Synods 2022-2023 only really dealt with the affirming position at the confessional level. They made it clear that such beliefs were contrary to the confessions. However, they never declared anything about the gravity of the error.
I believe that is why the "salvation issue" language was chosen. There was a desire to indicate that the affirming position is not only unconfessional (anti-paedobaptism is unconfessional) but an error that "strikes at the vitals of religion." I guess we could debate whether "salvation issue" was the best language available; however we do find that kind of language in the catechism in places like Q/A 94 ("That I, not wanting to endanger my own salvation, avoid and shun all idolatry, sorcery, superstitious rites, and prayer to saints or to other creatures...")
Interesting history and analysis, Kent. I think the issue is even more simple and profound. As Paul says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. The question is, what does "believe" mean, or to put it another way, what is faith? For many of us, Evangelicals and Reformed folks alike, this has typically meant to hold to some statement of faith. To believe that Jesus died for your sins, for example, or to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In his book, "Gospel Allegiance." Matthew Bates makes the point that faith is not just an intellectual affirmation, a belief, it is a commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord. It is discipleship, following Jesus. That's why, astoundingly, every time the final judgement is mentioned in the NT, it is by works, by what we have done. Salvation is being a follower, not just a believer. As to who is saved, I think Paul teaches that everyone will finally be reconciled to God, but though a refining fire that is hellish in nature.
Len, wouldn't your redefinition of faith and "every time the final judgment is mentioned it is by works" lead to the conclusion even more strongly that unrepentant sin is a salvation issue? Because that person is actively practicing anti-allegiance and bad works.
Now your Universalism definitely gets them out of that pickle, but that's a different topic.
How close does the Heidelberg Catechism get us to this? If we read Q&A 21 by itself probably not but if we go on to 86-91 I see commitment and following of Christ as indispensable fruit.
An interesting summary, but I take issue with one area (well, and your conclusions).
"With this definition of repentance, God still initiates all the work, but it still makes salvation dependent on repentance. Salvation and repentance go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without other."
This feels like a slippery move here. Either it comes from a misunderstanding of the discussion, or it is used to purposefully present a false depiction of what we (the panel) said.
It's not that out of line to say that "you can't have one without the other", assuming repentance is understood as a heartfelt ("believing repentance" as Patrick said below) repentance. But your error is in the first sentence. "It still makes salvation dependent on repentance". No. Repentance is always dependent upon salvation. To be specific, on regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and then faith and repentance. The correct order means everything.
True salvation by the Holy Spirit ALWAYS produced repentance. "You can't have one without other". But you still cannot say "it makes salvation dependent on repentance".
I think a key here is that repentance isn't always visible to others. It can be verbalized and should be revealed in how we live (the word "turn" that the Bible uses always has both mind and behavior in view), but we cannot see thoughts.
Yet, here is a key one-sentence takeaway for you...
Unrepentant sin is a "salvation issue" because unrepentant sin is a WARNING sign that faith and salvation might not be there in the first place.
Trevor, thanks for the response. I think I’m having trouble understanding the difference between: “It still makes salvation dependent on repentance” and “Repentance is always dependent upon salvation.” If unrepentant sin signals the possible absence of salvation, doesn’t repented sin signal the presence of salvation? And if that's the cause, can the causality go both ways?
I'm not necessarily arguing this, I'm just trying to understand what *you* are arguing for here. This is genuinely where I thought the panel was going.
And I’m not sure I see this as a conflict. It feels chicken-and-egg-ish: which came first, the salvation or the repentance? If God is doing the work of saving already (preordained), then it feels like a mute, point, I guess. So: I don't see these statements as in opposition to each other, and if they are, because of God's foreknowledge (it's all happened already), I don't see why it matters.
It matters a great deal. And I kinda wish you would have asked this question before writing the original article.
