Chpt.15 - Hardshells on Repentance I

Chapter 15 - Hardshells on Repentance (A Primer)

If you ask 100 Hardshells of the present day if one must "repent" to be "saved" or "born again", 99 will say "NO", perhaps even everyone of them.

All Hardshells, to my knowledge, would say that "repentance follows regeneration" and is not therefore a part and parcel of regeneration. Some will say that repentance, though following regeneration, nevertheless plays a part in the regenerated person becoming completely "born." Recall my citation from Beebe where he separated the new birth into three phases, regeneration being the first.

Beebe and some others of his brand would likewise put repentance between regeneration, or initial "begetting," and the final delivery (birth) of the spiritual newborn. Some will acknowledge the necessity of "faith" and "repentance" for a person to be "born," but not regenerated.

There are some who will try to make some kind of repentance to be "created in regeneration," but it will be a "repentance" that is stripped of everything integral to it, as is their idea of the "faith" that is part of "regeneration," that "embryonic faith" of Sarrels.

Those who will allow that some kind of "faith" and "repentance" are connected with "regeneration", will define the terms "faith" and "repentance" in such a way as to totally divorce them from anything the Spirit produces through the word of the gospel. What kind of "faith" and "repentance" is it that does not come through the gospel? What kind of "faith" and "repentance" can an idol worshipping, "born again heathen," or a "regenerated infant," have as part of their "regeneration"?

I have already dealt at length with what the Hardshells say about "faith" and will now address what they teach about repentance. Many of the same arguments used to overthrow their views on "implanted faith" can likewise be used to overthrow their strange views on "implanted repentance" (a rare view, but still one that will be argued if they are pressed in debate).

One further thing needs to be said at the outset here on how the Absoluters (or non-Conditionalist) and the "Conditionalists," or promoters of "Conditional Time Salvation," explain post regenerative activities. Absoluters would say that "repentance," "gospel faith," yea, every "good work," is as much the "work of God" as is "regeneration" itself (a view I agree with wholeheartedly).

The Conditionalists of course would deny such, arguing that from the moment of "regeneration" onward, the child of God is on his own, operating by "his own power and free will." The Absoluters , on the other hand, would deny this. Of course, the Absoluters reflect the view of the Old Confessions of the Baptists and the view of this author.

There would be less to argue about with the Absoluters ; And, it ought to be easier to lead these people out of the error of the Hardshells on regeneration and relative to their "anti-means argumentation." The Absoluters would repudiate the idea of those Hardshells who say that their "gospel faith" and "repentance," though the product of God through human means, are their own works, and not the "works of God" in them, or are not God's gifts sovereignly given.

Before I cite some Hardshell sources on the subject of repentance, let me give some preliminary information on what I believe to be a truthful analysis of what the Scriptures teach on this subject.

A writer says:

"Etymologically, repentance means a change of mind. The English word comes from a compound Greek word: metanoeo. The Greek noun nous means mind. The Greek verb noeo tells what the mind does: it thinks or considers. Then the Greek preposition meta, when connected with noeo expresses the idea of a change. And so metanoeo (repentance) means to consider the past, to think back and change the mind. It is afterthought as opposed to forethought. In repentance the sinner is occupied with his past record before God.

If one should feel that it is minimizing a great truth to define repentance as a mere change of the mind, it is enough to say that in the Bible the mind includes what we mean by the heart; it includes the affections as well as the intellect. And remember also that gospel repentance is a change of mind toward God about sin. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and to change the mind from enmity to love for God is no small change. It is as difficult as it is to raise the dead or create a world. This may cause one to ask, How can a sinner repent since a stream cannot rise higher than its source? The answer is obvious: we cannot repent except by Divine grace. The New Hampshire Confession says, "Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God." This plain statement finds ample support in Scripture. Paul writes that "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (#2Ti 2:24). "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (#Ac 5:31); "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (#Ac 11:18). We should preach the duty of repentance and at the same time, pray for God to give repentance."

