Post-mortum response to the unveiled word

the Word of God is so weak that it suffers to be despised and rejected by people...This weak Word, which suffers contradiction by sinners, is the only strong, merciful Word, that can make sinners repent from the bottom of their hearts. The Word's power is veiled in weakness. If the Word came in full unveiled power, that would be the final judgment day.

(p.173, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship)

It would be an interesting question to ask Rob Bell, whether it makes any difference that post-mortum repentance would be in response to the glorified and strong Word of Christ.

I think that when Paul says that he preached "the word of the cross" (1 Cor 1:18), he wasn't just referring to the content, but the form of Gospel he preached. It was weak and foolish, carried by jars of clay, just as Jesus seemed to so many in first century Judea.

At his second coming the Word will be much more a "word of the resurrection", and will be carried by angels blasting trumpets. Glory will be unveiled and strength exerted.

If Rob Bell sees people repenting, and trusting, in response to that Word then is there something quantitatively different to our repentance and faith?

Three aspects of repentance

"When Peter calls his listeners to 'repent', he is calling them to change

• their whole orientation toward God, as well as
• how they view themselves and
• [how they view] the world...

Peter, the close companion of Jesus, has been transformed in his own understanding of God, himself, and the world.

• He, who first confessed Jesus as Messiah and believed this man would conquer as the new King, has recently witnessed his leader die a brutal death.
• He, who once envisioned himself as loyal and righteous, is now painfully aware of his own sin and weakness through his denial and fear.
• He, who had assumed Yahweh's concern and love was exclusively for the nation of Israel, now discovers with ever-growing clarity that God is concerned with the renewal of the entire world...

that necessarily entails a kind of disorientation and reorientation that simultaneously shakes up and revitalizes every area of his life."

(formatting mine, pp. 122-123, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Judas and Peter

A friend asked what the difference between Judas and Peter was given that both deserted Jesus, but one hung himself and the other became a pillar of the church.

The short answer is the unmerited grace of God, but was there any difference in their actions?

I promised I'd email some quotes from the Reformers for him. Here they are for what it's worth.

They [i.e. the Roman Catholics] teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments. Is not this teaching uncertain and improper things concerning repentance? When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake out of love it fears God, as its God, or is fleeing from eternal punishments? These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words. These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men who also desire to know the truth. They undoubtedly will confess that these discussions in the writings of the adversaries are very confused and intricate. And nevertheless the most important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel, the remission of sins. This entire doctrine concerning these questions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of the adversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefit of Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith to inexpressible injury of conscience [...]

faith [in Christ] shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ's sake.

(Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII (V): Of Repentance)

They [e.g. Philip Melanchthon] give Cain, Saul and Judas, as examples of legal repentance. Scripture, in describing what is called their repentance, means that they perceived the heinousness of their sins, and dreaded the divine anger; but, thinking only of God as a judge and avenger, were overwhelmed by the thought. Their repentance, therefore, was nothing better than a kind of threshold to hell, into which having entered even in the present life, they began to endure the punishment inflicted by the presence of an offended God. Examples of evangelical repentance we see in all those who, first stung with a sense of sin, but afterwards raised and revived by confidence in the divine mercy, turned unto the Lord. Hezekiah was frightened on receiving the message of his death, but praying with tears, and beholding the divine goodness, regained his confidence. The Ninevites were terrified at the fearful announcement of their destruction; but clothing themselves in sackcloth and ashes, they prayed, hoping that the Lord might relent and avert his anger from them. David confessed that he had sinned greatly in numbering the people, but added "Now, I beseech thee O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant." When rebuked by Nathan, he acknowledged the crime of adultery, and humbled himself before the Lord; but he, at the same time, looked for pardon. Similar was the repentance of those who, stung to the heart by the preaching of Peter, yet trusted in the divine goodness, and added, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Similar was the case of Peter himself, who indeed wept bitterly, but ceased not to hope...Though all this is true, yet the term repentance (in so far as I can ascertain from Scripture) must be differently taken [Calvin was much more concerned with words in systematics corresponding with the biblical usage].

(John Calvin, Institutes 3.3.4-5)

What's the difference?

"I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death." (2 Corinthians 7:9-10)

Justin Holcomb recently posted on Calvin's distinction between legal and evangelical repentance. James Torrance (in lectures I don't recommend) says that the section 3.3 of the Institutes dealing with this had a massive influence on him.

Curiously, the flavour of Calvin on repentance is certainly very different to that of Melanchthon. I may post on this again soon once I've thought about it a bit more. But before I do so I thought I may seek some thoughts from everyone. Any ideas on the difference between the two griefs that Paul describes?

Alternatively put, and using the example that was being batted around at the time of the Reformation, one may ask... what was the difference between the grief of Peter over his sin, and the grief of Judas over his? One led to salvation without regret, and the other to death. But why?