05.16. The Nature, Necessity, Importance, And Definition Of Repentance
XIII THE NATURE, NECESSITY, IMPORTANCE, AND DEFINITION OF REPENTANCE In the preaching of John the Baptist we come to the words "repent" and "repentance," and here, as well as elsewhere, we may at length consider the whole Bible doctrine of repentance. We will find that great prominence is given in the Bible to the duty of repentance. It is a staple of preaching and teaching in both Testaments. Among the noted Old Testament preachers of repentance may be named Enoch, Noah, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Jonah, and Malachi. The more noted of the New Testament preachers of this doctrine are John the Baptist, our Lord himself, Peter, Paul, and John, the apostle. The universality of the obligation to repent was announced by Paul at Athens in these words: "God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Of the necessity of repentance, our Lord himself declares, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).
It may be observed that all of God’s commandments are not of equal importance. Our Lord himself mentions one as the "first great commandment." A mistake in obedience to some of these commandments is not necessarily fatal. For example, a penitent believer may make a mistake about baptism. He may honestly intend to be baptized, and yet, through a false education, he may not have obeyed the commandment of God as to the act and design and administrator of this ordinance. This mistake is not fatal, because God has not made baptism essential to salvation, but salvation essential to baptism. But we cannot make a mistake as to repentance with like impunity.
No matter how much one may desire to repent, nor how often he may resolve to repent, unless he actually repents he is lost, because God has made repentance a prerequisite to eternal life.
Another fact suggests its great importance. Paul declares it to be one of the first principles of the oracles of God (Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1). The first principles in any science are valuable because they are fundamental, that is, knowledge of them is essential to further progress in that science. So Paul argues in the scriptures cited. He complains that he must go back and teach them again the first principles before they are ready to go on unto perfection. Fundamental means "pertaining to a foundation," and in one of the scriptures cited Paul says, "Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works." This not only implies the fundamental character of repentance, but its permanence. Indeed, this foundation can never be laid but once. Following his hypothetical argument the apostle shows that if a regenerated man should fall away it would be impossible to renew him again to repentance, so that this work once done is done once for all. The reader will understand me in this to refer to that primary repentance which precedes and induces the faith which saves the soul. A Christian may often repent.
One cannot build a big house on a little foundation. The relation of a foundation, therefore, to its superstructure is quite important. The size, weight, and durability of the latter depend on the depth, breadth, and solidity of the former. Hence it is never wise to economize in foundations. Our Lord illustrates the value of the foundation at the close of his Sermon on the Mount, both positively and negatively, in the following language; "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these saying of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it" (Matthew 7:24-27). The same value appears in David’s inquiry: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalms 11:3). Those vain imaginations which have no foundation in fact are called air castles. From their insubstantial nature may be inferred the little value of a profession of personal religion not bottomed on repentance.
Repentance appears further as a first principle in that it is the required preparation for the reception of Christ. The work of John the Baptist is the most illustrious example of repentance as a preparatory work. John is called the harbinger, or forerunner, of our Lord, and was commissioned to "prepare the way before him and make ready a people prepared for him" (Matthew 3:3). This he did by "preaching repentance" (Matthew 3:2). The nature of his work as a preparation was foretold by both Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3-8) and Malachi (Malachi 3:1). The following words of Isaiah in a striking figure foreshow a part of the characteristics of repentance: "Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain" (Isaiah 40:4). Elsewhere he uses the following words: "Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of my people" (Isaiah 57:14); "Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people" (Isaiah 62:10). All the import of these figures can be expressed in the one word "grading," so that the work of John the Baptist was compared to the grading of a highway over which Christ was to come to his people. The value of such work in the material things indicated by the figure is sufficiently attested by those movements of ancient skills, the Roman and Peruvian roads, and the modern railroads. Jeremiah presents the same thought negatively by combating the evil results of impenitence to walking in a way not "cast up" (Jeremiah 18:15). We may describe, therefore, the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance, by this similitude: An engineer trying to run a train of cars through the woods, over the mountains, across rivers and ravines, where there are no prepared tracks. But the richness of prophetic description was not limited to one figure. We find Isaiah turning in the same connection from the figure of grading to one of agriculture, expressing thereby the same preparatory nature of John’s work. The image employed is that of burning the grass off a field (Isaiah 40:6-8). John’s preaching subsequently fulfilled this figure, of withering the grass of the flesh, in the most striking manner, by destroying all hope of fitness for the kingdom of God based on fleshly descent from Abraham (Matthew 3:9). Both Hosea and Jeremiah employ the agricultural figure, showing the preparatory nature of repentance. The words of Jeremiah are: "For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: Break up your fallow ground and sow not among thorns." According to this figure we may express the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance, under the similitude of a farmer expecting to reap a harvest from seed sown in a field whose stubble and thorns had not first been burned off and whose sod had not been broken. Our Saviour aptly describes the outcome of the folly of omitting this preparatory work in the parable of the sower, where he compares such people to stony, thorn-poisoned, pathtrodden ground which brought forth no fruit.