The Divine order, when repentance and faith are used together, is repentance and faith; not faith and repentance. In repentance the sinner takes the place of a sinner; in faith he takes Christ as Saviour. In repentance one sees himself as a sinner before God; in faith he sees Christ as Saviour from the wrath of God. In repentance one is sick of sin; in faith Christ is precious. In repentance the sinner is helpless; in faith Christ is mighty to save. In repentance there is sorrow for sin; in faith there is joy for salvation. In repentance the sinner distrusts himself; in faith he trusts the Lord Jesus Christ. A man who reversed the Divine order, and put faith before repentance, once asked the writer to explain how one could repent toward God who did not first believe there is a God. This question revealed the man's idea of faith. To him faith was simply the belief in the existence of God, something the devils also believe "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (#Jas 2:19). Of course, one must first believe there is a God before he can repent towards God, but this is not the faith that saves. In saving faith there is an element of trust---trust in Christ Who put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

Our Lord said, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel, "thus putting repentance before faith. To urge an impenitent sinner to trust Christ is like urging a well man to take medicine, or like begging a rich man to beg for alms. Repentance is the effect of seeing oneself as he really is: ruined, guilty, undone, and in danger of hell. Repentance is the effect of seeing sin in its true colors. The natural man, morally speaking, is color blind; sin appears attractive and entrancing. The natural man has a ruined taste; he calls sweet bitter and bitter sweet; he confounds good and evil; he is all mixed up on the question of right and wrong. Repentance is caused by the withering work of the Holy Spirit, Who takes-the sword the word of truth-and slays man's natural self-esteem and self-righteousness, causing him to cry, "What must I do to be saved?" (#Ac 16:30)."

Repentance involves two facts: the fact of sin and the fact of grace. If a man is not a sinner he would not need to repent, and if God is not gracious it would do no good to repent."

(Emphasis mine, http://www.homestead.com/sglblibrary/files/Defdoc2/DEFDOC2.P2.9.htm)

I believe the above citation is an accurate description of what the Bible teaches, in a nutshell, about that "repentance" that is "unto life."

Beebe on Repentance

"That repentance which is unto life and is connected with godly sorrow is the gift of God...; it proceeds from a godly principle implanted in the heart, and which cannot possibly flow from an ungodly source. Any sorrow or repentance that could come from an ungodly sinner's heart, or from any sinner's heart before a godly principle is therein implanted, would be like the fountain from whence it emanates - ungodly. We search the law and gospel both in vain to find this obligatory repentance which is in so great demand among all the legal work-mongrel tribes of the Arminians. We do not wonder that our dear brother's mind has been puzzled and perplexed to bring the obligation of repentance upon unregenerate sinners. We might as well speak of their obligation to remit their own sins as to procure their own repentance, seeing Christ alone is exalted to be a Prince and Savior, for to give, both the one and the other unto Israel. It would be equally as proper and scriptural to speak of their obligation to be saved, to go to heaven, and to make themselves sons and heirs of God. But, does man's inability to repent, or to believe, or even to keep from sinning, relieve him from his obligation to do so? Certainly not, if it can be found that such obligations are upon him. Now the sinner is one that has sinned. Sin is the transgression of the law; but where has the law under which the unregenerate sinner is held, either required him to repent or believe the gospel? The law truly forbids him to transgress, and holds him answerable for every transgression. Sin, not a want of repentance or faith, is what the sinner is condemned for." (http://www.geocities.com/~mikekrall/grace/graceind.html)

And again he said:

"true gospel repentance, if it be not the work of God, and the gift of God, it is all delusive and vain."

Needless to say, there is much to say, in response, to what Beebe wrote about repentance. Let me first cite those parts of the above that represent both the teachings of Holy Scripture and of the teachings of the Old Baptists of the Old Confessions.

"That repentance which is unto life and is connected with godly sorrow is the gift of God."

"Conditionalists," who argue that gospel "repentance" and "faith" (which occurs only in few of the "regenerated" class) are works done by their own "free will," and not by the constraints of grace, cannot consistently (in the view of the Absoluters, nor myself) call them "gifts."

Such Hardshells are inconsistent and contradictory. They are willing to admit that the Scriptures do abundantly teach that both "faith" and "repentance" are "gifts" sovereignly and irresistably given. But, how can it be consistently argued that "gift," in verses like Ephesians 1:19 & 2:9, mean "passively received by irresistable power," and yet "gift" no longer means the same thing when it speaks of "gospel faith" and "repentance"?

Beebe was an Absoluter. He was willing to say that the "repentance" and "faith" that came through the gospel were "gifts" of God as much as any "faith" or "repentance" intimately connected with "regeneration."

