Chpt. 16 - Hardshells On Repentance II

Chapter 16 - Hardshells On Repentance (Conclusion)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9)

Hardshells, in their defenses of "Calvinism," relative to this verse, and against the "Arminian" interpretation, will argue that the "us-ward" of this passage refers to believers, to the elect. That is well and good. I am not denying that such is perhaps the correct interpretation. But, there are problems for the Hardshells in arguing this way on this passage. It is much the same type problem that they have with Ephesians 1:19 & 2:9.

Most "Conditionalists" will say that "repentance" is a post regenerative work, and by no means certain for the elect, for only a very few of the elect, of those who come to be "regenerated," ever come to "repent" of their sins. They recognize that the Scriptures put "repentance" with "gospel faith," and so they cannot consistently make these things integral to "regeneration" without undermining their "Anti-Mission" sentiments and their "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," without making the gospel a "means" in regeneration. Means are used in creating repentance, and this they will acknowledge, but Means are not used in "regeneration"; ergo, repentance is no part of regeneration. And, if repentance is no part of regeneration, then the "new heart" received in regeneration lacks penitence and is still hard and in love with sin. That is the reductio ad absurdum of their view on this subject.

The problem they have? Peter affirms that it is the "will of God" that all the elect "come to repentance." So, while they will affirm, when in debate with the Arminians, that it is not God's will for any non-elect to "come to repentance," yet they must admit that it is his "will" that all the "elect" "come to repentance"! Also, "come to repentance," is connected with coming to faith and so we could just as well read Peter as also saying, that the elect "all come to gospel faith," and that they "all come to be regenerated and receive the new heart of the new covenant."

Tell me Brother Hardshell, do all the elect "come to repentance" or not? Just count on it, this question will be in the next chapter on the "Hardshell Busters," and will be part of the "second cracking."

From the sources I have cited it is clear that they do not believe that all the elect will "come to repentance." Their supposed "regenerated infants" do not experience "repentance." Their supposed "regenerated heathen" do not know what it is to "repent and turn to God," for they have no idea who the true God is, outside of the word of God. As they "cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard," so too they "cannot turn in penitence to him of whom they have no knowledge." Can they? Do not the PB's realize this? Is that not why they are forced to exclude the penitent and contrite heart from the "new heart" that sinners receive in the "work of regeneration?"

Again, Hardshells argue differently on II Peter 3:9 depending on whether they are talking to those, as myself, who believe there are "means" in the "new birth," who believe that "coming to repentance" means all the same as "coming to life in regeneration" or whether you are talking to those Arminians who say the verse means God wants every human being to "come to repentance"?

They are as the Sophists, taking one position on the verse one time, just to win an argument, but then taking a different view to win an argument with a different group on a different point at a different time. They do this on several verses. On some occasions they will argue that "command does not imply ability," but then they will, on other occasions, argue the very reverse, saying that "commands do imply ability"!

I agree with what Brother Ross has shown is the teaching of B. H. Carroll. relative to the relationship of faith and repentance to regeneration.

Wrote Brother Ross:

"B. H. Carroll, in his "Interpretation of the English Bible," Volume 10, page 287, gives what I call "CARROLL'S IMPECCABLE SYLLOGISM," which no Hybrid Calvinist can refute."

"Every one born of God has the right to be called a child of God.

But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.

Therefore the new birth is NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT FAITH."

"B. H. Carroll did not hold the "pre-faith regeneration" theory, as can be clearly seen from his discussion of Regeneration on pages 285-288 of chapter 10 on the Four Gospels, Interpretation of the English Bible, Part 1, Volume 10 of the 17 volume set, Broadman Press, 1913 edition published by BP in 1947.

Carroll not only shows the unscriptural nature of this idea, but even states that it is "philosophically impossible" to hold to the idea that one is regenerated "before the subject is penitent and believing" (page 286).

Carroll goes on to say, on page 288:

"The Holy Spirit then is the agent in regeneration and the instrumental means of regeneration is the Word of God, or the preaching of Christ and Him crucified, yet the power of the Spirit does not reside in the word as inspired, but the agency is positive and active in the use of the Word."

"Dr. Carroll says, "There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is NOT A SUBJECT OF THE NEW BIRTH WITHOUT CONTRITION, REPENTANCE AND FAITH."

"Carroll closes this chapter by saying -- "REGENERATION CANNOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT FAITH" (page 294)."

(http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/07/gene-m-bridges-falls-down-on.html)

This is what I have been affirming thus far in my chapters on faith, repentance, and regeneration. It is what Calvin believed too, as I have shown, and will yet show in greater detail. A man is not regenerated till he has been made both a believer and a penitent before God, turning away from himself and his own works, and trusting completely in the Lord and his grace.