Mark emphasizes the preparatory work of repentance by calling John’s preaching of it "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1), and Luke by the declaration, "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). This is varied somewhat in Matthew’s statement: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" (Matthew 11:12).
The foregoing figures and images touching the nature of repentance enable us to express its relation to eternal life in the statement that it is an essential prerequisite to salvation to all subjects of gospel address.
Philosophically considered, repentance must precede faith. As a sick man must be convinced that he is sick before he will turn to a physician, or take his medicine, so the carnal mind must be withered before the renewed mind can be superinduced. This precedence is proved also from the Scriptures. John the Baptist put repentance before faith (Acts 19:4) ; so did our Lord (Mark 1:15); and Peter (Acts 2:38-41); and Paul (Acts 20:21; Hebrews 6:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:25). Indeed, there is no passage in the New Testament, naming both faith and repentance, in which faith comes first.
From the discussion so far we may sum up the nature, necessity and importance of repentance in the following brief statement: It is a staple of preaching in both Testaments. It is of universal obligation. It is a first principle of the gospel. It is fundamental and vital, being prerequisite to salvation. It is to personal religion what the clearing and breaking up of new ground is to a harvest, what the foundation is to a house, what the grading is to a highway, what the initial point is to a survey. It is the boundary between the covenants. It is the killing which precedes the making alive. It is that conviction of sickness which turns the sick man to the physician.
We may then say of the preacher who dares to leave out repentance in his preaching, that he leaves out one-half the terms of salvation and vitiates the other half; that he builds only air castles; that he vainly attempts to run the gospel relief train where there is no prepared track; that he commends the doctor to well people; that he baptizes raw sinners and whitewashes the carnal nature; that he sows among thorns and in stubble land, in stony ground and on underlying rocks. We may also say of the preacher who minifies this doctrine that he thereby minifies the necessity for Christ; hence dwarfs the Redeemer himself. It is little sick – little physician; little sinner – little Saviour. It must be evident, therefore, that it is the duty of every preacher of the gospel to preach repentance just as often, and with as much emphasis, and to as many people, as he preaches faith. As illustrative of the value of such preaching it may be justly said of all the great preachers, like Spurgeon, Bunyon Whitefield, Moody, Jonathan Edwards, and, indeed, all who have been successful in winning souls to Christ, that they all laid great and frequent stress on the duty of repentance. From all these things it certainly ought to fol- low that preachers at least should have clear conceptions of the meaning, place and relations of repentance. Usually, however, they have not these clear conceptions. Many cannot define the term. If a thousand were asked to write out in succession a definition in the fewest possible words, but few of them would give the right definition, and there would be great vagueness, variety and contradiction in the others. It is proper to state a few examples of variant definitions given by prominent people:
Sam Jones: "Quit your meanness."
D. L. Moody: "Right about face."
Alexander Campbell: "Reformation."
The Romanist Bible (rendering Matthew 3:2) : "Do penance."
A. W. Chambliss: "Godly sorrow for sin."
Our common version, in Matthew 27:3, makes it equivalent to "Remorse of conscience."
Many speakers and writers: "Restitution."
