Two Seed Baptist Ideology (II)

As stated in the first chapter of this series, Two Seedism borrowed several of its leading ideas from other sources, one of them being Manichaeism (Dualism or Zoroastrianism). This is because the Two Seeders believed in an eternal Devil, that God never created the being who became Satan. Their idea was that God could never create anything or anyone that was evil (orthodox view says God did not make the angel Lucifer evil but became such by his rebellion). Like the Dualists of old, they believed that the Devil was uncreated and therefore eternal like God, though they would perhaps confess that the Devil was not as powerful as God. This seems to be their answer to the age old "problem of evil." Often, when Two Seeders were cornered by those who rejected their teachings about the eternity of the Devil, they would often simply state their main reasons for their belief but would often say it is all a mystery and ought not to be investigated. 

This attitude on the question - "where did the Devil come from" is one which I have written about before. The reason this question is taboo among the Hardshells is due to the remnants of Two Seedism still present among them. Valdosta State professor and a Primitive Baptist John G. Crowley, says one may still find Two Seed doctrines preached by Primitive Baptists “if one knows where to go and what to listen for.” (Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South: 1815 to Present, Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1998) This is especially true on the origin of Satan and the fall of the angels. But, we will have more to say on this later in this series.

My father, a primitive Baptist minister for over fifty years, and a leader among the Hardshells (having several debates with Arminians in defense of Hardshell doctrine, and being a contributing editor of "The Christian Baptist" periodical for many years, and being in demand to "fill appointments" in churches) wrote an article on "The Origin of Satan" in that periodical (1972 or 1973). From that time on he was declared in disorder by many Hardshell churches. Father believed as do most bible scholars that Satan is a fallen angel, having fallen from heaven (Luke 10: 18). This was strongly rejected by many Hardshells. Many, however, though not agreeing with father, nevertheless did not think such a disagreement should be made a "test of fellowship." A few ministers agreed with Father on the doctrine but were not declared in disorder, such as Elder S. T. Tolley, founder and editor of "The Christian Baptist" periodical, which in its day was the leading Hardshell periodical and had other leading ministers on the editorial staff besides father, although he and Tolley were the chief writers. As a young Hardshell minister I also wrote some articles for it. I also spent time in Tolley's home in Atwood, Tennessee. I wrote about my father's ministry and the controversy over his views on the origin of Satan in chapter two of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here).

So, what is Manichaeism? According to Britannica we have this short statement (emphasis mine):

"Teachings similar to Manichaeism resurfaced during the Middle Ages in Europe in the so-called neo-Manichaean sects. Groups such as the Paulicians (Armenia, 7th century), the Bogomilists (Bulgaria, 10th century), and the Cathari or Albigensians (southern France, 12th century) bore strong resemblances to Manichaeism and probably were influenced by it. However, their direct historical links to the religion of Mani are difficult to establish." (See here)

In the early centuries there also was some incorporation of the views of Manichaeism into some Christian sects. So, it is nothing new for Parker and his followers to do the same in the 19th century. It is similar to Zoroastrianism, though many say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic whereas Manichaeism is dualistic. But, that is not completely true. AI Overview says "Zoroastrianism is often perceived as having two main divine entities, but it is more accurately described as a monotheistic religion with a dualistic framework. While Ahura Mazda is the supreme, uncreated God and creator, the faith also acknowledges the existence of Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman), a destructive spirit who embodies evil. This framework creates a cosmic battle between good and evil." Zoroastrianism is older than Manichaeism and the latter borrowed several ideas from the former. Both began in ancient Persia or modern day Iran.

"Mani sought to found a truly ecumenical and universal religion that would integrate into itself all the partial truths of previous revelations, especially those of Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. However, beyond mere syncretism, it sought the proclamation of a truth that could be translated into diverse forms in accordance with the different cultures into which it spread. Thus, Manichaeism, depending on the context, resembles Iranian and Indian religions, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism." (Ibid; Britannica)

Not only did Mani syncretize elements of other religions, but so does the Two Seed religious philosophy of Parker and the Two Seeders. In the previous chapter we listed those other sources for Two Seedism's main ideas.

"At its core, Manichaeism was a type of gnosticism—a dualistic religion that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truths. Like all forms of gnosticism, Manichaeism taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil. In Manichaeism inner illumination reveals that the soul, which shares in the nature of God, has fallen into the evil world of matter and must be saved by means of the spirit or intelligence (nous)." (Ibid)

As we said in the previous chapter, Two Seedism borrows from both Manichaeism and Gnosticism and much of what is said above applies to Two Seed ideology.

"At death the soul of the righteous person returns to Paradise. The soul of the person who persisted in things of the flesh—fornication, procreation, possessions, cultivation, harvesting, eating of meat, drinking of wine—is condemned to rebirth in a succession of bodies." (Ibid)

Notice the word "returns." Manichaeism taught that the human soul is essentially a pre-existing spark of divine light much like Two Seedism. Likewise Zoroastrianism posits that a component of the human being, the fravashi, has a pre-existent spiritual form. The belief in the preexistence of souls is also a central tenet of Gnosticism. In Hinduism, the concept of the soul (Atman) says that it is eternal and has pre-existed before birth into its current body. Further, as we will see, some Christian teachers in the Hyper Calvinistic tradition taught that the human soul of Christ was begotten before the world began, before his body was begotten in time via the virgin Mary. Some of them even suggested that the souls of the elect were also created in Christ at the time Christ's soul was begotten. So, this part of Two Seedism is not a new idea. Daniel Parker said he learned of the doctrine from some brother in east Tennessee, but really it goes back farther than that. 

I will begin now to cite sources who were the first opponents of Two Seedism and Daniel Parker when he first began to teach Two Seedism. First we will cite from Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson of middle Tennessee who was a Hardshell leader who was on the front lines of battle with the Two Seeders. We referred to his book, "The Old Baptist Test," in the previous chapter. This book is available to read online for free. I have cited from it much, along with brother Fralick, in several articles in this blog and in the Baptist Gadfly blog, mostly in regard to his defense of the gospel means view, and his attack on those Two Seeder Hardshells who began to deny that one must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved. This blog chose the name "Old Baptist Test" mostly as a way to speak to present day Hardshells and to show them that they are really not "primitive" Baptists at all, it now being a misnomer, for they are really new school and not old school as they claim. 

In Elder Watson's "Old Baptist Test" we will cite from the book section titled - "A REFUTATION OF THE MANICHEO PARKERITE HERESY THE IMPERFECTION OF ALL CREATED THINGS THE SOURCE OF EVIL." (pg. 190 See here) dealing with Two Seedism's belief in an uncreated Devil, what he calls "the Parkerite heresy." (pg. 191) Watson writes (all emphasis mine):

"As the Parkerite does not deduce the least proof from the Word of God, in confirmation of his untenable notion of the existence of an eternal evil spirit, we cannot meet him on scripture ground, in the discussion of that point, but will reason the case a little with him, and a few words must suffice." (pg. 195)

I remember father and the members of our church in Ohio going to Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a church council of the churches of the Powell's Valley Association to discuss father's view on the origin and fall of Satan and I remember one Hardshell pointed to father and said, "I'll tell where the Devil came from, he's over there." I also recall father the year before (1973) debating with Elder John Robbins at the association in Middlesboro, Kentucky (where I was baptized the year before) in the cafeteria of the High School wherein the association was held. It began after the morning service on Friday when John said to father - "come on in here and lets talk about this 'devil doctrine' of yours." I recall that father could not get John and those siding with him to deny that the Devil was eternal. John focused on the fact that Satan could not have fallen from the third heaven, that if he did fall, it must have been from the first or second heaven. He said that he believed in a "pure heaven" and that it was impossible for anyone to fall from the third heaven. I say all this simply to show that this is evidence of how Two Seedism was once in full swing in that association and that the remnants of it still remained. I wrote about this fact in a post titled "Powell's Valley Originally Espoused Gospel Means" (See here). In that posting I cited from the "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by an historian of the Powell Valley Association, Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee, Knoxville. In that book he had a section (chapter V) titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," where 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)

Notice how Two Seed ideology was denounced by the side who rejected Two Seedism, calling it "heresy." Notice too how they associated that heresy with the belief of those who believe the non-elect were condemned before they existed in time and the elect were justified from sin in eternity past. They also say, in agreement with Elder Hosea Preslar, that Two Seedism denies that gospel preaching is a means of salvation and that salvation ought not to be offered to lost sinners. Notice also that Edwards says that the history of the Powell Valley Primitive Baptist "seems to feed on division and dissension," a phenomenon that is also true of most Hardshell Baptist churches. That was shown to be true in 1973 in the Oak Ridge council and in the wrangling of Elder John Robbins and his followers. The issue of the origin of Satan is a bugaboo to these descendants of the first Two Seeders and has become taboo to speak about it. Perhaps we should call it a theological hot potato.

