God Opens and Shuts

In my prayers I often give God thanks for "opening" my heart, eyes, ears, mind, understanding, and mouth or lips. I also pray that he continues to do so. Because of sin and innate depravity, and by our choices to shut out God, we have "closed" our hearts, eyes, ears, and minds. Opened eyes, ears, hearts, and mouths are set in opposition to closed eyes, ears, hearts, minds, and mouths. The above text speaks of the Messiah, and of his power to open what is shut and to shut what is open.

Opened Hearts

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14 kjv)

God opens the door of the heart so that his word may gain entrance. I have written at length on this text as it relates to the ordo salutis, and whether it teaches that Lydia was "regenerated" when the Lord opened her heart, and that this therefore shows that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. (See here) I show that this is not what is meant by the Lord opening her heart, but rather that the text reveals what God does in the hearts and minds of sinners prior to regeneration or conversion, being an instance of what is called "prevenient grace." The word "prevenient" means what precedes or goes before. God operates on the hearts of sinners prior to their regeneration.

These are "preparations" for conversion. It is possible that Lydia was already regenerated before her heart was opened on this occasion, since she was a believer in Yahweh and was assembled for prayer with other women. If that be the case, then the opening of her heart simply meant that the Lord caused her to give attention to what Paul was preaching, which shows that even believers who are saved need for God to continue to open their hearts to give attention to his word.

God opening the heart had for its purpose of making her receptive or attentive to the gospel message of the apostle. The old Puritans spoke of sinners being "awakened" prior to being regenerated or converted. They taught that some sinners are awakened to their lost condition and need of salvation, and yet go back to sleep and are never saved. This is true when one's interest in the gospel stirred for a time when God has providentially gained their attention. I wrote a short series on "Awakened Sinners" back in 2018. (This post give the third in that series and gives links to the previous ones - here)

God has no trouble getting the attention of sinners, nor awakening them from their slumber, when he determines to do so. Thank God for this act of mercy, for it was what in many cases led to embracing the gospel and receiving Christ and salvation. Even as Christians we need to constantly ask the Lord to continuously open our hearts to the truth and to make us careful about closing our hearts, minds, eyes, and ears to God and his word.

Opened Eyes

The Psalmist said: "Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law." (Psa. 119: 18 nkjv) This is what Christians are to continuously pray. God first opened our eyes when he first awakened us to our lost condition and need of his salvation, and later too when he opened our eyes to see Christ as the way of salvation, to see the cross of Calvary as the place of propitiation. So the old Christian song says:

"At the cross, at the cross, where I first SAW the light, and the burden of my heart rolled away. It was there by faith I received my sight and now I am happy all the day."

It was prophesied that God's servant, the Messiah, would be sent to the people in order "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." (Isa. 42: 7 kjv) This is what happens when a sinner is converted and born of the Spirit. So we read where the Lord Jesus opened the eyes of the persecuting Saul of Tarsus and then commissioned him to go to the Gentiles to preach the gospel, the means of salvation, and for this purpose:

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 18 kjv)

Our Hardshell brethren don't believe God uses his ministers to save sinners and they therefore have much difficulty with this passage. They will make every effort to say that the above description of salvation is a mere timely deliverance and has nothing to do with eternal salvation. They force this view upon the text because they believe their proposition that says that God does not use human means in the eternal salvation of sinners is an inspired proposition and they therefore hack and hew on the text to make it fit with this proposition. They will often say - "the text does not say that Paul would be the means of giving them eyes but of opening their eyes." However, all men have eyes, or the natural ability to see truth and error, though they do not have the moral or spiritual ability because of depravity. Sin blinds the eyes, but men are active in this blindness. So the Lord says:

"Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not." (Jer. 5: 21 nkjv)

Notice that the people who are foolish and without understanding, which is a description of unsaved people, have eyes and ears, but these they have closed, which is why the Lord chastises them. (See also Eze. 12: 2) This is why the Lord says to such lost sinners: “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see." (Isa. 42: 18 nkjv) If such deaf and blind people were so because they had no physical ability to see or hear, this would be a cruel thing for God to ask. But, if the deafness and blindness was owing to the people making themselves such by their depravity, and by their spiritual and moral inability, then such a command is quite understandable.

It is true that there are several bible verses that say that God shuts the eyes and ears of sinners, but this is a judicial act by God in response to the stubbornness of sinners and their refusal to hear and see. So we read:

“Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” (Isa. 6: 10 nkjv)

God did this as a judgment. So we say that God in some sense shuts eyes and ears, and so too do sinners shut their own eyes and ears. We may also say that Satan does that very thing. So Paul wrote:

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Cor. 4: 4 kjv)

Satan (the "god of this world") does this to sinners but not against their will, sinners allowing Satan to do this. They are complicit and not innocent victims. So the Lord Jesus said:

"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (Matt. 13: 15 nkjv)

The opening of the eyes is what happens when a sinner is saved. It is connected, as we saw from Acts 26: 18, with being "turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" and with "receiving forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith." But, even saved Christians need to constantly have their eyes opened to understand the scriptures. So the Psalmist, as a saved man, prayed for God to open his eyes so that he might understand and see wondrous things from God's word. So the apostle Paul prayed for the Ephesian believers in order that they might have "the eyes of your understanding enlightened" (Eph. 1: 18 nkjv).

Opened Ears

Solomon said: "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The LORD has made them both." (Prov. 20: 12 nkjv) So, if a person sees or hears the word of the Lord he can only thank God for it. So too did the Psalmist exclaim: "My ears You have opened." (Psa. 40: 6 nkjv) Sin and depravity deafens us. Though sinners are deaf and blind he still says to them, as we saw, “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see." He says to them: "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3 kjv) So the apostle Paul says:

"See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven." (Heb. 12: 25 nkjv)

People choose to "turn their ears away from the truth" (II Tim. 4: 4 nkjv). The Lord said through Isaiah: "I spoke to you in your prosperity, But you said, ‘I will not hear.’ This has been your manner from your youth, That you did not obey My voice." (Jer. 22: 21 nkjv)

What we see is that the opening of the eyes and ears is a work of God and yet it is something that people do, being exhorted thereunto by the Lord. It is one of the errors of Hyper Calvinism to wrongly interpret texts which say that when God does something in a person it excludes that person himself doing that thing. God opens the eyes and ears and people open their eyes and ears. God shuts the eyes and ears and people shut their eyes and ears. We should all be asking God to open our hearts, eyes, and ears, and when we do that we are doing the opening.

