True Nature of Gospel Repentance
The Nature of True Gospel Repentance by Rev. George Bancroft
Preface by Don Partridge – Seattle, Washington
Here are some things to help understand the historical position presented in this article:
One thing we are dealing with here is two different views of Baptism; the second view has historically always declined into a weak church and definitely contradicts scriptural example. Here are the two views:
1) Adherent Baptism – Baptism should not be unduly delayed for new converts coming from outside the church. Baptism should be done on a basic profession from the preaching of the gospel. Communion should be delayed until after six months of catechism and a tract record of fruit and repentance. This is the view of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland (continuing). Acts 8:35-39 and Acts 16:30-34.
2) Catechumen Baptism – Baptism for new converts coming from outside the church should be delayed until after four to six months of new member’s class. Communion is given immediately after Baptism. This was the view of the OPC and the PCA, but declined for many into young child communion in the last ten years. With the decline, there was also a decline in catechizing for the professors coming from outside the church. So the Communion table is now filled with basic adherents that do not have an accredited profession including fruits and repentance.
A distinctive term to use may be accredited profession. The term Profession of faith is usually used to mean that they say they believe in Jesus and some basic tenants of the faith. Just as those who professed to believe in Jesus, but He did not commit Himself to them. John 2:24
Accredited profession would result from a more thorough observation by the examining elders over several months of a life bearing fruit of faith and repentance, a clear understanding of the gospel and discerning the Lord’s body etc., so that the person themselves would also have some ground for personal assurance that they are in a state of grace. This would correspond to a child being raised in the covenant for years. The tract record would begin with a profession of faith made before the Session; then the term of observation to “know them by their fruits”.
Matt 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance NKJV
The Session should baptize those who were not raised in church immediately upon a simple childlike profession of faith but before making them a communicant member, delay about six months with Catechizing, waiting to see fruit evidencing true faith and works of repentance .
One may want to consider that when the session admits a member to the Lord’s Supper it is in fact giving them one of the strongest forms of assurance they are in a state of grace the church or elder can. It is saying we elders have judged you to have the marks of saving faith.
If one hesitates to think of it this way, remember that the suspension of the Lord’s table is exactly that; it is saying we no longer see the fruit of saving faith and repentance in you and therefore you are barred from the table.
Should not acceptance to the table be consistent in meaning with the removal of it? And admission to it only granted to one by the same authority of elders?
If instead, Communion is granted to all professors or all children of members, with admission into church membership, then what would suspension of the Table be except excommunication?
The discipline of removal from the Lord’s table is not equivalent with excommunication from the church.
Therefore, just as the removal of Communion is not a sign one is not a member, admission is not for all members. Suspension is a separate step in hopes of God granting them repentance. Admission is acknowledging it is there.
Therefore, there can only be one consistent method for the admission and barring from the Table and that is an accredited profession, including a walk of fruit, knowledge and repentance that manifests that a person has saving faith. Of course this judgment is only the judgment of men based on outward visible marks and is not an infallible determination of their true state before God. It is a turning of the keys of admission to the visible church, the kingdom here on earth. The visible covenant people as was Israel.
A newborn child of a member is clearly a member of the visible church / covenant. We baptize the infants admitting them into the church, but the elders should not give them a sense of assurance of being in a state of grace by accepting them as communicant members until they are of a reasonable age to have a reasonable understanding of the gospel doctrines, are able to reasonably discern the Lord’s body, manifesting the same fruits of true faith, and repentance and obeying the law, that we require of others.
All children being brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord would normally be expected to say such things as I believe in God or Jesus and He is my savior and I am a sinner etc. But this is not sufficient grounds to see a reasonable accredited profession. We ought to seriously consider the age of accountability issue when considering what constitutes a credible profession. This is a contract, a vow and it should not be taken lightly. Most societies protect children because they acknowledge they are not reasonable enough or able to consider the consequences of their actions or decisions. They are not allowed to make a contract and they are not held accountable for giving consent to certain things because we recognize their limitations and that they can be easily influenced. If we are to be consistent with this thinking we should not be so eager to press children to make professions prematurely. This is a benefit we have that they are already made members of the covenant by birth so we do not need to fear or rush them to make profession and take the Supper until they are if a truly reasonable and accountable age for such a serious matter. This may mean mid to late teens before they fully understand the implications of the body and blood of Christ and trusting, submitting to Him as Lord, obedience to the scriptures and repentance.
Similarly we would baptize an adult coming from outside into the church, with only a minimal profession of faith. But we hold off communion until they have matured a bit and are able to express a reasonable faith and offer an accredited profession, including fruit, repentance, being able to discern the Lord’s body and blood and have some hope of assurance. Many ministers today reverse this process by withholding baptism from someone who has a simple childlike profession of belief in Christ and the gospel. They delay their baptism and put them in a catechism or new member’s class for a few months, because in their heart they know they need to wait for admission to the Lord’s Table; but they just have been taught incorrectly on how this should be accomplished. What basis in scripture do we have for delaying Baptism? Baptism is not a mark of true saving faith and we do not need to wait to see marks before administering. That is why we can give it to children. It is a sign and seal they are members of the visible covenant people. They are those who profess to believe, just as the Jews did. Though not all whom God called My People, His Children, the people of God, Congregation of the Lord, nor was all Israel true believers.
These adult adherent or professing members should be treated in a way consistent with the covenant children until they are communicant members having their own reasonable accredited profession examined and accepted by the elders. Both the children of members and new adult professors or adherents, are treated as members of the church. But the Supper is for those members who can reasonably discern the Lord’s body and blood of the new covenant. They have had the keys of the kingdom turned for them by the elders, validating that they are walking in a manner that visibly manifests fruit consistent with being in a state of grace. The removal of the Table should signify the opposite to the members.
It would seem from vs. 25 below, that to understand the table one would need to understand how the new covenant is seen in the blood, which is not a simple truth but a bit more complex requiring some time under teaching on the covenants. And members must know what it is to examine and judge themselves and how to do this rightly and by what standards.
1 Cor 11:25…”This cup is the new covenant in My blood.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. NKJV
I wonder how much of our sickness in the church today and even death is because of a violation of this proper administration of the Supper? I ask you ministers and elders, is it worth the risk to your people to chance violating this teaching, by offering the Supper to those who do not really understand the meaning of this sacrament?
Is not God able to care for and give enough grace to His own children in the church and the novice professors? Shall He not give them adequate grace to grow unless we give them the Lord’s Supper?
The Larger Catechism terminology on the church favors adherent baptism and an accredited profession for the Lord’s Supper. Consider these two Larger Catechisms
LCQ 62 What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
Note, the term ‘profess.’ Just a bare profession is required.
LCQ 63 What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government….ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.
(Note that “ordinary means of salvation and offers of grace” are directed to members? Why? Which members?)
Ans. The basic adherents as well as children. They must continue to hear the call to faith and repentance because they may not be converted and so they learn the marks of true repentance and faith so they can obey, bear fruit and grow in assurance and grow into an accredited profession.
Adherent Baptism seems to fit with the Heidelberg Catechism as well.
A reason this may not be widely accepted by many ministers today is that they no longer want to uphold close or session controlled communion because some people may judge them to be unkind by not letting any visitor take communion. There is a misguided concept of this needing to manifest the unity of the one body of Christ over particular congregations. Most ministers have shirked their responsibility to protect the table; they claim they have passed it on to the visitors via an announcement that the table is only for those who have truly believed or are members of a Bible believing church, (whatever that means to the hearer). If there is an explanation it should be that the table is only for those who have been accepted by the elders to have an accredited profession of faith and repentance. This passing the decision and responsibility to the visitors is an extreme dereliction of duty since, clearly, the keys of the kingdom have been given to the elders.
Admission to the table is the strongest message of assurance the church and elders can give to a member. That is why for discipline it is removed until there is a clear sign of repentance including new obedience. The elders have the keys to the kingdom and the Lord’s table and have no authority to pass this on to the members or visitors. They ought to have assurance that visitors who wish to take communion are members in good standing with a true gospel preaching church that upholds a solid standard for an accredited profession to be admitted to the Lord’s table, or explain this doctrine to them and ask their tolerance if this is not their custom.
