II Peter 3: 9 and Hardshellism

Confused on what to believe about 

Repentance & Salvation?

The "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists are confused themselves, and confuse others, when it comes to debating what role, if any, repentance has in being eternally saved from sin and its consequences. Many of them in our day will agree with what one of their greatest leaders and apologist debaters said in 1887 with W.P. Throgmorton. His name was Lemuel Potter, author of several books, and a well known name among the Hardshell Baptists. In my post titled "Repentance Not Necessary For Salvation?" (See here) I cited these words of Potter from that debate:

"We claim it the duty of all people to repent of doing wrong, of sin, and that it is right for them to believe the truth, and accept it, wherever they find it. But we do not think that the salvation of sinners is on condition of their hearing the Gospel. That is what makes the issue between us. We deny that repentance is a condition of salvation."

I also wrote a short post after this titled "Necessity of Repentance for Remission of Sins" (See here) and cited Acts 3: 19 that said, in easy to understand words, that repentance and conversion were put as the conditions for being forgiven of sins. So, it is bewildering that any professing Bible believer would deny, as did Potter and his Hardshell brothers, that repentance was a necessary condition for salvation. 

Not all Hardshells will say this as frankly as did Potter. Many will rather try to give a new definition and description of what is "repentance," just like they do with the word and concept of "faith." These will whittle down the meaning so as to make it possible for those who are not Christians or believers in the God of the Bible, for those in other religions, to have repented and believed towards God or Christ. These would say "the Lord gives all his elect faith and repentance when he regenerates them." However, they do not believe that such faith and repentance makes anyone a believer in the God of the bible, or in Jesus, nor in the good news of his salvation, etc. They whittle down what it means to repent, restricting it to the sorrow or guilt one feels when he has done wrong. And, if these feelings are directed to false gods and goddesses, these Hardshells will say that this is evidence that God has given them repentance. So, I don't know which way is more heretical, that of Potter's which says that repentance is not required for salvation, or others who corrupt the meaning of repentance to suit their system.

The following verse is a hard nut for the Hardshells, whichever of the two views they take. Wrote the apostle Peter:

"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 kjv)

This text has long been a matter of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists. The former insists that by "all" in the clause "all should come to repentance" denotes every human being. In other words, God desires that every human being, or every sinner, should come to repentance. Some Calvinists, though not all, will argue that the words "all" or "any" denote the elect who God chose and predestined to salvation before the world began, so that the text is saying that God desires that all the elect come to repentance, and not perish. They argue that this interpretation is indicated by Peter's use of the word "us-ward." By this word Peter includes those who he is writing to, and who are saved people, as well as himself. So they read the verse as follows: 

"God is longsuffering to us who are the elect, and not willing that any of the elect should perish, but is willing that all the elect come to repentance."  

But, this interpretation destroys the proposition of Potter who said that repentance is not necessary for being the elect, or being saved from perishing, and who therefore also affirmed that many of the elect will not come to repentance. 

Will our Hardshell brethren say that God wants all the elect to come to repentance, but very few of them come? Would that not contradict their views on the sovereignty of God? If God does whatever he pleases, would he not give repentance to all his chosen people? 

My modern day Hardshell brethren, which horn do you want to take? The one that says repentance is not necessary for salvation? Or, the one that reinterprets repentance so as to make it something that even heathens do in their worship to their gods?

Also, consider the fact that God is longsuffering even towards the "vessels of wrath who are fitted to destruction." (Rom. 9: 22) So, his longsuffering cannot be limited to the elect or to believers only. Also, other verses say that "God will have all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4)