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.

Uprooting Hardshellism (2)

 

Consider this post a follow up to my post of this same title written May 12, 2015 (See here).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14 kjv)

"Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists teach that it is not necessary for a sinner to believe in Christ or the gospel to be saved. I know this for a fact because I was an elder with the "Primitive Baptists" for many years and my father was a leading elder with them for well over fifty years. You can also read their literature and see where they say this very thing. In chapter thirteen of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I cited from Elder S. A. Paine (1874-1910), one of the best debaters for the Hardshells, who said the following about faith and whether it is a condition for salvation. It is from a published book titled "Writings of S.A. Paine" (which I got a copy of back in the 1970s when I was a young Hardshell minister). In it Paine wrote:

"If it is by faith, it is also by works...If by faith, it must be by a perfect faith, or we have a perfect effect (salvation) suspended upon an imperfect cause or condition. If faith is made perfect by works, and a perfect faith is a condition of salvation, it follows that works is [sic] also. But the Bible declares it is not by nor of works, therefore the theory of faith as a condition cannot be true." (WRITINGS OF S. A. PAINE, page 20).

The Primitive Baptist Library's web page says this about one of Paine's debates:

"1909 Elder S. A. Paine (Primitive Baptist) vs. Haywood F. Oliver (Church of Christ), at Oglesby, Texas, Feb. 9-12, 1909. 1st. The scriptures teach that God gives spiritual or eternal life to alien sinners independent of any conditions to be complied with by them." (See here)

Paine affirmed this proposition and so he denied that faith was a condition of salvation.

They also have him listed as having a debate in 1911, but that cannot be true since he died in 1910. Paine had several debates in his short life.

From the above we see where Paine plainly affirmed that faith was not necessary for salvation. 

In order to "get around" texts that affirm that salvation is through faith (such as Eph. 2:8), the Hardshells argued that there are two kinds of salvation in the bible, an eternal salvation and a "time salvation." The latter they said involved being delivered from many hurtful things in the life of a child of God and that many of these temporal deliverances were conditioned upon faith. But, eternal salvation, they argued, did not require faith nor any other condition. However, the above text cannot be so twisted and distorted.

First, it cannot be argued that the "salvation" of the text is a time salvation, i.e. a salvation not necessary for being saved eternally, because the salvation is that salvation to which they had been chosen to from the beginning.

Second, this salvation is "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Obtaining the glory of Christ cannot denote a temporary good. Paul says the same thing when he wrote the following to Timothy: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2: 10 kjv) This verse is akin to our opening text. Both mention salvation and glory and the means (the calling that comes through the preaching of the gospel). But, in the latter verse Paul speaks of the chosen obtaining "the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

Third, though the text is not saying that the choice to salvation by God was "through" a "belief of the truth," yet it does say that the salvation to which the elect ones were chosen to obtain involves conditions, one being "sanctification of the Spirit" and the other "belief of the truth." H. Boyce Taylor (1870-1932) was an ardent opponent of Hardshellism's tenet which denied that faith was a condition of salvation. I wrote the following post and cited what Taylor said on this point. (here) Said Taylor:

"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject...But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth." 

"Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ". Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel...These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel."

The word "belief" in the text is from the same Greek word for "faith." Faith is belief. Although Hardshells cannot use the "time salvation" escape hatch on this text, yet, many Hardshells found another way to "get around" or "explain away" texts like the above which show that faith is essential for salvation. Since they cannot credibly say that the salvation of the text is a mere optional "time salvation," they will try another tactic, which is to redefine the meaning of "faith." Some will say that this faith is a "latent," "dormant," "hidden," or "seed" faith, which means a person may have this faith without it really believing anything, and a person will not even know that he has it, all of which is quite ridiculous. Some, like Elder Zach Guess, will define "faith" as meaning "the ability to have faith," which also is quite ridiculous. I wrote about his view in this post (See here), and cited these words of Guess:

"There is much misunderstanding in the religious world about "faith" or "belief." Many preachers will say that salvation is by grace but that a person must "put his trust in Jesus Christ" or "believe in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior" or "have faith in Jesus Christ" before he can be saved."