The Nature of True Gospel Repentance
Since the latter part of the 20th century, conservative Presbyterians have watched with amazement the erosion of godliness in the professed evangelical churches. This erosion of godliness is displayed in doctrine, worship, and practice. As so many of these professed evangelical churches have significantly declined in doctrine, they are nicknamed ‘broadly-evangelical’; but they are not evangelical. These ‘broadly-evangelical’ churches ought to be called ‘moderate’ churches. Instead of an enthusiasm for Scriptural knowledge and a thirsting after righteous living, these churches openly promote moderatism. The definite message is to be moderate and not enthusiastic about the doctrines of the Christian faith and even morality. Being deliberately moderate in the gospel, the preaching of the Word has long been modified to please basic Christian adherents and nominal Christians, who only want what they think is the milk of the word; but the hearers do not want the evangelical first principles of the Christian religion, which is the true milk of the Word (Heb. 5:12-14).
Moderate churches, e.g., the emerging churches, seeker friendly churches, Alpha movement churches, new life centres, etc., want church growth at the expense of the true gospel. The result has been a generation of people professing faith in a Jesus without doctrine and life. Some people too often become hardened to hearing the true Word of God, with the doctrines of the Gospel. Such readers must decide whether they want the Jesus of one’s imagination or do they want the Lord Jesus Christ of the Scriptures. The readers who are serious inquirers and want to become adherents of the true Christian faith want to learn the doctrines of the Scriptures. They want to learn the true Gospel repentance unto life. Nominal Christians, Christians in name only, have no genuine interest in the doctrines of the Gospel.
With reference to public worship, in many of these moderate churches, there is a debate between the advocates of traditional type worship with the advocates of ever-progressive libertarian worship. It is such a heated debate that the ever-progressive camp refer to the traditional worship as ‘dead’ worship, not ‘joyous’ worship. In reaction, some traditional worship congregations, actually 19th century traditional worship, have gone back to pre-reformation Anglo-catholic worship. Anglo-catholic worship is that worship which is either Roman Catholic or what is called high Anglican worship, with aspects of the ceremonial law reintroduced into New Testament worship. The ever-progressive worship, likened unto the Irvingite-charismatic worship,1 argues for great liberty and ‘joyous’ worship so-called, tied to ever-progressive notions of joy rather than Scriptural views of joy.
Regarding the practice of righteousness, without the preaching of evangelical repentance unto life, the practice in the moderate church realm is devoid of definite fruit related to keeping of the commandments. Rejecting what the moral law teaches, they openly speak of something called, ‘what would Jesus do?’ The leaders of this movement then try to answer the question without the specific, biblical moral law. Being influenced by German Pietism, some moderates are seeking to modify justifying faith to emphasize some conception of sanctification and good works in justifying faith; but this is too little of improvement and it is still not repentance unto life and not the moral law of God; and it is certainly not the Protestant evangelical doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.
It is important, by way of introduction, to deal with a common complaint from those resistant to reformation, even opposed to reformation in the gospel. The complaint is essentially, when a sermon or article speaks against other churches it is perceived as unloving or unkind; this implies that to point out error is unbiblical, even immoral. Being antinomian (i.e., anti-moral law), many moderates make up morality. Borrowing from the world, they have adopted democratic ecumenical tolerance, the very ecumenicalism that Jehovah despises in the First Commandment (Exo. 20:3; Deut. 5:7) and punished in the Scriptures (Exo. 32:35; Deut. 4:3-4; Isa. 1:28). For some people, this complaint is echoed out of ignorance of the Scriptures. For others, it displays that they do not truly advocate an inerrant, authoritative Bible. It is well understood in true evangelical churches that the Bible does critique and condemn nominal Christians and basic Christian adherents, refusing to publicly confess the Gospel doctrines (John 2:23-25; II Cor. 13:5). There is to be critiquing of all doctrines and practice and especially wherein there is departure in the Gospel doctrines (Gal. 1:6-9). This critiquing of evangelical departures, even condemning, was done by the prophets in the Old Testament period (Psa. 95:7-11; 125:1-5; Jer. 2:8; Mal. 2:14-16; 3:8) and the apostles of the New Testament period (Col. 2:6-8; 3:20-23; Gal. 2:14; 5:19-21; Heb. 3:12-19; 4:2), besides the Son of God himself as Prophet, Priest, and King (Matt. 16:1-12; Mark 7:7-9). It is true that there are scandalous sins referring to variance, strife, or seditions (Gal. 5:20); but these scandalous sins either refer to the heretics who cause them, or scorners who revile and torment faithful churches without just cause (Prov. 22:10; Matt. 5:11-12). Therefore, adherents of the Christian faith may not speak against true evangelical ministers of the gospel, who are doing their duty to teach in the Gospel Commission and to protect the sheep and oppose the heretics (Matt. 7:15-20; 28:18-20; Eph. 4:11-14; Tit. 1:9; 3:10-11).
Certainly, sermons and articles must have positive teaching unto Gospel advancement and shepherding; but it remains the duty of faithful ministers, elders, even all of God’s people in the church to uphold and defend the evangelical doctrines of the faith, opposing heretics (Jude 3-4). It is further true that faithful evangelical churches must be careful to speak respectfully about other evangelical churches.
Evangelical Doctrines of the Faith
In the book of Romans and the book of Galatians, both the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of repentance unto life are understood to be part of the heart of the Gospel of grace (see Rom. 1:16; 3:28-31; 6:1, 22; Gal. 2:15-18). When it comes to summarising, the summary of the evangelical doctrines is not the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. The doctrine of the Trinity and the Virgin Birth are certainly, vital evangelical doctrines; but the Apostle Paul summarised the Gospel of free grace into repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). Being the summary, this is the end or purpose of confessing the Christian faith, namely, saving faith and repentance unto life. Justification by grace through faith alone and repentance unto life are both to be confessed to have an accredited profession of faith. Both doctrines must be proclaimed and confessed without encroaching upon other Gospel doctrines. Fruits of repentance need to be displayed in the life for an accredited profession of faith, in order to have assurance of being in a state of saving grace (Psa. 1:1-6; Matt. 3:2, 8; John 15:1-10; II Pet. 1:3-11).
Some Protestants have recently given up the term evangelical to the so-called ‘broadly-evangelicals’, that is, the ‘moderates’. These moderates are not truly Protestants. They are neither in definite protest of the Roman Catholic church nor in protest of other apostate churches. These moderates do not proclaim repentance unto life, are not evangelical, and should not be allowed to take the name ‘evangelical’. They do not unequivocally advance the ‘evangelion’ body of divinity of the Gospel. By avoiding the term evangelical, opting for the term ‘reformed’ alone, some have forgotten what it is to be evangelical, Protestant, and reformed.
When speaking of the Gospel or evangelical doctrines, biblically, there can be no such thing as ‘broadly-evangelical’. The word ‘broadly’ used to modify the term evangelical is not a valid descriptive term for faithful Bible-believing churches. The word evangelion comes from the Greek word behind the term ‘gospel’. It is not valid as such broadness means another gospel and another Jesus (see II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9). Professing believers must confess all the evangelical doctrines of the Christian faith to be evangelical and advocates of the Gospel of free grace. There is no good reason to give up the label ‘evangelical’ to moderates. Instead, it ought to be claimed and used as a label for all true churches who advocate all the evangelical doctrines, including repentance unto life.
The opposition against the term evangelical comes from more than one quarter. One group is simply opposed to systematising the doctrines. Those who reject such a place and church requirement to have a body of divinity, even systematic theology, should be suspect, being nominal Christians and rejecting the Protestant evangelical faith. No faithful believer could be against systematising the doctrines of the Gospel. It is a sign of false profession to oppose the first principles of the oracles of God. Another group links it to ‘pietism’. The 17th and 18th centuries German Lutheran, Pietist movement, wrongly called pietism, reacted to the inherent weakness of requirement for good works in the Lutheran confessional system of theology; the movement modified the meaning of justifying faith and had little interest in true godliness from the moral law of the Old and New Testaments.2 This sectarian group had little interest in the true moral law, needing to significantly alter the extensive moral law to require good works in their altered doctrine of justification. The word ‘pietism’ comes from the word ‘piety’ which simply means godliness. Godliness is God-like according to the biblical moral law in accordance with new obedience, confessing justification by grace through faith alone.
