; 15:19; 17:3–4; 18:26; 19:3, 7; 20:48; 21:14, 23; 1 Sam 1:19; 3:5–6; 5:3, 11; 6:3–4, 7–8, 16–17, 21; 7:3, 14; 9:5; 12:3; 14:27; 15:11, 25–26, 30–31; 17:15, 30, 53, 57; 18:2, 6; 23:23, 28; 24:1; 25:12, 21, 39; 26:21, 23, 25; 27:9; 29:4, 7, 11; 30:12, 19; 2 Sam 1:1, 22; 2:26, 30; 3:11, 16, 26–27; 6:20; 8:3, 13; 9:7; 10:5, 14; 11:4, 15; 12:23, 31; 14:13, 21; 15:8, 19–20, 25, 27, 29, 34; 16:3, 8, 12; 17:3, 20; 18:16; 19:10–12, 14–15, 37, 39, 43; 20:22; 22:21, 25, 38; 23:10; 24:13; 1 Kings 2:16–17, 20, 30, 32–33, 41, 44; 8:33–35, 47–48; 9:6; 12:5–6, 9, 12, 16, 20–21, 24, 26–27; 13:4, 6, 9–10, 16–20, 22–23, 26, 29, 33; 14:28; 17:21–22; 18:43; 19:6–7, 15, 20–21; 20:5, 9, 34; 22:17, 26, 28, 33; 2 Kings 1:5–6, 11, 13; 2:13, 18, 25; 3:4, 27; 4:22, 31, 35, 38; 5:10, 14–15; 7:8, 15; 8:3, 6, 29; 9:15, 18, 20, 36; 13:25; 14:14, 22, 25, 28; 15:20; 16:6; 17:3, 13; 18:14, 24; 19:7–9, 28, 33, 36; 20:5, 9–11; 21:3; 22:9, 20; 23:20, 25–26; 24:1; Is 1:25–27; 5:25; 6:10, 13; 9:12–13, 17, 21; 10:4, 21–22; 12:1; 14:27; 19:22; 21:12; 23:17; 28:6; 29:17; 31:6; 35:10; 36:9; 37:7–8, 29, 34, 37; 38:8; 41:28; 42:22; 43:13; 44:19, 22, 25; 45:23; 46:8; 47:10; 49:5–6; 51:11; 52:8; 55:7, 10–11; 58:12–13; 59:20; 63:17; 66:15; Jer 2:24, 35; 3:1, 7, 10, 12, 14, 19, 22; 4:1, 8, 28; 5:3; 6:9; 8:4–6; 11:10; 12:15; 14:3; 15:7, 19; 16:15; 18:4, 8, 11, 20; 22:10–11, 27; 23:3, 14, 20, 22; 24:6–7; 25:5; 26:3; 27:16, 22; 28:3–4, 6; 29:10, 14; 30:3, 10, 18, 24; 31:8, 16–19, 21, 23; 32:37, 40, 44; 33:7, 11, 26; 34:11, 15–16, 22; 35:15; 36:3, 7, 28; 37:7–8, 20; 38:26; 40:5, 12; 41:14, 16; 42:10, 12; 43:5; 44:5, 14, 28; 46:16, 27; 48:47; 49:6, 39; 50:6, 9, 19; Ezek 1:14; 3:19–20; 7:13; 8:6, 13, 15, 17; 9:11; 13:22; 14:6; 16:53, 55; 18:7–8, 12, 17, 21, 23–24, 26–28, 30, 32; 20:22; 21:5, 30; 27:15; 29:14; 33:9, 11–12, 14–15, 18–19; 34:4, 16; 35:7, 9; 38:4, 8, 12; 39:2, 25, 27; 