Opened Understanding

"And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24: 32 kjv)

We have already taken notice of the text that speaks of opening "the eyes" of one's "understanding." The above text is a companion to that verse. This "opening" of the scriptures is what we call "enlightenment" or "illumination." We have already referred to how "the god of this age blinds the minds" of people, and how the Lord "shines" upon such people through giving "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ." While lost in sin the "understanding" is "darkened" (Eph. 4: 18), there being no inner light nor experience of having their understanding opened by the Lord. In such a state there is no "spiritual understanding." (Col. 1: 9) Once saved and converted the sinner possesses "all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." (Col. 2: 2 kjv) God must "give understanding in all things." (II Tim. 2: 7) Wrote the apostle John:

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5: 20 nkjv)

This giving or opening of the understanding to know spiritual things is necessary for anyone to "know" God "who is true," and to know Christ Jesus the Son who is also "true." By this understanding a person knows God and his Son, and this is salvation.

Opened Lips and Mouths

"O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise." (Psa. 51: 15 kjv)

"I am the LORD your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt; Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it." (Psa. 81: 10 nkjv)

When we are able to open our mouths in praise and prayer to God, we can thank God for it. He is the reason why we do this. So many close their mouths, refusing to praise God, refusing to pray to him, and refusing to speak of him to others. Let us praise the Lord for opening so that none can shut, and shutting so that none can open. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVI)

"that we should no longer be children, 

tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, 

by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" 

(Ephesians 4: 14 nkjv)

What a mighty wind of false doctrine is Two Seedism! It has "tossed to and fro" those known as "Primitive," or "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Potter in his pamphlet* against Two Seedism said:

"Of those who maintain this doctrine, we find about as many different positions on it as we find men who advocate it. Their tongues are as badly confused as those of the builders of the Tower of Babel." 

*"UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here)

In this chapter we will continue our examination of what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in his pamphlet against Two Seedism in 1880. In that pamphlet he gave eleven tenets of Two Seedism and in the past few chapters we have given the first three along with Potter's response to each. Potter wrote further, giving us the fourth tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. - "Are the serpent's seed accountable beings to God, and on what principle will they be judged, condemned and punished? The serpent's seed are accountable to God, because they are in His rightful dominion, came into action in the world by way of God's creation, and live in this world on the bounties of heaven, and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works." - Daniel Parker, Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June, 1831, editorial."

Parker does not affirm that the "serpent's seed" were "accountable to God" because they were his creation, but because they were in his dominion. We have already seen where Parker did not believe that God created the Devil, and that he believed that all who were created in God's image would be saved, and so this involves believing that God did not create the Devil's children, nor that they were made in the image of God. How did the Devil's children get into God's dominion? Parker said that the Devil's children, like the evil angels (who he believed were humans), were particles infused into the human race. In chapter XII Nowlin cited Parker where he said this very thing. Also, Potter has already given us tenet number one in the list of Two Seed tenets, which said:

1. - "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald of Truth, by Anderson Gordon, January 1878, p. 201."

Potter makes this comment on this Two Seed 4th tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. We endorse the idea that the wicked will be punished for their wickedness and rebellion against the government of God. By their sins they incur the just penalty of God's law, and they will be judged and condemned by it, just as the elect of God would without redemption from the curse of the law. Gal. iii: 13."

He did not, however, point out the things I just pointed out, and you would think that he should have done so. Further, why did he not cite other Two Seeders who said that nothing a person does in his life is a cause of his going to Hell forever? This was what tenet number three stated.

3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world...our doings in this life only affect us in this life."

So why does Potter not say that Parker was wrong to deny that the Devil's seed were accountable to God because they were his creation and not simply because they were in God's dominion? Why does Potter not say that he agrees with Two Seeders on the proposition that says that nothing that a person does in this life is a reason why he goes to an eternity of bliss? He does say that he agrees with Parker in affirming that people go to Hell because of their sins, even though later Two Seeders denied this.

Potter wrote further, giving us tenet number five of the Two Seeder's creed, which stated:

"5. - "Are the serpent's seed human beings? If they are, how did they partake of humanity? The serpent's seed are human beings; they partook of their humanity by means of the creation which God had made. Creation was made good; the serpent corrupted and got into it, for which cause God yet multiplied its conception and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed, and thus the children of the multiplied conception, coming through the created stock, are equally human beings with the children of creation, or divinely appointed conception, and the old serpent, the devil, is also the father of the wicked, corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world." - Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June 1831, editorial."

Again, this is what Daniel Parker said, and it was not what other Two Seeders who followed him believed. So, why did Potter put this in his list of tenets of Two Seedism that are unsound? It is true that later Two Seeders would deny that the Devil's seed, or the "multiplied conception," were fully human beings, or had human souls, but Parker did not go that far. It is possible that Parker meant that the Devil's seed were humans physically, but not fully, lacking a soul and spirit.

It is allowable to say that the Devil sowed a "seed" into the woman's mind, that seed being a thought, or suggestion. After all, we do speak of thoughts being "conceived" in the mind. When Paul was in Athens and teaching the word of God, he was accused of being a "babbler," and the Greek word is spermalogos, which is a compound of "sperma" (seed) and "logos" (words). (See my posting on this here) Paul was viewed as one who was broadcasting seed, giving news. So we speak of newsmen as "broadcasters." The Devil did not sow his seed in the sense of child producing sperm.

Potter's response to this article said:

"5. So far as the manner of the serpent's seed partaking humanity is concerned, there are only three positions for us to take, provided they are human beings, and this item says they are; one is that God made them when he made Adam, or he made them after he made Adam, or he did not make them at all. If they are the wicked he made them, and if they are men and women he made them, as we have already shown above. We have no account in the Bible that God made any man but Adam. To say that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man or in the world, and that that makes some of them his seed, would be to make all of them his seed that possess the wicked and corrupt nature; and to take the wicked and corrupt nature out of all of them would leave him with no seed, and we would have the same men and women in the world; for the corrupt and wicked nature in man is no part of man."

Recall in earlier chapters we gave the rebuttal of Elder Joshua Lawrence to the Two Seedism of Daniel Parker and showed where Lawrence said that all lost sinners are children of the Devil and it is this same seed of the Devil that God makes into his children. All men are born in sin, born under wrath, born morally corrupt, and so they are all born children of the Devil.

Potter also said:

"We take Parker's position as quoted above, that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in them, and that were it not for the provisions that God has made for the objects of his love, to redeem them from sin, and rid them of the wicked and corrupt nature, they would be fit for nothing but to live in the service of sin in this world, and at last to make their home eternally among the demons of eternal despair."