Wrote Watson further:

"...our course will be to discuss such things as are producing distress and divorcement among us; for it is both well known and painfully felt by the Baptists of this Association, and the Old Order generally, that many hurtful and untenable notions, unsustained by the word of God, with nothing for their support, but mere Parkerite perversions, have been, for a long time, gaining strength and consideration among us, against which we now protest plainly, yet charitably." (pg. 191-192)

Watson's first edition of "The Old Baptist Test" was published about 1858, so when he says "for a long time" he means since Daniel Parker first began to promulgate his Two Seed heresy. He says the same thing that other later elders testified to about how much harm Two Seed doctrine has done to the Hardshells, especially in the 19th century, such as what Elders Sylvester Hassell, Hosea Preslar, Lemuel Potter, and other Hardshells have said. (See our earlier writings on this in this blog and in the blog titled "Two Seed Baptists"; see link on this Old Baptist Test blog)

Wrote Watson further:

"Let us see: for instance, all that we shall write on the origin of evil, will go to show the great truism of ONE GOD, THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE of all things. Then will follow the truth of the fall of all the human family in Adam; sin, a consequence of disobedience; a Scriptural account of the union between Christ and His people; the relation of Satan to the wicked; and the resurrection of our bodies." (pg. 192)

These are some of the issues Watson addressed in his denunciation and refutation of the foundational premises of Two Seedism. He denies that Satan is uncreated, affirming the orthodox scriptural view that Satan was first created as a holy angel and sinned through pride and became the Devil and Satan. He also mentions the Two Seed idea of how the elect existed in Christ before the world began, and the kind of union that existed between the elect and the eternal Son of God before the world began, and of how actual vital union does not occur until a soul is united to Christ in time by faith.

Wrote Watson further:

"As we have to shape our address according to the subjects of controversy among us, we will proceed according to the following order: to show, 

1. That the imperfection of all created things is the source or origin of evil, and not an eternal principle of evil, or an eternal Devil. 

2. Prove that all the human family, elect and non-elect, fell in Adam, in opposition to the Parkerite notion, that only the elect, or Church, fell in him! and give an exposition of the two texts of Scripture which they quote in confirmation of that error. 

3. Set forth the Scriptural account of the different kinds of Union between Christ and His people, contradistinct to the Parkerite view of the subject. 

4. Offer an exposition of the revealed doctrine of the change and resurrection of our natural or mortal bodies, in opposition to the fallacy of the non-resurrectionists. 

5. Conclusion. We will now consider our first proposition-that the imperfection of all created things is the source or origin of evil, and not an eternal principle of evil, or an eternal Devil!" (pg. 192-193)

Dr. Watson spent much time refuting these erroneous opinions of the Two Seed "Parkerites." 

Wrote Watson further:

"...the Parkerite Pagan Philosophy lead to a Minotaur of heresy, more to be dreaded than the Cretan monster of old-likewise indicate the true source of evil, and in the light of analogy, show the origin of Satan himself..." (pg. 193)

Watson shows that the origin of Satan was no mystery, and that he was not uncreated. He rejected this Manichean idea because the scriptures are clearly opposed to it.

Wrote Watson further:

"As the Parkerite does not deduce the least proof from the Word of God, in confirmation of his untenable notion of the existence of an eternal evil spirit, we cannot meet him on scripture ground, in the discussion of that point, but will reason the case a little with him, and a few words must suffice." (pg. 195)

It is strange indeed that a bible believer or bible teacher should affirm that the Devil is uncreated. Parker thought it was a way to explain the origin of evil and thus exonerate God for evil's presence. But, he created more theological problems with his view than the ones he sought to solve. 

Wrote Watson further:

"We will offer a few additional suggestions on the origin of Satan, as Satan, or as a Devil, and bring this subject to a close." (pg. 203)

In the ten years or so I was with the Hardshell Baptists, I never heard a sermon on the origin of Satan or fall of the angels except by father in our home church and in the article he wrote in the The Christian Baptist periodical. I also listened to thousands of sermons by cassette tapes. This was a subject that preachers wanted to avoid, especially if they wanted not to be shunned or rebuked.

Wrote Watson further:

"We have just seen that creation necessarily involved finite creatureship, which contained in itself an innate source of evil; but, in order to indicate the origin of Satan as Satan, it will be proper to set forth the fact that this finite condition of all creatures, whether of human beings or angels, involved the necessity of a law being given by the Creator to the creature, in a state, which admitted of a violation of such a law, or rule of conduct." (pg. 204)

Watson upholds the orthodox view that sin entered into the angelic and human worlds because God made them mutable, with a free will, and with a liability to sin and death. 

In Hassell's History, a "Primitive Baptist" history (1885), Sylvester writes the following on page 636 (See here - emphasis mine):

"Elder Daniel Parker, who had some following in the West and Southwest, denied the creation and fall of the angels, and the resurrection of the body; and he affirmed the actual existence from eternity to eternity of Satan, and of all the wicked as his seed in him, and of the righteous as the seed of Christ in Him. This doctrine is known as Two-Seedism, or Dualism; and it is an attempt to incorporate into Christianity the essence of Parsism, the ancient Pagan religion of Persia, which affirmed that there were two eternal Beings, Ormuzd, the God of light, the cause of everything good, and Ahriman, the God of darkness, the cause of all evil. It was a characteristic of Gnosticism and Manichseism, and has more or less troubled the church in all countries and ages. In utter demolition of this doctrine, the Bible declares that there is but one Eternal Being, Jehovah, and that He is the Creator of all things. The most thoughtful minds admit that sin is not a creature of God, but originated in the abuse of the free-will that God first gave to His responsible creatures."

It is true that mixing Dualism with Christian truth was not newly invented by Parker. It is doubtful that Parker could invent anything philosophically, for he was not very literate. Hassell in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was still, like his brethren, battling the errors of Two Seedism.

In a footnote on page 32 of Hassell's History Sylvester puts the following in a footnote to what his father C.B Hassell had written:

"The word "heaven" in Luke 10: 18 and Revelation 12: 7, is believed by the best scholars not to the glorified state, but to the church militant." 

I don't see how the learned Sylvester Hassell could say "the best scholars" deny that the heaven of Luke 10: 18 is the heaven where God dwells. He says that often when defending his view on certain doctrines. I suppose that "the best scholars" are those who agree with him. Satan fell from a position in the militant church? Absurd. 

In published questions submitted to Sylvester Hassell and answered by him or his fellow minister and publisher, R. H. Pitman (See here) we have this question and answer by Hassell (emphasis mine):

"Q. Revelation chapter 12:7,8,9 - does this mean that the Devil or Satan, was up in God's heaven and was cast down from there?

A. Not in the third heaven, the habitation of God. There is no discord or fighting there, but peace, love and joy. The church here on this earth is sometimes called heaven. Paul, speaking of the Ephesians, says, "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Chapter 2, v. 6. I think the war between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels was in this world, and that the Devil was cast out of heaven, or heavenly places, into the earth."

I believe that Hassell took this view out of fear of being persecuted by the Two Seeders among the Hardshells. He attacks their rejection of the fall of the angels and their belief in an eternal Devil, yet he did not want to say that Satan fell from the third heaven. Several years ago Elder Sonny Pyles was at a church where they had a session for members to ask Pyles Bible questions. A young boy asked him - "where did the Devil come from?" Sonny at first reacted by basically saying "woo hoo." Further, he danced all around the question and basically would not say that Satan fell from heaven, i.e. from the third heaven but wanted to say that he fell from the Garden of Eden. I don't think he wanted to take the standard view for it would hurt him and his being so popular among the Hardshells in holding appointments all over the country. Again, I say all these things to let the reader know the truth of what Crowley said when he testified that one could hear remnants of Two Seedism if he knew what to listen for. This attitude towards the question of where the Devil came from is a remnant of the battle with the Two Seeders.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (I)

In preceding years I have written several articles on what is called "Two Seedism," reflecting the views of those who came to be called "Two Seed Primitive Baptists" and then distinguished between those who were "Two Seed in the Spirit" or "Two Seed in the Flesh." I have had a desire to complete those previous writings. I have read much literature through the years written by Two Seeders themselves, and I wish I had kept notes on those readings so I could incorporate citations from those writings into the articles I now write to elaborate more fully on this sect. I now have a blog that will have all my articles on the Two Seeders (see link on this blog or here). 