M. T. Martin: "Knowing God and turning from dead works."
Such variations in definitions (and many others might be added) sufficiently indicate the necessity of a closer study of this doctrine in the New Testament than is ordinarily given to it. Here it is important to observe that the New Testament was written in Greek. Happily for us, we find in one brief paragraph in 2 Corinthians 7:1-16 a number of terms covering the whole ground.
The verb,lupeo, to grieve, to make sorry.
The noun,lupe,grief, sorrow.
Lupe tou kosmou, a phrase signifying "worldly sorrow."
Lupe kata theon, another phrase meaning "godly sorrow."
The verb,metamelomai,to regret.
The noun,metanoia, repentance.
The adjective,ametameletos,not regrettable.
In this context, and elsewhere, our common version rendersmetamelomai,"repent." As the instances of its use in the New Testament are few, I now cite every one:
Matthew 21:29 : "Afterward he repented and went."
Matthew 21:32 : "Ye repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."
Matthew 27:3-5 : "Judas repented himself . . . and went and hanged himself."
2 Corinthians 2:8 : "I do not repent, though I did repent."
Hebrews 7:21 : "The Lord swear and will not repent."
A better rendering, perhaps, in every case of this usage would be obtained by substituting the word "regret." "Repent" is an inappropriate rendering for this verb, because, first, metamelomai does not express the full idea of New Testament repentance. For example, Judas repented and went and hanged himself, but "repentance is unto life," and it is worldly sorrow that worketh death. Second, because there is another term always employed in expressing New Testament repentance. That other term is the noun, metanoia, from the verb, metanoeo.I cite for the benefit of the reader every New Testament use of the verb, and ask him to look at each reference and note its application to our doctrine. Matthew uses the term five times, as follows: Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 11:20-21; Matthew 12:41. Mark twice: Mark 1:15; Mark 6:12. Luke ten times in his Gospel: Luke 10:13; Luke 11:32; Luke 13:3; Luke 13:5; Luke 15:7; Luke 15:10; Luke 16:30; Luke 17:3-4; Luke 17:30. In Acts five times more: Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22; Acts 17:30; Acts 26:20. Paul once: 2 Corinthians 12:21. John eleven times: Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 2:21-22; Revelation 3:3; Revelation 3:19; Revelation 9:20-21; Revelation 16:9; Revelation 16:11. Thirty-four times in all. Matthew uses the noun three times: Matthew 3:8; Matthew 3:11; Matthew 9:13. Mark twice: Mark 1:14; Mark 2:17. Luke five times in his Gospel: Luke 3:3; Luke 3:8; Luke 5:32; Luke 15:7; Luke 24:47. Six times in Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20. Paul seven times: Romans 11:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 2 Timothy 2:25; Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 6:6; Hebrews 12:17. Peter once: 2 Peter 3:9. In all, twenty-four. We thus observe that this term, as a noun or verb, is employed fifty-eight times in the New Testament, occurring in books by Matthew eight times; Mark four times; Luke twenty-six times; John eleven times; Peter one time; Paul eight times; and in every instance refers unmistakably to the New Testament doctrine of repentance, and to nothing else.
It should be noted also carefully that repentance is declared to be the product of godly sorrow, lupe kata theon; and that it always ends in salvation, eternal life (Acts 11:18; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10). Hence it follows that repentance is always ametameletos, "not regrettable." This adjective is compounded from the verb melein and the preposition, meta, and the privative particle a.
We advance in our knowledge of metanoeo, to repent, and metanoia, repentance, by considering that there is a Greek noun, nous, the mind. There is also a Greek verb which tells what the mind does –noeo,to think, perceive, understand. Then there is the preposition, meta, which, in composition withnoeo, expresses the idea of change, transition, sequence. Therefore, we may say thatmetanoeoalways means "to think back, to change the mind," while the noun,metanoia,always means afterthought, asoonosedto forethought,chanereof mind We may, therefore, give as the one invariable definition of New Testament repentance that it is a change of mind, from which it is evident that its domain is limited. It is necessarily internal, not external.