Another valid and useful name for evangelical doctrines is the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Some people have likewise refrained from using the term ‘fundamentals of the faith’, as they identify fundamentalism with either Pharisee-ism or a group from the late 19th century and popularised in the mid-20th century, nick-named ‘fundamentalists’. To be fundamental in doctrine is certainly not to be attributed to Pharisee-ism. The Pharisees rejected the inerrancy and authority of Scripture as the only rule of faith and practice; and Pharisee-ism was very weak on the moral law and strong on the ceremonial law, even adding the ceremonial law to synagogue and family worship (Mark 7:1-4), when it was expressly commanded only for the tabernacle-temple worship. Some of the so-called ‘fundamentalists’ were also called Premillennial dispensationalists. The Premillennial dispensationalists should not have been called, or allowed to take the name, ‘fundamentalists.’ This group is not fundamental. This group was and is antinomian, even opposed to the biblical doctrine of repentance unto life. Furthermore, this group made a distinction in the way of justification in the Old Testament from the New Testament. Premillennial dispensationalists taught that, in the Old Testament, adherents of the faith were justified by faith plus works; and in the New Testament, at least for Gentiles, adherents are justified by faith alone and without requiring biblical repentance unto life. They wrongly perceived the Protestant reformed view of repentance unto life to be some how an encroachment on justification by faith alone. The dispensational Premillennial view of justification by faith alone is different from the Protestant reformed view of justification by grace through faith alone. Dispensational justification by faith alone was predicated upon abolition of the Old Testament moral law for Gentiles and, therefore, not a perpetual and continuing moral law in the covenant of life. Furthermore, the dispensational or ‘moderate’ view of repentance is a turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ. For these antinomians, confessing Jesus as Lord means only confessing Him to be God. The commandments, restricted to the New Testament, are some kind of moral standard without requiring submission to King Jesus. Contrary to Scripture, in this moderate system of theology, professing believers are officially allowed to be totally carnal Christians.3
The dispensational view of repentance, and not the historic Protestant view of repentance unto life, infected the moderate Presbyterian realm in the 20th century, through cooperative evangelism. This cooperative evangelism came with links between Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, USA and Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, USA with the so-called church growth movement and deputation speakers from missionary para-church dispensational organisations. The moderate Presbyterians came to surmise that there was no substantial difference between the gospel proclamation of dispensationalists and the Presbyterian view of the Gospel. In the mid-19th century, the moderate Presbyterians began an alliance with the Premillennial dispensationalists to oppose the modernists in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Such an alliance also occurred in the Presbyterian Church of Australia, when the modernists departed to form the Uniting Church. The temporary alliance was made with moderates to stand against the modernists in the union; but it was a terrible unholy alliance that was destined to affect the understanding of the fundamentals of the faith in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church of Australia. The result was that the doctrine of repentance unto life was removed from the fundamentals of the faith. Thereby, in the moderate Presbyterian and neo-reformed realm, the fundamentals of the faith or evangelical doctrines were no longer the Protestant fundamentals of the faith enshrined in the Shorter Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism.
The Word of God teaches that there is a body of divinity to be confessed by those claiming to be advocates of the true Christian faith, even first principles of the oracles of God (Gal. 1:6-9; Heb. 4:2; 5:12-13; Jude 3). Those who are ignorant of this body of divinity must be taught or catechised with the first principles of the oracles of God, before they become communicant members (John 2:23-25; I Cor. 11:27-28; Heb. 5:12-13). Ministers who do not proclaim this body of divinity or catechetical doctrines of the Gospel are either not fit for the pastoral ministry or are deliberately proclaiming another gospel (see Gal. 1:6-9). These ministers whether knowingly or unknowingly are guilty of proclaiming another gospel.
It is the duty of the church leadership, ministers and elders, to systematise the Gospel doctrines into a creed or catechism. Such examples of evangelical catechisms are the Shorter Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism. This body of divinity must be maintained by every Protestant evangelical church. They are Protestant because the reformers protested the Roman Catholic church in the 16th Century. They protested departures in doctrine, worship, and practice. The church had departed from the evangelical doctrines, rejecting the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture and rejecting the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Moreover, the Roman Catholic view of repentance is counterfeit. It is a repentance or penance that does not result in definite commitment to the biblical moral law as the rule of obedience. The Roman Catholic church continues to maintain a very idolatrous worship, with statues and Mariolatry.
In the early New Testament Roman Empire Church, one of the first creeds as a proposed body of divinity was the Apostles’ Creed. The Roman Empire church was unable to establish a more thorough body of divinity during the rise of the antichrist, the man of sin, namely, the bishop of Rome. The Middle Ages was rightly called the Medieval Ages. A more thorough body of divinity, in Europe, came with the 16th and 17th centuries reformation.
In accordance with the Scriptures, including passages such as Luke 8:1-23, John 2:23-25; 3:3-5, II Corinthians 13:5, and II Peter 2:3-10, we may glean that there are three types of professing Christians. Nominal Christians would be those professing the Christian religion, yet reject the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Roman Catholics are nominal Christians. Those individuals who profess a beginning of the evangelical doctrines or fundamentals of the faith may be called basic adherent Christians. Basic adherent Christians profess the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the Virgin birth of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. They have a basic faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, with submission to Jesus Christ as King and Head of the Church, including church attendance and association with the church; yet basic adherent Christians must be taught to confess justification by grace through faith alone and repentance unto life, proper administration of the sacraments and church communicant membership, and bear fruit in the life according to the moral law summarised in the Ten Commandments (see Psa. 1:1-3; 92:12-15; John 15:1-10; Col. 1:23; 2:6-7: II Pet. 1:3-11). The second type of adherent Christian is grounded and settled in the evangelical doctrines and display fruits of repentance in the life (Luke 8:15; John 15:8-11). These adherent Christians, displaying an accredited profession of faith, should be the communicant members, partaking at the Lord’s Table. Some basic adherents, who partake of Communion, prior to an accredited profession, become hardened to the doctrine of repentance unto life and become obstinate to the extensive moral law in Scripture.
Nevertheless, there certainly needs to be a definite distinction made between the evangelical doctrines or Protestant fundamentals of the faith and the full confession and Standards of a given faithful church. Church officers must confess more of the doctrines of the Christian Faith than communicant members. Communicant members must confess a catechism, such as the Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism. Church officers need to confess the regulative principle of worship and the regulative principle of church government. The church officers need a more extensive understanding of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Presbyterian church officers have confessed the Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession. With this in mind, a distinction needs to be made between communicant members that profess the evangelical doctrines and those who profess more extensive doctrines for biblical church ordinances and sanctification in the truth. Even in the case of discipline of a church officer, a distinction should be made between the evangelical doctrines and the other doctrines. Those church officers who depart from the church’s confession, but not an evangelical doctrine, should be removed from active service or allowed to transfer to serve in other evangelical churches. Church officers who depart from one or more evangelical doctrines have made a most grievous error and scandalous sin, which betrays the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the souls of men. Those who depart from evangelical doctrines of the Christian faith should be removed from church office as well as suspended from the Lord’s Table.
Justification by Grace Through Faith Alone
In accordance with definite confession of the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture, even Scripture as our only rule of faith and practice, any and all professing believers must come to embrace the biblical doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. In order to be justified, right with God, and enter into heaven, one must embrace Jesus Christ, His person and saving work, trusting in his shed blood and perfect righteousness. Almighty God requires absolute perfection for entrance into heaven (Deut. 27:26; Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 3:10; Col. 1:21-22). No mere man has or can have at any time such perfect, absolute righteousness before or after professing faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, the Scriptures teach that believing in a type of perfection in the Christian life, wherein the blood of Christ and His perfect righteousness are no longer needed, is another gospel. The Apostle John says the truth is not in them (I John 1:7-10).
Jesus Christ lived by the moral law perfectly and absolutely fulfilled the works of the law (Matt. 5:17; Rom. 5:18-21). The works of the law is also called a covenant in Scripture (Rom. 1:31). The Presbyterian Shorter Catechism calls this covenant, the covenant of life. Jesus, the God-man, was indeed without sin (II Cor. 5:18-21). God’s righteousness, received by faith alone is accredited to the account of the believer (Rom. 3:25-26: 5:18-21). By the act of justification, the believer is judicially declared a sinless believer. The sins of true believers are forgiven, cleansed, and wiped away by the saving work of Jesus Christ and replaced with the righteousness of God, the righteousness of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is most important now to ask the question, what part do good works in a believer have in justification before God? The answer must be absolutely NONE. The good works of true believers remain tainted with imperfection sin (Psa. 19:12-14; I John 1:7-8).
