The origin of the following article was a statement made by Rev. Martyn McGeown on the blog of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) regarding Peter’s act of repentance after he had denied Jesus.¹ A brief, private email was sent to Reverend McGeown by Philip Rainey, in which he said that the statement made Peter’s repentance a condition to his assurance.

In December 2019 McGeown published this email as an introduction to his own lengthy blog article, in which he responded to the email and emphatically defended the statement regarding Peter’s act of repentance.²

Philip wrote a response to that article and sent it to McGeown and to the RFPA and requested that it be published on the blog. The RFPA’s membership and marketing committee decided the response should be published. In communication with McGeown to clarify details with him prior to publication of the response, it became clear he was unwilling to work through this committee that had oversight of the blog.

Instead, in apparent collusion with the Protestant Reformed hierarchy, McGeown wrote a letter to the RFPA board and urged the board not to make the response public. The board unfairly sided with McGeown and denied Philip the right to reply. It was bald censorship. That was part of a rampant history of censorship that had begun with the RFPA’s magazine, the Standard Bearer—a history that made the formation of Reformed Believers Publishing and the publication of Sword and Shield necessary.

Sword and Shield is a believer’s paper that arises out of the office of all believer. The magazine detests all cen-sorship and silencing of doctrinal discussion and especially the squelching of the office of believer. Unlike the Standard Bearer, which merely purports and pretends to be a free paper not under the control of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Sword and Shield is in actuality free and not under the control of any church institute.

So now, finally, Sword and Shield is pleased to publish this response to Rev. McGeown. The article is a believer’s witness to the truth in spite of the stifling censorship that was orchestrated against him.

This is a related article to Philip’s previous article, “Faith and Repentance as Conditions: A Return to the Mire,” which was published in the September 2021 issue of Sword and Shield. Both articles are a defense of election theology that teaches only one principle of activity necessary for salvation, namely God’s, over against the twin-track theology that teaches two principles of activity necessary for salvation: God’s and man’s.

The original purpose of the following article was to show how Reverend McGeown taught twin-track theology when he stated and then assiduously defended his statement that clearly made Peter’s act of repentance a prerequisite for his restoration to God’s favor. The theology of prerequisites is always twin-track. It is so because instead of making man’s activities of faith and repentance flow from election and thus be part of salvation, twin-track theology always places faith and repentance in a relation of contrast to election and thus makes them conditions to salvation.

—Board of Reformed Believers Publishing

——————

ELECTION AND REPENTANCE: A LONG-DELAYED RESPONSE

Introduction

I offer the following as my response to Reverend McGeown’s answer to my question about a statement he made in his blog post entitled “Abiding in Christ’s Love (3).” The statement in question reads: “Jesus loved Peter, but Peter had to weep bitterly with tears of repentance—which were the fruit of God’s grace—before [emphasis is his] he came to the renewed assurance of Jesus’ love for him.”

McGeown’s statement is clearly conditional. It is so because he makes Peter’s act of repentance a condition to salvation, specifically that aspect of salvation we call assurance. Nothing that he wrote in his reply removes that objection. Moreover, McGeown’s prolixity—he wrote almost eight pages in response to a letter of four paragraphs—is partly to be explained by his impossible quest to reconcile sovereign and particular grace with conditions in salvation.

We need only to analyze the statement to see that it is conditional. We have no need to go outside the statement, and we certainly have no need—nor should we attempt—to explain it within the context of other statements he has written. What I mean is that the brother’s erroneous statement is not justified by his orthodox statements. But I will go further than the statement itself, and I will do so because part of our discussion concerns the Canons of Dordt and what it says about the restoration of Peter and others from “lamentable falls.”

The Statement Itself

In his article McGeown discusses how believers can lose the enjoyment of Jesus’ love due to disobedience. As an example, he appeals to Peter’s sin of denying the Lord. Peter is an example of one who lost the consciousness of Jesus’ love. How can Peter be restored to the blessing of assurance? McGeown’s answer is, “Jesus loved Peter, but Peter had to weep bitterly with tears of repentance—which were the fruit of God’s grace—before he came to the renewed assurance of Jesus’ love for him.”