44:1; 46:9, 17; 47:1, 6–7; Hos 2:7, 9; 3:5; 4:9; 5:4, 15–6:1; 6:11; 7:10, 16; 8:13; 9:3; 11:5, 9; 12:2, 6, 9, 14; 14:1–2, 4, 7; Joel 2:12–14; 3:1, 4, 7; Amos 1:3, 6, 8–9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; 4:6, 8–11; 9:14; Obad 1:15; Jonah 1:13; 3:8–10; Mic 1:7; 2:8; 5:3; 7:19; Nah 2:2; Hab 2:1; Zeph 2:7; 3:20; Zech 1:3–4, 6, 16; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:14; 8:3, 15; 9:8, 12; 10:6, 9–10; 13:7; Mal 1:4; 2:6; 3:7, 18; 4:6; Psa 6:4, 10; 7:7, 12, 16; 9:3, 17; 14:7; 18:20, 24, 37; 19:7; 22:27; 23:3, 6; 28:4; 35:13, 17; 44:10; 51:12–13; 53:6; 54:5; 56:9; 59:6, 14; 60:0–1; 68:22; 69:4; 70:3; 71:20; 72:10; 73:10; 74:11, 21; 78:34, 38–39, 41; 79:12; 80:3, 7, 14, 19; 81:14; 85:1, 3–4, 6, 8; 89:43; 90:3, 13; 94:2, 15, 23; 104:9, 29; 106:23; 116:7, 12; 119:59, 79; 126:1, 4; 132:10–11; 146:4; Job 1:21; 6:29; 7:7, 10; 9:12–13, 18; 10:9, 16, 21; 11:10; 13:22; 14:13; 15:13, 22; 16:22; 17:10; 20:2, 10, 18; 22:23; 23:13; 30:23; 31:14; 32:14; 33:5, 25–26, 30, 32; 34:15; 35:4; 36:7, 10; 39:4, 12, 22; 40:4; 42:10; Prov 1:23; 2:19; 3:28; 12:14; 15:1; 17:13; 18:13; 19:24; 20:26; 22:21; 24:12, 18, 26, 29; 25:10, 13; 26:11, 15–16, 27; 27:11; 29:8; 30:30; Ruth 1:6–8, 10–12, 15–16, 21–22; 2:6; 4:3, 15; Song 6:13; Eccl 1:6–7; 3:20; 4:1, 7; 5:15; 9:11; 12:2, 7; Lam 1:8, 11, 13, 16, 19; 2:3, 8, 14; 3:3, 21, 40, 64; 5:21; Esth 2:14; 4:13, 15; 6:12; 7:8; 8:5, 8; 9:25; Dan 9:13, 16, 25; 10:20; 11:9–10, 13, 18–19, 28–30; Ezra 2:1; 6:21; 9:14; 10:14; Neh 1:9; 2:6, 15, 20; 4:4, 12, 15; 5:11–12; 6:4; 7:6; 8:17; 9:17, 26, 28–29, 35; 13:9; 1 Chr 19:5; 20:3; 21:12, 20, 27; 2 Chr 6:23–26, 37–38, 42; 7:14, 19; 10:2, 5–6, 9, 12, 16; 11:1, 4; 12:11–12; 14:15; 15:4; 18:16, 25–27, 32; 19:1, 4, 8; 20:27; 22:6; 24:11, 19; 25:10, 13, 24; 26:2; 27:5; 28:11, 15; 29:10; 30:6, 8–9; 31:1; 32:21, 25; 33:3, 13; 34:7, 9, 16, 28; 36:13.