I agree, as I have said, with Beebe and the "Absoluters" on this point. I do disagree with him and them however when he and they place "regeneration" before "repentance," and when he has people presumably going for a long time who are "regenerated" but who have not yet come to "repentance" or who are not yet "fully born." I think Beebe is restricting the term "regeneration" in the same way many in the "Reformed Theology" camp do, making the term to refer to some narrow part of the transforming effects of the Spirit's work in bringing one to a state of union with Christ and salvation. Dr. Gill said that much of the debate on this matter will inevitably be determined by whether one is using the term "regeneration" in a very narrow and restricted sense to the initial effects of the moving of the hand of God, or rather to the entirety of the work of bringing a sinner to a saved state in Christ.

There is only one use of the term "regeneration" in the New Testament that directly connects with the work of salvation (Titus 3:5), of the new birth, and so, in this debate, most "Reformed Theology," I believe, restricts the term in a way that the New Testament writers do not. I rather think, as is proper, to think of "regeneration" as encompassing the entire work of transforming the soul into the image of Christ. Viewed this way, it must include changing the mind and heart from unbelief and impenitence to faith and repentance and confession of the same.

If regeneration consists in such a transformation in thinking, feelings, dispositions, and in such activities as the soul is made to make, such as being made to "hear," irresistably being "convinced" of sin, or powerfully "convicted," being effectually drawn to "faith," and "repentance," then it is superfluous to talk about "ordo salutis" and such like. From the perspective of this broader definition of the term "regeneration" such questions as, "does faith produce regeneration" or "does regeneration produce faith," are like asking "does regeneration produce regeneration"? I think it is more proper to refer to "faith" and "repentance" as parts (or aspects) of "regeneration" rather than "fruits" or "effects" of it. Faith and Repentance "accompany salvation." (Hebrews 6:9)

Here are some things I have trouble recognizing as truthful to Scripture, the Old Baptist Confessions, or as consistent with what Beebe said previously or wrote elsewhere.

"...it (repentance) proceeds from a godly principle implanted in the heart."

What is objectionable about this? Well, let us ask, "What does he mean by "godly principle implanted in the heart" that precedes the act of repentance? "Godly principle"? What is that? The Hardshells are very good at coming up with these vague terms, new theological jargon, for their strange and unorthodox views on regeneration and salvation. I suspect that Beebe's "godly principle" is nothing else but some of that "metaphysical goo" I have written about previously. A man must be given this "inner ability," this metaphysical "spiritual substance," before things can "proceed from it."

Whether it ever automatically (or never) "proceeds" from that "heart" that has this "implanted" stuff that Beebe calls a "principle," is a point of contention between the "Conditionalists" and the "Absoluters."

Oh what great Bible explainers are these Hardshells! Does what Beebe writes clear things up for Bible students or does it just "muddy the waters" even more? I am sure most of the "Absoluters" would say that repentance and gospel faith proceed rather soon, even necessarily and automatically, while others would not.

The next thing I find objectionable and unscriptural in the citation given above from Beebe, is where he says:

"Any sorrow or repentance that could come from an ungodly sinner's heart, or from any sinner's heart before a godly principle is therein implanted, would be like the fountain from whence it emanates - ungodly."

What is objectionable in this statement? Again, Beebe is trying by his "Hardshell "logic" to prove that one's heart must first be made "godly" before it can repent. The problem here is very simple. He fails, as do many others in the "Reformed Camp," to see how that the "godly principle" that is "implanted" in "regeneration" is nothing else but REPENTANCE ITSELF! Given that definition, then Beebe's former statement would have to read like a tautology, like this:

"Repentance proceeds from repentance implanted in the heart."

I ask these questions - "What are the constituent elements of regeneration, conversion, or the new birth?"; And, "what is the change wrought in a man by the work of regeneration?"

If faith and repentance are not terms to describe the change wrought in regeneration, if they are not integral to the "life" given therein, then what terms do the Scriptures use to describe "regeneration"?

Beebe has, theoretically, a man "regenerated," with a "godly principle" (whatever that is), with a "godly heart," but who still is impenitent! He has a "new heart," theoretically, but this "new heart" has not yet repented! His "new heart" is thus still "hardened." How can an "impenitent" heart be a "soft" heart? How can an "impenitent" heart be characteristic of that "new heart" created in regeneration? If this "new heart" is still impenitent, then how can it be called, in all respects, a "NEW" heart? It would still be the old hard and impenitent heart.