There are three elements in the above statement: Jesus loved Peter; Peter repented; Peter was renewed in assurance.

There is a fourth element—repentance as the fruit of God’s grace—which is parenthetical and as such is not part of the main thought of the sentence. Grammatically, it could be omitted and not affect the meaning of the sentence. With such an incidental clause, McGeown claims to have explained “the precise relationship” between Jesus’ love and Peter’s act of repentance. To make the main relationship in the sentence, that between Jesus’ love and Peter’s repentance, a mere parenthesis is no sufficient ground for such a crucial relationship. This fourth element then need not detain us. We must analyze the brother’s statement in terms of the relationship of its main elements.

Let us see how the elements of McGeown’s statement are connected. The first element is Jesus’ sovereign love for Peter. Sovereign love is the origin and power of the gospel. In sovereign love God chose those whom he would save: “The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people…But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers” (Deut. 7:7–8). This is a beautiful statement of the doctrine of election—God’s choice of his people in love.

Included in election is all the salvation that flows from it: “Election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects” (Canons of Dordt 1.9, in Confessions and Church Order, 157). As such, election includes repentance as one of the “gifts of salvation.”

The first element is therefore a statement of sovereign election. As such, all Peter’s salvation, including his repentance and assurance (and his restoration to assurance after his sin), is included in this first element, namely “Jesus loved Peter.” There you have the explanation for Peter’s restoration from his sin of denying his Lord.

The second element is Peter’s repentance, specifically his act of repentance. How does the brother relate this element to sovereign election? He does so by way of opposition. He uses the adversative but, so that Peter’s act of repenting is placed in a relationship of opposition or contrast to election. However, that is not all, for the contrast is accentuated by the preposition before. McGeown wrote, “But Peter had to weep bitterly with tears of repentance before he came to the renewed assurance of Jesus’ love for him.” There is simply no other way to read the statement than that its first and second elements stand in a relationship of opposition or disjunction. In fact, from a grammatical viewpoint this is precisely what the word but is supposed to do. But is what is called a disjunctive conjunction, a word that relates elements or clauses in composition but divides them in sense or meaning.

The relationship of opposition or disjunction between the first two elements leads to McGeown’s uncoupling repentance and its accompanying assurance from election. The use of before between the second and third elements accentuates the disjunction by making the restoration of Peter’s assurance contingent upon something he does, namely his act of repenting. Words have a certain objective meaning, and the meaning of McGeown’s statement is that Peter’s act of repentance was a prerequisite to his assurance. And since assurance is a benefit of salvation and as such is part of salvation, at this point McGeown makes Peter’s act of repenting a prerequisite in his salvation.

This is a serious matter. It is so because the gospel of sovereign grace is at stake. McGeown’s complaint notwithstanding, I am not quibbling over words. This is why I wrote in my original question to him that, according to his statement, “Jesus’ love is one thing; Peter’s act of repentance is another.” That is also why I wrote that McGeown should have written, “Jesus loved Peter, AND or THEREFORE Peter wept bitterly with tears of repentance.”

It is simply impossible to relate the second element to the first in the way McGeown does and still claim the first is the reason for or explains the second. To put it another way, it is impossible to place the two elements of his statement in opposition to one another and still claim that Peter’s act of repentance flows from election. Far from the beautiful unity of sovereign grace—that all our salvation, including our repentance, flows organically from election in Christ—we have instead the establishment of two separate principles of activity necessary for salvation: election and Peter’s doing.

The Canons of Dordt

That McGeown uncouples or separates Peter and his repentance from election is also clear from his treatment of Canons of Dordt 5. What he writes in this respect shows how out of step he is with the Canons. He begins with a criticism of my quotation from the Canons. I quoted Canons 5.6–7 to show that the Canons ascribe a believer’s restoration to God’s activity alone. McGeown wrote, “He quotes from the wrong part of the Canons, overlooking the section most pertinent to the present discussion.”