So, can we prove from scripture that those who become the children or seed of God were previously the children or seed of the Devil? In Matthew chapter three John the Baptist addresses Jews (Pharisees and Sadducees) and called them a "brood of vipers." Yet, to them he gives a warning to flee from the wrath to come, and says that he would baptize them upon their repentance, saying to them "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" and "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (vs. 7-12) Who is the "you" in this text? Clearly it is to those vipers who repented and heeded the warning. If being vipers is equated with being children of the Devil, then by exhorting these vipers to repentance his aim was to make children of God out of the children of the Devil. In John chapter five Jesus addresses some of these children of the Devil and exhorts them to come to him for life and salvation. We should also call attention to the case of Cain, one whom the apostle John said was "of the Devil" (I John 3: 12), and who the Two Seeders who followed Parker said was of the Devil's seed and could therefore never be saved. However, notice what God says to Cain when he and his offering were rejected by him. The text says;

"but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen. 4: 5-7 nkjv)

John Gill, the Calvinist, in his commentary on the expression - "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" - says:

"...if thou doest thine offering well, or rightly offereth, as the Septuagint; or offers not only what is materially good and proper to be offered, but in a right way, in obedience to the divine will, from love to God, and with true devotion to him, in the faith of the promised seed, and with a view to his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance; then thine offering would be well pleasing and acceptable."

Gill does leave out the fact that not only would God accept Cain's offering when it is made in the right way and in the right motive, but Cain himself would be accepted. After all, the Lord not only rejected Cain's offering but also rejected Cain himself. Therefore his counsel to Cain involved what Cain should do to have both his offering and his person accepted by God. God says that Cain himself would be accepted if he did what he was counseled by God to do. So, this shows that children of the Devil may become children of God.

Potter wrote further, giving the following short statement for the sixth tenet of Two Seedism:

"6. - "Two seeds manifest in the flesh." - Herald of Truth, Vol. 3, No. 6."

Potter writes this in commentary on the above tenet:

"6. Two seeds manifest in the flesh would make a difference in the flesh; so that some men would be good seed in consequence of their natural birth. This would make flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Bible says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I. Cor. xv: 50. Those that were admitted to John's baptism were not admitted because of their fleshly birth, but they must have other qualifications. Those who received Jesus when he came into the world were not different from those did not, by virtue of their natural birth; but they were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is being born of God that makes a difference between them and others, and even makes the same man different from what he was before. If the natural, or fleshly birth made a man a child of God, there would be no need of him being born again to entitle him to enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." John iii, 6."

Of course the bible teaches that the children of God are his seed or offspring. However, all men are God's offspring in a natural sense, as Paul said to the Athenian idolaters, citing from their own poet, "we are all God's offspring." (Acts 17:28) But, not all men are God's offspring by a spiritual birth. Lost sinners are God's offspring because they are God's creation, through procreation, but only those who have been "born of God" or "of incorruptible seed," through the Spirit and "by the word of God" (John 1: 12-13; I Peter 1: 23) are his spiritual children via a new creation. This is what Potter is arguing and it is fully scriptural. However, when he says that there is no difference between those who "received Jesus" and those who rejected him, he is going against what he himself teaches. Why? Because he and those "Primitive Baptists" who follow him today say that the reason why one receives Jesus and another not is because there is a difference between them, one being born of God and another not. Maybe this is why Potter adds these words after his comma -- "by virtue of their natural birth."

Potter also does not explain the Two Seed response to his rebuttal. As I have shown in previous chapters, Two Seeders like Beebe would say that the birth is not the begetting of the child, not the origin of the child, for the child born was "conceived" prior to the birth. So, Beebe would say that birth only "manifests" the already begotten child. He would say that the child born of the Spirit was "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. Potter and his brethren would say that being born of the Spirit "manifests" those who have been chosen to salvation. He and they would also say that "receiving Jesus" only manifests that one was already born of God, was already a child of God. This is contrary to what the apostle John wrote when he wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

They became children of God when they received Christ and believed on him, and not before. It is when they received him that they were "born of God."

In the next chapter we will continue our review of Potter's lengthy rebuttal of Two Seedism.

What Does It Mean To Forgive Others?

When I type in a Google search the words "what is involved in forgiving others" I get this response:

"Forgiving others involves an intentional decision to release resentment, anger, and the desire for revenge. This process can take time and often includes acknowledging the hurt, understanding the situation, letting go of negative feelings, and choosing to move forward for your own well-being, even if the person doesn't respond or make amends. Forgiveness is often about releasing the other person from the "debt" of what they owe you, allowing you to heal and detach from the event."

This summation concerning forgiveness is not biblical. Forgiveness is not unconditional. I wrote on this subject not too long ago in a short post titled "Unconditional Forgiveness?" (See here) I cited the following text to show that forgiveness was not unconditional.

"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Luke 17: 3-4 kjv)

Forgiveness is not unconditional. We are not obligated to forgive those who have not confessed their trespass against us nor repented of it. Oftentimes this would include recompensing for any damage done by the trespass. If a person steals my car and wrecks it, and then says "I am sorry, please forgive me," I am obligated to grant forgiveness. But, that does not relieve the person from paying for the damage to the car. There are many bible passages we could cite to show that this is what God counsels.

What many preachers mean by advising Christians to forgive all unconditionally is because it is a way to release anger and manage emotion, such as hate and bitterness. But, that is not the chief idea involved in biblical forgiveness. True forgiveness involves restoration and reconciliation. God does not forgive unconditionally, but requires confession and repentance. Notice these texts:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1: 9 nkjv)

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3: 19 nkjv)

Here we see that confession of sins and repentance are conditions for divine forgiveness. Of course, this does not mean that we must confess every sin, for we often sin and don't know it, and therefore such sins do not get specifically confessed. That is why we pray for God to forgive us for all sins, even those we are not aware of. There are sins of commission and sins of omission.

We must also realize that there are two contexts in which forgiveness takes place. One is judicial and involves criminals being legally or judicially justified, acquitted, or pardoned. The other is parental forgiveness and involves being spared discipline or chastisement. A child of God is already forgiven of all sins, past, present, and future, so far as the law of God is concerned. But, God's child needs fatherly forgiveness every day.

