Answering Donahue on Original Sin

In a recent post titled "Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin" (here) I responded to an e-mail that Pat Donahue, champion debater for the "Church of Christ," sent to me on that text and tried to prove that Romans chapter five does not teach the doctrine of original sin, that says all Adam's descendants were judged to have sinned in Adam and condemned for his transgression. I showed how his argumentation was false and that he was misinterpreting that chapter. Now he has sent the following on the same subject:

"On the “Born In Sin” issue consider Deut 32:5 “they have corrupted themselves … they are a perverse and crooked generation.” Notice they were "perverse and crooked,” but they weren’t born that way: 

• "corrupted" implies uncorrupted beforehand, right? 

• they corrupted themselves – Adam’s sin didn’t do it 

• this corruption occurred in their lifetime, not before or at birth 

 

Gen 6:12 confirms this point as it reads “God looked upon the earth and it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” See how they weren’t born corrupt, but instead “corrupted” themselves?

“Born In Sin” doesn’t make any sense anyway. If Adam was born with no depravity and we are his descendants, then we should expect to be born without depravity just like him. And “the fall” would not change that, because we don’t inherit the traits of our parents that develop after they were born. For example, if my Dad loses an arm in an accident, that doesn’t mean I will be born without an arm."

The error of Donahue in this argumentation is that he assumes that when the text he cites says that the Israelites "corrupted themselves" that it means that they were not corrupt before they corrupted themselves in the instance alluded to in the text. Every time the Israelites departed from the Lord they corrupted themselves. Does Donahue think that people cannot corrupt themselves more than once, that is, over and over again? "Corrupting" themselves is like "hardening" their hearts. This may be done over and over, more and more. More than once we are told that Pharaoh "hardened his heart." Did that imply that his heart was soft before? No, all it means is that each time Pharaoh went back on his word he hardened his heart once again. So Moses said to the Israelites after they had corrupted themselves in making a golden calf:

"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?" And,

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deut. 31: 27, 29 kjv)

Donahue's logic leads one to say that once a person has corrupted himself that he cannot corrupt himself again or become more corrupt, or "utterly corrupt." However, the above verses show that such reasoning is false. Jude, the Lord's brother, wrote:

"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves" (Jude 1: 10 kjv)

The words "they corrupt themselves" are from the singular Greek word phtheirontai which is a present indicative verb and denotes linear action, and so it means "they are corrupting themselves continually." 

Just because a person is said to corrupt himself by some sin does not imply that he was not born in corruption. Though believers are born a second time of divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) yet they are born first of the corruptible seed of Adam. King David said that he had been "shapen in iniquity" in his mother's womb and was "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Paul said that all are "by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3), and "by nature" he means "by birth" as when Paul speaks of those who are "Jews by nature." (Gal 2: 15) When I debated Pat Donahue back around 1992 on the subject of original sin he said "by nature" meant what becomes nature by long practice, as in something becoming "second nature." However, that is not what Galatians 2: 15 means, obviously. 

He cited Greek scholar Thayer who said "phusis" (nature) may mean "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature." However, that was the third definition he gave of the word and is rather his interpretation of Ephesians 2:3 rather than a true definition of the word. Here are the four ways that Thayer says the word may be defined (emphasis mine):

a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: ὁ, ἡ, τό παρά φύσιν, that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Romans 1:26 (οἱ παρά φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδιτη χρώμενοι, Athen. 13, p. 605; ὁ παιδεραστής ... τήν παρά φύσιν ἡδονήν διώκει, Philo de spec. legg. i., § 7); as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: οἱ κατά φύσιν κλάδοι, the natural branches, i. e. branches by the operation of nature, Romans 11:21, 24 (Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with οἱ ἐγκεντρισθεντες παρά φύσιν, contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ἡ κατά φύσιν ἀγριέλαιος, ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: οἱ μή φύσει ὄντες θεοί, who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5), Galatians 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: ἡ φύσις (i. e. the native sense of propriety) διδάσκει τί, 1 Corinthians 11:14; φύσει ποιεῖν τά τοῦ ναμου, natura magistra, guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.

b. birth, physical origin: ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Galatians 2:15 (φύσει νεώτερος, Sophocles O. C. 1295; τῷ μέν φύσει πατρίς, τόν δέ νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποιηντο, Isocrates Evagr. 21; φύσει βάρβαροι ὄντες, νόμῳ δέ Ἕλληνες, Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Wis. 13:1); ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Romans 2:27.

c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).

d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: φύσις θηρίων (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνῃ (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 31, 10); θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως, (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Peter 1:4 (Ἀμενωφει ... θείας δοκουντι μετεσχηκεναι φύσεως κατά τέ σοφίαν καί πρόγνωσιν τῶν, ἐσομενων, Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).

I firmly believe that Thayer in definitions a, b, and d gives the true meaning of the word but in definition c he gives his personal interpretation and speaks as a theologian and not as a Greek scholar or lexicographer. But, even in definition c he acknowledges that other Greek scholars "lay more stress" in Ephesians 2: 3 "upon the constitution in which this habitual course of evil has its origin," that is, "at birth." So, when we say it is the nature of a lion to be carnivorous we mean that this is part of his constitution, what he is from the moment of his creation.

If we look at other places in the new testament where we have "by nature" we will see that it means the nature a person was born with. We have already mentioned where Paul spoke of those who are "Jews by nature." Paul speaks of Gentiles who are "by nature" "uncircumcised" (Rom. 2: 27), he means men are born this way. Paul speaks of an "olive tree" that is "wild by nature" (Rom. 11: 24) which cannot mean that an olive tree was not originally an olive tree but became so later by practicing to be an olive tree. 

Now let us notice what the apostle Peter wrote. 

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 4 kjv)

Two things need to be asked in regard to understanding this verse. How do people become "partakers of the divine nature"? Is it by long practice in righteous deeds? Or, is it by a birth of the Spirit? Second, what is meant by "corruption" existing in the world "through lust"? 

People become partakers of the divine nature by being born of God. Likewise, people become partakers of human nature by being born of Adam. The divine nature is holy, human nature is depraved. 