According to McGeown, I should have quoted article 5, which speaks of the way of repentance as the way of restoration. Moreover, in his quotation of article 5, the brother highlights the words until and their: “UNTIL on THEIR returning into the right way of serious repentance.” I find the brother’s approach here interesting. The present discussion is about the relationship between Jesus’ love and repentance in the restoration of Peter. Canons 5.6–8 clearly teach that the reason for a believer’s restoration from lamentable falls is God’s election. Article 4 describes the reality of temptation and the possibility of a believer’s committing great and heinous sins. Article 5 teaches the way of repentance as the way of restoration. No one denies that repentance is required; no one is saying that one who continues impenitently may have the sense of God’s favor. Why then does McGeown insist on beginning with article 5 to find the explanation for restoration, when the Canons explicitly state the explanation in articles 6–8?

The subject of articles 6–8 is God and his activity: “God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election” (5.6); “in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing…and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance” (5.7). Article 8 even goes as far as saying, “With respect to themselves [true believers, those who are elect, regenerated, and have faith] [it] is not only possible [that they would totally fall away and perish], but would undoubtedly happen.” Mark well, the article is saying that no activity of a believer (including the activity of faith) is in any way or respect a reason that he perseveres. Rather, article 8 gives as the reason—and the only reason—the sovereign activity of God: “With respect to God, it is utterly impossible [that a believer could fall away totally], since His counsel cannot be changed, nor His promise fail, neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession, and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated” (Canons of Dordt 5.6–8, in Confessions and Church Order, 174).

But McGeown insists that this approach is wrong and that I overlooked the section most pertinent to the present discussion. For him “the section most pertinent” to answering the question how Peter was restored from his lamentable fall is, “UNTIL on THEIR returning into the right way of serious repentance, the light of God’s fatherly countenance again shines on them.” In other words, not God’s activity but man’s is “most pertinent to the present discussion.” I find the brother’s approach not only interesting; I also find it revealing.

The brother then proceeds to Canons 5.7 to back up his emphasis on man’s responsibility. This is surely ironic in the face of my supposed blunder in going to this same article for “the present discussion.” Doubly ironic, I would say, given that articles 6 and 7 taken together are one of the strongest statements in the Canons of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Be that as it may, what does he want to do with article 7? He acknowledges (how can he do otherwise?) the sovereignty of God in repentance. But that is not at all where the brother wants to go with this article. Rather, he wants to find in it the same thing he thinks he found in article 5, namely “UNTIL on THEIR returning into the right way of repentance.” In his thinking, these words about man’s responsibility are the explanation for Peter’s restoration; NOT “God…according to His unchangeable purpose of election (5.6), nor God “by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renew[ing] them to repentance” (5.7). Remember, he quotes the words from article 5 in order to contradict me when I said the Canons ascribe a sinner’s restoration to God’s activity alone. In bringing forward the words of article 5 (man’s responsibility to repent) in order to contradict what I said, McGeown contradicts the Canons’ own explanation of Peter’s restoration.

Now regarding Canons 5.7 he develops his contradiction of the Canons’ own explanation of Peter’s restoration. Articles 6 and 7 belong together. Article 6 makes God’s election the reason for the restoration of Peter (and others) from their lamentable falls: “God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election.” The connection between 6 and 7 is that 7 explains how election accomplishes the restoration. This is clear from the connecting word for:

For, in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

According to article 7, the first reason that election accomplishes restoration is God’s activity of preserving in the elect the incorruptible seed of regeneration. The second reason is God’s activity of certainly and effectually renewing them to repentance. Article 7 also makes clear that with that repentance God also gives them all the other things belonging to restoration. These things are listed. These things (benefits or graces) are not separate or different in kind as to their origin: they all belong to God’s one work of restoration; they all come with repentance; and crucially, they are all ascribed to God’s activity alone!