Hassell writes further:

"...grace does all the work of salvation, even working in the sinner all his good will and all his good works, so that he shall go at last into the Divine presence as a poor, helpless beggar, a poor, lost sinner, saved by grace alone from first to last, and shall be thus prepared to give God all the glory of his salvation." (Church of God, page 398)

The majority of the PB's are "Conditionalists," and they would not endorse this statement by Hassell, nor of others like Beebe, who said the same thing, but would teach rather that God does not make his children obey him after regeneration nor does he create all their good works in them. Only the "Absoluters" acknowledge the truth of what Hassell wrote in the above.

Hassell's error is not in seeing that gospel repentance and faith are the results of the sovereign work of God, like regeneration, but in affirming that coming to faith and repentance is not part and parcel of what it means, biblically, to be "regenerated" and "born of the Spirit." The work of creating a penitent heart and soul is the work of God IN regeneration and it does not cease to be "his" work because he uses his own word and human messengers.

And again, on "repentance," he attacks the "Semi-Pelagians" and the "Arminians," for believing "that salvation is conditioned on the repentance and faith of the sinner, the Scriptures just quoted so plainly and unmistakably declare that repentance and faith are themselves the gift of God and the work of God's Spirit in the heart..." (ibid)

I will have a later chapter will I will try to clear up some of the muddied theological waters on this matter of whether, and in what sense, salvation is conditional and unconditional. Over time, in the history of the church and of Christian theology, words take on "connotations," and men can become timid about using such words (or phrases) for fear of being misunderstood or associated with a group with whom they wish not to be identified. When we say that it is necessary that the elect be called, regenerated, brought to faith, repentance, and life in Christ, how is this like (or unlike) saying salvation is conditioned on the elect being called, upon them believing and repenting? Does saying that salvation is conditional imply that we can meet those conditions without divine grace, without God having chosen us to receive salvation by those means?

Next, Hassell cites a Methodist author approvingly on these words:

"While repentance is, strictly speaking, the act of man, it is nevertheless also in another sense the gift of God. Without the grace of God first given, no man will repent or turn to God. The Holy Spirit supplies light to the understanding, quickens the emotions, and so seals Divine truth upon the conscience that the sinner not only SEES, but FEELS his spiritual danger. Regeneration, or conversion, or the new birth, or the new creation, or becoming a new creature, is the work of the Holy Spirit, by which a change is wrought in the heart of the believer; it is the implantation of the love of God in the soul by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The efficient cause of regeneration is the Divine Spirit, for no man can turn himself unto God. It proceeds by enlightening the judgment through the word of truth or the gospel of salvation, and impressing that truth upon the understanding so as to subdue the will and reign in the affections." (398, 399)

Who can disagree with this? One must wonder why Hassell could say all this and yet say things in other places about regeneration in which he makes it devoid of everything he enumerates above. He does call "regeneration" a "conversion," something that 5th generation Hardshells of today will not do. I suppose Hassell covered himself, as did Beebe, by saying that "it proceeds..." But, like Brother Carroll said, regeneration is not regeneration if it excludes gospel faith and repentance. How could it and be that new heart" of the new covenant?

Hassell writes further:

"...the most thorough and elaborate Methodist work of the nineteenth century, makes the following plain and strong scriptural statements: "The author, as well as object, of true repentance, is God (Acts 5:31)." "Christian faith does not spring from the NATURAL working of the human mind; it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit through the word of the gospel and the free grace of Christ (Rom. 10:17; I Cor. 1:21)." (pg. 399)

Very good, then Brother Hassell! Your problem, and those who agree with what you have written, is that you divorce this experience of "repentance" from having any part in "regeneration," from being integral to what it means to come out of the "death of sin" to the "life" of Christ. These err in not seeing that it is impossible to have that "new heart" of the "new covenant," without "penitence" and its qualities and essential characteristics. Why do they so divorce repentance from regeneration? Because they accepted the "anti-means" position, and holding on to it forced them to put repentance outside of the experience of regeneration, because repentance comes through the word and gospel of God!

Hassell then quotes these words approvingly, again from a Methodist source:

"An evangelical repentance is a godly sorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and Spirit of God, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God and defiling and endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns from them to God as his Savior and Lord." (ibid)

Is it not a shame that Hassell could not see that this wonderful transforming experience of "repentance," which he describes (with Methodist help), is actually the chief part of regeneration and to leave it out, as he does, because of his "Spirit Alone" heresy, is to make regeneration into a bunch of nothing! No wonder the PB's have had so much trouble with what is called the Hollow Log Doctrine, of which I will have much to say in an upcoming chapter.