The first thing to do is to describe the belief system of Two Seedism. The next thing will be to trace the causes that gave birth to this system and to observe the history of its advocates and that sect. 

Maxims & Premises of Two Seeders

There are some maxims of the Two Seeders that give in a nutshell their views. Here are two of them:

1. "If the head of the body existed before the world began, then so too did his body (the elect), for it would be absurd to think the head existed without a body."

2. "Nothing goes up to heaven but what first came down from heaven."

Some of the leading premises or propositions of Two Seeders are these:

1. The man Christ Jesus had a human existence before the world began, being created a man with a human soul when he was "begotten" by the Father, his being begotten having to do with his humanity and not with his divinity.

2. When the man Christ was begotten or created before the world was created, the souls of the elect were also then created in Christ, so that both the human Christ and the elect preexisted the creation of the world.

3. The elect had thus a vital living and actual union with the man Christ Jesus before the world began.

4. Regeneration or Rebirth is simply a coming down from heaven of the souls of the elect in order to enter into their human bodies when conceived in the womb. 

5. Regeneration thus does not change a man. The preexistent soul is not changed from sin's impurity for it was already pure by being in Christ from before creation, nor is the sinful body changed when it becomes possessed by the eternal spirit of the elect. The holy nature of the descended spirit was not changed and the depraved nature of the flesh was not changed when possessed. It is like when a rabbit runs into a hollow log. The log is not changed as a result. Hence we have the "hollow log" doctrine or no change in regeneration. 

6. All the non-elect were united to their father the Devil also before the world began. Thus the "two seeds," one of God and the other of Satan. 

7. God did not create the Devil. Thus, both God and the Devil are uncreated beings. The Devil never was in heaven as a pure angel, thus he never fell from heaven. Nor has any angel fallen from heaven.

8. The non elect never fell in Adam.

9. The Christian warfare of flesh (body) with the inner renewed spirit is the result or evidence of the preexistent spirit entering the depraved body.

10. There is no need for a resurrected body, for a return to being a pure spirit is preferred.

11. The seed of the Devil cannot be saved and they should not be preached unto and offered salvation.

12. Being "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1: 4) and "given grace in Christ Jesus before the world began" (II Tim. 1: 9) necessarily imply that the elect actually existed before the world began, and not merely existed in God's mind.

13. In the beginning God had appointed that Eve should bring forth only a certain number of offspring; the same provision applied to each of her daughters. But when the particles of evil essence had been diffused by Satan, the conception of Eve and her daughters was increased. They were now required to bear the original number, who were styled the seed of God; and an additional number who were called the seed of the serpent. (See B.H. Carroll's "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism")

14. The elect were justified from sin from eternity. T. P. Simmons, author of a good systematic theology, said the following about Two Seedism's embrace of the doctrine of eternal justification: "As commonly used, this is a logical corollary of the two-seed doctrine." He also said: "We utterly reject this doctrine. It is wholly anti-scriptural, and is the absurdest nonsense. It is aptly described as "a curious revival, with some modifications, of the ancient speculative philosophy of Manichaeus" and "a very disgusting form of Gnostic heresy." ("Two-Seed Doctrine and Eternal Justification" by T. P. Simmons, 1931; See here)

15. The non elect have no souls.

We could also possibly add the doctrine known as "the absolute predestination of all things," but it seems that Daniel Parker may not have believed this doctrine, though some later advocates of Two Seedism did.

Two Seedism borrows, as we will see, elements of its system from the following religious systems:

1. Manichaeism (Dualism or Zoroastrianism)

2. Gnosticism or Mysticism

3. Arianism or Semi Arianism

4. Hyper Calvinism

We could possibly add Mormonism, but really it seems that Mormonism borrowed from Two Seedism rather than the other way around. 

Elder Hosea Preslar was a Primitive Baptist minister who lived in both North Carolina and Tennessee in the early to mid 19th century and I cited him in an article (See here) where he listed eight beliefs of the Two Seeders that he battled in those states, especially in middle Tennessee. He was an associate of Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson who likewise contended against the Two Seeders and wrote a book called "The Old Baptist Test" wherein the first half of the book attacks the heretical ideas of the Two Seed Baptists. We will refer to both these men in upcoming chapters. Preslar wrote a book titled "Thoughts on Divine Providence," a book I have in my library from which I cited several times. 

He lists many of the items in the list I have above, but adds that it was the Two Seeders who began to teach that God does not use his word in the regeneration of sinners. He said:

"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."

That citation was taken from his book, mentioned above, and from page 87 (See my other post here)

In a previous article I cited the following words from Hardshell leader and historian, Elder Sylvester Hassell, about Two Seedism:

"...the heathenish perversions of Scriptural truth set forth by Eld. Daniel Parker, of Tennessee, about 1835, in his pamphlet called "My Views on the Two Seeds," have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined." (The Two Seed Heresy The Gospel Messenger--March 1894) 

Other Hardshell Baptists have said the same. See all my previous articles on this, especially what Elders Grigg Thompson and Hosea Preslar (who lived during the time of Parker) have testified to the same fact Elder Hassell states. 

On pages 179-180 of Preslar's book he writes (emphasis mine):

"From that time forth I was persecuted by some of those people (Two Seeders), but I thought, perhaps that Divine Providence had sent me to Tennessee to defend the truths of the gospel, with others of like calling; and that we should suffer together for His sake. To speak of all the distress this doctrine caused, within my knowledge, would be too tedious. But for the satisfaction of those that are not acquainted with it, I will endeavor to give the reader a short, but plain sketch of their doctrine, though they, among themselves, seem at times to have it almost every way, any way, and as it were, no way at last. Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders." Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows..." (He then lists a number of the beliefs of the Two Seeders; see my two postings mentioned above with links)

In writing on the "Two Seed" Baptists, of which Elder Daniel Parker was the first leader and promulgator of "Two Seedism," one must first define it. What are the leading ideas inherent in that system? Simply put, it is the belief that there are two seeds in scripture, the seed of Satan and the seed of the Lord. The seed of Satan stands for the "children of the Devil" that Jesus spoke about. The seed of the Lord stands for the "children of God." That basic proposition finds little opposition from the Christian world. What does find opposition, however, is what Parker and others following him taught relative to these two seeds. 

Parker and the first promoters of Two Seedism believed in the preexistence of the souls of both seed groups. The seed of the Devil existed in the Devil before the world began. The seed of the Lord likewise existed in the Lord Jesus Christ before the world began. These views arose out of several ancient heretical ideas. One is Manichaeism, also known as Dualism or Zoroastrianism. Another one of these ideas is the belief in the preexistence of souls. Another is the heresy known as Arianism. Another idea inherent in Two Seedism is borrowed from some aspects of Gnosticism. Finally, another heretical idea involved is the idea that Christ in his human nature existed in some form before the world began. Two Seedism is the result of blending these ideas together.

We should also mention what is called "eternal vital union" which says that the elect had a literal existence in Christ the Son of God before the world began. Just as Eve was in Adam before she was made from his rib, so the elect, as the bride of Christ, existed in him before they were born into the physical world. This idea denied that "vital union" with Christ is begun in time when the sinner unites himself with Christ by faith. 

Following Parker there were those who took the lead in promoting Two Seed ideology. Elder Gilbert Beebe took that lead along with Elder Samuel Trott and other leading writers of the periodical "Signs of the Times." Immediately after helping to write "The Black Rock Address" in 1832 (a document where the Hardshells declared non-fellowship with all other Baptists who did not agree with them) he began to publish the first Hardshell periodical called "The Signs of the Times." 

A. H. Strong On Union With Christ

A.H. Strong

(1836 - 1921)

“that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”

(Ephesians 3: 17)

In "Union With Christ - The Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual Beginning" by Baptist theologian Dr. Augustus Hopkins Strong, we find the following worthy citations (emphasis mine). 

"Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ” that man is “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) or is “justified” (Acts 13:39), union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him." (here)

This has been the ordo salutis I have contended for over the past many years. Union with Christ occurs before regeneration, conversion, and justification and union with Christ is by faith, so faith must precede regeneration just like justification. All follows faith union with Christ. All Arminians believe this and many Calvinists also, including John Calvin and those Particular Baptists who wrote the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. It is only the Hyper Calvinist, or Hyper leaning Calvinist that wants to say that union with Christ precedes faith and regeneration.