Two things can sometimes be co-dependent, but many causal relationship cannot be switched around, and one such relationship is the relationship between salvation and repentance. Repentance is always the result of salvation, the fruit of salvation. (Now Dr. Vandenberg is correct that salvation is an umbrella term, covering multiple truths. For this point, I'm specifically referring to the act of regeneration by the Holy spirit and union with Christ being NECESSARY for true repentance to exist.)
Repentance cannot "cause" salvation. This is the essence of Total Depravity and Election. Our Total Depravity makes repentance prior to salvation an impossibility. It is only after the unilateral work of God through the work of the Holy Spirit in granting us regeneration and union with Christ that true repentance can (and the clincher: must) happen. The two dominoes always fall together, but repentance is never the one knocking down the other. This is scandal and heart of Calvinism.
It's the heart of the Calvinism v Arminianism debate.
Invoking God's foreknowledge is to invoke Molinism, which is also contrary to Calvinism.
We are here interacting at the very floor level of "Reformed".
Hey Kent, I always appreciate your thorough analysis. I don't know if I would locate repentance as merely a fruit. I would agree with Sinclair Ferguson who said something along the lines of we believe repentantly and we repent believingly. Faith is the only requirement for justification but is always accompanied by saving graces, including repentance. Additionally, there is great danger in willful, knowing disobedience (1 Kings 13:11-25). I think our confessions do a masterful job of articulating the nuance of these biblical truths.
Upon reflection, I do think it was unfortunate committee 1's first recommendation to the floor included the term, "salvation issue." Also, you are correct, the recommendation was redundant. Synod has ruled that sexual sin threatens one's salvation (there's also the clarity of the confessions and Scripture on the matter). However, in our current CRC context, it was their second recommendation that got defeated (because it was taken together with their first recommendation) that really disappointed me. They didn't go so far as to declare it heresy (though, I would have no problem with that), but they did declare it a deviation from sound doctrine, which would have rendered officebearers subject to discipline (C.O. Articles 82-84).
Additionally, you said you would consider mercy primary to justice. Yet, isn't that what the cross is portrays. 100% mercy and 100% justice. Neither is primary. God exhausts both.
Finally, I would push back on the idea that one can forgive without repentance. The offer of the gospel is free but one must repent and believe in order to be forgiven. We model our forgiveness after God's - which is contingent on repentance (Luke 17:3). Even the great Nicholas Walterstorff said:
"I can be willing to forgive him—when he repents. I can have a forgiving disposition toward him. But it appears to me that no longer to hold against someone the wrong he did one while believing that he himself continues to stand behind the deed, requires not treating the deed or its doer with the moral seriousness required for forgiveness."
However, if you psychologize forgiveness and make it something I do within myself to make myself feel better, then I can forgive without repentance. But, as Walterstorff says, that minimizes the seriousness of the deed. We need both 100% mercy and 100% justice. Here's a great article on the subject (where I got the Walterstorff quote):
Patrick, thanks for this. I’m getting out of my theological depth here. The thing I’m wrestling with here are the myriad instances where mercy does precede justice. I named a few in the post, and there are a lot of others. I’m not saying God necessarily is more merciful than he is just, I’m just suggesting if he were, then this would be consistent with his nature and character. And that is what is giving me pause here.
I gave it a quick skim, and it appears I’m going to need to block out an hour this weekend to digest it. (Reading a Wolterstorff article on a Thursday morning is going to tank my productivity for the rest of the day…) Thanks for the link; I may be willing to modify my views on this.
If we are to believe Matthew 25, the main salvation issue is "doing it to the least of these". I don't read anywhere about giving it to the richest of these...other than perhaps the rich man who gets the judgment of God for neglecting Lazarus (Luke 16).
Then there's John the Baptist...
"It’s your life that must change, not your skin. And don’t think you can pull rank by claiming Abraham as ‘father.’ Being a child of Abraham is neither here nor there—children of Abraham are a dime a dozen. God can make children from stones if he wants. What counts is your life. Is it green and flourishing? Because if it’s deadwood, it goes on the fire.” (Luke 3)
Synods 2022-2023 only really dealt with the affirming position at the confessional level. They made it clear that such beliefs were contrary to the confessions. However, they never declared anything about the gravity of the error.