The necessity for its universal application as a prerequisite to Christian character and life lies in the fact that the carnal mind, which is the normal mind of fallen man, is enmity against God, not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. To be carnally-minded is death, since they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Hence, from enmity against God, repentance is a change of mind toward God. It is a reversal of, or turning upside down, the carnal mind. Perhaps one may say this makes repentance the equivalent of regeneration. My reply is that our exercise of both repentance and faith is but the underside, whose upper or divine side is called regeneration. This fact explains how repentance is a grace. Hence the saying, "Jesus Christ was exalted a Prince and Saviour to give repentance to Israel," and "God hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."
We are now prepared to show seriatim the folly of the false definitions cited. First, worldly sorrow, or remorse of conscience, cannot be repentance because of its origin and end. It is from the world and worketh death. For example, Judas; for illustration, Byron’s "Scorpion Girt with Fire:" So do the dark in soul expire, Or live like scorpion girt with fire; So writhes the mind remorse hath given; Unfit for earth, undoomed for heaven, Darkness above, despair beneath, Around it flame, within it death.
Second, godly sorrow is not repentance, for it worketh repentance, and we may not confound the producer and the product. For example, the Bible says, "Tribulation worketh patience," and one would not say, "Tribulation is patience." So neither should we say, "Godly sorrow is repentance."
Third, Sam Jones’ definition, "Quit your meanness," is not to repent, for that is only one half and a negative half at that of Campbell’s definition, "Reform." Isaiah gives both halves thus: "Ceasing to do evil and learning to do well." But neither the one nor the other is a definition of repentance, since reformation is the "fruit meet for repentance," so well stated in the following scriptures: "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). ’’Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father, for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the tree; every tree, therefore, which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. And the people asked him saying, What shall we do then? He answered and said unto them, he that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also the publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, and what shall we do? And he said unto them, do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:8-14). "So the people of Nineveh believed God and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water; but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way and from the violence that is in their hands" (Jonah 3:5-8). "For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you; yea, what clearing of yourselves; yea, what indignation; yea, what fear; yea, what vehement desire; yea, what zeal; yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter" (2 Corinthians 7:11). "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless; plead for the widow" (Isaiah 1:16-17). "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men; and they counted the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver" (Acts 19:19).
Fourth, acknowledging a fault or saying we are sorry is not repentance, though repentance leads naturally to confession of sin, as appears from the fact that John’s penitents were baptized "confessing their sins," and from what is said of the Ephesian penitents (Acts 19:18): "And many that believed came and confessed and showed their deeds."
Fifth, Mr. Moody’s definition, "Right about face," is not repentance, for that is conversion in literal import. In the divine influence originating it, conversion precedes repentance as thus expressed by Jeremiah 31:19 : "After that I was turned I repented." But in our exercise it follows repentance, as expressed by Peter, "Repent and be converted" (Acts 3:19). Sixth, "Do penance." The Romanist translation of Matthew 3:2 conveys an idea antipodal to repentance. Repentance is internal. Doing penance is external. Repentance deals directly with God; penance obeys an earthly priest. Penance inflicts punishment on the flesh. Repentance turns the spirit lovingly to God.
Seventh, restitution is not repentance, but only one of its ripest fruits. Zaccheus well illustrates this in his words to Christ: "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8).
Eighth, M. T. Martin’s definition, "Knowing God and turning from dead works," is not a definition of repentance, and without a clear explanation is misleading as an equivalent. The idea of this so-called definition is derived from two scriptures, to wit: "Repentance from dead works," (Hebrews 6:1) and "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). In this latter scripture the definer assumes that "knowing God" is repentance, and "knowing Jesus Christ" is faith. The assumption is more plausible than correct. In effect it changes the scriptural order of repentance and faith, for we cannot know the Father except through the Son, which under the definition would make us get to repentance only through faith. Moreover, if knowing the Father and the Son as a means to eternal life must have an equivalent, it would be more exact to make faith the equivalent of both. But, arguing logically, the true equivalent of the "knowing" in this case is eternal life, and as the life is a result, so must knowing, its equivalent, be a result; and as the life results from faith, so must the knowing, its equivalent, so result. The liability to abuse arising from making the phrase "knowing God" a definition of repentance, and the phrase, "knowing Jesus Christ" a definition of faith, lies in the common misconception of the import of the word "know" in variant Bible usage. It is often employed to express the idea of approbation rather than information. There is no eternal life in the knowledge that stops at mere information. The demon said to Jesus, "I know thee, who thou art, thou Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24). And James also says, "The demons also believe and tremble." It is therefore not so much information which men need as a renewed mind. The fact is both notable and significant, that those who most insist on knowing God as a definition of repentance are those who most minify its importance, preach it seldom and virtually make it equivalent to a mere intellectual perception logically resulting from a clear statement of a truth.