Strong says further:

"Regeneration will involve repentance and faith and justification and sanctification." 

That is true, but faith must take logical priority since it is the the thing that unites a person to Christ, and there can be no regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, etc., prior to being in Christ.

Strong says further:

"See A. A. Hodge, on the Ordo Salutis, in Princeton Rev., March, 1888:304–321. Union with Christ, says Dr. Hodge, “is effected by the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this calling the parts are two: (a) the offering of Christ to the sinner, externally by the gospel, and internally by the illumination of the Holy Ghost; (b) the reception of Christ, which on our part is both passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which repentance is always conjoined. The communion of benefits which results from this union involves: (a) a change of state or relation, called justification; and (b) a change of subjective moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through sanctification.” See also Dr. Hodge’s Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, 340, and Outlines of Theology, 333–429."

Dr. A.A. Hodge was a Calvinist theologian whom I have cited before as having insisted, as I do, that justification by faith must precede regeneration. (See here) Those Hyper Calvinists who say first regeneration, second faith, third justification and sanctification, have a problem with where to put union with Christ and of the adverse consequences of putting it anywhere but at the head. Some do this, such as the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists, but will say that union with Christ is not by means of faith, saying rather that union with Christ occurs apart from faith. They would say vital union with Christ precedes faith. Many Calvinists, along with Arminians, will say however that union with Christ is by faith (as the text at the head of this article says).

There must be a receiving of Christ by the sinner before there can be effects or fruits of that union, such as forgiveness, justification, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. Communion follows union. 

Strong says further:

"H. B. Smith, however, in his System of Christian Theology, is more clear in the putting of Union with Christ before Regeneration. On page 502, he begins his treatment of the Application of Redemption with the title: “The Union between Christ and the individual believer as effected by the Holy Spirit. This embraces the subjects of Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification, with the underlying topic which comes first to be considered, Election.” He therefore treats Union with Christ (531–539) before Regeneration (553–569). He says Calvin defines regeneration as coming to us by participation in Christ, and apparently agrees with this view (559)."

Those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith must affirm that union with Christ follows regeneration and that union is not by faith, or say that regeneration does not result from union. Which horn of that dilemma do they want to take? Many Calvinists do not say that regeneration precedes faith and therefore those folks who say "Calvinism puts regeneration before faith" state what is not true of all Calvinists.

Strong says further:

“This union [with Christ] is at the ground of regeneration and justification” (534). “The great difference of theological systems comes out here. Since Christianity is redemption through Christ, our mode of conceiving that will determine the character of our whole theological system” (536)."

These words of the learned doctor are powerful and true. 

Strong says further:

"The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the head."

So Strong believes, as a moderate Calvinist, that union with Christ precedes the reception of spiritual life. If one does not possess Christ (union), then he is not spiritually alive. The apostle John affirmed this important fundamental truth when he said "whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life." (I John 5: 12) How does one "have the Son"? Is it not by "receiving the Son" by faith? Is not "receiving" in the active voice? Jesus said that one must "come to him" (by faith) in order to have spiritual life. (John 5: 43) It is absurd for the Hardshells to teach that many born again folks who possess Christ know nothing about him, much less believe in him! 

Strong says further:

"Union with Christ is not union with a system of doctrine, nor with external religious influences, nor with an organized church, nor with an ideal man,—but rather, with a personal, risen, living, omnipresent Lord (J. W. A. Stewart). Dr. J. W. Alexander well calls this doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ “the central truth of all theology and of all religion.” Yet it receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic treatises or in common religious experience. Quenstedt, 886–912, has devoted a section to it; A. A. Hodge gives to it a chapter, in his Outlines of Theology, 369 sq., to which we are indebted for valuable suggestions; H. B. Smith treats of it, not however as a separate topic, but under the head of Justification (System, 531–539)."

Many Calvinists put faith before regeneration or the new birth.

Strong says further:

"The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within. This comparative neglect of the doctrine is doubtless a reaction from the exaggerations of a false mysticism. But there is great need of rescuing the doctrine from neglect. For this we rely wholly upon Scripture. Doctrines which reason can neither discover nor prove need large support from the Bible. It is a mark of divine wisdom that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is so inwoven with the whole fabric of the New Testament, that the rejection of the former is the virtual rejection of the latter. The doctrine of Union with Christ, in like manner, is taught so variously and abundantly, that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. See Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 3:447–450."

I find that this is true. I find that those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith stumble over the issue of union with Christ and how it affects their views on the ordo salutis.

Strong says further:

"Direct statements. (a) The believer is said to be in Christ. 

 

Lest we should regard the figures mentioned above as merely Oriental metaphors, the fact of the believer’s union with Christ is asserted in the most direct and prosaic manner. John 14:20—“ye in me”; Rom. 6:11—“alive unto God in Christ Jesus”; 8:1—“no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus”; 2 Cor. 5:17—“if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature”; Eph. 1:4—“chose us in him before the foundation of the world”; 2:13—“now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.” Thus the believer is said to be “in Christ,” as the element or atmosphere which surrounds him with its perpetual presence and which constitutes his vital breath; in fact, this phrase “in Christ,” always meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “baptised into Christ” (Gal. 3:27)." 

I have written before on how the Bible shows that people "believe into Christ." See my posting on this (here). 

Strong says further:

"Only faith receives and retains Christ; and faith is the act of the soul grasping what is purely invisible and supersensible: not the act of the body, submitting to Baptism or partaking of the Supper."

That is my view and the view of the oldest Calvinists, such as those who wrote the 1689 London Confession of Faith. It is what the Bible plainly teaches.

Strong says further:

"Faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received...Faith is the soul’s laying hold of Christ as its only source of life, pardon, and salvation."

Again, that is what the Bible clearly teaches I believe.

Strong says further:

"We append a few statements with regard to this union and its consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther: “By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory, etc., are mine; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that sinner,—that is, his sin, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.’ ” Calvin; “I attribute the highest importance to the connection between the head and the members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.” John Bunyan: “The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once—in heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life, though on earth by my body or person.” Edwards: “Faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” Andrew Fuller: “I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

All these great Calvinists, with the exception of Fuller, did not put regeneration before faith. Fuller taught that regeneration was begun before faith but was not completed until a person believed. Many Calvinists of the past taught that there was a "strict" or "narrow" definition of "regeneration" and a more "broad" definition of it. Many of them confused God's pre-regeneration work with regeneration itself, putting regeneration too early in the process. This is what Fuller was apt to do and Alexander Campbell strongly objected to his doing so. 

On The White Stone

In my series on the Afterlife, I spoke about Revelation 2: 17 and of the promise of being given a white Stone with a believer's new name engraved thereon under the sub title "The White Stone" (See here). This is what I wrote on it: 

“To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17). There have been several interpretations of the significance of the white stone that is to be given to the overcomers (or victors) at the second coming of Christ. The brothers at Got Questions (See here emphasis mine), after giving several possible interpretations, say this:

"The best theory regarding the meaning of the white stone probably has to do with the ancient Roman custom of awarding white stones to the victors of athletic games. The winner of a contest was awarded a white stone with his name inscribed on it. This served as his “ticket” to a special awards banquet. According to this view, Jesus promises the overcomers entrance to the eternal victory celebration in heaven. The “new name” most likely refers to the Holy Spirit’s work of conforming believers to the holiness of Christ (see Romans 8:29; Colossians 3:10)."

I believe this is true. The fact that this stone is promised to the victors (overcomers or conquerors) seems to strongly suggest that it is the stone given to the winners of athletic competitions. However, I also think it involves the believer's evidence of citizenship, and of the privileges and powers it gives to those who receive it. It is an evidence of having been chosen. After all, both white and black stones have been used from ancient times for citizens to vote yea or nay. It may also be like the magical Urim and Thummim stones that the priests of Israel used to discern the will of God. I think it will also be a kind of communication device or like a crystal ball. A white stone was also used to gain admission to certain events in Roman times."

