FERGUSON: Now, in our last study we were thinking about the opening verses of Genesis 3, and this
fairly remarkable thing that happens in Genesis 3 that the serpent distorts the character
of God.
And you remember we were talking about the fact that this belongs to the very essence
of legalism, when God's loving character, His fatherly concern, is divorced from His
law.
And our eyes are focused on the law simply as though they were naked commandments and
not the directives of our heavenly Father who obviously wants the very best for us.
And so though we often read in the Scriptures about the subtlety and the deceitfulness of
Satan, sometimes we don't appreciate how deeply that goes into the narrative of Scripture.
And it's there right in the opening verses of Genesis 3 how the serpent, in a sense,
draws Eve first of all into legalism, and then draws her into antinomianism.
And in a very remarkable way Genesis 3 underlines how closely related to one another these two
errors are.
We so often tend to think of them as absolute opposites to one another, and therefore needing
different kinds of spiritual medicine in order to deliver people from them.
But as we go on I think we will discover that in the gospel, both legalism and antinomianism
are dealt with, especially by the apostle Paul, by using exactly the same medicine.
Now, in this study, I want us to go back a little to our earlier discussion about the
order of salvation, the order of grace.
One of the things that came up in the controversy over the "Auchterarder Creed," and then "The
Marrow of Modern Divinity," was this whole question of, "Do we forsake sin, do we repent
in order to be prepared to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?"
And, Boston and his friends, in connection with the Auchterarder Creed, argued that that's
a very unhelpful way to understand the message of the gospel, to put repentance first.
Of course, that makes many Christians nervous.
And obviously even in the case of very great preachers and teachers like Boston, Ralph
Erskine, Ebenezer Erskine, and these others, there was a nervousness that they were going
to lead people into antinomianism, that they did not have a proper place for the law of
God, conviction of sin, and then faith.
They were wanting to argue that repentance does not precede faith as a condition for
coming to Christ.
Just as they wanted to emphasize that no increase in sanctification does anything to our justification.
For some people that was a very frightening thought.
If you don't insist that you've got to add to your justification and your sanctification,
then will people not live any way they want?
If you're as justified in the first day of your Christian life as you will be on the
last day of your Christian life, and you're saying to people, "You can live any way you
want in between."
So, you can understand the nervousness.
But you can also understand why to deal with that nervousness by insisting that there were
conditions that needed to be met before you came to faith in Jesus Christ poisoned the
waters, rather than brought forth the pure water of the gospel.
And this was very much related to the way in which people understood what we call the
"ordo salutis."
In the application of redemption to sinners, salvation comes to us as justification, it
comes to us as regeneration, and adoption, and sanctification, and perseverance, and
glorification.
Salvation comes to us who repent and believe the gospel.
And doesn't that very language that's used in Scripture, "Repent and believe the gospel,"
indicate to us that repentance must come before believing?
When you remember what we said about the "ordo salutis" before, that it was often conceived
of as a chain.
And in its very nature a chain made of several links, that one link closes over the other.
In a chain, all of the links are not joined to one another; they're joined to each other
in a kind of progress of links.
And it seems to me that that very way of looking at things, understanding the application of
redemption by looking through spectacles that have been crafted, as it were, to see a chain
as the organizing principle, almost inevitably means that either you put the link of repentance
before faith or you put the link of faith before repentance.
And when you have done that, you've already produced a way of looking at things that is
likely, it seems to me, to lead you astray.
At some time at your leisure you should do a little study on the language of repentance
and faith.
The gospel of the kingdom is preached, or the gospel of Christ is preached, and then
the summons is given to those who have heard it to repent.
Just one word, "Repent."
Does that mean that you repent but don't believe?
There are other occasions when the gospel is preached and the summons is given, "Believe."
"What will I do to be saved?"
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."
No reference to repentance.
Does that mean that I believe without repenting?
And then what about those occasions when the gospel is preached and the summons is given,
"Repent and believe"?
And what about the instance of Paul preaching at Athens?
You remember towards the end of Acts chapter 17 Paul preaches on the resurrection of Jesus
Christ, and then he says, "God commands all men to repent."
Do you remember how the response of some is described?
He didn't tell them to believe; He told them to repent.
And then we are told a couple of verses later on that there were those who believed.
Now, how do you put together all these statements?
Is there a contradiction here?
No, there is no contradiction here.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the figure of speech known as "hendiadys."
Not sure that they teach it in schools any longer or perhaps ever taught it in English
speaking schools.
It's Greek for "One through two."
That is, when you -- when you say one thing, but you use two expressions to convey the
whole.
And the language of repentance and faith in the New Testament is essentially an hendiadys.
That, the same reality of coming to Christ is being viewed from two different perspectives.