One may not even try and modify the term justifying faith. The Scriptures speak of several kinds of faith. There are the evangelical doctrines of the Christian faith (Jude 3). There is to be the trusting of the Lord daily in all circumstances (Matt. 6:28-34; Mark 11:20-24). Finally, there is the faith related directly to justification before God. Justifying faith, the justification before God, is a specific faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. Regarding justifying faith, it is definitely without works, without the deeds of the law or any religious works. After accepting the mercy of God in Christ with justifying faith (Tit. 3:4-5), there will be new obedience, that is, the sincere attempt to perform good works according to the moral law; but there may be no modification of justifying faith with mixtures of sanctification or good works. As soon as there is any modification of this faith for justification before God, it is no longer justification by grace through faith alone.
Now justification before men, which is not justifying faith, is a different justification. Justification before men is not the justification before God for entrance into heaven (see James 3:17-18, 24). In the book of James, it teaches the same regarding the curse of the moral law. God requires absolute perfection (James 2:10); but the person with justifying faith before God will have good works according to the moral law (James 2:17-24). It will be seen before men (Matt. 5:16). So before men, there is not the requirement of absolute perfection.
Some have asked a question about the theological terminology of justification by grace through faith alone. Is this concept, ‘faith alone’, in truth, a biblical concept? Do the Scriptures use the label and is it biblical? Whilst the Scriptures do not have a verse with the exact term ‘faith alone’ in the context of justifying faith, it is a biblical concept. The Scriptures do not use the term ‘trinity’; but the God of the Scriptures, namely, Jehovah, is the one true Trinitarian God, in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Likewise, regarding justifying faith, it is definitely without deeds of the law, or works of the law (Rom. 3:28). So justifying faith is indeed ‘through faith alone’, and even that faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8).
Repentance Unto Life
The Prophet John, Jesus Christ, and the apostles proclaimed the necessity of repentance unto Salvation. The apostles called it repentance unto life (Acts 11:18). In accordance with Scripture (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19), the Westminster Confession declares repentance unto life to be necessary for conversion. The exact wording is, “Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none can expect pardon without it.” (WC ch. 15:3). It is necessary for salvation. The exception is the elect mentally retarded or an elect infant dying in infancy, wherein they are regenerated upon death (WC 10:4). This follows from such Scriptural passages as Matthew 3:1-12; John 3:3, 5; Acts 11:81; 20:21, Romans 6:1-16, and Galatians 2:15-18. The Westminster Confession position on repentance unto life is quite plain and unashamedly presented as a central gospel doctrine: “the doctrine thereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ” (WCF 15:1). Thomas Watson, an original signer of the Westminster Standards, wrote plainly about the requirement of repentance in Scripture: “Repentance is a grace required under the gospel. Some think it legal; but the first sermon that Christ preached, indeed, the first word of his sermon was ‘Repent’ (Matt. 4:17). And his farewell that he left when he was going to ascend was that ‘repentance should be preached in his name’ (Luke 24:47). The apostles did all beat upon this string: ‘They went out and preached that men should repent’ (Mark 6:12).”
All three documents of the Westminster Standards include the doctrine of repentance unto life. The Shorter Catechism QA87 speaks of repentance unto life as a turning from sin “unto God, with full purpose of and endeavour after new obedience.” The new obedience refers to the good works or obedience after embracing the justifying faith, ‘apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.’ The Westminster Confession explains it in this manner: “upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments” (WCF ch. 15:2). The new believer turns from His sins and comes to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as King. Jehovah’s moral law, summarised in the Ten Commandments, becomes His rule of obedience.
The Scriptural meaning of repentance is clearly a turning from sin unto submission to the moral law (Matt. 3:2, 7-10; 3:2-3, 7-14; Acts 2:23, 36-40; I Thess. 1:5-9). It is not truly repentance unto life, when one speaks of simply turning to Jesus. In fact, this statement is closer to faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, rather than biblical repentance. Evangelical repentance unto life is indeed a turning, but a turning from sin unto commitment to the moral law as the rule of right living. One must confess that they are sinners, having broken the moral law of God, worthy of the wrath of God. With the mercy of God in mind received by faith for justification, the sinner turns from their sins unto the moral law as their rule of right living. Jesus becomes their Lord and Saviour. This is what it means to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9) and become servants of right living (Rom. 6:16-18).
Numerous 16th and 17th centuries reformational Protestant churches, once proclaimed repentance unto life with all clarity, namely, the Anglican, the Irish reformed, the Dutch reformed, the Swiss reformed, the Presbyterian, the Congregational, and English Baptists. The explanation of repentance unto conversion comes under confessional sections, such as, the moral law, good works, or the Sacraments. The Anglican Catechism printed in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer includes a promise to keep the Ten Commandments. In the sections on ‘Baptism for Those of Riper Years’ the promise to keep the Commandments is in a Question and Answer. The Prayer Book includes a renewed promise to keep the moral law at every Lord’s Supper with this language: ‘Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.” The Irish Articles of 1595 covers repentance under Article 9, ‘Sanctification and Good Works.’ The moral law is explained under the two headings related to the Two Tables of the Ten Commandments: ‘Of the Service of God’ and ‘Of Our Duty to Our Neighbours’. The Second Helvetic Confession sets forth repentance unto life under the headings, the Law of God (12), Repentance and the Conversion of Man (14), Good Works (16), and preparation for the Lord’s Supper (21). The Heidelberg Catechism teaches it under Questions and Answers 81-82, 91-115. The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order of 1658 and the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 explain it under chapter 15, ‘Repentance unto Life and Salvation’.
Whilst a repentant believer will have daily failings and faults, all scandalous sins must cease in the believer (I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21). Those who continue in scandalous sins will perish in their sins (Psa. 92:14; 125:4), with only the exception of a season of scandalous sin. A true believer may only fall into a season of scandalous sin, but will soon repent, turning from the season of scandalous sin (James 5:19-20).
It is a false and dangerous teaching to speak of all sins as the same in essence. Each and every sin, however lesser or greater, does merit the wrath of God; but some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others (Deut. 22:5; Psa. 19:13; John 19:11). Every true believer continues with a multitude of imperfection sins (Psa. 19:12; Psa. 119:113; I John 1:7-10). Love covers a multitude of imperfection sins (I Pet. 4:8); but love also covers sins by admonishing a brother in serious or scandalous sins leading to renewed repentance, hiding a multitude of further serious sins (James 5:19-20). This is a vital teaching for the proper understanding of repentance unto life. The adherents of the Christian faith, including church leaders who teach that sin is sin, intimating that all sins are in essence the same, advocate a severe error. They are not evangelical and need to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God (Heb. 5:12-13; I John 1:7-10). This distinction in sins is vital for personal assurance of being converted by grace and practical application in respecting one another in the church and in marriage and the family.
It is most important to have the distinction in sins and God’s exact requirement when viewing some Old Testament repentant believers, who truly believed in the Messiah to come. King David and other Kings were characterised as doing what was right in the sight of the Lord (II Chrons. 24:1-2; 29:1-2; 34:1-2). God specifically regulated polygamy under Mosiac ordinances (Deut. 21:15). Therefore, polygamy in the Old Testament cannot be construed as a sin for Old Testament saints. Furthermore, under the Old Testament ceremonial law, concubines were not whores; they were second class wives and were to be treated as wives (Jud. 19:1-3; II Sam. 16: 20-22; 20:3). Commenting on I Samuel 1:2, Matthew Poole writes concerning Elkanah, the husband of Hannah: “He had two wives; as divers other good men had in those ages.”4 Even so, King David and King Solomon did go beyond the regulation, adding too many wives; they multiplied wives. They also multiplied to themselves gold and silver (see Deut. 17:17). Yet, these sins must not be construed as scandalous sins. Those who practice scandalous sins, including idolatry, fornication, and adultery, will not enter the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).5
Whilst this is truly repentance unto life, this doctrine must not encroach upon the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone at any time in the life of the believer. Remembering that Jehovah requires absolute perfection to enter into heaven, the repentance of a believer and one’s own good works in no way is a part of justification before God. The repentant believer is not under the moral law for justification in the sight of God (Rom. 6:14-18); the true believer is under the moral law as the rule of right living, which a promise must be made in repentance to accept the rule of obedience. The repentance of a believer does not pardon sin. Repentance unto life is also a gift of God (Acts 11:18), as justifying faith is a gift of God. It is granted to them in effectual calling, the new birth (John 3:3, 5; I Pet. 2:22-25).