This is how these Hardshells and Neo-Hardshells represent Biblical "regeneration." Does the "new heart," that God gives in "regeneration, lack penitence? Yes, according to the corrupt soteriology of the Hardshells!

There are several characteristics or aspects of regeneration, but faith and repentance are the two leading terms used. We read of being "enlightened," but that, essentially, is connected with "faith" and "repentance," and so again only describes an aspect and characteristic of what it means to be "regenerated" or "born again." We read of being "converted," even along side the word "repent." (Acts 3:19) But again, how is a man changed if he has not not been regenerated in his thinking?

Again, I just want to nickname these Hardshells, like Gilbert Beebe, "spiritual metaphysicians." They are "metaphysical hairsplitters" that would put to shame those who argued, in the "Dark Ages," over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." In some respects they even resemble the ancient "Christian Gnostics," their "mystical" views on topics like "regeneration," and "preacher education," and on "preaching grace," being similar to them and other such groups like the Quakers.

Beebe applies that good ole Hardshell "logic" on "regeneration" and its relationship to "repentance" (the change of the heart and mind), saying that if God did not "first make the heart "godly" before it "repented," then the "repentance" would be proceeding from an impure heart." (Paraphrase) Oh, is that not glorious logic?

How has this line of reasoning solved anything? Do we not speak of regeneration as being "life from the dead"? Would that not be similar to saying, "purity from corruption"? Why is it incorrect or unscriptural to think that "repentance" does not spring, by the power of God, from intial death and corruption, from initial impenitence? The mind and heart are changed in regeneration, not exchanged.

According to this line of reasoning such would be impossible, even for God, to perform. The problem still remains, however, since there is still this "regenerated" soul (hypothetically) who has not yet repented (although he may have some kind of ill defined "godly principle" that some will call a kind of inward unconscious "repentance"). By this view of things the term "regeneration" has been so "watered down" ("corrupted"?) and so narrowed and restricted that the term "regeneration" has come to mean practically nothing except what is vague and incoherent.

The next objectionable thing that Beebe says, from the above citation, is:

"We search the law and gospel both in vain to find this obligatory repentance..."

Beebe disagrees with many Hardshells on this point, however, both of his own day and of this day. First, let me cite C.B. and his son Sylvester Hassell on whether it is the duty of all men to repent.

In answer to the question, "Who are "the all-men-everywhere" whom Paul says in his discourse at Athens "God commands to repent?" (Acts 17:30), Hassell answered, saying:

"The whole world of human beings, the whole human race, whom Paul says, in the next verse, God will judge by Jesus Christ. God is the same since the fall of man that He was before, and His holy law, which requires all His intelligent creatures to love and worship Him exclusively and supremely, is the standard of all creature obedience, and cannot change, even if man, by his own will and sin, has rendered himself unable to obey that law. If a man owes another a thousand dollars, and is not able to pay him a cent, he owes him just the same. Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5).

Hassell wavers not, as did Beebe, relative to this matter of whether all men are commanded to "repent," even though they are "not able to do so" in themselves. However, Hassell replies as follows to the question, "Is repentance a part of regeneration, or is it an afterwork?":

"It is the subsequent fruit, in man, of the previous work of Divine regeneration." (Ezek. 36:24-32; Zech. 12:10-14; Acts 5:31; 11:18; II Cor. 7:10; II Tim. 2:25)

(Elder Sylvester Hassell Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger" Compiled by R.H. Pittman)

If Hardshells seem to recognize the truth (which destroys Pelagianism) that "a command does not imply ability," why does Beebe say the following contradictory things?

"But, does man's inability to repent, or to believe, or even to keep from sinning, relieve him from his obligation to do so? Certainly not..."

"...the obligation of repentance upon unregenerate sinners...We might as well speak of their obligation to remit their own sins as to procure their own repentance..."

"It would be equally as proper and scriptural to speak of their obligation to be saved, to go to heaven, and to make themselves sons and heirs of God."

"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so."

"True repentance which is unto life and needeth not to be repented of, must proceed from life. If the repentance be spiritual it proceeds from a spiritual source, and must be preceded by the quickening Spirit of God." (Editorials –– Volume 4 pgs 41-46)

But, why can't he see that the "source" for the purity and holiness given in regeneration is not first and foremost the human heart, but the heart of the Holy Spirit?