One, in relationship to the sinful life, the other in relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ.
So that sometimes, one of the terms will stand for both terms.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved," means as you believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ you will turn away from sin.
You cannot go to Jesus Christ without leaving where you have been; or repent in response
to the gospel.
What does it mean to repent in response to the gospel?
Well, he's talking about that coming to Jesus Christ in faith, but from the perspective
of, "Therefore leaving behind the old lifestyle in which you once lived," or "Repent and believe
the gospel."
Exactly the same thing.
In other words, repentance and faith are not joined together like two links in a chain
so that we're left asking the question, "Well, is the first link repentance and then faith,
or is the first link faith and then repentance?"
No, repentance and faith are not abstract phenomena that exist out there.
They are simply ways of describing what happens when we are united to Jesus Christ and trust
Him.
We cannot come to Him without leaving the past.
And we certainly cannot leave the past unless we come to Him.
Or to put it this way -- and this was one of the great emphases of Calvin and the Westminster
Confession of Faith -- repentance is necessary for salvation, but repentance is not the instrument
by which we come to faith in Jesus Christ.
Repentance, genuine repentance, takes place within the context of faith, takes place within
the context of us responding to the grace of God and Jesus Christ in the gospel.
That's why Paul says ultimately the law on its own will not lead us to evangelical repentance.
It may convict us of sin, but the turning around requires the kindness of God, the hope
of salvation.
Listen to how the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it.
This is chapter 15.
"Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace…
By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense of the odiousness of sin, not only of its
danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature
and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, to such as
are penitent, grieves for, hates his sin, turns from them to God, purposing and endeavoring
to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments."
In other words, there is no genuine evangelical repentance, unless there is a sense and a
trust in the promised mercy of God in Jesus Christ.
And it's this that transforms repentance from a work that we accomplish to a response that
we make wrought in us by the power of the Holy Spirit as we turn from our sinful lifestyle
to a genuine faith in our Savior Jesus Christ.
There's a very interesting discussion of this in "The Marrow of Modern Divinity."
It takes place between Nomista, the legalist, and the pastor whose name is Evangelista.
Listen to this.
Nomista says, the legalist, "But yet sir, you see," quoting the Scriptures, "Christ
requires a thirsting before a man come to Him, which I conceive cannot be without true
repentance."
It's those who thirst who are to come to Christ and drink.
And Evangelista quotes the relevant passages, Revelation 22:17, John 6:37, and he says,
"What do you think repentance is?"
The legalist replies, "It is a man's humbling himself before God, and sorrowing and grieving
for, offending Him by his sins and turning to God."
And Evangelista then says, "Well, would you have a man do all this truly before he come
to Christ by believing?"
And the legalist says, "Yes, indeed, I think it is very meet."
Then says Evangelista -- you can almost sense his triumph here -- "Then, I tell you truly,
you would have him do that which is impossible, because godly humiliation proceeds from the
love of God, the good Father, and so from the hatred of that sin which has displeased
Him.
And this cannot be without faith."
So, you see where the emphasis is, that genuine repentance always takes place within the context
of saving faith.
Of course, the question that was asked of the Marrow Men and their companions was, "Does
that mean repentance isn't necessary?"
But that was a complete misunderstanding, wasn't it?
They are not saying repentance is not necessary.
They are saying, if it's not suffused with faith in Jesus Christ, then it's legal and
not evangelical repentance.
Strangely enough, while the Marrow controversy was going on, Thomas Boston was actually in
his congregation preaching a whole series of sermons on repentance.
Of course, they believed in the necessity of repentance, but they understood that repentance
is not the means by which we come to Christ.
It is the, as it were, the other side of that faith in which we entrust ourselves to Christ.
And so, if people thought about repentance and faith chronologically, the Marrow Men
were saying, 'You're in danger of legalism, you're in danger of a non-evangelical view
of what repentance is, and you need to set it within the context of the grace of God
in the gospel.'
Calvin shared that view.
He says, "A man cannot apply himself seriously to repentance without knowing himself to belong
to God.
But no one is truly persuaded that he belongs to God unless he has first recognized God's
grace."
Now, in a way that brings us back, I think, to the parable of the waiting father, or the
two sons, or the prodigal son.
What's the message there?
The message is that Jesus teaches three parables in a row to those who trusted in themselves
and who despised the way in which Jesus was freely offering mercy and salvation to sinners,
because they wanted to insist, "No, they're not ready for the gospel.
They're not good enough for the gospel.
They're not repenting, and so they're not really qualified to hear the gospel."
And Jesus tells these three stories.
A shepherd who has lost one of a hundred sheep.
And he goes out and looks for that lost sheep.