And again Hassell writes, citing further his Methodist source:

"The very circumstances which rendered the new covenant necessary, take away the possibility of there being any merit upon our part; the faith by which the covenant is accepted is the gift of God; and all the good works by which Christians continue to keep the covenant originate in that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of His Spirit." (ibid)

"Faith by which the covenant is accepted"? That is not PB doctrine! "ACCEPTED?" How do Hardshell views on "regeneration" reflect that statement? Do their articles of faith on "regeneration" not go directly counter to those words? Also, their weird and unorthodox views on "perseverance," a subject I will deal with later in a separate chapter, do not allow for the truth of the words of Hassell (above) where he says, "all the good works...originate in that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of His Spirit." God, by their own admission, is not the "author" of their good works (except for the Absoluters), but rather their own creations. They teach that most of the elect do not persevere in grace and holiness. Why? Because, they say, God does not make you do good works, but will only give you the ability, but whether you have the will and power, or actually do them, is up to you. No wonder, under this view of things, very few persevere and most fall away.

And again Brother Hassell writes, citing the same sources with approval:

"True and saving faith acknowledges on earth, as it will be perpetually acknowledged in Heaven, that the whole salvation of sinful man, from the beginning to the last degree thereof, whereof there shall be no end, is from God's freest love, Christ's merit and intercession, His own gracious promise, and the power of His own Holy Spirit."

After citing all these quotations from Methodist sources, Hassell says:

"If these pointed declarations do not contain the essence of the Bible doctrine of grace, known as Paulinism or Augustinianism, then it does really seem that human language has no meaning." (ibid)

It is a shame that 90% of Hardshells do not today agree with Hassell on what he says about God "giving" repentance. And, as I said, it is a shame that those 10%, the Absoluters, do not see that God has ordained that the elect all come to faith and repentance through the gospel and that this will constitute their regeneration.

Hassell writes further:

"Though man has fallen and become unable to obey the commandments of God, the nature and law and requirements of God are unchanged and unchangeable. The gospel addresses of the Scriptures are addressed, we believe, to gospel characters——to those persons who have spiritual life, hearing, needs and appetites. These limitations are either directly expressed or implied by the circumstances. Even the letter of the word, where there is any fullness of narration, and the dictates of common sense teach this important fact. Inspired men could, far better than we, read the hearts of those whom they addressed; and they addressed hearers of different characters, and therefore used sometimes the imperative and sometimes the indicative mood. God’s under-shepherds are directed, not to create, but to tend the flock."

Again, he, like other PB's will say that "commands do not imply ability, only obligation." They repeat it often, as if they are grounded on that point. But, if one keeps reading after them, he will see them soon doing an "about face" and saying, in regard to all "gospel commands," such as to "repent" and "believe," or to "be converted," that they all "imply ability."

I will have time in another chapter to refute these words, from the above citation, relative to the "addresses of the gospel." He said:

"The gospel addresses of the Scriptures are addressed, we believe, to gospel characters (to those already regenerated) ——to those persons who have spiritual life, hearing, needs and appetites. These limitations are either directly expressed or implied by the circumstances."

I totally deny this observation. I deny that every "gospel address" in the Bible is spoken to those who are already born again. In the preceding chapter, where I cited those commands of God to the people wherein he commands them to "make themselves a new heart," to "circumcise their hearts," and to "make their hearts penitent before God," etc., do they not clearly pertain to regeneration? How can anyone say that the command (imperative) to "make you a new heart" is addressed to those who already have a new heart? That is silly. It will be an interesting chapter in which I will look at what the preachers of the word, in the Bible, had to say in their preaching to the unregenerate.

In preparation for that chapter, let me just throw out another Hardshell Buster question here. "WHAT DO YOU HARDSHELLS HAVE TO PREACH TO PEOPLE WHOM YOU KNOW TO BE LOST?" Do you have any commands for them? Do you have any message of condemnation or of hope to give to them? Tell us that, will you? Or, better yet, chew on this matter awhile yourselves, and may God help you all to see the absurdity of all your "vain reasonings."

And again Hassell writes:

"The imperative mood has no more power than the indicative mood, in the mouth of a preacher, to awaken the dead to life. No language or labor of man, and no fact in creation or providence, independently of the Divine Spirit, has the slightest efficacy to take away the sinner’s heart of stone and give him a heart of flesh. I do not deny that the minister may at times have a Divine persuasion that some of his hearers are spiritually alive, and that he may not then properly address them in the imperative mood." (Hassell, Chapter X THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE, AND MISSIONS)

There are of course, in this citation, things of which an "amen" is warranted, but there are other things that deserve attacking and overthrowing.