How can Hardshells consistently say that "commands do not imply ability," and then turn around and say that they do? Brother, you will find all kinds of inconsistencies in Hardshell theorizing and in their "hermeneutics."

Let us look at some of the Biblical imperatives and commands given in the Bible and apply the Hardshell "logic" of Beebe and others like him.

Biblical Imperatives

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and MAKE YOU A NEW HEART and a NEW SPIRIT: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezekiel 18:30-32)

Here God tells them to do what they cannot do of themselves. And yet, what does Beebe say?

"...the obligation of repentance upon unregenerate sinners...We might as well speak of their obligation to remit their own sins as to procure their own repentance..."

"It would be equally as proper and scriptural to speak of their obligation to be saved, to go to heaven, and to make themselves sons and heirs of God."

I suppose God and Ezekiel spoke "improperly" by Hardshell "logic"? He told them to regenerate themselves! Of course, I agree that only when the Spirit attends such words do they become effectual.

“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” (Deut. 10:16)

Here God tells them imperatively to "circumcise your hearts." Does that imply ability in them to do so? When we are "circumcised in heart," can we not say that God did it in one sense, and we did it in another? Is it not much the same way in Exodus where it is said that both God and Pharoah "hardened" Pharoah's heart?

And again God says to the general populace through Jeremiah:

“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.” (Jer. 4:4)

Again, these are commands of God to the people to save themselves. If the PB's are going to continue to say that such commands imply ability, then they will end up taking all these verses and try to apply them to some "timely circumcision," or the "creating" of the new heart, that they are commanded to do, to something divorced from regeneration and eternal salvation.

“Learn to do well.” (Isa. 1:17)

Is this a command only to believers, only to those already regenerated? Are not lost sinners commanded to "learn to do well?" Is it not part of regeneration to be "taught of God"? (John 6:45) Regeneration is nothing but God making the words above, given through the preacher, effective in the hearts of the elect.

The same prophet utters God's message to the people, saying to them,

“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil.” (Isa. 1:16)

Will the Hardshells continue to spout this nonsense, saying that such commands can only be applied to regenerate people because such commands "imply ability to keep them"?

I might ask those Hardshells who reason that "gospel commands imply ability," - "DOES IT DO THE SAME IN THE PRECEDING VERSES I CITED FROM EZEKIEL & JEREMIAH?" Does "circumcise your hearts" and "make you a new heart," imply that they had ability? What will you PB's do now, invent "two kinds of" "circumcision of the heart"

And notice these words of Paul:

“Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Eph. 5:14)

Here is a command for dead sinners to "arise from the dead." Now, I will deal with this verse in greater depth later in a separate chapter, and will be citing the famed Hardshell debater, C. H. Cayce. He would deny that this is a general command to all men to be saved, to come up from the grave of sin, receive Christ, and be regenerated. He would say that the command was addressed to those who were not dead, but really "alive," but were only "among the dead." He tries to argue this from the Greek use of the word "ek" (or "out") and from the fact that the passage says "Christ shall give thee light," not "life." But, then again, if Cayce's view is correct, then it should say, "Awake you who sleep (in death) and arise from the darkness, and Christ shall give thee light."

But, the truth of the matter is, coming out of death involves receiving the "light of life," as Jesus said.

"Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)

And John says, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (1:4)

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to some:

“Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40)

This verse is very troublesome for the Hardshells. All the "Conditionalists" will insist that this verse proves that are "two kinds of salvation in the Bible or else there are contradictions in it." Is that so? They will argue that since "commands imply ability," therefore those commanded to "save themselves" must already have ability to do so, an ability they could not possibly have from their natural states, and so they use that Hardshell "logic" to infer that these people "must be already regenerated" and therefore (ergo) the "salvation" in the passage "must be a "time salvation," and not an eternal one."

But again, if as they say, in one breath, that "commands do not imply ability," why do they reason so? But, if they "forget" about that and say, in commenting on the words of Peter above, that such words "imply ability", they are just nothing short of grossly contradictory and blind.

God tells everyone, every sinner, in emphatic and the imperative mood, to - “Return to the Lord.” (Psa. 90:3; Isa. 55:6)

Again, is this not salvation? Is this not a command that no one can obey by himself, by his own free will and ability? Still, the point that is against Hardshellism is that all are commanded to do as these verse command, and they do not imply ability to obey them. However, when the Holy Spirit is present to bless such words, to make them effectual, they impart an ability and an immediate positive and effectual reponse.