A woman who's lost one of 10 coins, and she goes out and looks.
And a father who has lost one of two sons.
There's a heightening tension, isn't there?
One thing to lose one sheep if you still have ninety-nine; one coin if you still have the
other nine -- but one son and only one son left.
And then in the far country, what leads the son in the far country to repentance?
It is the memory that there is food in his father's house.
It's a most amazing event takes places in his experience.
Here he is, he is at the end of himself, and he doesn't say, "I think I need to repent."
He says there is food in the father's house.
It's the thought of the -- just in the story -- it's just the possibility that there might
be provision for his need in his father's house that first brings about the turning
home.
Or to put it in theological terms, it's the way in which the mercy of God evokes beginning
faith in his life that makes him say, "Then I will return.
I will go home.
I will repent."
And then as he begins to do this, something to me very interesting happens.
Here he is awakened to a sense of the kindness and mercy of the father, and as he begins
to go home he's rehearsing a little speech, isn't he?
You can understand that, you've done this.
Maybe you did this as a child.
You know, you did something really naughty at school, and all the way home you're thinking,
"Now, how am I going to put this to dad?"
And the way he's going to put it to dad is like this: "Father, I've sinned against heaven
and in your sight.
Make me one of your hired servants."
And now, what's the idea there?
A hired servant is someone who will earn wages.
And what he's thinking is, "Father, if you make me one of your hired servants, maybe
there's some way I can repay that debt."
I -- maybe this is just my own experience, but I think this is what happens to many people
when they really are awakened, it certainly happened to me when I was spiritually awakened
as a youngster.
I was absolutely determined I would do better for God.
And you see, he's rehearsing the speech as he -- home is up a hill apparently.
And he's getting near home, and he's still rehearsing the speech.
And then flying down the hill comes the father.
And he opens his mouth, because he's -- he has got his speech letter perfect.
"Father, I've sinned against heaven and in your sight.
I'm no longer worthy to be called your son."
And then his father squeezes the breath out of him.
Actually in some of the older translations they translated some words that didn't actually
exist in the original text, but that some scribe, you know, writing down his copy of
Luke chapter 15 had thought, "Well, when he was beginning to come home he said, 'Make
me one of your hired servants.'
So, that must have been missing, so let me add that in."
But in the original text the father squeezes that out of him.
And he's no longer able to -- before he can say, "Make me one of your hired servants,"
he has embraced him in his love.
He's called behind his back, "Bring out the robe, bring out the ring, get the fatted calf
ready."
And he's still holding onto the boy.
He's not going to let this boy say, "Make me one of your hired servants," because, "This
my son was lost and is found.
He was dead and he is alive."
And pictorially it's as though the grace of the heavenly Father -- although to be truthful,
in the parable it's really Jesus who is the father, isn't it?
In Luke 15:1, they're criticizing Jesus, and in a way the father in the parable stands
for Jesus.
And if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father.
Remember in John's gospel?
So this is Jesus.
This is Jesus embracing us.
And as we want to say, "Oh Jesus, I'll try and be better.
Give me an opportunity to do better so I can begin to please you and work my way back into
your good graces," and he just holds on tighter.
And he says, "My child, you were lost and you're found.
You were dead and you're alive."
You know, the scholars who have done a great deal of work, not only in the text of the
New Testament, but in understanding the culture of the ancient Near East, all tell us that
this father could have done nothing more shameful than what he did.
We Westerners tend to think, "Go for it."
But if you were a Near Easterner, and you had seen this, you would have despised that
father.
What that father should have done was to have arranged a ceremony in which the prodigal
son would be shamed.
But you see what the father was doing within that cultural context, embracing his son?
The father is a picture of the Lord Jesus.
He was saying, "My son, I'll take the shame."
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned He stood, and sealed my pardon with
His blood.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!"
But what a tragedy that there was an older brother who saw all this and complained, "I've
been slaving for you for years and you've never given me anything."
Do you remember what the father said?
"Everything I have is yours."
That's the gospel that delivers us from legalism.
Video के उस moment पर जाने के लिए कोई भी text या timestamp click करें
Share करें:
ज्यादातर transcripts 5 सेकंड से कम में तैयार
एक Click में Copy125+ भाषाएंContent Search करेंTimestamps पर जाएं
YouTube URL Paste करें
कोई भी YouTube video link डालें और पूरा transcript पाएं
Transcript निकालें
ज्यादातर transcripts 5 सेकंड से कम में तैयार
हमारा Chrome Extension लें
YouTube छोड़े बिना transcript तुरंत पाएं। हमारा Chrome extension install करें और watch page पर ही किसी भी video का transcript one-click में access करें।
Chrome Extension