Fruit Bearing and the Accredited Profession
A new adherent of the Christian faith, confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour, should begin at first on the role of a faithful church as an adherent member. An adherent member is not someone unable to commit to the church. Someone who does not want to commit to a faithful church needs the milk of the Word. Instead, a ‘basic’ adherent member is one who has not as yet had sufficient time to become grounded and settled in the Gospel doctrines of the faith and display fruits of repentance. Later, when the adherent member is able to come to the pastor and elders confessing the evangelical doctrines with fruit displaying repentance and faith, the adherent member can become a communicant member to partake at the Lord’s Table. So the membership role of a given congregation should consist of (young children) baptized members, adherent members, and then communicant members.
After catechising, with some time to observe repentance (e.g., six months to a year), the adherent member may meet with the Session to become a communicant member. The examination of the adherent member would be in the evangelical doctrines, including faithful church attendance and understanding in maintenance of the church through the tithes and offerings. Any scandalous sins prior to profession of faith and repentance would have to be corrected with full repentance. In order to partake of Communion at the Lord’s Table, a session, the pastor and the elders, must try to discern an accredited profession. An accredited profession is more descriptive than the weaker term ‘credible profession’. An accredited profession fits better with confessing the Gospel doctrines and ‘fruits meet for repentance’ (see Matt. 3:8). The Lord Jesus Christ said that ‘ye shall know them by their fruits’ (Matt. 7:16a).
After thoroughly catechising the baptized child for three to four years (ordinarily between the ages of 10-14), when the young person is ready to come before the session, the young person should be thoroughly examined by the pastor and the elders in the Shorter Catechism. Regarding repentance unto life, a baptized child often will not know the exact time of his or her conversion; but they will be able to discern a definite distinction between them and other people, who do not embrace the Gospel doctrines.
Repentance and Assurance of Grace and Salvation
Some readers may object at this point, that requiring a confession of such a body of divinity would turn salvation into a lengthy process. The answer to such readers is that they have confused conversion with personal assurance of being in a state of Salvation. One sermon, or one sitting hearing the reading of the Word of God, can bring about converting grace, by Word and Spirit (see Luke 23:39-43);6 but assurance of being in a state of grace is connected with Scriptural knowledge of the Gospel doctrines and walking in the truth (see Col. 1:21-23; 2:6-7). Fruit bearing, an illustration in the Word of God of sanctification in the Christian walk, is directly related to submission to the moral law (see Matthew 5:17-20; Psalm 1:1-3; 92:15; John 15:1-10). Assurance of being in a state of Salvation, coming to know that one indeed has an inheritance in heaven, takes some time after confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Rom. 10:9; Eph. 1:13-16).
The Word of God speaks about two types of assurances in relation to the true Christian faith. There is the assurance that the words of prophecy, by the Spirit of Christ, are the truth. It is being assured that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice. As Peter confessed, Christ Jesus has the words of eternal life (Prov. 30:5; John 6:63-71; I Cor. 2:1-8; I Thess. 1:4-9; 2:13; II Tim. 3:16-17; I Pet. 1:10-11). The Scriptures are the pure word of God; and every believer will desire to sing praises that he loves the testimony (e.g., Psa. 100:5; 119:49, 89, 105, 111, 140, 160). Another type of assurance relates to assurance of being in a definite state of saving grace.
There is a faulty kind of assurance and gospel sometimes called ‘decisional regeneration’. This is a faulty assurance granted by false preachers telling people to pray a simple prayer, asking a certain Jesus into one’s heart. When this is done, one is definitely to believe that this Jesus has come into one’s heart, is there for life, and that one will enter heaven. Such a prayer and assurance is no where found in Scripture. The Scriptural Jesus will not respond and commit to such a shallow prayer (John 2:23-25). This ‘decisional regeneration’ gospel is another gospel and another Jesus. The Gospel call in Scripture is a call to faith and repentance; and then one is to make sure that they have truly believed and repented (Eph. 1:13-14; II Pet. 1:3-11).
Every adherent of the Christian faith should be encouraged to make sure that he or she is converted. This type of assurance is referenced in Westminster Confession chapter 18. This is personal assurance of being in a true state of saving grace. The believer that examines himself, besides the examination by a pastor and elders, is taking heed to the words of the apostles Paul and Peter (I Cor. 11:27-29; II Cor. 13:5; II Pet. 2:8-10). They should examine their own profession of faith to insure that it is saving faith and evangelical repentance.
The parable of the sower describes three adherent Christians (see Matt. 13:1-23; Luke 8:4-15). One type of basic adherent, which is the second person hearing the Word preached, soon after profession of the Christian religion falls away from the faith. The second basic adherent, which is the third person hearing the Word preached and receiving it, does not fall away any time soon. The second basic adherent may get by an examination for communicant membership displaying what appears to be a credible profession, yet never truly bears fruit in the life. Some may display mild or strong attitudes of pharisaical scorning. He or she may flock to libertarian or Anglo-Catholic sacerdotal congregations to escape the distinctive preaching of true evangelicals; or he or she might misuse evangelicalism and in time become a scorner, abusing other believers. The third adherent becomes a communicant member and bears much fruit as a true believer in Christ (Luke 6:43-49; 8:15).
When repentance unto life, including all the evangelical doctrines, are regularly proclaimed by the pastoral ministry, the result in the life of the true believer is not merely assenting to Gospel doctrines, but an experiential Christianity in doctrine and life. It is quite common to speak of marks of saving grace. Genuine believers want to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (II Pet. 3:18). They desire to be well taught and grounded in the evangelical doctrines of the faith (Acts 2:41-42, 47). The true believers search to be under a faithful reformed Protestant ministry of the Word. They will want to learn of private and family worship. They will be teachable concerning the Christian Sabbath. True believers will not scorn the extensive moral law, but will learn to speak as the Psalmist: “O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.” The fourth category parable of the sower, true believer, will bear fruit, submitting to the law of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords: “But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience’ (Luke 8:15). Yet, they will always confess the nature of remaining indwelling sin (Psa. 19:12; John 1:7-10), confessing their daily need of the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Practising Moral Righteousness
Jesus Christ clearly taught that the moral law of the Old Testament remains as the rule of right living for God’s people, as the New Testament revelation was being unfolded (Matt. 5:17-20). The Lord Jesus Christ said that he did not come to destroy or abolish the law, but to fulfil the law. The consistent interpretation must be that he meant the moral law summarised in the Ten Commandments, for He referred to the law taught ‘in the law and the prophets’. It is the same law written on the hearts of the heathen, but severely marred in the fall (Rom. 2:14-15). Christ Jesus indeed came to change another law (Heb. 7:12). The law peculiar to the Mosaic institution of the priesthood, sometimes called the ceremonial law, was abolished by the coming of Christ (Eph. 2:14-15).
Antinomians (anti-commandments in the ‘law and prophets’) have tried to make the words of our Lord into the abolishing of the moral law after he fulfilled it. Besides the significant contradiction this would make for verses 18 and 19, this interpretation would mean that Christ Jesus did come to destroy or abolish the moral law. Even though Christ did come to change the ceremonial law, he made it plain that he came not to abolish the moral law. The context of His sermon makes it clear that He was speaking of the moral law. Without the Old Testament teaching on the moral law, the Ten Commandments are barely intelligible and subject to great misinterpretation and then division in the church. Therefore, the antinomians significantly limit the standard for morality. The antinomians speak of a New Covenant law of love or a law of Christ in distinction from all what is taught ‘in the law and the prophets’ on morality. This view is taught in the First London ‘Baptist’ Confession of 1646 (Art. 29). This antinomian view of the law of Christ, rejecting the morality of ‘the law and the prophets’, was corrected in the second London ‘Baptist’ Confession of 1689 in agreement with the Westminster Confession of 1647.
Another antinomian view of Matthew 5:17-20, which severely limits the law is that Jesus Christ, only meant the exact wording of the Ten Commandments and not the moral law ‘in the law and the prophets’. This view in actual practice is the same as traditional antinomians mentioned in the previous paragraph. Besides being refuted by verses 18 and 19, our Lord exposed this false teaching in the narrow view of the Pharisees concerning the 7th Commandment (see Matt. 5:27-28).