“Seek Ye the Lord.” (Isa. 55:6)

Again, Hardshell "logic" would say that God was only saying this to people who had ability, to those who are already regenerated. But, all men are under obligation to do as the Lord commands, and to do so, in faith and by the power of God's word and Spirit, it will be done and issue in salvation.

“Call upon the Lord.” (Isa. 55:6)

For what? Certainly salvation would not be excluded. Paul said, "for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10: 13) This calling upon the Lord, do we only admonished the saved to do this? Are not all men owed the warning to do so?

Will the Hardshells continue to spout this nonsense, saying that such commands can only be applied to regenerate people because such commands "imply ability to keep them"?

And then notice these two evangelical commands given to everyone to hear.

“Look unto me and be saved.” (Isa. 45:22)

Again, those are commands that the natural man cannot meet, and the fact that he is commanded to do them does not prove they are able to do so, even as the Hardshells are willing to admit at times when it suits their purpose. Here he positively commands people to "be saved." "Be regenerated." "Be risen from your death in sin." "Come forth from the grave of iniquity." I can say that to every soul as an "ambassador," as one who "beseeches" in Jesus' name. Yet, those words alone will not regenerate. The Campbellite view of "word alone" will not work. Neither will the "Spirit alone" view of the Hardshells accord with what the Scriptures teach.

“Be (ye) converted.” (Acts 3:19)

Again, this is a command to be internally and externally conformed to Christ. Does this imply ability? Absolutely not? The Hardshells need to throw this Pelagian concept into the bottomless pit.

As I said, Hassell and most PB's will affirm that all men are, in some sense, commanded to repent of their sins. But, Beebe, on the other hand, seemed reluctant to affirm such. He said:

"...if it can be found that such obligations (to repent) are upon him." (ibid)

And then he asks:

"...but where has the law under which the unregenerate sinner is held, either required him to repent or believe the gospel?"

I think the numerous verses I have cited already answers his question. I also think one can see it clearly implied in the law's command to love God with all our heart and soul. Certaily a soul that loves God will want to come in humble sorrow to him when he has sinned and seek forgiveness, right?

He then says:

"The law truly forbids him to transgress, and holds him answerable for every transgression."

But again, would the law not also obligate him to seek the forgiveness of the one against whom he has sinned? Yes, such repentance would not obligate God to forgive but it is sitll obligatory upon sinners to seek God's forgiveness when they sin and the law both says this and implies it.

Beebe says further:

"Sin, not a want of repentance or faith, is what the sinner is condemned for."

Can you believe that? Perhaps he has never read such verses as these.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." (Matt. 23:23)

If "faith" and "mercy" be included in the teachings of the law, and of the Old Testament generally, then certainly too would be "repentance."

And, from the same context, Beebe said other these things I find objectionable.

"Is there any obligation devolving on a graceless sinner making it his duty that God shall give him either faith or repentance? How absurd!"

Who argues that? Who affirms such? Again, this is typical Hardshell tactics, to create "straw men."

On a PB web site, a Hardshell answers the question, "Do Primitive Baptist ministers preach "repentance?" He says:

"Yes, but not as a means of eternal salvation. Real repentance is a fruit of the work of grace in the heart. "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." (Rom. 2:4). Paul said, "God ... now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts. 17:30). The first Baptist preacher preached repentance. (Matt. 3:2). To those whose hearts were touched and "pricked" on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you." (Acts 2:38). But there is much so-called repentance that is insincere, people who draw nigh to God with their lips while their heart is far from him. (Matt. 15 8). (R. H. Pittman, from www.pb.org/pbdocs/pittman.html)

There you have it again, a man can be regenerated and saved and not have a penitent heart, but still have a cold, unconvicted, hard, and impenitent heart and yet he is still on his way to heaven! And worst of all, as I have shown, they actually have this "new heart," that they admit is what is given in regeneration, lacking penitence and conviction of sin! Absurdity of absurdities!

Elder Harold Hunt (whom I know personally) wrote:

"God, through his goodness, leads his children to repentance (Rom. 2:4), grants repentance, gives repentance (see Acts 5:31 and 11:18), but does not repent for them. Someone has well said that true repentance means to be sorry enough to quit doing what is wrong, but it also means to start doing what is right."