"It should be obvious that PISTEUO and PISTIS are cognate words. This means that they were derived from a common original form or root. One is a verb; the other is a noun. Simply put it means that "to believe" is "to exercise faith." "Faith" is "the ability to believe." So, if one believes, he is exercising the faith which he already has." 

"In short these verses say that God gives the individual faith when He saves him. Faith, as used here is almost a synonym for spiritual life."

We see that Guess denies that a person must put his trust or faith in Christ to be saved. He also defines "faith" as "the ability to have faith," which is ridiculous. In saying this he also contradicts the definition of faith that he gives from Greek scholars Thayer and Vine. He cites them as follows:

"The Greek word most commonly translated "believe" in the New Testament is PISTEUO. The meaning is "to believe, be persuaded of, to place confidence in." (W. E. Vine). Thayer gives the meaning as follows: "of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of his soul." When the object of believing is Jesus Christ, Thayer says that it is "a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah."

The Greek word most commonly translated "faith" in the New Testament is PISTIS. The meaning is "firm persuasion." (W. E. Vine). Thayer says of this word that "when it relates to God, PISTIS is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ-Heb. 11:6." He says that, "in reference to Christ, it denotes a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation."

It is after giving these definitions of faith that he says "faith" means "the ability to believe." Quite bewildering!

Others of them, like some of the older Hyper Calvinists, and those who are reluctant to say that sinners are saved and justified by faith, will say that when texts say people are saved by "faith" that "faith" in those texts means the object of faith, which is Christ. So, if I say people are saved by Christ through faith I will be saying that people are saved by Christ through Christ. Guess, in the above, indicated also that "faith" meant "eternal life." But again, that is ridiculous. Paul, in writing to Timothy, spoke of those who "believe on him (Christ) for everlasting life." (I Tim. 1: 16) This disproves his saying that faith means eternal life.

Since most Hardshells today are believers in "kjv onlyism" they must accept that "belief" is in the text we are examining. Also, they must deal with the fact that the apostle says "belief of the truth." What "truth"? Surely it is the gospel truth as the text indicates. 

Another difficulty in our text is the fact that the text not only says that the salvation to which people have been chosen to obtain is through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth but that people are "called" to this salvation "by the gospel," which is another truth that Hardshells reject. Paul says of the salvation to which the Thessalonian Christians were chosen -- "whereunto he called you by our gospel." 

Now I call upon every Hardshell who reads this to come and correct me and explain to me how the text does not uproot Hardshell beliefs about salvation.

The "Cannot" in Total Depravity

"whatever is not of faith is sin"

Romans 14: 23

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

My ministerial friend, now deceased, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, author of several scholarly books, had a blog titled "Calvinist Flyswatter," even though he was himself a Calvinist. In this blog he would swat the flies of extremism among many Calvinists, such as those who say that "regeneration precedes faith," or say that the word of God or the Gospel was no means in effecting regeneration, or who went to extremes in their views on the Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity" or "total inability." This is one reason why he loved Charles Spurgeon so much, for Spurgeon also was often swatting the flies of Hyper Calvinism. 

Many of these extreme Calvinists said that regeneration must precede faith because a totally depraved sinner has no ability to believe or repent and so must be given that ability via regeneration. The error in this line of argument, however, is in the failure to see that "without faith it is impossible to please God" and that "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Heb. 11: 6, Rom. 14:23) Faith is the ability. When faith is given the sinner then has the ability to please God. Before a person believes there is no power to believe. If a person were regenerated and yet had no faith in Christ, as some teach, he would still be unable to please God, would still be in the flesh, as Paul said:

"For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8: 6-8 nkjv)

As long as a person is an unbeliever he is under wrath (John 3: 36). If he is regenerated before he believes, then he is an odd character, being regenerated and yet under wrath. Until the mind becomes spiritually minded in faith, a person is "in the flesh." 

Also, depraved man's "cannot" is not physical but moral and spiritual. Many great Calvinists have insisted on this distinction. I have written several posts on this point and cited those Calvinists on this point, men such as Jonathan Edwards, A.W. Pink, A.A. Hodge, and others. Here are some sample citations:

A. W. Pink, a favorite author to read for many Hardshells, wrote (emphasis mine):

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."