Corruption exists in the world "through lust," that is, through desiring what is evil. People do not need to learn to lie, steal, etc., or to crave what is forbidden. We see this in little children how it is in their nature to lie and to be selfish. Solomon said: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him." (Prov. 22: 15 nkjv) This "foolishness" involves doing wrong because it brings "the rod of correction." He also said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." (Prov. 24: 9 nkjv)

As to Donahue's other objection which queries why all descendants of Adam are not born without sin since Adam was originally without sin. No one is a descendant of pristine Adam. Rather, all his descendants are descended from Adam post his fall into sin and his being cursed. He also reasons that since no one is condemned for what parents do, therefore no one can be punished for what Adam did. However, Adam is a special case, because (1) he was the father of all and all are in scripture said to be "in him," and (2) he was the appointed head of the human race so that what he did they are said to have done.

Consider also that God does "bring the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." (Deut. 5: 9; etc.) When I debated Donahue on original sin he brought up Ezekiel chapter eighteen where the Lord says that a righteous living son "shall not die for the iniquity of his father" (vs. 17). Lord God says further:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (vss. 19-20 nkjv)

In this post (here) from my series on "Divine Justice Issues" I wrote on this argumentation from Ezekiel chapter eighteen. In it I showed that the prohibition of this chapter applied to the government of Israel exercising capital punishment. The prohibitions do not apply to God. No human government can visit the iniquity of fathers upon their children, but God reserves his right to do so. I encourage all to read my chapter on Ezekiel chapter eighteen. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXI)

The following citations from the editorials of Elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" were titled by him as "The Curtain Raised" which was so titled in order to uncover what was transpiring in the first quarter of the twentieth century among "The Primitive Baptists." We will begin with what he wrote under this title for September 5, 1916. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

"Our readers are well aware of the fact that a war has been waged in some sections for some time. In Texas the war has been on for quite awhile. One side has been charging the other side with believing what they term the whole man doctrine. Elder J. S. Newman and those who are in line with him, or who affiliate with him, have been charged with believing that doctrine, although he and others have repeatedly denied believing it. For some time there have been some who have been charging the same thing upon us. In our issue of November 16, 1915, we gave our views on the question of regeneration, and hoped that would satisfy those who had been thus charging us; but it seems that it failed to satisfy some. For a good while those who are in line with Elders Webb, Redford & Co., of Texas, would not say whether they endorsed our editorial or not. Finally two of these preachers came out in an article in the Trumpet in reply to our article. We have continued to remain silent and to take no part in this unholy war, trusting or hoping that it might cease, and that these brethren who seem determined to have strife and confusion would tire of their unholy course and stop their unbrotherly thrusts and unholy warfare. But it seems that they are determined not to even hush, and are determined to make us engage in war with them. Some have been saying that we had been working in a secret way; and it has been told to some of the members of our home church that we had something hid, behind the curtain, etc. Now, it seems to be our imperative duty to remain silent no longer."

By "Redford" Cayce means S.N. Redford (1872-1950) and by "Webb" he means J. G. Webb (1849-1927), who was the father of another Hardshell preacher named T.L. Webb Sr. and grandfather of Elder T.L. Webb Jr., also a "Primitive Baptist" minister, and who I met in my younger days. Newman, Redford, and Webb were three leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the state of Texas. Texas is the place where Elder Daniel Parker moved to along with the church he had established and was the first Baptist church in that state, and Texas Hardshell churches had been infected with Two Seedism very early on. In my early days as a young Hardshell minister I was a close friend of Elder Sonny Pyles of Texas and he often spoke of his interactions with the remaining remnants of those old Two Seed Primitive Baptists. He spoke of how he was introduced to the subject of the Devil's origin and the controversy surrounding that question by the Two Seeders he conversed with in Texas. 

It is interesting to note how one of the debatable questions in the Two Seed controversy over regeneration was still a dividing issue among many "Primitive Baptists" well into the twentieth century. Cayce speaks of a "war," an "unholy war," that had been raging on the nature and definition of regeneration. Actually, however, the entire history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church is one of "strife and confusion" and "unholy war," with numerous schisms, factions, and declarations of non-fellowship. In the previous chapter I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee with Particular Attention to the Primitive Baptists of East Tennessee," by Lawrence Edwards (1941). In CHAPTER V, titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION" Edwards spoke of this divisiveness among them, writing as follows:

"But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder. This time secret orders caused the trouble. This controversy, however, was not so localized as the one which caused the division in 1889. It swept all Primitive Baptist groups in the South and Midwest and even today calls forth editorials now and then from controversial writers."

What was true of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists was a microcosm of the whole denomination. I was a witness of such divisiveness in the years I was with them. I wrote about this in a post back in 2012. (See here) In another article I cited from Elder Joe Hildreth (a minister I met when I was a young Hardshell elder and who used to pastor the "Primitive Baptist" church in Chattanooga) wherein Hildreth talked about how the "Primitive Baptist" church had declined so dramatically. I cited these words of Hildreth which gives one of the reasons for this decline:

"(6) Frequent splits and divisions in the early part of the 20th Century were traumatic and dishonoring to the Cause of Christ...These splits and controversies had traumatic effects upon our people. Especially was the absoluter division devastating."

The early 20th century is the time period we are examining now. However, the "splits and divsions" also characterized the 19th century. In chapter two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I also addressed how divisions have characterized the Hardshell sect from their very beginning. (See here)

Cayce wrote further:

"We are also conscious of the fact that when a person goes to an extreme and another person begins to contend against that extreme, it is a very easy matter for him to go to an extreme also, but in the opposite direction." 

I find it highly ironic that Cayce fails to see how he and his Hardshell Baptist brethren did the very thing Cayce is warning against! They went to an extreme themselves in fighting what they thought was an extreme.

Cayce wrote further, citing what Elder R.V. Sarrels and the church he pastored declared non-fellowship for those who he thought held to the "whole man" doctrine. He said:

"Whereas, Elder J. B. Downing has, in our own stand and from the pulpit of his own church, affirmed, contrary to (Galatians 5:17), that it is not the flesh or physical being of man, but the sinful principle in man, that is opposed to God and holiness; and Whereas, He holds that the flesh (which we know to be natural, vile, sinful, unholy, and corrupt) is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God; and Whereas, There are some among us who hold that there is some kind of change of quality or condition produced on the flesh in regeneration; We, Harmony Church of Christ, believing the above-named things to be heresy, do therefore solemnly declare that we have no fellowship for said heresy; and hence, have no fellowship for its advocates, and will not affiliate with them. Done by order of the church while in conference February 28, 1914." 