Did you notice that caveat? "But does not repent for them"? He means that the fact of whether the elect ever "repent" or not is not by sovereign will and power but by their own "free" wills and by their own power. Some of God's children may never repent! He says this hypocritically for he will argue elsewhere, as all the PB's do, that the "faith" in Ephesians 1:19 & 2:9, being a "gift," means that it is something that God makes the quickened sinner believe, irresistably; but then, on the subject of God "giving" "repentance," it does not mean that God "gives" it in the same way. "Consistency thou art a jewel!"

And again Hunt says:

"Inward teaching must occur before the outward instructions are of any benefit." (emphasis mine)

Why can they both not occur at the same time? Why cannot one be the means of the other? Cannot God's word reach the heart and very depths of the soul? Is that all that Elder Hunt's teaching does, give only "outward instruction?" If he preach "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," would that "outward instruction" not become internalized and be made to transform the soul? Why "mystify" this whole matter?

He says again:

"Repentance not only means turning away from evil and worldly things, it means turning to the Lord; turning to his word for guidance."

But, the "regenerated man" of Elder Hunt who has a "new heart," and a "new nature," has not turned in his heart to the Lord!

But he does get some things right in the following citation, taking the view of Hassell over that of Beebe.

"All men everywhere are commanded to repent: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts 17:30.) Although only, "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of (II Corinthians 7:10) all men are under obligation to keep the commandments of their creator, who made them through their father Adam, even though they may be destitute of spiritual life. The lack of this spiritual life in no way lessens the responsibility to keep the moral laws of God. The fact that the wicked have no ability to keep the moral laws does not in any sense relieve them of the obligation to keep them; neither does the fact that they are not led to repentance set them free from the requirement to repent."

Well, amen, amen! But, then he goes off "half cocked" on his learned tangent about how "repentance" is not connected with that "new heart" nor with the "work of regeneration" that God performs "through his word." He says further:

"This proclamation was not a proposition that if they would repent and believe the gospel they should be saved for doing so, for that would suppose that a bad tree could bring forth good fruit, without first being made good, which Christ says is impossible (see Matthew 7:18)."

But again, instead of looking at "faith" and "repentance" as being "fruits" of regeneration," or fruits of the tree, they rather should see that faith and repentance are aspects and characteristics of the new heart God gives to his elect in regeneration, being the "part and parcel of regeneration." Faith and Repentance are part of the tree.

Hunt writes:

"...equips them for repentance, but is not going to repent for them. Those to whom he does not grant repentance in this world will have no desire for it until they face the judge before the great white throne; then there will be no place for it..."

(Harold Hunt - http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/sonshiptodiscipleshipchpt12.htm)

Did God not "equip" their "wills" to will properly? If they never will to come to God, how can it be alleged that they were "equipped" by God to do so? Is there no "equipment" for the will of the regenerated one?

How contrary is all this to the truly Old Baptists!

In the Circular Letter of the Philadelphia Association , published in 1789, we read:

“Mere legal repentance originates in self love …but repentance which is UNTO life and salvation has God for its Author, and does NOT arise from the power of free will...but from the grace of God as the efficient, and the operation of the Divine Spirit as the impulsive cause...this repentance is WROUGHT in the hearts of God’s people to their edification, etc.” (Hassel's History, page 567)

I agree with these remarks by Calvin:

"In one word I apprehend repentance to be regeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the Divine image within us." (Bk 3, Ch 3, Sec 9)

Amen, Brother Calvin! If he does not uphold what I have been saying (and Brother Ross also), then I cannot understand plain words.

And again he writes:

"Repentance...a renewal of the divine image in us." It is "not completed in a moment, but extends to the last moment of life." (ibid)

Again, amen! Why can others in the "Reformed Camp" not see this?

Calvin says further:

“testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 20:21). Here he mentions faith and repentance as two different things. What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means. But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished." (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.iii.iv.html)

Due to the length of this subject, and to make it easy in writing this work, I am dividing this topic of "Hardshells On Repentance" into two chapters. So, like the topic of "Hardshells on Faith," this will be the "primer."

In the next concluding chapter on this subject, I will cite more from Hassell and other Hardshells, more from Calvin, extend arguments introduced in this chapter, list new proofs against the views of the PB's on the subject of repentance.

I will also be looking at some key verses of scripture relative to repentance and will show how they annihilate the remaining "pillars" of Hardshellism, such as II Peter 3:9.