How does the brother treat article 7? Does he find in it God’s activity alone as the explanation for the sinner’s restoration? Does he find in it restoration as one beautiful work of God’s certain and effectual renewing? He does not. He is bound and determined to find a sequence, a sequence that separates what God has joined together. And before proceeding any further with the Canons, I need to say something about the brother’s doctrine of sequence.

The brother loves sequences; the problem is that his sequences always place God and man’s activity in salvation in a relationship of contrast and opposition. We see this in his reply to me when he speaks of the sequence of “A” (repentance) happening before “B” (renewal of a sense of God’s favor). He claims that he does not make “A” a condition to “B.”

There are a couple of things to say about this. First, he certainly makes repentance a step to assurance, so that assurance is not in repentance, but rather repentance is unto assurance. Second, in answering my criticism of the contrast made in his original statement between Jesus’ love (election) and Peter’s act of repentance, the brother doubles down and declares, “They are two very different activities, performed by two very different persons.” His sequence is one in which repentance is uncoupled from election and stands independently of it—by his own admission “a very different activity.”

I believe that it is at this point of the brother’s sequence that he and I part ways. In his original statement he placed election and Peter’s activity over against each other; he admits that in his answer and steadfastly refuses to retract it; he also declares in his answer that election and Peter’s repentance are sharply differentiated activities. Where does the brother’s doctrine of sequence leave us?

For one thing, it leaves the brother completely contradicting the whole point of the parable of the vine and the branches that he’s writing about on the blog.³

The whole point of that parable is to teach the essential unity of the vine (Christ) and the branches (believers). There is only one principle of life that flows through the vine and its branches. The reality taught in the parable is that there is only one principle of life or activity in salvation, namely Christ’s. The activity of the branch is not a separate or contrasting activity to the activity of the vine. Christ did not describe the vine and its branches as sharply differentiated activities.

For another thing, it means repentance is either a gift worked in me—“effectually renewing them to repentance”—or a separate activity from God’s and as such alongside God’s. Repentance is either a gift and fruit of election in which is the experience of God’s favor, or it is something that is a step—in contrast to God’s activity—unto the experience of God’s favor. To make repentance such a step unto the experience of God’s favor, as the brother does, is to make it a prerequisite.

But getting back to the Canons, specifically 5.7, after paying lip service to God’s activity, the brother commences his uncoupling of man’s activity from election.

He claims to be merely finding purpose in God’s work when in fact he is introducing separation. He writes, “But do not overlook the words that come next: ‘THAT they may seek and obtain remission…[AND THAT] they may again experience the favor of a reconciled God.’” You will notice the common thread in his explanation of Peter’s restoration is to put Peter’s activity of repenting in contrast to God’s activity. You will also remember that in writing this he is contradicting my explanation of Peter’s repenting, which is election. My point is that what McGeown introduces here in his treatment of article 7 is introduced by way of contrast with election. And this was my point in drawing attention to his original statement that “Jesus loved Peter, but Peter had to weep bitterly with tears of repentance—which were the fruit of God’s grace—before he came to the renewed assurance of Jesus’ love for him.”

McGeown takes that which belongs together in article 7 and turns it into a sequence of steps or stages so that God does something (renews Peter); then Peter does something (he repents); then Peter does something more (he seeks and obtains remission); then as a result of his acts of repentance and faith Peter gets something (the renewed experience of God’s favor). That the brother is teaching a series of steps that Peter (and we) must take, of requisites that we must fulfill, is clear for two reasons. First (and as I already alluded to), from the fact that he sharply contrasts the sequence with election. Second, from his commentary on this sequence, in which he says, “First, God effectually renewed Peter, then Peter had sincere sorrow, and then Peter experienced God’s favor.”

I highlighted the word then in the above because that word does not appear in the Canons. The brother separates into steps or stages that which is essentially one work of God. And these are steps of man’s activity, steps in contrast to election—even in separation from election—and, as such, steps that make man’s activity another principle of activity for salvation alongside of God’s. The brother is on a twin track, for all conditional theology is twin track. But the Canons are on a single track; the Canons are on the single track of election theology. And thank God they are, for in that is all our comfort.