Some have further attempted to use the words of Christ in Matthew 5:17-20 to teach that antinomians would be in heaven, as they are called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The idea is that repentance unto life is not required to enter into heaven, making morality in the Christian life optional. This is a definite example of a faulty manner of interpreting Scripture. Isolating verse 19 and temporarily taking it out of context, there are two possible interpretations. Ignoring the context and other related portions of Scripture, a faulty interpretation would then be that antinomians would be in heaven. This forced interpretation, however, contradicts the plain words of Christ in verse 20 and Matthew 7:19-21 as well as the words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:17. The ungodly will not be in heaven (Gal. 5:19-21) nor the new heaven and new earth (see Rev. 21:8). Another interpretation is that the antinomians are spoken of in heaven as the least or basest of people that were on earth. The second interpretation is the correct interpretation; it fits the context and the rest of Scripture. The Genevan 16th century reformer, John Calvin, commented on Matthew 5:19 in this manner: “This is an allusion to what he had just said about the commandments: but the meaning is obvious. Those who shall pour contempt on the doctrine of the law, or a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of men.”7
Matthew 5:20 teaches that definite antinomians, rejecting or altering the moral law, such as the scribes and the Pharisees, will not enter heaven. The sect of the Pharisees was not known for keeping the moral law very well at all. Christ condemned them as vipers and hypocrites (Matt. 3:7; 15:1-8). The Pharisees too often made void the moral law by their traditions (Matt. 15:9). They were following more Roman code justice rather than moral law code justice (see Matt. 23:23; John 8:1-11). They were known for adding to the ceremonial law (Mark 7:1-5). The Westminster Presbyterian Matthew Poole, commented on this verse of the Pharisees in this manner: “But their interpretation of the moral law was so short and jejune, that it is manifest that their righteousness was not only a righteousness not of faith, but of works that were very imperfect and short of what the true sense of the law required, as our Saviour afterward proveth.”8
One may argue that it is improper to label moderates ‘antinomians’, since many of them advocate new covenant law. In answer to this, it must be noted that the antinomians must either severely limit morality or significantly add to their very limited morality. Rejecting Old Testament morality and then adding to the law of Christ is in no way pleasing to the Lord God. Adding to Scripture is an invasion of Divine authority. The false prophet heretics (Matt. 5:15-20) have changed the standard of morality for fruit bearing for themselves and others.
This action of the false prophet heretics sets the stage in the moderate church realm for antinomian sectarian behaviour. Rejecting the teaching of the ‘law and prophets’, in new covenant only morality, there is no prohibition for perversion with animals (Lev. 20:5-6), cross dressing (Deut. 22:5), incestuous marriage, and even public nudity and related pornography (Lev. 18:6-18; 20:11-17, 19-20). There is a loss of much teaching of moral law code ‘in the law and the prophets’ (see e.g., Deut. 19:15-19). Specific details of fornication (Exo. 22:16-17), adultery (Deut. 22:22-24), and homosexuality (Lev. 18:22) are left unclear. These false teachers have rejected the plain words of Christ to do and teach the moral law ‘in the law and the prophets’ (Matt. 5:17-19). The antinomians are unfit to teach in the church; and they need instruction and correction before even partaking at the Lord’s table. In fact, these teachers do not even know how to view the moral law in the New Testament.
Having rejected evangelical repentance unto life, they do not understand that the condemnation and suspension from the Lord’s table in I Corinthians 10:21 and 11:18-34 was for severely breaking the Second Commandment. Leaving out evangelical repentance unto life, moderates tend to make the Lord’s Supper either into Anglo-catholic sacerdotalism or a mere memorial with no means of grace at all.
One may ask the question, is there any concession for inconsistency, confusion, in poor teaching, even though one would adopt a faulty view of morality? There should be no concession in regards to the Lord’s Table. Such people, consistent or inconsistency, should not be partaking at the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:27-32); and inheritance into heaven should not be left to possible inconsistency or confusion in repentance. The writer is not saying that one can definitely know that all such antinomians mentioned above will not enter into heaven. The warning is simply to make one’s calling and election sure, with biblical repentance unto life including submission to the moral law summarised in the Old and New Testaments and rejection of all forms of antinomianism.
The antinomian leaders are unfit to teach as they have brought great confusion into the natural interpretation of such clear verses as Matthew 5:17-20, Romans 2:14-15 and 3:20, as well as I John 3:4. The natural interpretation is that the Ten Commandments were written on the hearts of men, male and female from creation, being created in the image of God with knowledge of righteousness. The fall has marred that law of nature on the heart of man. In the new birth, there is the new creation which restores the image of God with knowledge of righteousness (Eph. 4:24). The further natural interpretation, without confusion, is that the same Ten Commandments are rewritten on the hearts of His people in the new birth (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-11; Rom. 2:14-15; 3:20; 7:22; Eph. 4:24; 5:9; Heb. 8:10; I John 3:4).
The First table of the Ten Commandments (i.e., the Decalogue) concerns man’s duty to God. The First Commandment teaches that God will not tolerate any conception of other god’s. It is not sufficient to believe in one god. That one God must be the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures, Jehovah. All other revelations, that is, false religions, are false revelations of other gods or even another one false god. The Second Commandment concerns the worship of God as He has prescribed in Scripture and specifically mentions the prohibition of any images of the Godhead either made or worshipped. Part of repentance is to promise to attend an evangelical church on the Lord’s Day and summit to church ordinances (Acts 2:41-42, 47; Heb. 10:25). If the new believer has not been baptized as an infant, the person will submit to Baptism and promise to be in regular church attendance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Heb. 10:26). As a part of repentance, the repentant believer will come to understand that the Lord’s name may not be taken in vain. In submission to the Third Commandment, there is to be no use of any name of the Godhead in vain, including the Lord, Jesus Christ, God, etc. Submitting to the Fourth Commandment, the repentant believer will begin to learn about the Lord’s Day, to keep it holy, as a day of rest, public and private worship.
The Second table of the Ten Commandments concerns man’s duty to other men, male and female. The repentant believer will come to submit to government, not just for fear of punishment, but because all men are to be honoured, being in the image of God. Each government, parental, church, and civil have been given authority by God (Matt. 18:15-18; Acts 2:41-41, 47; Rom. 13:1-5; Eph. 6:1-4; Heb. 13:17; I Pet. 2:13). Yet, no earthly government is above the First Commandment. The Sixth Commandment condemns all murder, including the wicked crime of abortion. The Seventh Commandment requires repentance as far as possible for any scandalous sins of this Commandment. Full repentance, amends, and corrections will be made for all scandalous sins such as, pornography, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Regarding the Eighth Commandment, the repentant believer will repent of wastefulness, pilfering, defrauding, and stealing; the repentant believer will not be lazy but be productive in the Lord. Concerning the Ninth Commandment, the repentant believer will repent and make it right with anyone he has scorned, displaying malice with hatred and lying. He will want to be taught the way of moral law code justice, mercy, and peace making. He will recognise that lust is a severe sin and must be restrained through meditation upon the Word of God.
The evangelical conclusion concerning the obligation to the moral law of God in the New Testament is well stated in the Westminster Confession (ch. 19, sec. 5); and it is word for word the same in the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order of 1658 and the second London ‘Baptist’ Confession of 1689: “V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well as justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.”
Rejecting Moderate Churches and Other Sectarian Churches
According to Scripture, the moderate preacher is a heretic. The moderate preacher is not proclaiming the true repentance unto life. Whilst this must be recognised and accepted, this is not saying that this heretic is necessarily the worst of the heretics. Any departure from the evangelical doctrines results in another gospel, and evangelical departures often affect more than one evangelical doctrine; but there are certainly degrees of heresy. A helpful distinction based on Scripture is that there are liberal heretics and moderate heretics.
A liberal heretic is a nominal Christian, a Christian in name only. Liberal or modernist preachers reject the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice. Church officers and all adherent Christians should give little time for dialogue or consideration for liberals or modernists. There can be no helpful or meaningful dialogue with such heretics, unless there is interest in repentance with submission to the Scriptures. The liberal heretic includes Roman Catholics, cults, and other modernists. There is not an exact verse in Scripture for the liberal heretic. One might simply call them false prophets, which is most suitable; however, it is appropriate to deduce from the same verse as the moderate preacher heretic (Tit. 3:10-11), that the liberal heretic teaches heresy. The liberal or modernist heretic is even worse than the moderate preacher heretic, rejecting additional evangelical doctrines.