ELDER R. V. SARRELS, Mod. H. H. WARREN, Church Clerk

I have cited from Elder Sarrels in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" because he wrote the only "Systematic Theology" written by a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist. In his section on "regeneration" he absolutely teaches some heretical notions about it, affirming that a heathen's worship of false deities is evidence of regeneration! I cite in this chapter (here) where he said:

"God has not explained just what he does to the soul of man to fit it for the heavenly state, and it is probable that if he had explained it, we still could not understand it."  (pg. 339)

In this chapter (here) I cited from Sarrels again, where he wrote:

"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)

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion--repentance, faith, and justification--may be present only embryonically, an analysis of these elements brings us to a fuller appreciation of the conversion experience." (ibid)

"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." (Ibid)

"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. 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 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)

This is enough to show that Sarrels knows nothing about what the Bible says about being saved, born again, or regenerated. 

In reply to the action of Sarrels and the church he pastored in declaring non-fellowship for the "whole man" doctrine, Cayce wrote:

"The above resolution shows for itself what has been advocated by some who are charging that others are advocating what they call the whole man doctrine. In the first place, this resolution denies that it is the sinful principle in man that is opposed to God and holiness, and sets forth the idea that it is the material body, the body of flesh in the abstract sense, that is opposed to God and holiness."

Sarrels's view shows elements of Gnosticism and Two Seedism. In earlier chapters we addressed this. The Gnostics believed that the material or physical world was evil, the source of all man's woe. Salvation involved being freed from this world. Two Seedism, as we saw, borrowed much from Gnosticism. 

Also, the debate over whether the physical body of a believer is a child of God needs some light from the scriptures. It seems that the error in the reasoning of those who held to the "whole man" doctrine was in their belief that for the body to belong to Christ and be part of what it means to be a "child of God" it had to undergo a regeneration or rebirth just as the soul or spirit. I find that strange because both sides of this debate believed that people are styled "children of God" before they are born again by virtue of their having been elected to become children of God. So when the angel says to Joseph "you shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1: 21) they all agreed that this was a reference to the elect. The same is true with this text:

"Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." (John 11: 51-52 nkjv)

So, it was not necessary for the advocates of the whole man doctrine to think that the body needed to experience regeneration in order to become children of God in the sense of election or in the sense of belonging to God. 

The other aspect of the debate, as we see from the above citations, is on whether the "sinful nature" or "principle" or "flesh" includes the physical body. Cayce denies that the physical body is involved in this sinful nature and is therefore "opposed to God and holiness." Both sides, in my view, were wrong in some of their conclusions.

Though the body is decaying and dying as a result of God's curse, this does not mean that it does not belong to the Lord and is a part of the child of God. Second, salvation involves saving the body, which salvation does not occur in this life, but in the coming resurrection of the just. Third, the body, as well as the other parts of man, were purchased by Christ when he redeemed man. I wrote about this in this article (here). 

"Jesus," said the apostle Peter, in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, "has God made both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2: 36) Lordship involves ownership. Christ is "Lord of all" (Acts 10: 36) and by his redemptive work he purchased all men and all things. Christ is Lord and owner of even those who are not his by a new birth. That is why they will confess that Christ is their Lord in the day of judgment. (Phil. 2: 11) However, believers are Christ's "special possession" (I Peter 2: 9; etc.) by purchase. Recall that in the parable of the treasure hidden in a field that the person seeking to obtain the treasure bought the whole field. (Matt. 13: 44) In the parable of the wheat and tares the "field" was said to be the "world." (Matt. 13: 38) The apostle Peter says that Christ "bought" even those who deny him. (II Peter 2: 1) 

So, just because the body is owned by the Lord, or is his special possession, does not mean that the body is changed when the soul or spirit is regenerated. It belongs to the Lord though its change into an immortal spiritual body will not occur until the resurrection of the righteous. Further, the body of the believer is holy or sanctified. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1 kjv)

He also not only spoke of the body as being "holy" but also of Christians having "holy hands."

"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 kjv)

Many Two Seeders wrongly thought, however, that since the body and hands of believers are holy that they must have therefore been changed by regeneration as well as the soul or spirit. However, being holy does not mean that there is necessarily a change in the substance or physics of the body. Many utensils in the old testament service were holy, but there was no change in the physics of the utensils. A holy spoon is simply a spoon that had been set aside for use only in the service of the temple and not used for common purposes. There was no change in the spoons. So we read:

"And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy." (Exo. 40: 9 kjv)

So the body of the believer is sinful in its nature but holy because it is set apart by the renewed spirit and controlled by the Christian. So too are a believer's hands, feet, tongue, etc. holy in this way. So Paul wrote:

"For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 19b nkjv)

By "members" is meant the members of the body, such as hands and feet. These bodily members were once used for doing what is wrong and immoral but are now to be used for doing righteous deeds and for holiness. 

Cayce continued:

"We know that Old Baptists have always contended that it is the sinful life or nature which man possesses that is opposed to God and holiness, and that this is the teaching of the apostle in (Galatians 5:17). In that text the apostle says, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The apostle could not have meant in this that the material body, the mere lump of flesh, "lusteth against the Spirit." There could not possibly be any such thing as lust in the flesh, the material body, in the absence of life. Hence, he must have meant that the natural life, which the man possesses, lusts against the Spirit. Or, in other words, he meant that the old, sinful, depraved nature we possess lusts against the Spirit."

I agree that often the word "flesh" in scripture denotes not a person's skin, nor his physical body, but often denotes man's depraved nature. So, when the apostle Paul said "I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7: 18) he alludes to his sinful nature. In Romans 8: 3 Paul speaks of Christ being made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," which however does not seem to denote a sinful nature but a sinful physical body. How could Christ be made in the likeness of sinful nature? Though "flesh" often denotes the sinful nature, yet that does not mean that sinful inclinations don't arise from man's body or physical being or is excluded from that nature. 

In Romans 6: 6 he speaks of "the body of sin" and to me this refers to man's physical body. In verse twelve we read: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts." Here "mortal body" clearly refers to the human physical body. "Sin" is in it and actually "reigns" over the body in most people. "Lusts" also originate in the physical body. Christians are exhorted to not let sin "reign" in their bodies, to not let bodily urges control them, but for them to rather control their bodily desires. The body is the physical vessel through which the inclinations of the depraved mind and will are carried out in the physical world. But, sinful urges may also originate from the physical body, for the brain is part of the physical body. Paul wrote:

"For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8: 13 nkjv)

Here we have the words "flesh" and "body." By "body" does the apostle mean "flesh" or does he mean physical body? Some say "body" and "flesh" are the same in this text, and that may well be the case. People who are controlled by their bodily cravings are acting like animals. In Romans 7: 24 Paul queries: "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" In that instance I think Paul alludes to an ancient form of punishment where a murderer had a dead body tied to his back so that he had to carry around that rotting corpse. Though "flesh" (Grk. "sarx") may mean "sinful nature," yet "body" (Grk. "soma") in the above text is not a synonym for "sinful nature" but does indicate that the physical body has a sinful nature also.

