Beebe on James 1: 18

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the leading founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist denomination, wrote the following in 1846. It is his answer to a question from one of his brethren who espoused means and the title of the editorial is "Means." I cited from this editorial in my previous posting on I Cor. 4: 15. I also noted how the Hardshell web page that has many Beebe writings has become inaccessible. Nevertheless I am sure that the editorial can be found if one goes to the date given in 1846 and reads the "Signs of the Times." 

This 1846 editorial writing shows that he recognized that his view on "means" was not the leading view of his brethren, nor of his forefathers. 

In Beebe's editorial writing he looks at several scripture passages that the means advocates (being the majority and historic view) mentioned in their inquiry to him. 

Besides I Cor. 4: 15 there are these comments of Beebe on James 1:18 (emphasis mine):

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 how Beebe speaks of the two aspects of procreation, of "conception" and "consequent birth." As I have shown, the making of "conception" to be "regeneration" and the "birth" to be "conversion," with the fetus growth and travail of "delivery" coming in between, was a very common view among the first generation of Hardshells and even persisted to some degree into the 20th century (when it became a minority view and one opposed by the majority). 

Recall too that this text has been the chief text used in a discussion of this three stage model of birth and procreation. The Greek word for "begat" is not the general new testament word used for birth, being a word that generally denotes the birth of the fetus from mother's womb.

The idea that the new birth is accomplished by the power or will of God is not questioned by either side in the debate over God's use of means, or "the word of truth." The question is whether saying it is by the power of God, or the will of God, excludes the written or preach word as a means. This text obviously shows that the birth can be both by the power and will of God and be, at the same time, "by the word of truth." Beebe and the Hardshells err in thinking that one excludes the other. Many additional examples can be given in addition to the one we have right in front of us in James 1: 18 to sustain this rebuttal. Therefore, Beebe is blatantly wrong in affirming that means are taught against in this verse. Is it not marvelous how a man can take a verse that clearly teaches God's use of the word as a means in rebirth and affirm that it actually denies means!?

Further, where is the mother in this begetting, according to Beebe and his anti means brothers? Have I not often shown this to be a weakness in their anti means philosophy? Have I not shown that the church is our mother because she gave us "the word of truth"? The spiritually born are "children of Zion," of mother Jerusalem. 

The Two Seed View

Beebe continued:

"Perhaps the means renders will try to make some capital of the words “with the word of his power,” construing the word of his power to imply instrumentality. One of two things must be intended by these words: “With the word,” they were begotten by the Father of lights, spoken of in the context. Christ is the only begotten of the Father; but as a begotten emanation from the Godhead, he is the life of his people, head of his body, the church, mediator, &c.; as God he is self-existent, equally with the Father; but as the life and immortality of his spiritual body, he is the beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature; and in this sense he only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, [not even by the magic Power of means,] whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting’. Amen. Now the one production of spiritual life was what we understand to be the begetting of both the head and the body, so that if Christ as the Word is intended by James, the saints have a common origin with Christ their head, and both be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? 

The Direct Speaking View

Beebe continued:

"Or, secondly, if by the word of truth we are to understand his word, as used Isaiah lv. 10, still there is no room for arminians to introduce a particle of means. The world was created by the same word. God said, “Let there be light.” It was by the omnipotence of his word that all things came into existence, and we may with the same propriety talk of God’s having used means in the creation, as in quickening his children."

Why does Beebe limit the possible meanings (interpretations) of the passage, saying it must mean "one of two things"? Why is not the historic view of the verse not one of those possible interpretations? Is Beebe's Two Seed and Arian view not a new one? What Baptists, or any other, interpreted James 1: 18 as talking about the eternal generation of the Son of God, of his being eternally "begotten" of the Father? And, whoever spoke of this begetting of the children of God as being what occurred in eternity past when the Son was begotten?

The context is very clear on what is meant by "the word of truth." It is the word of God, whether written or orally communicated. Further, Christ is never called "the word of truth" as a title, as he is called "the word (logos) of God." Further, Beebe in his reply speaks of "the word of his power" but James 1: 18 says "word of truth." Did not all Beebe's forefathers interpret James 1: 18 as Gill? 

Wrote Dr. Gill:

"with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see (Ephesians 1:13) (1 Peter 1:23) and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers." (Commentary)

Which view is the historic or "Old Baptist" view? That of Beebe, Trott, and the Two Seed Hardshells? Or, that of Dr. Gill?