Recently, however, in my readings I came across these words of Samuel Stockell (1704-1753 - See here) who wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"It was a custom among the ancient Romans, in their courts of justice, to give to persons, who upon trial were found innocent, a white stone, as a token of their justification. This was their acquittance, because they were found not guilty. To this our Lord alludes, when speaking to the Church in Pergamos, for he saith, “I will give to such,” as do, by living principles, “overcome the world,” not only to eat of the hidden manna, but I will give him also a sense of his justification. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it...For those, who were found guilty amongst the Romans, had a black stone given to them, which was their sentence of condemnation, as being upon trial found guilty.” {Rev.2:17}" (pg. 147)

It is almost impossible to know for sure what is the significance of the white stone, for anyone of these views may be the true meaning, although all of them seem right. What think ye?

Bob Ross On Hyper Calvinism's Fate

The little book "The Killing Effects of Hyper Calvinism" By Bob L Ross (here) of Pilgrim Publications, is well worth the read of every Calvinist and Hyper Calvinist. I want to cite from this writing by my dear friend who passed this world not long ago. 

Brother Ross wrote (emphasis mine):

"THE Bible is a dangerous book! That may sound rather strange, yet Peter plainly says in our text that some wrest the Scriptures, to their own destruction. And human experience reveals this to be so: many go to hell, stumbling over verses of Scripture which have been perverted, twisted, distorted, misapplied, and misused. Sadly, yet to many, the Bible is only a means of heaping condemnation upon condemnation. As Paul said of the Gospel, it is the “savour of death unto death” (2 Cor. 2:16)." 

Yes, the Bible is a dangerous book! You mishandle it and you are doomed. (Rev. 22: 18-19) I have also written about how "attending church can be dangerous to your health." (See here) If you twist and distort the text of scripture, then you will suffer "destruction." (II Peter 3: 16) Also, as Bob showed from the words of the apostle, the gospel when rejected becomes a "savor of death unto death." There are those who "corrupt the word of God" (II Cor. 2: 17), where the word "corrupt" means to peddle, like a snake oil salesman, wares that are not as good as they are are declared to be. Wine merchants in Paul's day often added water to the wine they sold, which was a corruption of it. We see this today in imitation products that are inferior to the products they are imitating. So heretics will often be found "watering down" the pure wine of the word of God, thus cheapening it. Paul also speaks of those who "handle the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2). This again is what is done by heretics and is true of those who promote Hyper Calvinism.

Ross wrote:

"The doctrines taught in the Bible relating to the sovereignty of God, referred to in religious circles as “Calvinism,” also as “the doctrines of grace,” are doctrines of the Book that are the occasion for many people “choking” on the Word. The misuse and abuse of these doctrines will deaden and kill. Babes in Christ, unless taught properly, most likely will rebel against these truths, else be misled and their spiritual lives twisted. We know nothing so deadening to spirituality as to run into hyper-Calvinism as a result of a distorted faith regarding the sovereignty of God and related doctrines...Hyper-Calvinism and the misuse of Calvinism will kill a number of things in the Christian, in the preacher, and in churches."

The older and more mature I become the more I see the truth of these words of Dr. Ross. Arminianism and Pelagianism are likewise pernicious and may lead to adverse consequences as does Hyper Calvinism. It is when Calvinists begin to think that Calvinism is the pearl of great price (as Ross has himself said) and begin to think that all Arminians are lost or spiritually sick that they have abused Calvinism. 

Ross wrote:

"But those who have run into error on the sovereignty of God and related doctrines scorn the idea of preaching the Gospel to the lost. They seem to fear that one of the non-elect might slip into the gate! They seem to be more concerned about shutting the gate to the reprobate than opening it for the elect! I heard one of them say one time, “I don't preach to catch dead fish; I fish for live fish.” He forgot to mention that in the parable spoken by the Master, some of the “live” fish were cast away (Matt. 13:48). Yet this reveals some of the perversions that are used to justify not preaching to the lost." 

He certainly has in mind the Hardshell Baptists in these words for I have heard them say the same thing, i.e. "I fish for live fish." Hyper Calvinists are not evangelistic, do not feel a burden to preach to the unregenerate, but feel rather a burden to proselyte believers from other Christian groups.

Ross wrote:

"I heard another one of the hyper-Calvinists say that he just sought to preach the Gospel to those who had been “quickened.” But the truth was, he hadn't been preaching the Gospel to anybody, but had been going around arguing about election and predestination with anyone who would listen to him. That was all he was concerned about." 

I have seen this too. It surely gives true Calvinism a bad name. David said "your word has quickened me" (Psa. 119: 50) Peter said that believers were "born again by the word of God." (I Peter 1: 23) James said that God "begat" believers "with the word of truth." (James 1: 18)

Ross wrote:

"Once a man loses sight of the fact that God calls men to Christ through the Gospel, that man will have no confidence in the preaching of the Gospel. He will begin to separate the new birth from the preaching of the Word of God and won't have any concern for presenting the Gospel to the lost. He will say, “Why preach to a dead man?” He has lost sight of the fact that God speaks to dead men by the Gospel, for His Spirit rests upon it."

Most of the original founders of the Hardshell sect would have agreed with this sentiment. Elder John Clark, one of those founders, and founder and editor of "Zion's Advocate" (1854) wrote: 

 "Under the quickening power and influence of the Holy Ghost, the Word preached comes to God's people in power, by which they live, hear, and believe with the heart unto righteousness. Now, when the Gospel is preached they know it. It is the voice of their Shepherd, the great Shepherd...For with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." [Rom. x., 6, 8, 10]" ("Does the Gospel Ever Produce Division Among the Saints of God" - Written by John Clark - ZION'S ADVOCATE - January, 1880)

He also wrote:

"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 afraid 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)

We should preach like Ezekiel did to the dead bones! We should expect God to use our preaching to raise the spiritually dead.

Ross wrote:

"I once asked a Hardshell preacher how he understood Mark 16:15—“preach the Gospel to every creature.” Instead of telling me, he said, “Why, if I took your view, I would have to preach to every cat, dog, rat, cow, horse, and every other creature on earth.” This again reveals how distorted hyper-Calvinists can get once they lose sight of the Gospel in the call of the elect to Christ." 

I actually heard this argued by several Hardshell preachers. One was Elder Guy Hunt of Alabama (and former governor of that state), who was a leading minister of the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells while he was living. 

Ross wrote:

"The sovereignty of God, rightly understood, will not kill Gospel preaching; it will not kill missionary concern; it will not kill personal witnessing. Rather, it will give the Christian a solid foundation for Gospel preaching and witnessing. Since he knows that God will definitely save some through preaching of the Gospel, he goes forth sowing the seed of the Word on all kinds of soil, preaching to every creature, as the Master has commanded."

We see this to be true in men like Charles H. Spurgeon who was a highly successful Calvinist Baptist preacher in 19th century London.

Ross wrote:

"Those who run into error on the doctrines of grace have their prayer life deadened. They lay down on the sovereign purpose of God and say, “Well, if I pray, it won't change things; if I don't pray, it won't change things.” So prayer is deadened through such a perverted approach to the doctrine of sovereignty." 

Hardshells, who are super Hyper Calvinists, don't even believe in praying for the dead alien sinner. They only believe in praying for those who are already elect and regenerated. You never hear them pray in their churches for the lost to come to Christ for life and salvation. That is sin. Said the prophet Samuel: "God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you" (I Sam. 12: 23).

Ross wrote:

"Our prayer life ought to be like our preaching of the Gospel; that is, we ought to pray for the salvation of every man, just as we preach the Gospel to every man. It does not matter that God has not purposed to save every man—that is His business; it is our business to be concerned to the extent that we desire the salvation of every man. We should not want anyone to go to Hell! God would have us recognize His sovereignty in salvation and have us ask Him to manifest His converting power, regardless of whether or not this is His own secret purpose in the case of every man we pray for. If we neglect to pray on the grounds that we don't know whether or not God is going to save a person, then we will never pray for the salvation of anyone! We don't ever know whether or not God will save a person for whom we pray...Don't fall into the God-dishonoring snare of hyper-Calvinism, which deadens a life of prayer."

The Hardshells say that they preach to every creature, though not calling upon all to come to Christ for salvation, yet they cannot pray for the salvation of every creature? Truly "the legs of the lame are not equal" in this regard. (Prov. 26: 7) Spurgeon spoke of some Hyper Calvinists in his day who, when preaching on election and reprobation, seem to delight in the fact that some are predestined for Hell. Spurgeon repudiated such an attitude and way of thinking as should we all.

Ross wrote:

"We assert that the Hyper-Calvinist idea of spiritual life is not the spiritual life referred to in the Word of God, nor does the Spirit of God give any such life to men. We assert that this notion as to spiritual life is just another false doctrine of the devil, used to oppose the preaching of the Gospel to lost sinners. It is evident, then, why we are refuting this teaching."

"Spiritual life" in Hardshell Hyper Calvinism is like something that is deposited in a person which does not change the person's character or beliefs. Often they speak of how this deposit lies dormant in the "regenerated" sinner and is not manifested in but a few when they hear the gospel. Spiritual life in the Bible, however, is union with Christ, and is a union effected by the belief of a sinner in Christ. Many of the Hardshells of the past believed in what is called "Two Seedism" and viewed regeneration or the new birth as a phenomenon where an eternal spirit comes down and takes up its abode in a "Adam man," in a man's body, like a rabbit entering into a hollow log. The entering of the rabbit does not change the log (or the man) at all! It came to be called "the no change view of regeneration." 

Ross wrote:

"WHAT IS SPIRITUAL LIFE? The answer to this question is actually a refutation of the heresy of the Hyper-Calvinists. Spiritual life, according to the teaching of the Word of God, is a faith-union with God through Christ. It is not simply a union with the Spirit, nor is it a union with the Son or the Father; rather, it is a union with God—all three persons of the Godhead." 

Most Hyper Calvinists do not understand what the Bible says about union with Christ. Yet, it is a most important doctrine. Error on it will lead to further errors.

Ross wrote:

"But Hyper-Calvinists make spiritual life a sort of spiritual deposit (I prefer to call it “biological” since it has none of the fruits of the Spirit such as love for Christ) which the Spirit makes in men who perhaps have never even heard of Christ, much less have a knowledge of Him. Hyper-Calvinists teach that a heathen person, if he is elect, does not have to learn of Christ or know Christ, for he will be made alive by the Spirit." 

This is what the Two Seed ancestors of today's Hardshells believed and though they have gone away from that view to some extent, they still believe that the change that occurs in a sinner when he is born again does not change him from believing in false gods and false ideas about the way of salvation. They even teach that people who know nothing of Jesus Christ are born again. 

Ross wrote:

"The kind of life He gives is not a life apart from Christ, but a shedding abroad of the knowledge of Christ in the heart or understanding of man, the seat of his affections, and the work at the same instant creates or produces faith, hope, love and other such graces." 

Jesus said that only his sheep know him in John chapter ten. He said that they will also follow him and do not follow the voice of strangers, but only follow his voice. Yet, today's Hardshells say that one may be a sheep but not know Jesus. Regeneration in the Bible includes being enlightened in the gospel, with having Christ revealed to a person. (Matt. 11: 27; 16: 17)

Ross wrote:

"You see, there is no such thing as spiritual life apart from a union with Christ, and there is no union with Christ, apart from a knowledge of Christ. “He that hath the Son hath life” (1 John 5:12); eternal life is to know God revealed in Christ (John 17:3). To think that a man could have the life of the Spirit of Christ and not know Christ is nothing but heresy. Life is union with Christ. The Bible says that those who know not God do not have life. In fact, the Bible teaches: “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” —2 Thess. 1:7,8." 

Hardshell Hyper Calvinism disagrees with these statements and yet they are the clear teachings of the holy scriptures. 

Ross wrote:

"We must remember that when God speaks there is a power that goes with the word spoken. When Jesus emphasized the uselessness of the flesh in regeneration, He said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63). You see, the Spirit's quickening is connected with the Word."

These things are denied by today's Hardshells, yet their founding fathers had not gone that far. It was only as time went on that they went further and further away from what the Bible says on being quickened by the word and faith in it.

Ross wrote:

"The Scripture, which is God's Word, is said to be “God-breathed,” given by the breath of God. The Word is not merely a natural thing, but supernatural. It is Spirit and it is Life. It is Spirit, because it is the Word of a Spirit, the Mighty God; it is Life because it gives knowledge of Christ, through whom we are united to God." 

That is why the word preached is called "the word of life" (Phil 2: 16). It is a "savor of life UNTO life." (II Cor. 2: 16)

Ross wrote:

"The Word is said to be “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17). It is said to be “quick [living], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)." 

There is life in the written word. Yet, this is denied by the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists.

Ross wrote:

"WHICH IS FIRST—LIFE OR FAITH? This is an old question that has been a subject of study, discussion, and heated controversy all down through the ages. We do not know that we can solve the questions for others, but for our own selves we are satisfied with this position: life and faith (or knowledge of Christ) are simultaneous so far as time is concerned, with the Spirit's work being the source of faith...That the work of the Spirit precedes faith, we do not deny. When we say that the work of the Spirit “precedes” faith, we mean it only in the sense that faith proceeds forth from Him as being the cause. It is by His grace that men believe."

There is a pre-regeneration work of the Spirit. This is prevenient grace, or what is preparatory to being born of God. Union with Christ must precede life and union with Christ is by faith. Therefore, sinners are born again by faith. This is what the true Calvinists have historically affirmed.

Ross wrote:

"Since His work is to create, produce or give faith by giving the knowledge of Christ to men, thereby bringing them into union with Him, faith and spiritual union (life) cannot be separated as to time so as to make one follow the other. When it is understood that the “quickening” of the Spirit is the shedding abroad of the knowledge of Christ in the heart, creating faith simultaneously, then the question here being considered is no problem. For when this truth is seen, we no longer think of life as being some kind of deposit, but a faith—knowledge union with God in Christ. Therefore, the idea of life being something that is apart from faith and a knowledge of Christ is seen to be erroneous. But this is the very thing Hyper Calvinists teach when they say that a man may be quickened to life at one time and be brought to faith in Christ at a later time."

Knowledge of Christ, and trust in him, is integral to having spiritual life. Can one have spiritual life and not know it as the Hardshells say? No, the Bible does not teach such a thing.

Ross wrote:

"So “spiritual life,” according to Hardshell doctrine, amounts to nothing but something which I prefer to call biological deposit. This deposit contains no love for Christ, no knowledge of Christ, no obedience to Christ—it has nothing of Christ about it. It is just a lump of “spiritual life” of some kind."

Yes, and the old Two Seed Hardshells said that this "biological deposit" was an eternal spirit that comes down from heaven and enters into one of the elect, in much the same way a demon enters a man and possesses him. 

Brother Ross worked hard to help Hyper Calvinists to see their errors and turn to the truth of biblical Calvinism. So have I. 

1689 Confession & Eternal Justification

Some Hardshell Baptists have embraced the doctrinal error of what is called "eternal justification," a teaching that says that the elect were justified in eternity past since it was in eternity past that God made the decision to justify the elect through the work of Christ. This was an error that some embraced in the 17th century, such as Joseph Hussey, Samuel Richardson, and later by John Gill in the 18th century. 

The "Primitive Baptists" (Hardshells) however have historically claimed allegiance to the 1689 London Confession of faith. They had a convention in 1900 in Fulton, Kentucky where they stated that they still held to that confession. Yet, as we have seen, they began to deny many of that confession's teachings so that many of them today no longer claim what their forefathers claimed in the "Fulton Confession." This is true with the question of eternal justification, an error that is denied by the 1689 confession. Hardshells have been eager to embrace this error because they have digressed so far that they now believe that one does not have to be a believer in Jesus (have evangelical faith) in order to be saved and justified. The older divines who embraced eternal justification, however, did not go so far as to deny the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.

Here is what the 1689 Confession says:

"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them." ("Of Justification" chapter 11)

The Hardshells today say that "justification by faith" as taught in Romans and elsewhere has nothing to do with being eternally saved. That, however, is no minor error.

Regeneration Is Conversion

A Challenge

I dare any advocate of the born again (regenerated) before faith view to list every passage in the bible that he thinks discusses that experience and then examine each to see what the context tells us about that experience. The chief end of this procedure will be to show how in most, if not all, of these texts there is clear reference to conversion through faith and repentance. In other words, the apostles described regeneration or rebirth in terms of conversion.

What scriptures are used to support the idea that regeneration precedes faith and conversion? Which are used to show how regeneration is not conversion? 

In a previous article of mine titled "PaedoBaptist Shedd on Regeneration & Means" (See here) I cited from an article titled "Regeneration" by well known theologian William G. T. Shedd (See here) who said:

  

"The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism). The Westminster Creed does not use the term regeneration. Instead of it, it employs the term vocation or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. Under it belongs everything pertaining to the process of salvation, from the first step of conviction of sin to the act of saving faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Fisher, On the Catechism)."

Why did these great theologians think that regeneration and conversion were the same? Is it not because the new testament demonstrates that fact?

From Bible Hub (here) we have an article titled "Regeneration and Conversion" by J. M. Frost. In that article he writes:

"Regeneration is internal, conversion external. The one is hidden except as manifested in the other. Each is a change. The one applies to character, the other to conduct; one applies to the heart, the other to the manner of life." 

I find that definition lacking and not in keeping with the scriptures nor with the "divines of the seventeenth century." How can he say that conversion is not internal as well as external? How can he say that biblical regeneration is "hidden"? If regeneration and conversion are words denoting the same change of nature and state, then regeneration is not hidden. Further, how can he say that conversion does not "apply to the heart"? How can he say that conversion does not apply to "character"? The older Calvinists would never divide regeneration and conversion in this manner.

He says further:

"Regeneration is a change wrought of God in man's heart; conversion is a change wrought by the man himself in his own life. Hence the man is turned, and turns himself; the engine is reversed, and reverses itself. These two great truths, rather two sides of one truth, should be held distinct and in their proper relation."

Conversion is a change wrought by man and not by God? Oh my, that simply will not do! It is not what one discovers when he reads the new testament and sees how the apostles spoke of them as denoting the same experience. According to these words of Frost a man is not converted by God! That simply is ludicrous, reductio ad absurdum. Why should regeneration and conversion "be held distinct and in their proper relation"? Lots of harm has come from this kind of thinking. It has led to Hyper Calvinism.

In "Reflections of a Puritan Theologian on Regeneration and Conversion" (See here) by Michael Haykin we have these words:

"When Keach defined Conversion he included what he had already said about Regeneration and thus appears to blur the distinction between the two terms." 

This confirms what Shedd said about the divines of the seventeenth century. I am also sure that the reason why Keach defined conversion as regeneration is because they denoted the same experience.

Haykin says further:

"As Keach rightly realized, this debate about the nature of Justification had immensely practical consequences. In the Antinomian schema, that style of preaching where the lost are explicitly urged to turn to Christ becomes quite unnecessary. What is needed in preaching is simply the proclamation of what God has done in Christ. God will use that to awaken the elect and show them what he has already done for them. Keach's pulpit ministry, however, was characterized by vigorous evangelism and regular calls to the unconverted to respond to Christ in faith. According to C. H. Spurgeon, in speaking to the lost Keach was "intensely direct, solemn, and impressive, not flinching to declare the terrors of the Lord, nor veiling the freeness of divine grace." 

Divorcing conversion from regeneration leads to preaching that does not earnestly appeal to the lost.

Wrote Frost:

"Ferguson’s solution to the possible hazard of divorcing Christ from the application of salvation to the individual is not to dismantle the ordo, casting it aside as some overly speculative, logically driven theological construction from the distant past. Instead, Ferguson suggests, drawing from Calvin, that union with Christ should be the framework within which we must formulate and understand the ministry of the Spirit to the individual believer."

I have cited from Calvin many times to show that he believed that sinners were born again by faith because faith is the instrument of uniting the sinner with Christ and once this union has been effected, then spiritual life and regeneration and conversion occur or begin.

Death of Dr. John MacArthur

I learned today that John MacArthur passed away yesterday of pneumonia (same as my own father). He was 86 and had a blessed life of service to the Lord. Though I had some disagreements with him on Bible doctrine, I nevertheless found him very sound generally and an excellent teacher.

Lost Books of the Bible

The Bible refers to certain other books that have been lost and theologians often do not know how to deal with this fact. Many will say "if they were inspired, then they would have been preserved and been made part of the canon of scripture." However, I find that response untenable and the result of circular reasoning. Are we to believe that all those lost Books (see list below) were not wholly true? If we took the view that they were not preserved because they had some errors, then again that is a case of begging the question. It is a view that is forced upon those who hold some untenable views on the divine preservation of inspired writings. Let us apply this line of reasoning to this text about the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Wrote the apostle John:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21: 25 kjv)

Many things that Jesus taught were not preserved. Does that mean that those other things were not true or inspired facts? I know that John is speaking not of other books that had been written but were lost, but of books that were not written but which could have been written. However, the illogical reasoning used against affirming that all inspired books have been preserved is still refuted by this affirmation by the apostle John. 

Many Christians are ignorant of how we got our Bible and why certain books were either included or excluded. In discussions about canonicity we see a lot of circular reasoning. Some say, for instance, that the Book of Esther is inspired because it is in the Bible. But, that begs the question as to whether it should be in the Bible or not. As many of my readers know, I deny, as did many in the early church and among many of the Hebrew Rabbis, that Esther was inspired. Athanasius did not include it in his Biblical canon list. I have a link on this blog for my writings on the Book of Esther. I also have my doubts about the Song of Solomon being inspired. That does not mean that such books have no value. 

Lost Books Referenced in The Bible (See here)

Book of the Wars of the Lord – “Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, and the valleys of the Arnon, and the slope of the valleys that extends to the seat of Ar, and leans to the border of Moab.” (Num 21:14-15)

Book of Jasher – “And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?” (Joshua 10:13)

Book of Samuel on Kingship - “Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.” (1 Samuel 10:25)

Acts of Solomon – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?” (1 Kings 11:41)

Chronicles of the Kings of Israel – “And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.“ (1 Kings 14:19; etc.)

Chronicles of the Kings of Judah – “Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?” (1 Kings 14:29)

Book of the Kings of Israel – “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel." (2 Chronicles 20:34). 

This is mentioned on many occasions, though under a more expanded name, as the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, see 2 Chronicles 16:11; etc.

Annals of King David – “Joab the son of Zeruiah began to count, but did not finish. Yet wrath came upon Israel for this, and the number was not entered in the Chronicles of King David.” (1Chronicles 27:24)

Book of Nathan the Prophet, Book of Gad the Seer – “Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer.” (1 Chronicles 29:29)

History of Nathan the Prophet – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the History of Nathan the prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Prophecy of Ahijah – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the History of Nathan the prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Visions of Iddo the Seer – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29) This is also mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:29) 

Iddo Genealogies – “Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, according to genealogical enrollment?” (2 Chronicles 12:15) 

 

Story of the Prophet Iddo – “The rest of the acts of Abijah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the Story of the prophet Iddo.” (2 Chronicles 13:22)

Book of Shemaiah the Prophet – “Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, according to genealogical enrollment?” (2 Chronicles 12:15). 

 

Book of Jehu – “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel." (2 Chronicles 20:34)

Sayings of the Seers – “And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers.” (2 Chronicles 33:19)

Non-canonical books quoted or alluded to: 

Book of Enoch (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14–15, 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13, and John 7:38)

Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea")

Paul's letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote to you in my letter...") 

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians before Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3 “As I wrote afore in few words...”)

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle. 

Wrote Dr. Gill (commentary:

"Not in this same epistle, and in (1 Corinthians 5:2 1 Corinthians 5:7) as some think; for what is here observed is not written in either of those verses, but in some other epistle he had sent them before, as is clear from ( 1 Corinthians 5:11 ) which either came not to hand, or else was neglected by them; and so what he here says may be considered as a reproof to them, for taking no notice of his advice; but continuing to show respect to the incestuous person, though he in a former epistle had advised them to the contrary: no doubt the apostle wrote other epistles to the Corinthians, besides those that are in being; see (2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 10:11) nor does such a supposition at all detract from the perfection of Scripture; for not all that were written by him were by divine inspiration; and as many as were so, and were necessary for the perfection of the canon of Scripture, and to instruct us in the whole counsel of God, have been preserved; nor is this any contradiction to this epistle's being his first to this church; for though it might not be his first to them, yet it is the first to them extant with us, and therefore so called: what he had written to them in another epistle was not."

Again, we see a case of begging the question by Dr. Gill. So, the other epistles of Paul that are lost were not inspired truth? Gill says that since those other epistles were lost, therefore they were not written by divine inspiration? What would happen if those epistles were discovered today? 

We also discover that the Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul for he says "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote" (I Cor. 7: 1). Of course, we do not claim that a letter from the church to Paul was inspired. 

In Paul's letter to the church at Collosae, he says, "And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea" (Col 4:16 ESV). What was this letter from Laodicea? What happened to it?

In summation I simply want all to understand that there is a lot more involved in the issue of canonicity and inspired writings than most realize. Most Christians do not have the time nor inclination to search out this matter. Most preachers also are not inclined to do so. They all simply trust that the books in the King James Bible are inspired simply because they are in there! 

What think ye?

Weak Brothers XXX

We are coming to the conclusion of my lengthy series on identifying who are the "weak brothers" of Romans and First Corinthians. My thesis has affirmed that "weak brothers" is not a reference to saved Christian brothers but to the religious neighbors and friends of Christians, especially those who were once of the same religious fraternities of Christians before they became Christians, when they were polytheists. As I have pointed out, it was very common for the many religious cults of the Greco-Roman world to view their fellow cult members as "brothers." When polytheists became Christians they continued to interact with their former Pagan cult brothers and no doubt continued to speak to them in fraternal terms. 

In fact, throughout history we see various groups of people who referred to those in the group as brothers. So we have "the fraternal order of police," or "the fraternal order eagles," etc. We also have "fraternities" in colleges and universities. We see group members calling each other "brother" in religious groups, political groups, cultural groups, etc. Many labor unions also use the term. When I was a young man working in a factory that made electrical components I was a member of "the international brotherhood of electrical workers." Many Communists call their fellow Communists "comrade" or "brother." Even in everyday speech I have myself said to another person - "brother, I..." Sometimes I say like Jesus "friend I do you no harm" (Matt. 20: 13), but could just as well have said "brother I do you no harm" or "neighbor I do you no harm" or some other such term. Black men often call each other "Bro." Therefore, it is not an undeniable proof to say that the weak ones are saved Christians because Paul refers to them as "brothers." I have cited other theologians who agree with me, even though my view is the minority view. But again, I insist that the majority is not always right, and all agree with this fact. 

The learned Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary on I Corinthians 8: 11 writes:

"Shall the weak brother - The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means real Christian there can be no doubt. Because: (1) It is the usual term by which Christians are designated - the endearing name of "brother;" and, (2) The scope of the passage requires it so to be understood; see the note at Romans 14:20."

I totally disagree with what Barnes here says. First, "the scope of the passage" does not require it to be so understood. I have shown that to be a fact. Ironically, the context of Romans and Corinthians shows that the weak brothers are not Christians. Consider the single fact that Paul says he labors that he might "gain" or "save" the weak. (I Cor. 9: 22) That statement alone disproves what Barnes and others of his view say. That text puts the burden of proof back on Barnes and those of his view.

Consider also the fact that the evidence against the view of Barnes is cumulative. In other words, as I have previously stated, there are a dozen solid arguments to prove that the weak brothers are not true born again believers and yet there is only one argument to prove that the weak brothers are truly saved. This fact is clear and undeniable and I am amazed that so many learned men have failed to see it. Thankfully there are others who like I see how the weak brothers cannot possibly be saved believers. Recall also the fact that Paul says that the weak brother may perish (one for whom Christ died). (I Cor. 8: 11) At the end of this series or book I will list those arguments and set them over against the one single argument that the other view has.

Another thing to reiterate is how Paul uses the term "brother" to mean "neighbor." For instance, what Paul says about the weak brothers is sandwiched between the following two verses:

"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13: 10 nkjv)

"Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification." (Rom. 15: 2 nkjv)

By neighbor is not meant your fellow Christian as Barnes indicated. Your neighbor is every other human being as Jesus taught when he conversed with a lawyer who asked Jesus - “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10: 29 nkjv) Jesus then told the story of the good Samaritan who helped a wounded man, a man that a priest and a Levite walked by without helping him. Jesus then asked the lawyer - "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” (vs. 36-37) The scribes and Pharisees, like this lawyer, esteemed no one a neighbor except they who were their friends and benefactors, or were of their own nation or particular sect. Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12: 31) That includes every human being; And, every person is to be shown brotherly love. 

There are several new testament texts which speak of "brotherly love." (Rom. 12: 10; I Thess. 4: 9; Heb. 13: 1) Though this is especially true of those who are children of God by a new birth, it is also true in regard to those who are naturally the children of God. Recall that Paul said to the Athenian idolaters - "we are all God's offspring as your own poets have said." (Acts 17: 28) Peter speaks of showing "brotherly kindness" to others.

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." (II Peter 1: 5-8 nkjv)

Again, though brotherly kindness is especially applicable to the relationship of believers towards other believers who are in the family of God, yet it cannot be limited to that. Surely believers are to show brotherly kindness to all men. The following verses cannot be limited to saved members of the family of God nor to brothers in the flesh.

"None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him." (Psa. 49: 7 nkjv)

"A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19 NKJV)

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt. 5: 22-24 nkjv)

"Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?" (Matt. 7: 4 nkjv)

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psa. 133: 1 kjv)

Solomon also speaks of the "brethren of the poor" (Prov. 19: 7). He could have also spoken of those who are "brothers in arms," or of the brotherhood that is evident among soldiers. 

Paul also spoke of "false brethren" (II Cor. 11: 26; Gal. 2: 4), which I take to denote those who have professed Christ and been baptized but who were not genuine believers. Jesus referred to these kinds of Christians in the parable of the sower and the seed (or of the four soil types). The shallow or stony ground hearer is a temporary believer who is a mere professor of Christ but whose faith was not genuine. Of these Jesus said:

"But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles." (Matt. 13: 20-21 nkjv) 

These temporary believers never believed out of a "good and honest heart" as did the good ground hearers. Their faith did not endure, which revealed that they never had true faith to begin with. The seed that was sown in their hearts did not take DEEP root, which it always does in those who are truly born again by the word. The apostle John said that true saving faith does not only endure for a little while, but endures all the way. He 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?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

If what John here says is true (and it is), then the shallow ground hearer who stumbles and falls away from his professed faith, cannot be a true believer, for his faith was overcome by trials and persecutions. His faith being temporary was not "born of God." 

Jesus said to Peter when he foretold of Peter's denial of Christ: "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22: 32 nkjv)

The shallow ground hearer did not have a faith that did not fail. Judas Iscariot had this shallow kind of faith. He never was saved but was a devil from the beginning. Yet, he was called "brother" by Christ and the other apostles. Paul also, when writing to the Galatian churches, and speaking of "false brothers," and of the fact that some in the church had shown that they were never truly saved, nevertheless still calls them "brothers" (Gal. 6: 1). It is a common belief among Bible teachers that many who are members of Christian churches have never been truly saved for they did not believe with the whole heart, but with half a heart. Their faith was shallow and dead. Paul calls such professing Christians "false" (Greek pseudo) meaning "fake." Paul spoke of Timothy's faith as being "unfeigned" (II Tim. 1: 5), meaning it was genuine. 

Notice also how it is the stony ground hearer who "stumbles" just as the weak brothers.

I have given several examples for why the weak are called "brothers" by the apostle. I have suggested that the Romans and Corinthians who became Christians were once polytheists and regular attendees of the religious festivals of those various Pagan cults and fraternities and as such called their fellow idol worshipers "brother." I believe that once they became Christian that they still called their former Pagan cult members "brother." I have also suggested that those Pagans who were being discipled by Christians, or who were attending the meetings of Christians, were often called "brothers." These were the catechumens. I have also spoken of how all who are members of the church are called brothers even though they are hypocrites who were never saved. 

Many Christians view those of certain Christian cults as not really saved. Many think Mormons are not really Christians. Many think Catholics are not really Christians. Etc. Yet, we still out of charity call them "brothers." 

The Cumulative Proof

As I have stated already, there are a number of good arguments for viewing the weak brothers as not truly born again believers and that there is only one argument for viewing them as truly saved people. So, in concluding this series let me now list those several arguments for my thesis which says that the weak brothers are not true born again believers.

1. The weak need to be saved, therefore they are lost brothers

2. "Weak" means sick, impotent, or unsound and are not adjectives for Christians

3. The weak may eternally perish and this cannot be true of real Christians

4. The weak are sick in faith, in religion and this cannot be true of real Christians

5. The weak still think that idols are real deities and this cannot be true of real Christians

6. The weak think that observing religious diets and holy days are essentials for salvation

7. The weak are sick and defiled in conscience and in religious knowledge

8. The weak judge slaves of another Lord (Christ); not fellow servants their own idol lord

9. The weak's religious regulations are from "self-imposed religion" and not Christianity

10. The weak condemn the strong for insisting that there is one God and one Lord alone

11. The weak condemn the strong for not observing dietary laws or holy days

12. The strong are the saved and therefore their opposites (the weak) are not saved

Weigh those arguments against the singular argument of the counter thesis which says the weak brothers are true Christians simply because they are called "brothers." I rest my case.