[ii] The verb appears 108 times in 100 verses, listed here in the order they are found in the Hebrew Bible:  Gen 5:29; 6:6–7; 24:67; 27:42; 37:35; 38:12; 50:21; Ex 13:17; 32:12, 14; Num 23:19; Deut 32:36; Judg 2:18; 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam 10:2–3; 12:24; 13:39; 24:16; Is 1:24; 12:1; 22:4; 40:1; 49:13; 51:3, 12, 19; 52:9; 54:11; 57:6; 61:2; 66:13; Jer 4:28; 8:6; 15:6; 16:7; 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13, 19; 31:13, 15, 19; 42:10; Ezek 5:13; 14:22–23; 16:54; 24:14; 31:16; 32:31; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2; Nah 3:7; Zech 1:17; 8:14; 10:2; Psa 23:4; 69:20; 71:21; 77:2; 86:17; 90:13; 106:45; 110:4; 119:52, 76, 82; 135:14; Job 2:11; 7:13; 16:2; 21:34; 29:25; 42:6, 11; Ruth 2:13; Eccl 4:1; Lam 1:2, 9, 16–17, 21; 2:13; 1 Chr 7:22; 19:2–3; 21:15.

[iii] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, L Koeher, W. Baumgartner, M. Richardson, J. J. Stamm.  New York:  Brill, 1999.

[iv] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, L Koeher, W. Baumgartner, M. Richardson, J. J. Stamm.  New York:  Brill, 1999.

[v] Speaking simply, the Qal is the basic Hebrew verb stem, while the Hiphil is often causative.

[vi] Exhortations such as this one make it clear that Ezekiel is calling unconverted Israelites to salvation, not simply calling backsliders among the true people of God to live up to their privileges;  Ezekiel calls the Israelites to enter into the promises of the New Covenant of a new heart and a new spirit.  Compare Isaiah 65:2, which does not just contextually refer to idolatrous and unconverted Israelites (65:2-7), but is employed by Paul of the unregenerate Jews who reject the gospel (Romans 10:21), in contrast with those Gentiles who believe it (Isaiah 65:1; Romans 10:20).  It is clearly erroneous to assume that every passage in which the Lord addresses His chosen nation refers to those who truly belong to Him because Israel was, in a national sense, the people of God.  Rather, texts warning sinning Israel frequently refer to the unconverted, rather than merely to those who are not properly obedient (cf. Romans 9).

[vii] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), W. Arndt, F. Danker, & W. Bauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

[viii] The complete list of New Testament references is:  Matt 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8; Heb 7:21.

[ix] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), W. Arndt, F. Danker, & W. Bauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

[x] The kind of shallow abuse of lexica that is sadly characteristic of “Baptist” advocates of the RNC heresy could appear were a RNC to note BDAG definition 1 for metanoeo, “change one’s mind,” and the fact that, while metanoia is defined as “repentance, turning about, conversion,” the words “primarily a change of mind” are also present in the lexicon.  The RNC, assuming that the lexical definition of the word as “change of mind” proves that the word means only a change of mind, and a particular kind of change of mind, one that may result in nothing, could then pretend to have support from BDAG for the RNC position.  Such a conclusion represents an extreme misreading of the lexicon, for:  1.) The lexicon places none—not a single one—of the 34 New Testament uses of metanoeo underneath the definition in question.  It gives no indication that this is a use that is found in the New Testament at all.  2.) References listed under definition #1 in BDAG in extrabiblical Greek, whether to the Shepherd of Hermas, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Josephus, and so on, actually refer to a change of mind that results in a change of action—the RAC position—as is evident if one actually looks at the passages.  The RNC needs to demonstrate that at least one of the texts referenced in BDAG actually is a clear instance of its doctrine—which has not been done.