A moderate heretic advocates the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. In a denomination, when an individual or party starts departing on such evangelical doctrines as repentance unto life and justification by grace through faith alone, there should be dialogue and official confronting to deal with the heresy, following a process with definite prayer for correction and repentance. There needs to be concern for the soul of the moderate preacher as well as the souls of the hearers of the anti-evangelical doctrines. Without correction and repentance, this preacher should not be allowed to go on preaching, nor should he be at the Lord’s Table in a faithful evangelical church. He, himself, is a basic adherent Christian.
In a given congregation, a serious adherent Christian will ask the appropriate questions of a moderate preacher for clarity and then depart, unless there is sincerity for definite reformation in the preaching of the pastor or sincerity in denominational correction with discipline as needed. Titus 3:9 teaches that ministers and members should not go on in endless debate in departures over the exact moral law in Scripture: “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, strivings about the law; they are unprofitable and vain.” The reason being is that endless strife, about the exact moral law in Scripture, with moderates adversely affects justification by grace through faith alone and repentance unto life. There can be no compromise in these two twin evangelical doctrines in Scripture.
A minister or elder, in the same denomination with a heretic, should follow a process to give the heretic an opportunity to repent. Titus, a gospel minister, was required to confront the heretic. The Authorised Version and the Geneva Bible version transliterate the Greek word directly into English, referring to such a preacher as a ‘heretic’. A poor translation may translate the Greek word in Titus 3:10 ‘divisive man’; but in the context, it is still departure from the twin evangelical doctrines that is in view. According to the definite context, a faithful minister is to proclaim justification by grace through faith alone as well as good or righteous works related to repentance unto life (Tit. 3:7-8). If not, the moderate pastor must be rejected: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit. 3:10-11). Why would the moderate preacher be condemned of himself? The answer is, because after such proper admonition with clarity, he has rejected repentance unto life and perhaps justification by grace through faith alone.
The most distinguishing mark of a heretic is his lack of fruit, that is, lack of definite commitment to the biblical moral law as the rule of obedience. Heretics come in various types and shades, but a common heretic is the false prophet heretic mentioned in Matthew 7:15-20. The heretic rejects one or more evangelical doctrines, yet he always opposes the biblical doctrine of repentance unto life. Some reject the Trinity or the Virgin Birth; others do believe in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. The often repeated words of Christ state it most plainly: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). The description of the false prophet heretic comes at the end of the Lord’s sermon correcting faulty views of morality. The context in Matthew chapter 7 indicates that the fruit is the result of submission to the word of God and living according to the moral law, which Christ had so strongly defended in Matthew 5:17-20. The mentioned false prophet heretic appears to be hard to detect, for this heretic comes in sheep’s clothing (vs. 15); but they are only hard to detect if the doctrine of repentance has been removed as an evangelical doctrine. For weak professing believers who cannot discern good from evil (Heb. 5:14), the false prophet heretic cannot readily be known by the fruit. These heretics are called false prophets as they make up evangelical doctrines and morality by their own authority, adding to the Word of God. The sheep’s clothing, as often mentioned in Scripture, is the clothing of imputed righteousness (Matt. 22:1-14; Rev. 19:7-9).
Now a false prophet cannot truly have the imputed righteousness of Christ; but they can speak as if they do have the righteousness of Christ. They will put on the cloak of Christ’s righteousness. This common false prophet claims to advocate and speak of justification by grace through faith alone; but they will not proclaim true, gospel repentance unto life. If these prophets were proclaiming repentance unto life, as taught in Scripture, they would be exposed. So these heretics must first remove the doctrine of repentance unto life from the list of evangelical doctrines. They must alter repentance to turning unto Jesus as the Saviour. Next, a false prophet would need to limit moral precepts to New Testament teaching. These heretics could also emphasize a vague law of love, left for them to interpret as needed. Some would even emphasize a view of love separately from the moral law, wherein love would especially include tolerance. After the scenario is set, in order that basic Christian adherents would not be able to ‘know them by their fruit’ (as the meaning of ‘fruit’ has changed), they begin adding to Scripture so to fill up the gaps for a standard of morality. All false prophets oppose one or more evangelical doctrines and add to Scripture. Some false prophets may claim to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; but they do not truly believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.
Many basic adherents of the Christian faith caught up in these churches are unable to discern the heresy in the moderate churches, because they do not know what true fruit bearing means. With the rejection of repentance unto life and the standard of biblical morality completely changed or rendered quite ineffectual, they do not have their senses exercised to good and evil (Heb. 5:14). When the consensus, or tide of democracy, opposes pornography, adultery, or sodomy and the false prophet scandalously breaks the Seventh Commandment, then the weak professing believer finally sees no fruit in the life of the heretic; or, the weak professing believer may see no fruit in the life, when the heretic finally tells one or more blatant lies, even though there has been dishonesty in the Gospel. Sadly, in sects, the Second, Fifth, and the Ninth Commandments are often already severely broken for survival of the sect; but when adherent believers adopt the biblical view of morality and fruit bearing, they will spot a moderate heretic in a rather short period of time.
Those understanding the biblical teaching on repentance unto life should readily grasp what would likely be the result of the introduction of this evangelical doctrine into moderate churches. Congregations with 150 or more in church attendance, but unused to true evangelical preaching, could experience quite an upheaval in the church membership role. Up to half of the congregation could depart; but some will be truly converted and come to love the truth. Yet, others could very well come and be thankful that all the evangelical doctrines are faithfully preached. There would be the exposing of hypocrites, not merely by a final very scandalous sin, but by the rejection of the Gospel requirement to promise to do their best to live by the biblical moral law, to be teachable, and to be peacemakers.
One might ask the question, can a person have assurance of being in a state of Salvation and continue to attend a moderate, modernist, or Roman Catholic church? No, that person cannot have assurance of Salvation, if they desire to remain in such churches, enjoying the anti-evangelical and even the antinomian preaching.
Evangelical Church Attendance and Public Worship
When a person comes to confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour, that person will want to be a part of a faithful church which proclaims at the very least, evangelical doctrines of the faith. Jesus Christ promised to build the church (Matt. 16:18). In obedience to the Second Commandment, God’s true people want to be a part of His visible church with church ordinances. The church of Jesus Christ is built on numbers being added to it (Acts 2:47; 4:4). If the person has professed faith and repentance in a moderate church, having been truly converted by reading of the Word or occasional hearing of true Gospel preaching, that person will soon leave the moderate church to find a faithful evangelical church. The faithful church will have a preaching ministry, proclaiming the true evangelical doctrines.
When Christian adherents are truly repentant and believe the Gospel, they will be concerned to learn to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24). They certainly will need to be taught; and it will take some time in sanctification of the truth to understand Scripture prescribed worship; but upon genuine repentance, the concern of the new believer will be to please God and not personal preferences in public worship. They will find joy in the way that Scripture speaks of joy in the testimony of God (Psa. 19:7-8; 119:129). The godly will be meek, receiving the teaching of the moral law throughout Scripture, including the psalms (Psa. 25:8-9; Matt. 5:5). As true believers thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6), they need to be taught what the Scriptures teach in regard to the elements of worship and one’s conduct in public worship (I Tim. 3:15). Once they hear that the psalms, in the Book of Psalms, are to be sung in New Testament worship (Eph. 5:18; Col. 3:16; Psa. 22:22; Heb. 2:12), they will speak of psalm singing as a joyful noise (Psa. 95:1; 100:1). The new believers rejoice in the moral law of God (Psa. 19:8) and rejoice in singing the moral law in the psalms (Psa. 119:54). Only antinomians, rejecting biblical repentance, could say that the Book of Psalms speaks too much of sin and the law.