Ninth, benevolence is not repentance, though surely an accompaniment or fruit of it. A man once said in my hearing, "I can do more repentance with a barrel of flour and a side of bacon than was ever found at a mourner’s bench." If this statement could be construed to mean that true repentance evidences itself more in deeds of charity to the needy than in mere bemoanings of one’s self, whether at or aside from a bench, it might claim some merit, but it is not fairly susceptible of such construction; hence is faulty at both ends. The sneer at the mourner and the affirmation that one repents by deeds of charity are alike unscriptural. Yea, they both embody deadly heresies. From the first as a root, two baleful branches shoot out, to wit: One, that we may cultivate the carnal mind into a Christian mind by a process of giving; the other, that we may atone for sin by subsequent benefactions. Both are antipodal to repentance, in that it signifies a supernatural renewal of the mind and leads to faith, which lays hold on substitutionary atonement.
It may be said that there is in the most of these false definitions either such an element of truth, or such nearness to truth, that the heresy is dangerous, because plausible. It is important to account for this looseness in definition. The average mind is not given to analysis, and hence, Judging from phenomena alone, illogically blends or interchanges cause and effect, attributes manifestations to wrong causes, or confounds things externally similar but internally dissimilar. This may be illustrated by any one of the false definitions cited. For example, the external symptoms of remorse, or worldly sorrow, and godly sorrow, may easily be confounded by a superficial judge. Even Dr. Adam dark evinces great lack of discrimination by finding hope of salvation in the case of Judas, because under the promptings of remorse he threw down the blood money, saying, "I have betrayed the innocent blood." So through the ages, over-sanguine and sympathetic temperaments have been accustomed to deduce most unwarranted inferences from the remorse of the ungodly manifestations in a dying hour, and particularly in the case of criminals about to be executed. Herein consists one of the excellencies of the divine judgment. It is not according to appearances.
Again, because godly sorrow, the mediate agent of repentance, and confession, conversion, reformation and restitution, its unfailing results, all have external visibility; while repentance, itself being internal, is inscrutable, it is quite easy for one who judges by the sight of his eyes, to miscall any one of them repentance. We may get somewhat nearer to the heart of this matter by noting the fact that, if from a given sentence you erase a word and substitute an alleged definition therefor, the definition, if accurate, will not only invariably make good sense, but will also certainly convey the true sense, while a false definition so substituted will not likely make good sense, and will certainly change the original meaning. For illustration, suppose we write on a blackboard this sentence: "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance," then erasing the word "repentance," substitute therefore successively the ten false and the one true definitions heretofore given, and see which one not only makes the best sense) but conveys the original sense. In trying this experiment it must be remembered that in this sentence "without repentance" refers to God, and not to the one who receives, or who is called.
The gifts and calling of God are without worldly sorrow, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without godly sorrow, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without quitting his meanness.
The gifts and calling of God are without reformation, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without conversion, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without his doing penance.
The gifts and calling of God are without restitution, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without his knowing God and turning from dead works.
The gifts and calling of God are without benefactions.
Here let us substitute the true definition, "The gifts and calling of God are without a change of mind," which means what? That God never takes back what he gives; that he never reconsiders when he calls. That if he gives one eternal life all the devils in hell can never pluck it away; that if he calls one unto eternal life, that calling will insure every other step in the process of salvation. The same thought is expressed in that other scripture, which says of God, "He is without variableness or shadow of turning," or that other scripture which declares him to be "the same yesterday, today and forever." It follows that this scripture teaches the doctrine of the final preservation of the saints, based upon the unchangeableness of the divine purpose.