And,

"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination, or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral Inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination. or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views."

It must be noted how Edwards uses the term "natural" in the above words. He does not deny that the lack of inclination and disposition to obey God is "natural" in the sense that it is inbred in the soul, but he uses the term in the sense of what is "physical" or "constitutional."

Edwards continues:

"It cannot be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language, that a malicious man, let him be ever so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking, or that he is not able to show his neighbor kindness; or that a drunkard, let his appetite be ever so strong, cannot keep the cup from his mouth. In the strictest propriety of speech, a man has a thing in his power, if he has it in his choice, or at his election: and a man cannot be truly said to be unable to do a thing, when he can do it if he will. It is improperly said, that a person cannot perform those external actions which are dependent on the act of the will, and which would be easily performed, if the act of the will were present. And if it be improperly said, that he cannot perform those external voluntary actions, which depend on the will, it is in some respect more improperly said, that he is unable to exert the acts of the will themselves; because it is more evidently false, with respect to these, that he cannot if he will: for to say so, is a downright contradiction: it is to say, he cannot will, if he does will. And in this case, not only is it true, that it is easy for a man to do the thing if he will, but the very willing is the doing; when once he has willed, the thing is performed; and nothing else remains to be done. Therefore, in these things to ascribe a non-performance to the want of power or ability, is not just; because the thing wanting is not a being able, but a being willing. There are faculties of mind, and capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient, but a disposition: nothing is wanting but a will." (see here)

A. A. Hodge, in his "Outlines of Theology," wrote:

"16. What distinction is intended by the theological terms, natural and moral ability?

By natural ability was intended the possession, on the part of every responsible moral agent, whether holy or unholy, of all the natural faculties, as reason, conscience, free will, requisite to enable him to obey God s law. If any of these were absent, the agent would not be responsible. By moral ability was intended that inherent moral condition of these faculties, that righteous disposition of heart, requisite to the performance of duty. Although these terms have been often used by orthodox writers in a sense which to them expressed the truth, yet they have often been abused, and are not desirable. It is evidently an abuse of the word to say that sinners are naturally able, but morally unable, to obey the law; for that can be no ability which leaves the sinner, as the Scriptures declare, utterly unable either to think, feel, or act aright. Besides, the word “natural,” in the phrase “natural ability,” is used in an unusual sense, as opposite to moral; while in the usual sense of that word it is declared in Scripture that man is by nature, i.e., naturally, a child of wrath."  (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, page 272, as cited in calvinandcalvinism.com, see here)

Andrew Fuller also argued the same.

Why can lost sinners not come to Christ? Or not believe in him or repent? Why can they not understand or receive the things of the Spirit? Why can they not please God? Why can they not hear the gospel? 

Does this "cannot" of dead sinners mean that they cannot understand what the words "thou shalt not kill" means? Does it mean that they cannot believe in the existence of God? 

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the leading elders who helped to create the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist church, in "WHAT IS THE GOSPEL AND TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED" from the "Signs of the Times" periodical (February 15, 1869) said: "To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so." That statement is a foundational principle of Pelagianism. Years ago when I wrote that Hardshellism was both Hyper Calvinism and also Pelagian in certain ways, one brother responded by saying that it was impossible for a person to be both. However, that is not true. One of the leading principles of Pelagianism is that any command of God implies ability to obey it, and if God commanded men to do what they could not do, then God would be cruel and unjust. 

In my post titled "An Example of Hardshell Pelagianism" (See here) I cited from the late Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications and his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism" who wrote:

"Pelagianism: What Is It?

What was to develop in the Anti-Mission movement, after the 1827 Kehukee Declaration and the 1832 Black Rock Address, was the subtle use of an old philosophy known as "PELAGIANISM." [For a study of Pelagianism, see B. B. Warfield's Two Studies in the History of Doctrine and Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings in the fifth volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Eerdmans' edition].

Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named. While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, for "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.

CAMPBELLISM, the "twin" of the Hardshells, in essence also holds to Pelagianism and is more in line with pure Pelagianism on the natural state of man, as Campbellism denies inherited depravity. But Campbellism holds, in common with Hardshellism, the basic, practical theory of Pelagianism that "command implies ability."