Recall that in the last chapter I cited several Biblical "imperatives" (and there are many more) that clearly put regeneration as the thing being commanded. People are commanded to make themselves a new heart, to "save themselves," to "rise up from the grave of sin." Yet, the PB's do not agree with what I showed was clearly the case from Scripture. They are against the Bible in what they argue and affirm on this matter of Divine "imperatives" and their part in the work of regeneration and perseverance. God commands his elect, through the gospel, to "rise up out of sin," to "come to Christ," "to live." When those imperative words are attended by the working of the Holy Spirit, they are made effectual to produce regeneration with all its constituent aspects.

Conviction

Conviction of sin, contrition, a humbled soul, are elements of Biblical repentance. There is both a "turning away" and a "turning to" in repentance. The "turning away" is repentance proper, and the "turning to" is the essence of faith.

The Hardshells put conviction and contrition for sin as another experience that does not occur in regeneration (majority opinion) but is rather a post regenerative experience and one that comes only to those who hear and respond favorably to the gospel (on their own, without God, by their own free will and effort). Again, let me cite Sarrels on "conviction."

He writes in his "Systematic Theology":

"The relation of Conviction to Regeneration. Conviction, like Conversion, is the action of man, or perhaps more accurately speaking, the experience of man, which results from regeneration. It is not, as is generally claimed, a preparative of regeneration. Always and necessarily it follows regeneration. The quickened person in conviction sees himself not as he actually is but as he would be without the grace of God." (Sarrels, Page 309)

But, he still has this "gap" in time where the person is supposedly possessed of a "new nature" and a "new heart," and supposedly has Christ and the Spirit dwelling within him, but yet who knows no contrition or "convincing of sin," no "turning of the heart" from sin to God! Can you believe that a man can write a "Systematic Theology" and say such things?

He says further:

"We hold that conviction is impossible for the sinner while he is still dead in sin and enmity against God." (Page 310)

How is this "impossible" for God? Yes, I grant you, by human logic, that such is "impossible with men." There is no disagreement there! Yes, true deep conviction will end in complete transformation of soul, but to deny that even unregenerate men may come under some kind of conviction under the preaching of the gospel is to deny what is plainly revealed in Scripture. Judas repented, and so did Esau. Those who were ready to stone the woman caught in adultery each left, one at a time, "beginning with the eldest," each being, in one degree or another, "convicted in their consciences." They were not all "regenerated" by this "conviction" nor did it give "evidence" of it.

Jesus said:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove (convict) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me." (John 16:7-9)

Here we are told that the "world" will be "convicted" and "reproved." Does he not do this "through" the gospel? Are there not non-elect and non-regenerated people in this world that the Spirit will "reprove" of sin? Does he not include, within this "world," those who "believed not on me"? He "convicts" those who ultimately become believers, but he also "convicts" those who do not become believers. I admit that in the one case the "conviction" is not "unto salvation" or "unto life," that it was not intended to issue in salvation but rather intended to increase condemnation. But, where would the increased judgment be if there were no "conviction" of any kind?

Sarrels writes further on the subject of "conviction."

"He who is convicted of sin can see himself to be a guilty sinner in the sight of God, and perceives that his own righteousness is as “filthy rags.” He rightly understands that he has no merit of his own upon which God can justify him. Conviction has brought him to know how guilty and helpless he is. He knows and feels that if he is ever justified it can be only through the mercy of the God against whom he has sinned...this broken, penitent wretch–wretch in his own sight, but not in God’s sight–with empty hands, is ready to turn to God. This whole series of experiences by the quickened person–for conviction is not a single experience–is definitely a preparative of the next vital and gloriously terminating experience of conversion." (Page 311)

How he can say all this, as a "Conditionalist," in the light of verses like Philippians 1:6 is bewildering. Paul said:

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

But, does Sarrels believe that all the elect, all the regenerated, will come to be "convicted," come to the end of that "series of experiences," that culminate in "conversion"? No, he does not. He believes that only a very small few whom the Lord "regenerates," and to whom he gives spiritual "life," will find that work reach its "end," will reach its "final completion," for they will not all be converted!

Besides, he will argue that this initial work of "regeneration," the first experience in the "series," is all the "work of God," while the later "experiences" in the "series," like "conviction" and "conversion," are not the sovereign work of God, as is the first experience in the series, but is rather the work of the child of God himself, using the "ability" that God gave him, but not "compelled" to do so by any "grace abiding" in him, or out of anything resulting from the new heart given in regeneration. This is just all against what Paul wrote to the Philippians.