Let me now enlarge upon my thesis to show that forgiveness is not unconditional, but conditional. Our Lord said:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matt. 18: 15-17 nkjv)

Here Jesus says the same thing as he did in Luke 17: 3-4, mentioned above. Forgiveness by the church is conditional upon the brother who sins against another brother "hearing" or heeding the counsel of other brothers, and of the whole church. This hearing involves confession and repentance. Without this the brother offended, and the church, is not to forgive the sinning brother, but is to look upon him as not being a brother, but a "heathen." If the sinning brother heeds the counsel of others and repents, he is then forgiven, and such forgiveness involves restoration and reconciliation. We see an example of this in First Corinthians chapter five, where Paul addressed the severe sexual immorality in the Corinthian church, involving a brother fornicating with his father's wife (stepmother). Paul demanded that the church discipline him by excluding him, in order to bring him to repentance so that his spirit could be saved. Without this repentance there would be no forgiveness nor restoration. In II Corinthians chapter two we read where Paul urges forgiveness after the man repents.

Now let us look at another example of this same paradigm. It involves the evil that a professing Christian brother did to the apostle Paul. In his letter to Timothy, Paul writes:

"Alexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done" (2 Timothy 4:14, NIV).

The original Greek can be translated as either "the Lord will repay" (a statement of fact about divine justice) or "may the Lord repay" (an expression of a desire or a wish for divine judgment). So, is this what is called "imprecatory prayers"? Many of the Psalms are called such. These are prayers for evil doers to get what they deserve in some kind of punishment. (Psa. 35: 6; 55: 15; 58: 6; 69: 28; 109: 8)

What is interesting in what Paul says about Alexander is what he says right after this, in verse 16. He wrote:

"At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them." (II Tim. 4: 16 nkjv)

In verse 14 Paul is wanting Alexander to be repaid for the harm he had done to Paul. In verse 16 he is praying that God forgives those brothers who forsook him when he was on trial. What are we to make of this? Is forgiveness always conditional? Is it sometimes unconditional? This becomes a point to consider when we focus on the words of Christ when he was being crucified and said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." (Luke 23: 34) Was he praying for the Jews who cried "crucify him" to be forgiven unconditionally? Is he asking his Father to unconditionally forgive the Romans who were also guilty of his murder?

It is a dangerous thing to be unwilling to forgive others. Jesus taught us to pray, saying "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us." (Matt. 6: 12; Luke 11: 4) This fact is forcefully impressed upon us by these words of the Lord Jesus to Peter when Peter asked - “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” (Matt. 18: 21 nkjv) Jesus then said to him:

"22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Here forgiveness involved eliminating a debt. It does not however necessitate releasing a wrongdoer from paying for the crime he has done, as I showed above in the example of a person who steals your car, wrecks it and damages it, and who says he is sorry. Your forgiveness of him does not mean that you pay for the damage yourself. It also does not mean that you don't punish the person who stole your car and wrecked it. If your son did this, you might forgive him upon his repentance, but you might not ever allow him to use your car in the future nor put your car keys in a place where he can get them.

Let us look at the case where John Mark forsook Paul in their missionary journey. Paul was offended by this. We also see where later in Act 15:35-40, as Paul prepares to set out on his second missionary journey with Barnabas, that Paul and Barnabas had a serious squabble over whether to take Mark with them. We learn that “Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.” Paul strongly disagreed with that idea because Mark’s forsaking Paul previously. (Acts 13:13) In Paul’s eyes his new missionary plan was too serious to risk failure. So we read: “But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.” The subject of John Mark was so divisive between Paul and Barnabas that “they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, and he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:39-40). John Mark had caused the break up of one of history’s great missionary teams. Paul no doubt forgave Mark but that did not mean that he was restored in every way, having the same level of trust in the mind of Paul as before. I am also sure that Mark told Paul that he was sorry. We see this same scenario where a minister is caught in adultery or some other heinous sin and he confesses his wrong to the church, and to his wife and others, and is forgiven, and yet he loses, at least for a time, his standing as a minister.

The above lesson in Matthew about the creditor who forgave a debtor and voided that forgiveness when he saw how the one forgiven refused to forgive debtors who owed him, shows how important it is for us to be willing to always forgive. If we have been forgiven by God, and realize how gracious it is, then we should be as forgiving as our God. It is in our progressive sanctification that we learn how to forgive, when to forgive, and the importance of it. We keep in mind these words:

"For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." (James 2: 13 kjv)

"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless." (Psa. 18: 25 nkjv)

Showing mercy involves forgiving. 

There is much more that could be said on this subject. I do believe that the one wronged may forgive another even if there is no repentance. By "forgive" I mean not holding a grudge or allowing a "root of bitterness" to grow in our hearts when we have suffered a wrong. (Heb. 12: 15) My first wife committed adultery after we had been married six years and had two children. I was willing to forgive her and save our marriage and family. She refused, adding sin to sin. She never said she was sorry nor repented. Yet, I have forgiven her even without her confession and repentance. I refuse to remain bitter over it. 

Let me close by asking whether forgiving another means

1) you no longer are angry at what was done,

2) that you now love or like the one who did you wrong,

3) that you no longer let the wrong affect your relationship.

Doubting Salvation is Proof of Salvation?

In a recent article by David Wise of "March To Zion" web page, a Hardshell Baptist publication, titled "How Do You “Know” That You’re a Child of God?" (See here), the author wrote:

"It is a very common struggle in this world for God’s children to wonder “am I really saved?” Let me first say before we dig into this lesson, that is never a question that a person will ever ask that is unregenerate, so just your desire to ask that question is evidence that you are already born again and the Spirit inside you is stirring for you to ask that question."

The words in bold type (by me) represent a far-fetched theological idea. It is similar to another thing that Hardshells say, which is - "if you have ever felt convicted of sin and realized your guilt before God, then this proves that you are regenerated." In my recent post titled "Are Muslims Saved?" (See here) I spoke of this idea, and I cited Elder C.H. Cayce who wrote:

"...if we are sorry for sin and grieve on account thereof, it is because we are alive spiritually." (Cayce's Editorials, Vol. 3, page 169)

I showed how ridiculous is this view, using the case of Judas to disprove it. I wrote:

"Judas felt sorry for what he had done. (Matt. 27: 3) Does that mean that he was a child of God possessing divine life? Did not Jesus say that Judas was a "demon"? (John 6: 70) Did Jesus not say that it would have been better that Judas had never been born? (Matt. 26: 24) This one case disproves what Cayce said, and what many other Hardshells have affirmed since his day." 