Faithful evangelical ministers of the gospel should be using an accurate translation for preaching of the Word, to promote the truth, and as an example to adherents of the Christian faith. It is the duty of ministers and not Bible translators to make plain the Scriptures. A genuine evangelical church is to promote the evangelical doctrines of the faith and even the whole counsel of God, out of a faithful translation. The repentant believer should be taught to be concerned more about accuracy, then readability. One of the most faithful, accurate, and time honoured translations is the Authorised King James Version; and the Geneva Bible Version is another faithful translation. These translations had employed the Providential Preserved Text, still used by the Trinitarian Bible Society in translation. The liberal heretic often prefers the Good News Bible, the New Century Version, or the New International Version. The moderates seem to prefer the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, and some even prefer the New International Version, with its corrupted textual variants supporting the liberal and moderate cause. The translators of these liberal and moderate Bible versions came from modernists, Irvingite-charismatic, and moderate denominations.
In true commitment to evangelical preaching of the Word, some Christian adherents and inquirers may have to travel quite a distance on the Lord’s Day for public worship. A helpful invention today is the use of sermon recordings, even picture recordings of ministerial preaching and worship services. This makes it much easier to begin preaching stations and mission congregations than in times past. Every repentant believer will understand the necessity of being in a faithful evangelical church to hear the Word preached unto conversion and sanctification.
An important question, for some readers, would no doubt be, where to find a true evangelical church? An answer to the question will also involve consideration for a long term solution or a short term solution, besides prayer for finding a genuine evangelical church. Regarding a short term solution, the church must at least proclaim the evangelical doctrines of the faith, including justification by grace through faith alone and repentance unto life. One must attend a church that will be honest about one’s confession of faith. The church ministry must openly confess the evangelical doctrines. They may certainly write a new confession and catechism; but they need to beware that the confession must be accurate at the very least in the Gospel doctrines. Such churches and the church officers may adopt the Westminster Confession, the Larger Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Thirty-Nine Articles with the Catechism, the Irish Articles, the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, or the London (Baptism) Confession of Faith of 1689. These churches must honestly confess the doctrines in the confession of faith which is adopted; and they must maintain, defend, and assert the evangelical doctrines of the faith. If the conclusion is that one must drive a great distance for pubic worship or establish a preaching station or mission congregation, then it must indeed be done.
With reference to a long term solution, the great value to a church honestly confessing the Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism, is its biblical commitment to church connectionalism, even a national church. A faithful Westminster confessing church knows how to plant a Westminster confessing evangelical congregation. As ambassadors of Christ, the gospel ministry has the gospel commission upon them to establish the preaching of the Word, church ordinances, and church government (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8), With reference to attendance in a true evangelical church by driving a distance or seeking out a faithful Westminster confessing Presbyterian Church, there are some objections that need to be answered.
Regarding travelling a great distance or beginning a Presbyterian preaching station, with one or more families, if fellowship, including youth fellowship, is the prime concern, then that person or family is not ready for a biblical solution. That person or family first wants fellowship, without the evangelical doctrines. This is not biblical fellowship in the Gospel of free grace. That person or family has not come to adopt the biblical teaching of the primacy of preaching to proclaim the evangelical doctrines and to ground and settle adherents in the true Christian faith. Evangelical fellowship can only be in a biblically sound church with a faithful work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16).
Furthermore, with reference to travelling a great distance or beginning a Presbyterian preaching station, with one or more families, if so-called lack of direct eldership oversight is the concern, then that person or family is not ready for a biblical solution. That person or family wants ‘moderate’ antinomian oversight. This is not biblical oversight. Biblical oversight first and foremost comes from faithful ministerial preaching of the Word of God (Acts 20:26-27; II Tim. 4:1-2). Basic adherents of the Christian faith can hide in a large congregation or medium size congregation, even with five or more moderate elders over the congregation. Furthermore, it is not proper to continue supporting a congregation and its pastoral ministry, when the pastoral ministry refuses to maintain, defend, and assert the evangelical doctrines in truth.
Conclusion
Let the reader not misunderstand. What is being taught in this article is that repentance unto life is required to enter into heaven. Whilst true repentant believers do fall short and have remaining indwelling sin, they will promise to purpose and endeavour to live according to the moral law in the Old and New Testaments, summarised in the Ten Commandments. They come to delight in the moral law of God as well as view the law as their duty. This Scriptural view of repentance unto life is an evangelical doctrine to be proclaimed by every faithful minister of the gospel. This is the testimony of Scripture; and the gospel commission is upon every gospel minister to call any and all men to repentance and faith. Christ Jesus is to be proclaimed, freely offered, and presented to all men, as the Lord and only Saviour among men (Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 4:10-12).
In conclusion, one might ask the question; what should be proclaimed to a basic adherent Christian on the death bed who never displayed fruits of repentance, namely, an accredited profession of faith? He or she is to recognise one’s need of the true Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church. His Word is the absolute Word of God, to be the only rule of faith and practice. All other religions are false religions, which can save no one. Having broken the true moral law of God, Old and New Testament Scriptures in thought, word, and deed, there is the absolute need of the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and His perfect righteousness. Sin is the transgression of the moral law, summarised in the Ten Commandments and taught in the Old and New Testament Scriptures. A person’s contrived good works can add nothing to justification before God. His or her own attempted good works merit the wrath of God. Nevertheless, God requires repentance to enter heaven, that is, to sorrow for sin, to hate sin, to sorrow for failure to have displayed fruits of repentance for so many years; and even though death appears to be imminent, he or she must promise to come into submission to the moral law with Jesus Christ as King and Lord. The dying basic adherent needs to sorrow for his or her failure to make that commitment earlier in life, failing to display evangelical obedience. He or she must truly come to love the truth of the Gospel even the moral law. Whilst repentance unto life is required, it does not pardon sin. The shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses true believers of all sins past, present, and future; and the righteousness of Christ alone grants the true believer sinless perfection at death to enter heaven.
Endnotes
1 The charismatic churches, as they are often called, are not worthy of the Greek term ‘charistmata’. These moderate or liberal churches neither honour the continuing charismatic gifts related to church office in Romans 12:4-8 nor the extraordinary gifts (Rom. 12:6; I Cor. 12:1-5). So it is more proper to refer to these churches as followers of Edward Irving, the heretic who tried to engineer the return of prophesy and other extraordinary gifts in the Church of Scotland, in the mid-19th century.
2 The commandments, new obedience, and good works as taught in the Augsburg Lutheran Confession are poorly written. Martin Luther’s Larger and Shorter Catechisms do mention the Ten Commandments; but the entire original Second Commandment is left out with the remaining commandments moved up in order and the original Tenth Commandment split into two commandments. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of the Christian Religion is not much better; but repentance unto life is made clear in the Ten Commandments section of the Anglican Catechism and the 1650 Book of Common Prayer.
3 Some well-known premillennial dispensationalists of the 19th and 20th century include C. I Schofiled, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Billy Graham, Charles Ryrie, and Bill Bright. A perusing of the Schofield reference Bible and the Ryrie study Bible in the appropriate versus will make this clear (see notes Matt. 5:17; Matt. 13:1-23; Rom. 1:18-20; 2:6-11; 10:9; I Cor. 3:1-15). Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, devised the ‘Four Spiritual Laws’ tract for evangelism which has no reference to repentance unto life, promoting antinomianism. The ‘Holy Spirit’ booklet, the contrived ‘second blessing’ tract, does not correct the problem, continuing with antinomianism. These writers were open and quite plain in their teaching. They rejected at least two evangelical doctrines, fundamentals of the Faith. They quite plainly rejected repentance unto life and rejected the doctrine that the heathen perish for moral corruption and breaking the moral law, with or without hearing the Gospel.
4 From Matthew Poole’s Commentaries on I Samuel 1:2.
5 King Solomon, as a king of Israel, was required to enforce both tables of the moral law. King Solomon did fail to uphold and enforce the first table of the law. In doing so, he ushered in moral decline into the nation of Israel with the tolerance of false religions. Military alliances achieved by international political marriages are certainly sin and foolish. Such marriages certainly aggravated his personal remaining indwelling sin as well.
6 Whilst there are examples of one sermon or presentation of the Salvation message bringing about a basic profession of faith in Scripture (see e.g., Acts 8:26-37; 16:14-15, 25-34), there is only one example where assurance of grace and Salvation came at the same time; and this occurred because Christ Jesus, himself, granted the personal assurance (Luke 23:43).
7 From John Calvin’s Commentaries on Matthew 5:19.
8 From Matthew Poole’s Commentaries on Matthew 5:20.
George Bancroft is pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church, Sydney, Australia (www.cpc-sydney.org).
© The Covenant Presbyterian Church Sydney, Australia