He wrote again, saying:

"Although this turning to God is a voluntary action of the quickened soul, it is nevertheless an action which God leads the soul to make (Phil. 2:13). It is in the plan of God that he would take the work which he begins in conviction and perform it–epitelesei, bring it to a successful end–so that conversion is a realized fact." (Page 311)

Again, Sarrels is no different from the Arminian he abhors! He does not believe that all the elect come to conviction, repentance, and gospel faith! He denies the very text he cites! He would use (if he were alive) that same passage to prove to the "falling from grace" crowd, that this passage proves eternal security. But, on the other hand, he does not believe that God completes the series of experiences in all the elect!

He writes further:

“...and since it is needful that the believer come to know about the reality of Christ’s saving righteousness in his soul, God has arranged, through the medium of Justification by Faith, or through the believer’s consciously receiving Christ by an undivided faith, to bring into the believer’s heart the experimental knowledge that Christ is his Savior. The believer’s receiving Christ as his personal Saviour does not make Christ his personal Savior, for no one but a quickened person can, with a living faith, receive Christ.” (Page 313)

Again, how can he not at least come to the view that all of those whom God "regenerates" (without the word, supposedly) will come to evangelical faith and repentance before they die? (A view of some Baptists) He must either do that or stay in opposition to what Paul says in Philippians 1:6.

Calvin wrote:

"The term repentance is derived in the Hebrew from conversion, or turning again; and in the Greek from a change of mind and purpose; nor is the thing meant inappropriate to both derivations, for it is substantially this, that withdrawing from ourselves we turn to God, and laying aside the old, put on a new mind. Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit. In this sense are to be understood all those addresses in which the prophets first, and the apostles afterwards, exhorted the people of their time to repentance. The great object for which they labored was, to fill them with confusion for their sins and dread of the divine judgment, that they might fall down and humble themselves before him whom they had offended, and, with true repentance, retake themselves to the right path. Accordingly, they use indiscriminately in the same sense, the expressions turning, or returning to the Lord; repenting, doing repentance."

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.iii.iv.html)

Calvin and Carroll have truly expressed the correct Bible views on this subject. It is also the view of the Old Baptists of the London and Philadelphia Confessions. It is not, however, the view of the overwhelming majority of Hardshells.

Calvin said further:

"God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration." (ibid)

That is the correct view, one I am defending herein, and one that is in opposition to Hardshellism.

Calvin also says:

"Wherefore, in this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the righteousness of God, from which we fell in Adam....And this restoration is not accomplished in a single moment, or day, or year." (ibid)

Now I know the Hardshells will clamour over this statement. They would never allow that "regeneration" occurs in any more "length of time" than it takes to "blink the eye." It is instantaneous. God speaks life to the dead and they live instantly. I do not think that is always the case, but of that, I will address elsewhere. Certainly Calvin did not believe that the giving of life in regeneration was always instantaneous.

Here is what Elder John Watson said in his "Old Baptist Test," on page 178.

"When repentance is given, we bring forth fruit meet for repentance; when faith is given, we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and when we are kept by the power of God, we persevere; and those who are created in Christ Jesus unto good works will perform them."

Again, that is real Old Baptist doctrine. What the PB's spout today is not truly the primitive faith of the Baptists.

Notice these words from the preaching of Jesus:

"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt. 11:21-24)

I will be referring to this sermon of Christ again in a later chapter where I deal with the questions the Hardshells bring up relative to the heathen who they say died without any means of salvation and how this is unjust. The sermon above will relate to that issue. It will also relate to another argument that the PB's make about the supposed absurdity in believing that salvation is available only through the preaching of the gospel. This other argument says that in such a system "the devil wins more than God!" It has been argued several times by them in debates and it too will be addressed before this book is completed.

First of all, the sermon does show that repentance is necessary to keep from being judged and condemned in the day of judgment. No repentance means no salvation. That is what Jesus taught.

Now notice these words of Paul:

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God...If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6:1,6)

I have discussed this passage of Scripture many times with my brother PB's relative to whether one can lose their salvation. I don't think that any of them can deny that the passage clearly connects "repentance" with being saved and born again. Repentance and faith are the very foundations of our spiritual life and the very essence of our regeneration.

Jesus also came to "call sinners to repentance." If the Hardshells say this is not "regeneration," or not the "effecutal call," then they have the problem of reconciling the "direct voice" regeneration theory with Christ calling sinners, himself, in his day, to repentance. Did they all repent whom he called to repentance? Or, will it be argued that the "call to repentance" by Christ does not connect with regeneration. Either way they go on this point they are in a maze of contradictions.