Not only that, but I have shown in several writings that if conviction of sin and guilt, and the Holy Spirit bringing a sinner to acknowledge his lost condition, is an evidence of a saved and justified state, then this makes the Holy Spirit a liar. I write about this in this post (here). Elder Throgmorton in his debate with Elder John Daily made this point and Daily avoided responding to it. However, Elder Sarrels responded to it in his "Systematic Theology" by saying: "...the quickened person in conviction sees himself NOT as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." That makes the Holy Spirit a liar.

In another recent post (See here) I cited from the "Signs of the Times," an "Old School" Baptist paper, from 1862 where a brother Johnson wrote: "If I should hear a person say,- "I know that I am a christian," I confess that I should have doubts of his christianity."

So, if you want to gain assurance of your salvation, you must doubt your salvation, or doubt that you are a Christian. If you want to know you are saved you must say "Am I saved?" 

When someone says that he doesn't know that he is saved, he probably is not saved. What if instead of asking "am I saved?" a person asked "am I lost?" If the former question proves that the person asking was saved, why doesn't the latter question prove that the person asking is lost? When a person doubts his salvation, he ought to be shown how to be saved and sure of it. When a lost person doubts that he is lost, he ought to be shown why he is wrong.

All this is evidence that the "Primitive Baptists" are quasi Universalists, and is one of the reasons why they have had so many of their number go off into full Universalism, being known as "Primitive Baptist Universalist." 

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)

Farewell, vain world! I'm going home!

The following hymn, often sung by sacred harp singers, is one I learned shortly after I was converted at age 16. Ever since then I have often repeated those words in my mind. Since I am in my last days (having a terminal disease), I find myself uttering the lines of this hymn. The other day, while thinking about coming to the end, I said "Farewell vain world I'm going home, my Savior bids me come." I often said it while giving a salute to this vain world. Here are the lyrics to this old hymn:

Farewell, vain world! I'm going home!
My savior smiles and bids me come,
And I don't care to stay here long!
Sweet angels beckon me away,
To sing God's praise in endless day,
And I don't care to stay here long!

Right up yonder, Christians, away up yonder,
O, yes my Lord, for I don't care to stay here long.

I'm glad that I am born to die,
From grief and woe my soul shall fly,
And I don't care to stay here long!
Bright angels shall convey me home,
Away to New Jerusalem,
And I don't care to stay here long!

Right up yonder, Christians, away up yonder,
O, yes my Lord, for I don't care to stay here long.

Right up yonder, Christians, away up yonder,
O, yes my Lord, for I don't care to stay here long.

This song was sung in sacred harp style in the famous movie "Cold Harbor" in 2003. You can listen to it on YouTube (here).

Recently I wrote on how death is one way in which God's wrath is revealed from heaven, but said that for the Christian death is not a penalty. The above hymn says "I'm glad that I am born to die." That line is in keeping with this fact. Death for the Christian will end all suffering, all sin, all gloom, and bring him into heaven where he will enjoy life to the fullest without end. Death is a "departure" for the Believer. Paul said "for the time of my departure is at hand" when speaking of his coming martyrdom. (II Tim. 4: 6) Like people say "bon voyage" when departing on a ship, and wave good bye to others, so we as Christians can do the same. We may even have loved ones by our death bed who also will be saying to us "bon voyage." 

After Charlie Kirk's murder there was a short video made where Charlie is received and embraced by Jesus. (See here) This is what I envision for myself. I want to lay in his bosom as did the apostle whom Jesus loved (John). I want to hear him say "welcome home my child" and "well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord." 

I am waiting for God's chariot, God's angels, to carry me home. I am waiting for the boatman to ferry me over the river of Jordan or death. It can be exciting. I expect the Lord to be with me as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death as did king David. I say with him "surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." (Psa. 23)

Are Muslims Saved?

A "Primitive Baptist" preacher wrote to me recently and said:

"One thing that has always bothered me, is those who clearly reject Christ, such as the Muslim could be a child of God. Sure, a Muslim could be converted but how often does that happen?"

I wonder how many other Hardshells are bothered in the same way as this brother. When you ask a Hardshell Baptist whether a person must believe in Christ and the one true God in order to be saved, you will generally get a "no" answer. Others, however, will hesitate, and will say that people can believe in Jesus on the subconscious level so that they believe but don't know that they believe, having no conscious knowledge of Jesus. That is ridiculous of course. 

This preacher brother's comment made me think of my chat with a former Hardshell minister who was at one time a close friend of mine when I was a Hardshell. I wrote about this in my post "My Talk With Elder Charles Smith" (See here). We had this little chat in Walmart several years after I had left the Hardshells and became a true "primitive" or "old" Baptist. I wrote this in that post:

"I first asked him, "a belief in what God?"  "Any god?"  "So, all Muslims are saved?"  He gave me a slight shake of the head with a look of disapproval but said nothing.  "A person does not have to believe in the one true God of Israel?"  This was the view espoused by Elder Sarrels in his Hardshell "Systematic Theology" and which I have soundly refuted."

He did not want to answer this question. Why not? Perhaps it was because he was bothered as was the brother who wrote to me and said what he said in the comment above. 

This also reminds me of a time when I met with my former father in law at the Bear Creek Association of which he was a leading minister and which I too was once a part of. He and I were very close at one time until his daughter and I divorced. Years later I would go to the above named Association and spend a day, mostly to spend time with him. We spent a lot of time talking during the breaks between those sessions. He was a lover of Spurgeon. I recall informing him about the historical research I had done and how I found out that what Hardshells believe today was not what their forefathers believed. They believed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation. I talked to him about how the scriptures were very clear on this matter, and so too was Spurgeon. I wrote about our conversations in a post titled "Elder Newell Helms" (See here). Here is what I wrote in that post:

"I was glad to hear brother Helms tell me in one of our visits at the Bear Creek Association (last decade) that he did not believe that unbelievers were saved and that he said this recently in a sermon. I said to him - "I am happy to hear you say this."

When I was a Hardshell I was often disturbed in my bible studies to see that what I believed was simply not in harmony with the scriptures. But, it took years for God to finally bring me fully out of the heresy of Hardshellism. I have since then thanked him a thousand times for it. 

Now, let me write further about this issue. I have written on this much through the years. I cite from leaders in the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" denomination who said that millions of people may be "saved," "born again," "regenerated," etc., who never believed in the one true God nor in the Son of God, nor in the Gospel of Christ, and who never knew or loved the true God and Jesus Christ, nor were saved by placing their faith in Christ's atoning blood or sacrifice, but who remained worshipers of false gods or pagans and polytheists.  Now let me give you the proof of this, and the arguments offered by Hardshells to prove their premise or proposition.

In chapter 53 of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I write under the title "Regeneration Evidence?" (See here) I cite from Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (see in the picture above), and I bought my copy many years ago and read through it. After I left the Hardshells I went through it to find citations to use in writing against the history and heresies of Hardshellism. In that chapter I cite these words of Sarrels:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369) "The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)"

Notice that he is talking about "the quickened soul in heathen lands." There is no such character in the bible! There is no such character as a regenerated unbeliever. If a person is a heathen, he is a pagan, a person who worships false gods. Hardshell Baptists say that in "the vast majority of cases" people who are "quickened" into divine or spiritual life are heathens, who he says are converted "embryonically." What he means by that is that people who are not converted are really converted, and people who believe in many false gods really believe in the one true God. That is calling good evil, calling the crooked straight, calling light darkness, etc. Think of this kind of thinking being used in other contexts. By it I could say "Hitler was really a kind, gentle man embryonically," or "Hitler embryonically loved the Jews." Or, "the Devil embryonically loves God." 

The Bible says that all the heathen who do not believe in Yahweh or the Messiah are lost. Sarrels would say that many Muslims are born again children of God, and embryonically believe in Jesus and his death and resurrection, even though they say they don't believe in that Gospel. We will cite more from Sarrels shortly, but let me first cite what Elder C.H. Cayce, one of the greatest leaders of the "Primitive Baptist Church," said on this matter. Cayce wrote:

"...if we are sorry for sin and grieve on account thereof, it is because we are alive spiritually." (Cayce's Editorials, Vol. 3, page 169)

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel." (Vol. VI, page 176)

I cannot believe that I was once a part of this cult which believed such perversions of the word of God. The first statement would make nearly everyone in the world to be a spiritually alive child of God. Who has not felt guilt for wrongdoing? Have not even wicked people in the bible expressed sorrow for their sins and were not saved simply for that? Judas felt sorry for what he had done. (Matt. 27: 3) Does that mean that he was a child of God possessing divine life? Did not Jesus say that Judas was a "demon"? (John 6: 70) Did Jesus not say that it would have been better that Judas had never been born? (Matt. 26: 24) This one case disproves what Cayce said, and what many other Hardshells have affirmed since his day. 

The second statement is also diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. Cayce says a man must believe in Christ before he ever comes to know about Jesus. That makes a fool of the apostle Paul, for he wrote:

"For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10: 13-14 nkjv)

Cayce says a man must believe in him of whom he has not heard! A man that blind has no credibility. If you read Cayce's other writings you will see that he actually believes that one must hear about Jesus or the Gospel in order to believe in Jesus or the Gospel, but believes that only because Jesus himself, with his voice, directly speaks to heathens as he did to Saul of Tarsus. In writing upon 1 Peter 3:18-21, on October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:  

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

Here is his view on Rom. 10:17: 

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17. "The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)

Cayce even says that the Athenian idolaters, who knew not God nor Jesus Christ, nevertheless were born again children of God, people to whom Christ had already appeared to and spoke audibly to them and made them believers in him, and the true God, and in the way of salvation. He says when they worshiped the "unknown god" that they were actually worshiping Yahweh and Jesus even though they did not know anything about them. Yet, this is so illogical. If Jesus had already preached to these Athenian heathens, then why did they not know God or Jesus? Why is he an "unknown" God? Also, why did the Athenians, when they heard Paul preaching the Gospel, say: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign (or strange) gods,” when "he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection"? (Acts 17: 18) If they were already believers, had already heard the gospel by the personal preaching of Jesus, and had been given faith, then why do they say that they know nothing about him? You can read my post on what Cayce said further about the saved state of the heathen (here).

What this ideology does is make believers out of unbelievers. A person does not believe in Jesus, but somehow by the reasoning of Sarrels and Cayce, and others as we will see, makes them believers. Again, you have to be bewitched to believe such nonsense. 

Sylvester Hassell, who lived in the time of Cayce, wrote the following in answer to the question - "Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?" (emphasis mine) 

"While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." (Questions and Answers-Part 11)

The same arguments against this view that I gave to what Cayce said applies to what Hassell here says. Next, let us hear from Elder Lemuel Potter, another late 19th century leader of the Hardshells. He said the following in his debate with Yates:

"And by his Spirit he can, and I will say he will, and does, quicken the benighted soul of the heathen and prepare him for heaven and glory. If that is not true, what mean all the Scriptures I have quoted here to you?" (Fifth Speech)

What he means by this is that heathens may be saved even if they stay ignorant of the one true God and the Son of God and the Gospel. In chapter 62 of my book on the Hardshell cult, under the title "Hardshells on Gill V" (See here), I wrote:

"Elder John R. Daily in a debate with W. P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: 

"Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

But, if Jesus preaches the Gospel personally to every elect person in heathen polytheism, as Cayce and Hassell said, then how are they without the Gospel? Not only that, but they make Jesus a poor preacher, for if he appears to all these heathens in order to reveal himself to them as he did to Saul (Paul), then why are they ignorant of the Gospel and failed to believe in what Jesus was preaching to them? That was not the case with the apostle Paul. If Daily (who lived in the time of Cayce and Hassell) believed as they did, and he probably did, then how can he say that the ones to whom Jesus preached are without the Gospel? And, why did they not become Christians if he preached to them with irresistible power? 

Is it impossible for the Spirit of God to regenerate through the Gospel that his servants preach? Further, why doesn't Jesus continue to be our only preacher? Would not hearing him preach to us every day not be better than hearing human preachers? Also, most of those who heard Jesus' preaching directly to them did not believe in him. In chapter 18 in the "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series under the title "Hardshells on Conversion" (See here) I cite these words of Elder R.V. Sarrels:

"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)

But again, if Jesus preaches the gospel to all his elect as a means of their regeneration, then how can Sarrels say that the preaching of the gospel was not a means? Actually, what Cayce and Hassell and others we could cite say is that it is by the preaching Jesus does himself that regenerates and not by the preaching Jesus does through his sent preachers. In regard to the text in I Peter 3: 18-20 that Cayce wrote upon (given above), most Hardshells would say that Christ going to "preach to the spirits in prison" was a preaching Christ did through Noah, for the text says that these spirits were "formerly disobedient...in the days of Noah." Many scripture passages tell us that when the ministers of Christ are preaching his word and gospel that he is preaching through them. In II Corinthians 13: 3 Paul plainly says that Christ was speaking in him. Jesus said to his evangelists - "whoever hears you hears me." (Luke 10: 16) Paul, in speaking of Jesus, said to the Ephesians that Jesus "came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near." (Eph. 2: 17) Clearly Paul meant that Christ came in the person of Paul and preached to them through Paul.

Notice that Sarrels wants to try to make believers out of unbelievers. Before we saw how he used the word "embryonically" and now he uses the word "dormant" and says that the heathen who are regenerated by the direct speaking of Christ to them gives them but a "little" understanding of him or his word, or only "dim ideas" about the way of salvation. You would think that the preaching of Christ could do better than that. I have heard about Arminians saying that every man had a "spark" of divinity, but in the words of Sarrels we see how his kind of "regeneration" only gives a very small spark of spiritual life and knowledge of God. 

Sarrels also wrote:

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY INGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (pg. 423)

Here again he uses that word "embryonic." He also speaks of people who are saved but "who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense." Saved without knowledge of Christ? What does he mean by "in a gospel sense"? Is he saying that one can know Christ but not in a gospel sense? Notice also how Sarrels parrots the view of Cayce. Sarrels was a young man when Cayce was an old man, and Cayce at one time chastised Sarrels for being a young whippersnapper. Further, if Cayce and Hassell are right, those regenerated by the preaching of the Gospel by Christ do have knowledge of Christ in a gospel sense.

Sarrels wrote:

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. (As the Scriptures themselves do!) The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached (like the gospel?) as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434)

But if Cayce and Hassell are right, then salvation is limited to where the gospel is preached for Christ preaches the gospel to everyone in regenerating them. He then says that Muslims and Polytheists of every kind are regenerated even though they know nothing of the gospel, or even reject it.

Wrote Sarrels:

"This view makes God's system of operations to be less efficient than Satan's system of operations. No one denies that Satan carries on his work all over the world without the use of documents, preachers, or witnesses. Out in slum districts, in gangland's hide-outs, in vice centers, and in areas of the world where the Bible is unknown, this arch enemy of God is driving day and night to further his cause. And Satan does this by working directly and immediately in the hearts of men." (ibid)

Elder Daily in one of his debates, with W.P. Thorgmorton I believe, made this same argument, and even had a chart to illustrate the point. I also believe that Cayce was Daily's moderator in that debate. I have addressed this argument before. This argument would force them into Universalism, or mighty close to it. This argument says that unless Christ saves more than Satan destroys that Christ fails. We could throw out a thousand examples that would overthrow this line of reasoning but this post is getting far too long. 

Notice also that he says that Satan works "directly and immediately in the hearts of men." That may be true, but he also works through men and demons, and must do so because he is not omnipresent. 

So, are Muslims saved even though they reject the Gospel? Are Polytheists saved even though they do not believe in one God, Yahweh, Father, Son, and Spirit? Are they really believers in Jesus and the gospel on the subconscious level but not on the conscious level? The Bible is clear that all who believe not, or know not, God and Jesus, will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." (II Thess. 1: 9) 

In Hardshell teaching about salvation they are preaching "another gospel" and are therefore "enemies of the cross of Christ." (See Gal. 1: 8; Phil. 3: 18) To tell Muslims, Buddhists, and Polytheists that they are saved is to oppose the teaching of Christ and do much harm.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXV)

Several new testament texts speak of the necessity of holding to "sound" doctrine, and the above is one of them. (See also Titus 1: 9; I Tim. 1: 10; II Tim. 4: 3) The word "sound" means to be wholesome and healthy. Unsound doctrine is sick or unhealthy doctrine. The apostle Paul in the same vein also warned of false teachers who would arise within the community of saints and be found teaching "perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20: 30kjv) By "perverse things" he means perverted teachings, twisted or distorted interpretations of holy scripture. (See also II Peter 3: 16) In chapter 31 I cited Paul's warning about "strange doctrines." (Heb. 13: 9) Truly Two Seed doctrine is sick, perverted, and weird. 

Before we proceed to address what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism, I want to cite from O. Max Lee's book "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" (1962), his Thesis Paper (See here), from which we cited much already in chapter 25. The reason for this is to enlarge upon what I stated in previous chapters regarding my assertion that the one tenet that all factions of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed was the eternal oneness existing between Christ and his people or wife. This tenet necessitated believing that the children of God preexisted in Christ before their birth in the womb of their mothers. Another reason is to give further evidence of my contention that the idea that God saved his people by the means of the word of God or gospel was a Two Seed idea, even though Parker himself did not deny means. So, those "Primitive Baptists" today who say they are not Two Seeders and yet deny that God uses means are holding to Two Seed tenets in doing so. First, in regard to the doctrine of eternal vital union, Lee wrote:

"According to Parker, "the nature and certainty of the relationship or union which exists in Christ with his Church" was a crucial issue in his two-seeds doctrine. Parker said that an eternal oneness existed between Christ and His Church." (pg. 55)

"I wish to be understood as believing, and now aiming to prove, that Christ and his Church are one; and if they are now, or ever will be one, that, that oneness has existed as long as Christ has existed, as it is as impossible for a head to exist without a body, as for a body to exist without the head." (pg. 55)

"This oneness or union, while existing prior to God's creation, was demonstrated in the creation itself." (pg. 55)

"Having come into the world, the Church sinned. Adam, who stood with the Church (the elect) in him, partook of the forbidden fruit, causing him and the Church to deserve God's wrath. But because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin, and redeemed her from the curse of the law. Such a manifestation of love, while having no equal, was a logical outgrowth of the eternal union which existed between Christ and his Church." (pg. 56)

When Parker said - "because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin," he was denying the Calvinistic doctrine of "unconditional election" which affirms that the choice of sinners to salvation was not based upon any difference in the ones chosen from those not chosen. As we have seen, Elder Grigg Thompson dealt much with this consequence of the Two Seed doctrine, and so too did Elder Lemuel Potter. 

The idea of an eternal "vital" or "actual" union of Christ and his elect people is a foundational belief of all Two Seeders, and involves the idea that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. As we have seen, this belief had adverse effects for two bible doctrines, one dealing with unconditional election by grace, and the other with the nature and causes of regeneration or rebirth in the spirit. 

Now let us focus on the Two Seed idea that the means of gospel preaching and teaching are not means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Lee wrote (emphasis mine):

"In seeking to refute the two-seed views, Watson understood the doctrine to include (1) the denial of the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust, (2) the absence of souls in the non-elect, and (3) the rejection by God of the use of any kind of means to bring about salvation. Parker had explicitly taught the opposite in his two-seed views." (pg. 63)

Watson was correct in affirming that the Two Seeders who followed Parker did generally promote the idea that God did not use such means. Lee implies that Watson was wrong. But, that is not true. Watson never said that Parker himself denied means. We have given other testimonies of other elders of the 19th century who also all said that a denial of means was a Two Seed idea. We also saw this from my citation from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists. Some Two Seeders taught that no such means were used by God to "regenerate" or "beget" sinners, but did teach that such means were used to "birth" those who were previously begotten and they connected this birthing with evangelical conversion. See my post titled "Elder Samuel Trott On Means" (here) and also chapter 52 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Beebe Trott Model" (here).

Wrote Lee:

"Some groups which held generally to the two-seed views rejected certain portions of the doctrine. One such group, the Old School Baptists of Bethel and Muddy River Associations (Illinois), strenuously denied that the proclamation of the gospel had anything to do in bringing sinners to a knowledge of the truth.  Daniel Parker had declared just as strenuously that God used such means to bring sinners to repentance." (pg. 63-64)

Lee's failure is that he was not as familiar with the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists as I am, although he was thoroughly knowledgeable of the writings of Daniel Parker, having access to them all. The two instances Lee mentions where Two Seed associations declared against means should have prevented Lee from thinking that Parker's belief in means showed that Two Seeders did not deny means. As I have been careful to state in previous chapters, though Parker believed in means his later followers began to deny them.

So, as we have before observed, it is ironic that Potter writes against Two Seedism in 1880 and yet becomes the leading advocate for the no means view that was spread by those Two Seeders who followed Parker. Beebe and Trott, however, were reluctant to deny means completely. They also did not think that anyone who did not love and believe in Jesus would go to heaven. With these preliminary comments, let us return to what Potter wrote. In the previous chapter we saw that he gave eleven items that Two Seeders thought were necessary to believe to be sound in the faith. We began with the first item in the list and now proceed to the next. Potter wrote further citing a Two Seeder:

"2. - "We affirm the following: Unconditional election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam." - Herald of Truth, by the Editor, Jan. 1878, p. 206."

Many Two Seeders would say that Christ died for all of Adam's descendants, and some might think that this means that they believed that Christ made atonement for every human being, but that would be the wrong jump. That is because they did not believe that the Devil's seed came from Adam, or had souls.

In response to this Two Seed tenet Potter says:

"2. This item affirms the election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam. This does not merely include those that God blessed; but it includes all that he made. Then surely it embraces the wicked. It embraces all nations of men that dwell on all the face of the earth. Is not this two-seeder a Universalist? Excuse us from believing the second extract."

This is a good rebuttal by Potter to this Two Seed tenet. Those who are children of the Devil and remain so till they die, will not be redeemed, and yet they are of the Adamic race. 

Potter wrote further and gave us this third tenet of Two Seedism:

3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world. But those that are accounted worthy of an eternity of bliss, will receive it on the principle of heir-ship, as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. So, also, those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do. We say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that our doings in this life only affect us in this life." - Herald of Truth, Editor, Dec. 1878, pp. 69-70."

The statements highlighted in red are Two Seed beliefs and it is ironic that Potter and his brethren who denied that the gospel was a means in salvation, and so too faith and repentance, and perseverance, actually agree with the Two Seeders on these statements. I recall reading an article by Elder C. H. Cayce where he said that a person reaps in the same field in which he sows, meaning that a person only reaps in this life for the things he has done, whether good or bad, and so no one reaps in the afterlife. If this is true, then no one goes to Hell for anything he did in this life, for no sin committed. It also denies that coming to Christ, believing in him, or repenting of sin, are necessary conditions for being eternally saved. 

This is so clearly heresy for it is against what is so plainly taught in the Bible. Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" would agree with the first statement, that no one will go to heaven for anything he did in life. They would not agree, however, with the second statement, that no one will go to hell for anything he did in life. All this is quite heretical of course, for if the former statement was true, then it would mean that coming to Christ is unnecessary for a person to do in order to go to heaven, nor believing in God or Christ, nor repenting of sin, etc. 

Notice again the irony in what Potter says. He condemns the Two Seed view given, and yet he himself believed that nothing the sinner does is a necessary condition for salvation, and which makes himself a Two Seeder in this respect also. 

Potter replies to this Two Seed article of faith by saying:

"3. There are two points in this we want to call attention to: the first is, that we receive an eternity of bliss on the principle of heirship as an inheritance. That is all good enough, if it does not carry with it the idea that we were eternally heirs, and consequently eternally children. The Bible says, "That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii, 7. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii, 29. Not that we were eternally heirs, in consequence of which the promise was made, but we are heirs according to the promise. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph. i: 6. Not that we were eternally children, but God predetermined to adopt us children." 

Again, this is a good rebuttal to the Two Seed idea that no one suffers in the afterlife or in eternal torment in Hell for any sins he committed in his life. No one was an actual heir of God in eternity past, nor before he had an existence in time, nor is he an heir before he actually becomes a child of God. Even then, the child does not obtain his inheritance until he has come of age. Isaac was chosen by God to be the heir of Abraham before he was conceived and born into the world, and so too with everyone of the elect. But, they do not actually become heirs by the preordination.

Potter replies to the second part of that tenet, saying:

"The next is those that are sent to the region of endless misery, will go there for what they are, not for what they do. That our works only effect us in this life. The Bible says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx: 12. The next verse closes by saying, "and they were judged every man according to his works." The writer was speaking of the dead, and he certainly does hold forth the idea that the wicked are punished for what they do, and that their works do effect them after this life. Our sins affect us after this life to the extent that none could go to heaven until their sins are forgiven, hence the use of redemption from sin by the Great Redeemer."

Potter is correct in his argumentation and shows by the scriptures that men will suffer in the afterlife and in eternity for the evil deeds they did in life. It is sad however that he did not see how men will also be rewarded in the afterlife for the good deeds they did in life, and that eternal salvation is given to those who did certain things, such as come to Christ, believe, repent, and persevere. Jesus taught this. He said:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8: 24 nasb)

Believing is something people do, and doing or not doing that determines whether they go to Heaven or Hell. Jesus also said:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world...Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6: 51, 53-54 nkjv)

This is another text that overthrows the Two Seed notion that says that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he will go to Heaven and have eternal life. Eating the bread of life, partaking of Christ, must be done by a sinner in order to be saved in Heaven.

In the next chapter we will continue our examination of Potter's list of eleven Two Seed tenets and of his rebuttal to each.