Some say the body is morally neutral, including some Calvinists. Is that true? If that is true, then does it not show that depravity is not "total"? If, however, depravity be total, infecting every aspect of man's nature and being, then of course his body would be depraved. Though "flesh" often refers to the sinful nature, and not to the human body, yet the sinful nature encompasses the body. 

Further, the same apostle spoke of the "carnal mind" and the sinful mind. We know that the "heart" is said to be the place where thoughts originate, even evil thoughts. (Matt. 15: 19; Prov. 23: 7) Paul also spoke of how it is the "spirit" within a person that thinks and knows. (I Cor. 2: 11) So, does "mind" exclude the physical brain?

Also, if the body were not sinful then it would not die. In fact, in I Corinthians chapter fifteen, where Paul is speaking of the resurrection from death of physical bodies, he wrote: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (vs. 56 nkjv) The body dies because the body is sinful. Notice these words of the same apostle:

"13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!--18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 13-15; 18-20 nkjv)

Clearly "body" in these words means the physical body. In these words we see that the body may engage in "sexual immorality" or in sinful deeds. In Romans 6: 12 we have already seen where the apostle speaks of the "lusts" of the "mortal body." Yet, though the bodies of believers remain sinful after they have been initially regenerated in their hearts, minds, or spirits, they nevertheless "belong" to the Lord, so Paul says "your bodies are members of Christ." How members of Christ? Not by regeneration, but by having been purchased by Christ to become his special possession or treasure. So Paul says your body and soul belong to the Lord for this reason -- "for you were bought with a price," and not "for your bodies have been regenerated as has your soul or spirit." 

What does Paul mean when he says "every sin that a man does is outside the body"? Commentators are all over the place in interpreting that expression. Many translations will add the word "other" to the text and translate it as "every other sin." However, some of them will italicize the word "other" to let the reader know that it is not in the Greek text. Is Paul saying that the only sin in which the body participates is sexual sin? What about gluttony? Or those people whose "god is their belly"? (Phil. 3: 19) Are there not numerous texts that speak of the bodily members as sinful or engaged in sin, such as the tongue. (James 3: 2-12) James calls the tongue "a world of iniquity" (vs. 6), "an unruly evil" (vs. 8), that "defiles" the "whole body." (vs. 7) He says the tongue, as well as the whole body, needs to be "tamed." He also says that "a perfect man" is one who is "able also to bridle the whole body" so as to make it obey us. 

I could add many more texts which show that the physical body is sinful, that it has its own lusts. Further, it does not have to be changed in this life for it to belong to the Lord. It will be changed in the resurrection of the just.

Wrote Cayce further:

"...the term flesh in verse 17 does not have reference to the material body but to the sinful life or nature which we possess. The child of God has two natures. So this text teaches. Old Baptists have always said that this text teaches that the child of God has two natures--one sinful and corrupt, and the other holy and divine. The sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth, and the divine nature is received in the new birth, or in regeneration. In regeneration it is the man, the sinner of Adam's race, that receives the divine nature. That divine nature is implanted in the soul or spirit of the man by the direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, and the man then possesses two natures--the sinful nature and the divine nature. These two natures are opposite to each other. They spring from opposite sources. They are contrary to each other." 

So, is Cayce denying that the material body has a sinful nature? He says "the sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth." Would the body be excluded from this corrupt nature? David said that he "was shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Shapen and conceived seem to include the body. Was his body not conceived in sin? 

If the new divine nature is "implanted in the soul or spirit" and "cannot sin" (as Cayce believes), then where does the sinful nature reside? If Cayce does not believe that the sinful nature or principle no longer resides in the regenerated spirit, but is still present in the regenerated person, then where does it reside?

Wrote Cayce further:

"According to that declaration, it is down-right heresy to say that the body "is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God." There you are! If the body is no part of the now real child of God, then real children of God are spirits only, and the bodies are children of wrath, or children of the devil, as you may be pleased to term it. Then if the spirit only is the child of God, and the body is no part of the child of God, then the child of God lives in the Adam man, or in the child of wrath, until the Adam man dies; and the Adam man dies and goes to the grave a child of wrath. If he is raised in the last day, he will be raised a child of wrath, or else he will be changed some time between death and the resurrection."

The error Cayce is attacking is one that says that since the body is a "part of the child of God" it must therefore have been born again or regenerated along with the soul or spirit.

Wrote Cayce further:

"A denial that the body is a part of the child of God is eternal Two-Seedism. That is precisely what the eternal Two-Seeders would say. If we have to say that the body is no part of the child of God in order to be an Old Baptist, we have never been one. But we do not have to say that in order to be an Old Baptist, for the Old Baptists have never believed any such heresy."

The body is a part of the child of God, but it is not because it has been reborn of the Spirit but because it has been purchased by the Lord to be his special possession. It is true that those who are children of God by election from the foundation of the world do not actually become children of God until they have been begotten of God. It is also true that though the bodies of the saints belong to the Lord they will not experience redemption until the resurrection, what Paul called "the redemption of the body." (Rom. 8: 23)

Resisting the Truth

The apostle Paul spoke of those who "resist the truth" (II Tim. 3: 8) and who "suppress the truth." (Rom. 1: 18) He also in the above text spoke of those who will "turn away their ears from the truth" and who rather "turn aside to myths." Though these texts describe unsaved people, yet it is also the case that even saved people can be seen resisting the truth. I did that myself for several years when I was a Hardshell Baptist preacher. I would read Bible texts which contradicted Hardshell beliefs (which I had accepted as true). I would resist accepting those texts and would begin to try to see if I could make those texts say something different so as to conform to my Hardshell premises and propositions. 