In Pelagianism and Campbellism, man naturally has the capacity and ability from the Creator to do whatever is commanded, the fall of Adam notwithstanding. In Hardshellism, man is similarly endowed by God, but not naturally; according to Hardshellism, this ability is imparted in what they regard as "regeneration."

The practical application made by Hardshells of various commands, such as repentance and faith, is consistent with the Pelagian theory that the command implies the ability to fulfill the command."

"Logically, then, according to Hardshellism, the "dead alien sinner" is so disabled that he must have "life" implanted in him so as to capacitate the sinner with the ability to obey the commands. This is their rationale for denying that the Gospel is to be addressed to "dead alien sinners."

Hardshellism defends its theory on the grounds of carnal "logic" (see Sarrels' Systematic Theology, page 328). And on the grounds of purely physical logic, without a consideration for Divine Revelation, who can deny their "logic" that the "dead" must be made alive BEFORE they can give any evidence of life? Who denies that you won't get a "dead fish" to bite the bait?

"But -- if we incorporate Divine Revelation, as given in the Scriptures, are we shut up to the Hardshell version of Pelagianism? We trow not, for there are numerous instances of commands which do not imply ability. Also, command often is simply indicative of responsibility and divine purpose, and does not necessarily imply ability."

"The case of Ezekiel's "dry bones" in chapter 37 does not imply the ability of the bones to hear and respond to the preaching Ezekiel. Rather, the design of this scene is to focus on God's power resting upon or accompanying His Word.

The case of Lazarus' being commanded to "Come forth" from the dead did not imply ability in Lazarus (John 11). This case demonstrates that God's Word, accompanied by His efficient power, can raise the dead thru His command.

The case of the man with the withered hand being told to "stretch forth thine hand" did not imply ability on his part (Matt. 12:13). This again shows that God's power rests upon His Word and has creative results."

"The case of the Law as defining man's moral responsibility does not imply man's moral and spiritual ability to comply. Though man is fallen and is under the influence of his depravity, he is nonetheless responsible to be righteous."

"The exhortation for believers to "be perfect" as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48) is a statement of our "standard," not a statement of ability."

"Illustrations such as this could be multiplied. They are contradictory to the Hardshell "logic" which is applied to Gospel-related commands. Based on numerous Scriptures which assert the "connection" between the Holy Spirit and the Word, the Gospel, and the Truth, the Power of God is upon His Revelation and it brings to pass His purpose (Isa. 55:11). God's commands become God's enablings under His own efficient power."

One minister who lived in the time of Gilbert Beebe and who opposed Beebe and his cohort Elder Samuel Trott, on several issues, such as on their denial of the eternal sonship of Christ and its connection with the Trinity, and on Two Seedism, and their ideas on regeneration, was Elder John Clark, founder and editor of Zion's Advocate periodical (begun in 1854). He wrote the following as cited by me in the same post where I cited from Ross:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

I have also shown in previous writings how the Hardshells make fools out of Jesus and other men of God for they preached to dead sinners who were totally depraved and unable to believe and repent apart from divine grace.

In this post (here) I cited from the late Elder Sonny Pyles who said the following in one of his sermons:

"It would be just as ridiculous to go down in  Virginia or Kentucky and start yelling at the rock and the mountains as it would be for me to preach the gospel to an alien sinner never born again of the Spirit of God."

"It would be just as foolish to go over to the shopping center, walk up to a brick wall and start saying "by grace are ye saved through faith" - and people would think I was a moron."

In response to this Hyper Calvinistic and Pelagian view I wrote the following:

Further, if it can be shown that Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, preached the Gospel to alien sinners, will this not make them fools and heretics, using Sonny's criterion?  Did they preach to "brick walls" when they appealed to the hearts and minds of lost souls?  Sonny thinks so.  And, if so, then he must acknowledge this, reductio ad absurdum.  One or two things is true.  Either Christ preached to stony hearts (unregenerate) or he did not.  If he did, then Sonny must acknowledge that Christ did wrong, and was a fool, and that Christ was no Hardshell.

He must also say that it was foolish for God to tell Ezekiel to go and preach to the dry dead bones! He must also say that Ezekiel was a fool for doing so.