I believe that is why the "salvation issue" language was chosen. There was a desire to indicate that the affirming position is not only unconfessional (anti-paedobaptism is unconfessional) but an error that "strikes at the vitals of religion." I guess we could debate whether "salvation issue" was the best language available; however we do find that kind of language in the catechism in places like Q/A 94 ("That I, not wanting to endanger my own salvation, avoid and shun all idolatry, sorcery, superstitious rites, and prayer to saints or to other creatures...")
Interesting history and analysis, Kent. I think the issue is even more simple and profound. As Paul says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. The question is, what does "believe" mean, or to put it another way, what is faith? For many of us, Evangelicals and Reformed folks alike, this has typically meant to hold to some statement of faith. To believe that Jesus died for your sins, for example, or to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In his book, "Gospel Allegiance." Matthew Bates makes the point that faith is not just an intellectual affirmation, a belief, it is a commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord. It is discipleship, following Jesus. That's why, astoundingly, every time the final judgement is mentioned in the NT, it is by works, by what we have done. Salvation is being a follower, not just a believer. As to who is saved, I think Paul teaches that everyone will finally be reconciled to God, but though a refining fire that is hellish in nature.
Len, wouldn't your redefinition of faith and "every time the final judgment is mentioned it is by works" lead to the conclusion even more strongly that unrepentant sin is a salvation issue? Because that person is actively practicing anti-allegiance and bad works.
Now your Universalism definitely gets them out of that pickle, but that's a different topic.
How close does the Heidelberg Catechism get us to this? If we read Q&A 21 by itself probably not but if we go on to 86-91 I see commitment and following of Christ as indispensable fruit.
An interesting summary, but I take issue with one area (well, and your conclusions).
"With this definition of repentance, God still initiates all the work, but it still makes salvation dependent on repentance. Salvation and repentance go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without other."
This feels like a slippery move here. Either it comes from a misunderstanding of the discussion, or it is used to purposefully present a false depiction of what we (the panel) said.
It's not that out of line to say that "you can't have one without the other", assuming repentance is understood as a heartfelt ("believing repentance" as Patrick said below) repentance. But your error is in the first sentence. "It still makes salvation dependent on repentance". No. Repentance is always dependent upon salvation. To be specific, on regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and then faith and repentance. The correct order means everything.
True salvation by the Holy Spirit ALWAYS produced repentance. "You can't have one without other". But you still cannot say "it makes salvation dependent on repentance".
I think a key here is that repentance isn't always visible to others. It can be verbalized and should be revealed in how we live (the word "turn" that the Bible uses always has both mind and behavior in view), but we cannot see thoughts.
Yet, here is a key one-sentence takeaway for you...
Unrepentant sin is a "salvation issue" because unrepentant sin is a WARNING sign that faith and salvation might not be there in the first place.
Trevor, thanks for the response. I think I’m having trouble understanding the difference between: “It still makes salvation dependent on repentance” and “Repentance is always dependent upon salvation.” If unrepentant sin signals the possible absence of salvation, doesn’t repented sin signal the presence of salvation? And if that's the cause, can the causality go both ways?
I'm not necessarily arguing this, I'm just trying to understand what *you* are arguing for here. This is genuinely where I thought the panel was going.
And I’m not sure I see this as a conflict. It feels chicken-and-egg-ish: which came first, the salvation or the repentance? If God is doing the work of saving already (preordained), then it feels like a mute, point, I guess. So: I don't see these statements as in opposition to each other, and if they are, because of God's foreknowledge (it's all happened already), I don't see why it matters.
It matters a great deal. And I kinda wish you would have asked this question before writing the original article.
Two things can sometimes be co-dependent, but many causal relationship cannot be switched around, and one such relationship is the relationship between salvation and repentance. Repentance is always the result of salvation, the fruit of salvation. (Now Dr. Vandenberg is correct that salvation is an umbrella term, covering multiple truths. For this point, I'm specifically referring to the act of regeneration by the Holy spirit and union with Christ being NECESSARY for true repentance to exist.)