Many Christians are in churches or cults or sects that teach false doctrine and when someone confronts them and shows them how the Bible teaches against their false beliefs or how they are twisting the meaning of scripture, we see how most resist the truth, stubbornly holding to their false beliefs, even though the new information presented to them produces cognitive dissonance. Solomon said: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." (Prov. 18: 17 kjv) 

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. We must be on guard against becoming unwilling to be examined in our beliefs, against close-mindedness. I thank God for others who have helped me to "see the way of the Lord more perfectly" (Acts 18: 26) and have shown me my errors in biblical interpretation. We must be as the noble Bereans, of whom it is written:

"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts 17: 11 nasb)

What they examined was what Paul and Silas had preached to them, and even apostles are to be examined in what they teach. They are to be examined and judged by "the scriptures" and not by any councils of men. This is what the Lord commanded and advised long ago when he said via the prophet Isaiah: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20 kjv)

I have become frustrated in trying to convince fellow Christians of their errors for most of them resist the truth and hold to their errors tenaciously. I have seen this with my Hardshell brothers over the past thirty years or so when giving them proof that their beliefs were against scripture. I have also seen such resistance with Campbellites (those of the "Church of Christ") when I have had debates with them. Of course, they think I am the one who is resisting the truth and being stubborn. However, at least the Campbellites will debate their differences. The Hardshells of today, however, run from any discussion of their beliefs with anyone who they think can expose them. At least their forefathers, though wrong, did debate with their opponents.

"If You Continue In The Faith"

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister." (Col. 1: 20-23 kjv)

Those known as "Primitive Baptists" at one time believed in what is called "the perseverance of the saints." But, as they went astray in denying that evangelical faith and repentance were requirements for being eternally saved, they then began to throw out this article of their faith and to put in its stead "the preservation of the saints" towards the end of the 19th century, as if the latter excluded the former, which it does not. I wrote at length upon this in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in chapters 92 - 97 dealing with this question of perseverance. They are in this blog's archives for September 2011 and in the blog that gives all the chapters in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series. (See here) I cited from Elder J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908) where he wrote the following in his article titled "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," under sub-section titled "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation" (See here; emphasis mine):

"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?

I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be." 

By this statement he acknowledges the doctrine of perseverance to be what his Baptist predecessors believed and confessed in their articles of faith. It is certainly what is taught in both the Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742) and in the second London Baptist Confession (1689) and it is these confessions that the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists accepted as a statement of their faith. However, as the 19th century neared its end many "Primitive Baptists" began to believe as Purifoy. Why? And, how can they claim to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists if they have changed their views?

So, why did the Hardshells decide to change their beliefs on the perseverance of the saints? Answer: It was the natural result from their going into error on the necessity of evangelical faith and repentance for salvation, and of their error in denying the necessity of hearing the word of God in order to repent and believe for salvation, which errors were also not what their forefathers taught and expressed in their articles of faith. So, it is highly ironic for them to claim to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists.

In the Mt. Carmel Church trial (1909) this was a major issue and one can see from the testimony given in that trial, from both sides, that this is clearly true. Elder E.H. Burnam, an associate editor of Zion's Advocate and a close friend of Elder John Clark its editor, was a believer in means and in perseverance and he said the following in that court trial:

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."

In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

You can find the above in these two posts (here and here)

There are many texts that we could cite to show how the bible promises final salvation to those who persevere, who abide in Christ, who keep themselves in the love of God. In fact I did cite many of them in those six chapters dealing with perseverance in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." You can read them (here, here, here, here, here, here). However, the text at the head of this post is one of the clearest proofs that unequivocally says that a person is reconciled if he continues in the faith grounded and settled and does not move away from the hope of the Gospel. 

The Hardshell tactic in dealing with such texts, or any text that puts a condition upon obtaining salvation, is to say that they all concern a mere timely or temporal salvation and which is not necessary for eternal salvation. That becomes impossible to do, however, for so many of those texts, like the one above, show that it is eternal salvation that is the subject. In such cases the deniers of the necessity of perseverance must find another explanation that would not contradict their view that affirms that perseverance is not a necessity for eternal salvation. 

The text is clearly talking about eternal salvation because it speaks of it consisting in Christ "having made peace through the blood of his cross" and being "reconciled" to God so that the believers Paul is addressing are no longer "alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works" and are therefore being prepared for Christ to "present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight."

Therefore, it is necessary that believers "continue in the faith grounded and settled" so as not to be "moved away from the hope of the gospel." So wrote the apostle John: 

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2: 19 kjv) John also wrote:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?...We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (I John 5: 4-5, 18 nkjv)

This every true believer will do as a result of God's working in him or her to preserve them. God's preservation of them is what results in their perseverance. Jesus prays for every truly born again child of his, as he did for Peter, that their "faith fail not." (Luke 22: 32)

God keeps (preserves) his born again people but the means is God given and sustained faith. So wrote the apostle: "Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (I Peter 1: 5 kjv). Hardshell Baptists leave out the "through faith" part of the verse. It therefore does not help them much to contend for preservation to the exclusion of perseverance, for even preservation is by faith. So also wrote Jude the Lord's brother:

"But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 20-21 nkjv)

If God is keeping or preserving you then you will be found preserving yourself and persevering. As faith is God's gift, so too is perseverance his gift.

The apostle John also wrote:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II john 1: 9 kjv)

I think that is very clear that continuance in the faith is necessary for salvation.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LX)

Elder Claudis (Claud) Hopkins Cayce

1871-1945

In this chapter and the next few we will continue examining what Elder C.H. Cayce wrote in his editorials in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical in the first half of the twentieth century concerning battles that were still then occurring over several tenets of Two Seedism. But, before we do that, it might be good to inform the reader as to what issues were dividing the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists at the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century. 

1. Division over the "means question." 

2. Division over "Two Seedism" and its various tenets. 

3. Division over the extent of predestination or the "absolute predestination of all things." 

4. Division over the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 

5. Division over the use of musical instruments and Sunday Schools. 

6. Division over Universalism.

7. Division over minor issues, such as allowing church members to be members of secret orders such as Masonic Lodges, and support of missionaries, protracted or revival meetings, foot washing, etc.

8. Division over the question of whether the Great Commission was binding on the church involving the Kirkland preachers. 

In another editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce titled "TWO-SEED DOCTRINE" for the July 15th, 1920 issue of the Primitive Baptist periodical, published out of Thornton, Arkansas, Cayce wrote:

"Brother W. A. Beggs, Jacksboro, Texas, has asked us to explain the difference between the eternal Two-Seed doctrine and the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists. We hardly deem it necessary to show the contrast and show what the differences really are, as we suppose the brother understands what the teachings of the Primitive Baptists are and have been on the points which we shall mention."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth."

In earlier chapters we showed what was the error with the Two Seed understanding of the doctrine of unconditional election. It is true that some Two Seeders did not believe that "sinners of Adam's race were chosen to be saved in heaven," but not all. All of them believed, however, that the reason why the elect were chosen to salvation is because they were already related to Christ by having been begotten in him from eternity, and so Christ, as a "kinsman redeemer" or husband of the church, was obligated to choose them and save them. That makes the choice to be conditional. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

That is true, but he failed to mention other errors about "regeneration" espoused by the Two Seeders. He does not mention the "no change" view of regeneration. He does not mention the Two Seeder's view that regeneration was the begetting of the children of God and was distinct from the birth of those children. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeder claims that the body of the Adam man is no part of the child of God; that the child of God is on the inside of the Adam man; the child of God is a man on the inside of the man you see. They carry this doctrine to its logical conclusion and deny the resurrection of the body, claiming that the body remains in the dust, and will not be raised again."

What Cayce says of the Two Seeders is true with some of them.  

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeders also hold that God unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will in their nefarious crimes and meanness as much so as is being done by His children rendering gospel service and living a life of righteousness; that the devil does the will of God as much as Jesus Christ did in His perfect life of obedience to the law of God."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"These are some of the fundamental principles of the teaching of the eternal Two-Seeders. Primitive Baptists do not teach those things, and never have taught them. Those things are not Primitive Baptist doctrine, and never have been.” 

It is interesting to note what Cayce left out in his listing of the beliefs of Two Seeders. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar, two leaders of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the early to mid 19th century and who battled against Two Seedism, and gave their testimony as to what were the leading beliefs of Two Seeders. Why does Cayce not mention the work of Elder John Watson in refuting Two Seedism in his book "The Old Baptist Test"? Why does he not mention the work of Elder George Stipp? Why does he only mention Potter and Grigg Thompson? Is it because these two men denied means in eternal salvation and Watson and Stipp did not? 

Elder Lemuel Potter, who Cayce extolled, did mention Watson in his debates with W. P. Throgmorton and Potter claimed in that debate that Watson was one of their highly esteemed founders. So did Elders Sylvester Hassell and Gilbert Beebe. So why could he refer the readers to the writings of his fellow ministers who wrote against Two Seedism, such as Lemuel Potter and Grigg Thompson, but not refer them to what Elder Watson wrote in the "Old Baptist Test," especially since it was written for the purpose of rebutting Two Seed beliefs? 

I am  fairly sure it is because he knew that Watson, Preslar, and Stipp stated that the anti-means view was a Two Seed belief, and Cayce shared that view, but he did not want to affirm that his anti-means view was a Two Seed view. We have not yet presented the work of Elder George Stipp against Two Seedism, but we plan to do so in upcoming chapters. However, in this post (here) I gave citations from Stipp's work where he plainly says that only those who hear the word of God and the Savior's voice, and who become believers in Jesus, are regenerated.

Cayce shared several other Two Seed ideas and had some of their quirks. He certainly agreed with the Two Seed idea that nothing a person did or didn't do determined whether he went to heaven. He also shared their penchant for spiritualizing or allegorizing of scripture. He took their view of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, denying that it taught what happens to saved and unsaved people when they die. He also shared their view that Adam did not die a spiritual death, and that Paul's "natural man" was man as originally created, rather than fallen man. 

Cayce says nothing about the question of the origin of Satan, a chief question in the Two Seed debates. He also says nothing about union with Christ, which was the crux of the debate. Two Seeders believed in an eternal vital union between Christ and the church, and denied that union with Christ occurred in regeneration or by faith. He also said nothing about another key idea that led to the formation of Two Seedism, which was the idea that Christ, as a mediator with a human soul, was begotten before the world began, a teaching that Joseph Hussey and others taught at the beginning of the 18th century, and a view shared by Isaac Watts and Menno Simons. We wrote about this in earlier chapters. He also did not mention how many Two Seeders denied the Trinity or denied that Christ being the Son of God pertained to his divinity. 

It is strange that Cayce says that Two Seeders taught that God "unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will," which was what was asserted by those who opposed those "Primitive Baptists" like Gilbert Beebe who affirmed the absolute predestination of all things. But, more on that shortly. However, as we saw in chapter twenty two of this series, Daniel Parker believed in the self-existence of the Devil because he did not want to believe that God was the cause of evil, directly or indirectly. Other Two Seeders shared this concern. Therefore, it seems Cayce is off base in charging Two Seeders with believing that God was the reason for men being wicked. In that chapter I cited from O. Max Lee who said about Parker: "To hold that God was responsible for the creation of Satan, Parker surmised, would make God the author of both good and evil." 

In my post titled "Elder Preslar on Two Seedism" (See here) I cited from Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" where he wrote:

"Now if there is any system to their doctrine (Two Seeders), or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

First:  they hold that the foreknowledge of God amounts to a decree, because (say they) it could not be any other way, and therefore denounce the idea that Adam was able to stand, but liable to fall. 

Secondly:  They hold that the Church of God was in eternal union with Him, (not in purpose, but actually so); and that the church is composed of a family of eternal children, that was in eternal union with God. 

Thirdly: That when Adam transgressed the law of his Creator, and fell under its curse, that those eternal children fell in him; but not in the same like sense that the children of the devil fell. 

Fourthly: That the devil is a self-existent devil, or wicked spirit, and that, after Adam had transgressed the law of his Creator, the devil and his children, through Eve, began to make their appearance; and from them came another set of children that they call the children of the devil, or the seed of the serpent.  And that those wicked children are a wicked spiritual family that dwell in mortal bodies; and are therefore called children of the flesh, and that this wicked generation of children constitute the non-elect; and that those eternal children that were in eternal union with God, constitute the elect of God or the church. 

Fifthly: And as they had fallen under the law in Adam, that Christ came and redeemed them back again, and that the Holy Ghost makes manifest this to them in time, and that they are now renewed in the spirit of their mind, that is in the enjoyment of that eternal union they had with God; for (say they), there is nothing the soul receives in time, but a manifestation of what did before exist, not in purpose, for purpose (say they) amounts to nothing, but actually so.

Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address.

Seventhly: That everything must return back again to its origin, and hence, these mortal bodies of ours must return to the dust, and never will be resurrected any more.  They contend for (what they call) a spiritual resurrection, and a spiritual body, that was eternally prepared of God for them; and that this was the kind of body that Jesus ascended into heaven with, and not in the one that was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified upon the Roman cross, and laid in the sepulcher; adding that it is none of our business what became of that body.

Eighthly, and lastly: They say that all other doctrine outside, or differing from this, is unsound, is Armianism, etc.

"The above is a correct and concise account of the items or tenets of doctrine, I understand them to hold forth.  And as I consider their system to be heresy, and having suffered much, as well as many others on account of it, I here give my reasons in a brief way, hoping that Divine Providence may make it a blessing to His church and people hereafter, for of all the systems of heresy that ever I have encountered with yet, I abhor it the most."  (pages 179-80)

"Neither has he told us when or how the devil was made or created, but He has let us know there is a devil, and He has let us know he is a murderer, a liar, and the father of lies, and that he sinned from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; John 8: 44. This much God has been pleased to let us know about the devil.  He does not tell us he never was in possession of the truth, but that he abode not in the truth...Then away with the doctrine of an eternal, self-existent devil."  (pg. 183-84)

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."  (pg. 187)

Preslar mentions nothing about the absolute predestination of all things as being an error held to by only the Two Seed Primitive Baptists, as Cayce says. The fact is, many "Primitive Baptists" who were not Two Seeders believed in this doctrine. Cayce may be saying this because Elder Gilbert Beebe held to Two Seed views and also was a leading advocate of the absolute predestination of all things. Further, this is the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which Cayce endorsed in 1900 when he attended, with his father, the Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists, wherein the fifty one leading elders assembled endorsed the 1689 confession, although they put footnotes to the articles on predestination to "clarify" those articles. It is also ironic that Cayce would say that the absolute predestinarian view was a Two Seed view, if he is basing that opinion upon Gilbert Beebe embracing both Two Seedism and absolute predestination of all things because Beebe was one of the first ones to teach against means, saying that it is the voice of Christ himself spoken to sinners internally that regenerates them. 

In Bob L. Ross's book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," chapter six, he wrote (emphasis mine):

"Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), editor of the Signs of the Times magazine, the foremost Anti-mission periodical following the 1832 split, was perhaps the first one -- at least, one of the first -- to propagate this new theory of "direct speaking" regeneration. He says:

"The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." [Compilation of Editorial Articles, Vol. IV, pages 21, 22].

Claud H. Cayce, editor of The Primitive Baptist in the first part of the 20th century, would represent the view of the "conditionalist" faction of Primitives, or "Old Schoolers," when he says:

"Sinners receive eternal life, are regenerated, just one way. The Lord SPEAKS to them as He did to Saul of Tarsus when he was on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and when He SPEAKS to the dead sinner he IMPARTS LIFE. He regenerates the sinner. 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' says the Redeemer." [Selected Editorials From The Primitive Baptist, Vol. I, page 194].

So, Cayce is taking a view of regeneration that was first finely defined by Two Seeder Gilbert Beebe. If he thinks that Two Seedism embraces the absolute predestination (or God's decree of) all things because Two Seeder Beebe held to it, then by the same logic he has to agree that his anti-means view is also a Two Seed view. Recall that previously I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee - Knoxville (see here), from Chapter IV, titled "ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS OCCUPIED BY DOCTRINAL DISPUTES" and from chapter V, "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," wherein Lawrence wrote:

"The Two-Seed doctrine, which was beginning to occupy the attention of the churches in the early 1870's, continued to plague the Primitive Baptists, especially those of the Powell Valley association, until 1889, when a split occurred in the association. The Nolachucky association, too, felt the impact of this conflict, but no complete rift, such as the Powell Valley experienced, occurred in any of the other East Tennessee associations.

At the 1879 meeting of the Powell Valley association the tenth item of business said: Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church.

But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder."  (pg. 89)

This is interesting because it was written in 1879 which was several years before Cayce wrote the above editorial. Second, the association does connect the anti-means doctrine with Two Seedism and does hint at the doctrine of absolute predestination in that it seems to allude to supralapsarianism, as also connected with Two Seedism. It does allude to the Two Seed tenet that said that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. So, though Cayce may reject absolute predestination of all things and say that it is a tenet of Two Seedism, yet he himself held to the Two Seed anti-means view, the view that it is useless to preach to the unregenerate, and the view that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven. 

Consider also that many "Primitive Baptists" who say they reject Two Seedism nevertheless believe in what is called "eternal justification," a view that John Gill advocated in the 18th century. Elder David Pyles, a leading minister in today's "Primitive Baptist Church," denies means and also holds to the doctrine of eternal justification.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIX)

Elder S. F. Cayce

1850-1905

The above is a picture of Elder S. F. Cayce, father of Elder C. H. Cayce, which I probably should have put in the last chapter since C.H. (Claud) cited from his father on Two Seedism. In this chapter we will begin with an editorial titled "Regeneration" by Elder C.H. Cayce (November 16, 1915). In it Cayce wrote:

"The Saviour says, in (John 3:3), "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man is translated from a word which means anyone. Hence, "Except anyone be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word again is translated from a word which means from above. Hence, "Except anyone be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man, or the word anyone, simply refers to the race-except anyone of the race of Adam be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. One must be born from above in order to that end. It is the sinner of Adam's race that is the subject of the new birth."

Why, in the year 1915, does Cayce find it necessary to stress the idea that it is the man who has descended from Adam who is born again? Is it not because he is fighting against the Two Seed idea that says it is not the "Adam man" who is born again? Obviously then, the "Primitive Baptists" are still having trouble over the doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, a topic that has troubled that denomination from their start.

By his saying that "born again" means "born from above" he is saying what some Two Seeders were often heard emphasizing. They rejected the translation that says "born again" and said it meant "born from above," and with them it was an important distinction. However, Nicodemus understood Jesus to mean "born again" for he said "can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Further, Peter spoke of being "born again." (I Peter 1: 23) "Born again" in that text is from a singular Greek word, anagegennēmenoi (ἀναγεγεννημένοι) where the prefix "ana" means "again." 

"Born from above" fit better with Two Seed theology, for they say that the divine seed, which contained the people of God as Adam's seed contained all the race, came down from heaven and was deposited in human beings. They said "born again" carries the connotation of "born over." They thought "born from above" indicated that it was not the earthly man that had been born again. Keep in mind also that they made a clear distinction between being conceived (or begotten) and being born (delivered) as we do in physical birth. Two Seeders rejected the idea that the same person who was of Adam's seed was born again, for that would mean "born over," or another birth of the flesh. 

Elder Gilbert Beebe in an editorial in the "Signs of the Times" for April 1st, 1868 (you can read here) said (emphasis mine):

"The saints are spoken of in the Scriptures as having an existence in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), and as having an existence in Adam as early as the creation of man: Consequently, they did exist and were identified in some sense, before they were born, either of the flesh or of the Spirit. A birth gives no existence; it is the bringing into manifestation that which before existed...Our conviction is that the man who is born again was created and chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world; was in time born first of the flesh, and subsequently born again, of the Spirit."

Both the Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists and the Non-Two Seeders saw regeneration (or begetting) as distinct from the birth from above. The former believed that the conception or begetting of the children of God occurred in conjunction with the begetting of the Son of God sometime in eternity past, and believed that the birth took place in time when a sinner was saved or quickened unto spiritual life. The latter believed that the begetting and the birth both took place in time, the begetting being regeneration proper, the time when the divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) was deposited within a sinner and germinated, producing a child of God, and the birth coming later after the child has been formed in the womb and brought forth (or manifested). Gilbert Beebe argued in favor of both views, ironically. In this post (here) I cited Beebe's views on James 1: 18 where he wrote the following in 1846:

10. “Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth.” – James i. 18. Instead of honored instrumentalities, the whole power of producing the conception and consequent birth of the children of God is in this test accredited to “His own will” alone, that is, to the sovereign, immutable will of God, which proves the position we have taken in the preceding item of our reply."

Notice the words "conception and consequent birth." So, when does each occur?

In chapter thirty two of this series I cited from Beebe's editorial of March 1st 1880 in his paper "The Signs of the Times," where he responded to queries by Elder W. M. Mitchell and wrote the following in reply (highlighting mine):

"We have usually spoken of the implantation of the spirit, in which Christ is formed in us, as a new birth, and so we now understand it, as taught, John i. 13. and 1 Peter 1. 23. 24. And this work is performed in the sinner of Adam's race, who, as a natural man, is spoken of in the scriptures as possessing a soul, body and spirit, which is depraved and, sinful, to qualify him to see the kingdom of God. But we have labored to the extent of our limited ability to keep in view that a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth."

Again, notice that he says the birth is distinct from being begotten. In chapter forty three I cited from Beebe's editorial response to Elder Potter's critique in the "Signs of the Times" for June 1880 (See here under "Number 6" of his editorials)

"If we have read correctly the record which God has given of his Son, as the Head of the body, the church, he, as the Head of the church and Savior of the body, is not only the begotten, but the only begotten of the Father; and we infer that the begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body, and all the members of the body of which he is the Head."

So here again we see where Beebe says the children of God were "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten of the Father. However, he also believed that the begetting corresponded to the time when a sinner is "regenerated" and that the "birth" corresponded to the time when the regenerated or begotten sinner was converted to faith in Christ. In chapter fifty two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I cited from Beebe's editorial in the "Signs" titled "Regeneration and the New Birth" for September 1st, 1857, taken from Vol. 4 of his editorials. (emphasis mine)

"In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed, as was demonstrated in the case of Hagar and Ishmael; it is the immediate work of God himself. "Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth." - James i. 18...When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance...Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."

In that chapter I give further citations from Beebe where he taught this paradigm. It was the paradigm most generally believed by the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the early 19th century. So, Beebe believes that the elect were "begotten" twice, once in past eternity, and once in time and which was distinct from the birth.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial mentioned above (1915):

"It is not some kind of spirit, or eternal child, that comes down and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in him until the Adam man dies and then goes back to heaven where it came from, thus leaving the Adam man out of the benefits of salvation."

Cayce takes the view of G.M. Thompson and Lemuel Potter. These represented the side that opposed Two Seedism. However, as I have shown in previous chapters, they nonetheless retained several Two Seed tenets, such as 1) affirming that the word of God is no means in eternal salvation, and 2) that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven, and 3) that there is little to no change in the thinking and belief of sinners when they are regenerated. In chapter forty six I cited from C.H. Cayce's editorials where he applauded the Forked Deer Association for declaring non-fellowship for those who believed in preaching the gospel to sinners. So I wrote:

In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905 (emphasis mine):

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

In that same chapter I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists where they wrote the following under the tenth item of business:

"Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."

Cayce wrote further in that same editorial in 1915:

"Elder G. M. Thompson was considered one among the ablest men of his day. He wrote a book called "The Measuring Rod; or the Principles and Practice of the Primitive Baptists," which was published in 1861. It is a refutation of Two-Seedism. On pages 79, 80, 81, and 82 he says: The Bible represents the new birth or regeneration, as producing a great change in the sinner; but it does not only prove the change, but it proves that the sinner is the subject of that birth or regeneration. It is the sinner's heart that is circumcised to love the Lord; it is the sinner that is purged from an evil conscience to serve the Lord; and it is the dead sinner that is to hear the voice of the Son of God, and live. In the work of regeneration, the stranger is made a citizen, the enemy is made a friend, and those who know not God, are made to know Him and love Him."

We reviewed Thompson's work in earlier chapters of this series. Notice that Cayce sees "birth" as the same as "regeneration." That was not, however, the more common view of "Primitive Baptists" prior to the time when Cayce wrote the above. It was the view of Elder Grigg Thompson but not the view of his father Elder Wilson Thompson.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial:

"It seems to us that we have been plain enough in the foregoing for anyone to know that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine; but for fear some person might not remember, we will say, most emphatically, that WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE" WHOLE MAN" DOCTRINE. When we say we do not believe a thing, there is no man under heaven who has any right to say that we do, and no honest man who reads this will hereafter do so. Some have accused us of believing that, but every honest man who has thought so will say it no more, and will be willing to correct his statements that we did."

It seems clear from these words that Two Seed ideas were still being discussed in 1915. In fact, as I have shown in previous chapters, Cayce, like nearly all "Primitive Baptists" today, still retain several Two Seed tenets, such as a denial that the gospel is a means in the regeneration of sinners, and in their accepting the premise that says "nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." 

Cayce wrote further in the same long editorial:

"We have been silent for some time, and have written nothing for our columns, hoping that peace might be restored, until we have felt that circumstances and the cause absolutely demanded that we say this much, and give our readers to understand that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, and that we were not going to allow any quarrel in The Primitive Baptist on the question. While we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, we wish it also understood that we do not believe what has been called the "hollow log" doctrine. Both are wrong and we will not accept either."

In previous chapters we have said much about both the "hollow log" and "whole man" doctrines of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists. Notice that Cayce speaks of "peace" in the churches "might be restored," which shows that Two Seedism was still dividing churches in 1915.

In another editorial titled "The TWO SEED Doctrine" Cayce wrote the following July 15, 1920:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth." 

In previous chapters we have seen how the Two Seed view of the doctrine of unconditional election was described and shown to be perverted by the Two Seeders.

Cayce wrote:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

This is a repetition of what he had earlier said. He feels a need to keep saying this.