The RNC could also appeal to the Liddell-Scott lexicon of classical or pre-Koiné Greek for alleged evidence, noting the definition in the lexicon of “perceive afterwards or too late.”  Here again the entire lack of any evidence for this meaning in the New Testament must be ignored.  It is also noteworthy that, with one exception, the listed examples of this definition are from the Greek of the 5^th century B. C. (Epicharmus, Democritus).  Similarly, the examples for “change one’s mind or purpose,” which, in any case, suit the RAC position, as one who changes his purpose will actually act differently, are all from the 5^th or 4^th century B. C., while the definition “repent,” which the lexicon presents as that of the “NT,” and which includes a good number of examples from Koiné Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, is certainly an affirmation of the RAC position.  Liddell-Scott defines metanoia as “change of mind or heart, repentance, regret,” placing the New Testament examples in this category, and categorizing the meaning “afterthought, correction” as one restricted to rhetoric and cited as present only in an extrabiblical rhetorical treatise.  The history of the development of metanoeo and metanoia is traced in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel;  cf. also Metanoew and metamelei in Greek Literature until 100 A. D., Including Discussion of Their Cognates and of their Hebrew Equivalents, Effie Freeman Thompson, pgs. 358-377 of Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament Issued Under the Direction of the Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, 2^nd series, vol. 1.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago, 1908.  Thompson, who made a “[d]iligent search . . . for all the intsances of the words under consideration, with a view to including all the works of all the known authors in each period” (pg. 353), noted that metanoeo and metanoia moved away from a purely intellectual sense that was present, although not exclusively so, in early Greek.  In relation to Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, he notes:  “[In] non-Jewish post-Aristotelian writers to about 100 A. D. . . . passages continaing metanoeo show that . . . there is no instance of . . . purely intellectual action. The change is that of feeling or will . . . In the Old Testament Apocrypha and other Jewish writings to about 100 A. D. . . . metanoia means change of purpose . . . this change is (a) moral; (b) from worse to better; (c) internal; (d) necessarily accompanied by change of conduct” (pgs. 362, 368-9).  Philo is cited as affirming:  “[T]he man has lost his reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth, says that he has changed his purpose (metanenohke¿nai [a form of metanoeo, “to repent,” in this tense and sentence, “says that he has repented”] when he is still doing wrong” (pg. 369)—the RAC exactly.  In contemporary “Palestinian writers, there is no instance of the intellectual simply; but there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action” (pg. 375).  Coming to the New Testament usage, Thompson writes:  “An examination of the instances of metanoeo shows that . . . the verb is always used of a change of purpose which the context clearly indicates to be moral . . . this change is from evil to good purpose . . . is never used when the reference is to change of opinion merely . . . is always internal, and . . . results in external conduct . . . metanoia reveal[s] a meaning analogous to that of the verb . . . mwtanoia does not strictly include outward conduct or reform of life . . . [but] this is the product of metanoia . . . lupe [sorrow] is not inherent in metanoia, but . . . it produces the latter[.] . . . The New Testament writers in no instance employ [repentance] to express the action solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use it exclusively to indicate the action of the will” (pgs. 372-373).  Thompson concludes:  “In the New Testament, metanoeo and metanoia . . . are never used to indicate merely intellectual action. . . . [T]hey are always used to express volitional action . . . the change of purpose . . . from evil to good. . . . [T]hey always express internal change . . . [and] they require change in the outward expression of life as a necessary consequent . . . [t]he fullest content [is] found in the . . . radical change in the primary choice by which the whole soul is turned away from evil to good” (pgs. 376-377).  The RAC is obviously validated by a historical study of the development of the meaning of metanoeo and metanoia, while the RNC is obliterated.

[xi] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:  Based on Semantic Domains.  J. P. Louw & E. A. Nida.  New York:  United Bible Societies, 1996.

^[xii] Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, C. Spicq & J. D. Ernest.  Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson, 1994.

[xiii] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1964.  TDNT provides a detailed diachronic study of the words in addition to a synchronic study of the New Testament evidence.

[xiv] A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 2007.

[xv] The RNC could seek to abuse Lampe in the same way as BDAG by simply quoting Lampe’s definition A for metanoeo, “change of mind,” and definition A for metanoia, “change of mind, afterthought,” and then reading the RNC definition of  a “change of mind” into the lexicon.  Were a RNC to actually look at the texts referenced by Lampe in his definition, he would discover that they all refer to a change of mind that results in a change of action—that is, the RAC position.  For example, under metanoeo definition A Lampe refers to the Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:2; 11:2 and the Shepherd of Hermas 15:3;  the Shepherd speaks of people who repent “and return again to their evil desires”—an obvious change of action—while the references in the Martyrdom of Polycarp record a call by a Roman official to Polycarp to repent of his Christianity, renounce Christ, and worship Caesar—a very radical change of action.  Overwhelming evidence in the usage of early church history establishes the RAC position, while not a single instance of metanoeo or metanoia out of the hundreds of passages referenced by Lampe establishes the RNC position.