Repentance cannot "cause" salvation. This is the essence of Total Depravity and Election. Our Total Depravity makes repentance prior to salvation an impossibility. It is only after the unilateral work of God through the work of the Holy Spirit in granting us regeneration and union with Christ that true repentance can (and the clincher: must) happen. The two dominoes always fall together, but repentance is never the one knocking down the other. This is scandal and heart of Calvinism.
It's the heart of the Calvinism v Arminianism debate.
Invoking God's foreknowledge is to invoke Molinism, which is also contrary to Calvinism.
We are here interacting at the very floor level of "Reformed".
Hey Kent, I always appreciate your thorough analysis. I don't know if I would locate repentance as merely a fruit. I would agree with Sinclair Ferguson who said something along the lines of we believe repentantly and we repent believingly. Faith is the only requirement for justification but is always accompanied by saving graces, including repentance. Additionally, there is great danger in willful, knowing disobedience (1 Kings 13:11-25). I think our confessions do a masterful job of articulating the nuance of these biblical truths.
Upon reflection, I do think it was unfortunate committee 1's first recommendation to the floor included the term, "salvation issue." Also, you are correct, the recommendation was redundant. Synod has ruled that sexual sin threatens one's salvation (there's also the clarity of the confessions and Scripture on the matter). However, in our current CRC context, it was their second recommendation that got defeated (because it was taken together with their first recommendation) that really disappointed me. They didn't go so far as to declare it heresy (though, I would have no problem with that), but they did declare it a deviation from sound doctrine, which would have rendered officebearers subject to discipline (C.O. Articles 82-84).
Additionally, you said you would consider mercy primary to justice. Yet, isn't that what the cross is portrays. 100% mercy and 100% justice. Neither is primary. God exhausts both.
Finally, I would push back on the idea that one can forgive without repentance. The offer of the gospel is free but one must repent and believe in order to be forgiven. We model our forgiveness after God's - which is contingent on repentance (Luke 17:3). Even the great Nicholas Walterstorff said:
"I can be willing to forgive him—when he repents. I can have a forgiving disposition toward him. But it appears to me that no longer to hold against someone the wrong he did one while believing that he himself continues to stand behind the deed, requires not treating the deed or its doer with the moral seriousness required for forgiveness."
However, if you psychologize forgiveness and make it something I do within myself to make myself feel better, then I can forgive without repentance. But, as Walterstorff says, that minimizes the seriousness of the deed. We need both 100% mercy and 100% justice. Here's a great article on the subject (where I got the Walterstorff quote):
https://christoverall.com/article/longform/should-christians-forgive-terrorists/
Patrick, thanks for this. I’m getting out of my theological depth here. The thing I’m wrestling with here are the myriad instances where mercy does precede justice. I named a few in the post, and there are a lot of others. I’m not saying God necessarily is more merciful than he is just, I’m just suggesting if he were, then this would be consistent with his nature and character. And that is what is giving me pause here.
It looks like the Wolterstorff quote comes from this long/substantive article: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/294460/c1.pdf
I gave it a quick skim, and it appears I’m going to need to block out an hour this weekend to digest it. (Reading a Wolterstorff article on a Thursday morning is going to tank my productivity for the rest of the day…) Thanks for the link; I may be willing to modify my views on this.
If we are to believe Matthew 25, the main salvation issue is "doing it to the least of these". I don't read anywhere about giving it to the richest of these...other than perhaps the rich man who gets the judgment of God for neglecting Lazarus (Luke 16).
Then there's John the Baptist...
"It’s your life that must change, not your skin. And don’t think you can pull rank by claiming Abraham as ‘father.’ Being a child of Abraham is neither here nor there—children of Abraham are a dime a dozen. God can make children from stones if he wants. What counts is your life. Is it green and flourishing? Because if it’s deadwood, it goes on the fire.” (Luke 3)