QUESTIONS 1. What is prominence is given in the Bible to the duty of repentance?
2. Mention some noted Old Testament preachers of the doctrine; some New Testament preachers.
3. What says Paul about the universality of the obligation?
4. What says our Lord of its necessity?
5. Are all God’s commandments of equal importance?
6. Is a mistake about baptism fatal? Why not?
7. A mistake as to repentance? Why?
8. What other fact suggests its importance?
9. State the value of first principles in any science.
10. What is the meaning of fundamental?
11. Cite a scripture which calls repentance a part of the foundation of Christian doctrine.
12. Can one build a big house on a little foundation?
13. State the relation of a foundation to its superstructure. Is it wise to economize in foundations? How does our Lord illustrate the value of the foundation? How David?
14. What do we call these vain imaginations which have no foundation in fact?
15. What then is the value of a profession of religion not bottomed on repentance?
16. How else does it appear that repentance is a first principle?
17. Illustrate this by the work of John the Baptist.
18. What prophets foretold the nature of John’s work?
19. Cite Isaiah’s words foreshadowing a part of its characteristics.
20. Elsewhere what words?
21. What one word expresses all this work?
22. Apply this to ancient Roman and Peruvian roads and to modern railroads, showing its utility.
23. Cite the words of Jeremiah showing the evil results of impenitence, by comparing it to walking in a way not cast up.
24. What similitude, therefore, describes the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance?
25. What agricultural figure does Isaiah also employ to express the nature of this preparatory work?
26. How did John’s preaching fulfil this figure of "withering the grass" of the flesh?
27. How did other prophets extend the agricultural figure, showing the preparatory nature of repentance?
28. According to this figure what similitude expresses the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance?
29. How does our Saviour describe the outcome of the folly of omit ting this preparatory work?
30. In what way does Mark emphasize the preparatory work of repentance? How Luke? How Matthew?
31. What then may we say of the relation of repentance to eternal life?
32. Why, philosophically, must repentance precede faith?
33. Prove this precedence from the scriptures.
34. Is there any passage in the New Testament containing both terms in which faith comes first?
35. From the discussion so far, sum up the nature, necessity and importance of repentance.
36. What can you say of the preacher whose preaching leaves out repentance?
37. Of the one whose preaching minifies it?
38. What, then, is every preacher’s duty concerning this doctrine?
39. What may be justly said of all the great preachers who have been successful in winning souls to Christ?
40. What ought to follow from all these things?
41. Have they usually these clear conceptions?
42. Cite examples of variant definitions by prominent people.
43. Are you now willing to go into a New Testament examination of this fundamental and vital doctrine?
44. In what language was the New Testament written?
45. What Greek terms bearing on this subject are to be found in one paragraph of 2 Corinthians 7:1-16?
46. How does the common version render the verb metamelomai in this chapter?
47. Does it always so render this verb?
48. Cite every instance of its use in the New Testament.
49. How may you give a better rendering?
50. Why is "repent" an inappropriate rendering of this verb?
51. What is the other Greek term?
52. Cite every New Testament use of both the verb and the noun, noting its application to the doctrine.
53. What may be said of this use?
54. Of what is repentance declared to be the product?
55. In what does it always end?
56. What follows?
57. What other New Testament use of this adjective?
58. Tell us more about metanoeo, to repent, and metanoia, repentance.
59. Therefore what do these terms always mean?
60. What, then, is the one invariable definition of New Testament repentance?
61. How, then, is the domain limited?
62. Wherein lies the necessity of its universal obligation as a pre requisite to Christian character and life?
63. But does this make repentance the equivalent of regeneration?
64. What fact does this explain?
65. Show now seriatim, the folly of all the false definitions.
66. If from a given sentence we erase a word and substitute therefore an alleged definition, what follows?
67. Illustrate the folly of the false definitions given by a blackboard exercise on the sentence, "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance."