In this chapter I will give additional information from two major apologists for the foundational Two Seed tenet involving the preexistence of souls and of the eternal vital union of the souls of the children of God with God their Father. We pointed out in previous chapters how these ideas did not originate with Daniel Parker, the one who introduced and promoted his idea of the "Two Seeds" in the early nineteenth century. Gnosticism and Manichaeism and Platonism all held to this belief, a belief that has no foundation in the Christian scriptures. I have also traced the idea of "eternal vital union" of all the elect with the man Christ Jesus from past eternity, to men like Joseph Hussey, Isaac Watts, Karl Barth, etc. Many of these men were Hyper Calvinists, and Two Seedism borrowed a lot from Hyper Calvinism in addition to Gnosticism and Manichaeism.
We have noticed how Elder Gilbert Beebe and not Daniel Parker was the leading promoter and apologist for several of the foundational ideas of Two Seedism. In previous chapters we quoted from Beebe wherein he promoted his belief in "eternal vital union" and the preexistence of the souls of the elect from James 1: 18 and Hebrews 2: 14. I also have given a few of the philosophical arguments offered by Two Seed apologists for these tenets, such as in this syllogistic line of argument:
Syllogistic Argument
Premise One: Christ has always been a mediator on behalf of the elect
Premise Two: Christ cannot be a mediator without being human
Conclusion: Christ has always been human (even before his incarnation)
Syllogistic Argument
Premise One: Christ has always been the head of the church (the elect)
Premise Two: Christ must be human in order to be such a head
Conclusion: Christ has always been human
We could give more syllogisms that were offered by Beebe, Trott, and other Two Seed apologists but these are sufficient for now. In this chapter I want to provide a few more apologies for Two Seedism by two of its best defenders, Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott. We do this because we have several audiences in mind as we write. On one level we write for the layman who wants a Reader's Digest or Cliffs Notes version of the history of Two Seedism in the Baptist family. On another level we write for the historian who wants more detailed information and more source material.
We will begin with Beebe and his article titled "VIRTUAL UNION VS. ACTUAL UNION" for the "Signs of the Times" for March 1, 1860 ( or see the "Editorials of Elder Gilbert Beebe" – Volume 4; See here). In that article Beebe wrote (all emphasis mine):
"We have read some very labored articles which have been written against the doctrine of eternal, vital union of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mystical body, the church, in which the writers have attempted to draw a line between what they call a virtual eternal, and an actual eternal union, admitting the former, but denying the latter. Some of the less discerning of the saints have become perplexed, and we have been frequently called on to define the difference."
These words show us that one of the most important points to discuss in Christian circles, and especially among Two Seeders and other Hardshell "Primitive" Baptists, i.e. the kind of union, if any, the elect had with God or the Son of God, or Christ the "God Man" of Hussey, et als, from eternity past, or before the world began. Could a union exist if one of the parties does not actually exist? The subject of union has historically been an area where many "Primitive Baptists" have lacked understanding and entertained errors. Many today, however, hold that "vital union" between an elect man and the Lord is not created until that man is "regenerated." These modern day Hardshells believe that the regenerated man may not become a believer in Christ and the Gospel. These say a sinner may be born again and not even know that he has been reborn.
The idea of a vital (pertaining to life) or actual union of the person of Christ and the person of a man from eternity past is another debatable point. Elder Watson, as we have seen, attacked this idea voraciously as did other non Two Seed Hardshell Baptists. Further, as we will see, Elder Beebe in his later years seemed to have revised his views on this part of debate. That is in large part due, in my opinion, to the fact that Two Seeders were gradually losing influence and followers as the end of the nineteenth century neared and some of them sought to revise their views so as not to lose further the non Two Seed Hardshells.
Wrote Beebe:
"What kind of life does God give to his people? Is it eternal, or is it only time-life? John says, “This is the record that God hath given us eternal life.” – 1 John v; and Jesus says, “I give to them eternal life.” Many other express declarations of Scripture prove that the life given to the children of God is eternal, and consequently did as fully exist before they individually and experimentally received it, as afterwards. If it did not exist before it was implanted in us, or communicated to us by the new birth, then why is it called eternal? The eternity of it is attested by the declaration that it was with the Father and was manifested. (1 John i.)...To us it is very clear that if this union of the life of the church in Jesus Christ existed in him before the world began, it was more than a speculation; that it was a reality. If it was not then a reality, a fact, what is there in the communication of that eternal life to us experimentally in the new birth, that can make the life what it was not before we were made to feel its power?"
Beebe makes a gigantic unwarranted inferential leap when he thinks that the affirmation that the spiritual life that is given in regeneration or spiritual resurrection, because it is eternally in and of God, must therefore conclude that the ones who are given eternal life in time (in regeneration) simply receive their uncreated spirits.
Likewise, to affirm that because I am the "seed" of my father I therefore existed in my father as a person with a soul and body, is ridiculous. But, on that we will perhaps have more to say in a later chapter.
Wrote Beebe:
"If the work of the Spirit in the new birth is the action which makes this union actual, then we set aside the reality of grace given us in Christ before the world began, and instead of the gift of God is eternal life, we should read it, the gifts of God, there are as many distinct gifts as there are members in the body."
Here Beebe denies that in being born of God that an actual vital union was effected. He affirms that an actual vital union existed before one was born of God, yea from eternity. This is a complete denial of what the bible says about union with God and his Son. That union does occur when one is born of God by faith. Believers are united to Christ by faith.
Wrote Beebe:
"Much confusion prevails where brethren confound this vital union with our individual experience of it when brought into it. The union, spiritually, was as perfect before we were brought experimentally into the enjoyment of it, as it is now, or ever will be."
Again, this is a severe departure from traditional and historic Baptist doctrine, and from orthodoxy. Yes, we have a union with Adam, and with our ancestors, but this union is seminal and representative, and not an actual vital union (for that can only exist where persons actually exist). Beebe and his cohorts read way too much into Paul's statement that Levi was in Abraham when the latter met Melchisedec and gave tithes to him, and said that Levi therefore also paid tithes to Melchisedec. Beebe's reasoning would lead us to say that we are guilty or favorably rewarded for all that our ancestors did. Was I married to my mother when my father married her? Of course not. Of course all men had a representative union with Adam before they were born. They also had a seminal union with him, because we are of his "seed" or sperm. In fact, every plant was in some sense "in" the very first seed.
In another article by Beebe titled "ETERNAL GENERATION" from the Signs of the Times (Editorials of Elder Gilbert Beebe – Volume 4 pg. 174; Feb. 15, 1860; See here), Beebe wrote:
"That he is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and that he was the Son of God before he was sent into the world, and is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that he who is the Son of God, is also the eternal, underived, independent God, we also firmly believe. That in his Mediatorial union with his body, his church, he is the only begotten of the Father, while in his supreme Godhead, he is the fullness of the Godhead, underived and unbegotten."
This stated belief of Beebe is the reason for many non-Two Seeders to accuse Beebe of being "Arian." In an upcoming chapter we will cite at length from Elder Grigg Thompson on this point as well as Elder John Clark, both of whom lived in the nineteenth century and were first generation Hardshell Baptists. Beebe denies that by being the "begotten" Son of God he is God. He does not deny that Jesus is God, but denies that his being begotten by the Father is the reason he is God. He says that Christ was eternally begotten but that this begetting was in order to make him the Mediator of his mystical body (the church).
Wrote Beebe:
"And as the earthly Adam is the figure of the heavenly Adam, (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 47, 48,) we infer that the seed or generation of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is just as ancient as his Sonship. That is, we cannot from the Scriptures learn that our Lord Jesus Christ held the office, or occupied the position of Mediator, before the eternal life, which was with the Father, was given to us in him. That this is what constitutes the relationship between Christ, the seminal Head, and his seed, the Progenitor and the chosen generation."
That is basic Two Seedism as it respects the origin of the elect. This statement of Beebe also reminds us of the teaching of Hussey and others who taught that Christ's human soul was begotten before the foundation of the world or from eternity. However, no believer since the days of Christ has had a physical connection with Christ, i.e. have not a "seminal" union with him. The ancestors of Christ, through Mary and not Joseph, have a physical connection or union with Christ. Christ is said to be the "seed" of Abraham and David, but no physical human sperm from Joseph begat Christ. He is unique in this respect and is why he is the seed of Eve, or "seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15; Rev. 12)
In the above affirmations of Beebe we see that he believes in what is called "eternal children." This is important to note here and remember, because as we will see later, Beebe seemed surprised that some would say that he believed in "eternal children." He plainly says, however, in the above citation, that the people who are the seed or generation of the Lord have always existed.
Wrote Beebe:
"We believe there are some who have held the idea that the flesh of our Redeemer, in which he was born of the Virgin, which suffered on the cross, was laid in the tomb, and which was raised from the dead, was begotten and brought forth by what they call an eternal generation, and so existed a human body and soul, from the ancients of eternity. If that theory be true, we have not so learned it, and must wait for clearer light on that subject. If what is called the humanity of Christ was so generated and did so exist before all time, then, instead of his assumption of our flesh, instead of his taking on him the seed of Abraham, or being made of a woman in his advent to this world, the whole race of mankind must have assumed his human nature when they were born of the flesh."
These words seem to disavow the view of Hussey and others about the preexistent human soul of Christ, it being begotten when the Son of God was begotten in eternity past. Beebe alludes to those who believed that not only the human soul of Christ predated his incarnation, but so too his physical body. Those who held to this view argued that the pre-incarnation appearances of Christ in the old testament proved this. Beebe rejects that view. Yet, he does believe that Christ existed as a human in eternity. He has argued in numerous places, as we have seen, that Christ having been begotten by the Father had to do with Christ becoming a mediator, and also argued that Christ must be a man in order to be a mediator. He opposes the idea that Christ existed in eternity past with a "human body and soul," but he does not seem to deny that the human soul of Christ existed when he was begotten.
Consider also the fact that Beebe, in defining and defending the idea of the union of the Son of God with the elect, from eternity, has often said that, like Eve was to Adam, "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh." He has also argued that the elect have a "seminal" union with Christ in the same way they have it with Adam. So, though he is denying that Christ's human body and soul preexisted his incarnation, it is simply a contradiction against what he has stated elsewhere. The words of Beebe do not deny that the human soul of Christ existed when he was eternally begotten of the Father, but denies that the flesh or physical body of Christ was likewise eternally begotten.
Further, as the syllogism at the head of this chapter says, Beebe and the Two Seeders often argued that Christ had to be both God and man in order to be a mediator between them, and since he was a mediator before his incarnation, he existed as a man before his incarnation.
Wrote Beebe:
"Another, to us, equally untenable theory, called eternal generation of the Son of God, sets forth, that his supreme Godhead is a derivative Godhead; that it is not original, self-existent, independent and eternal. This theory, as it appears to us, seems to deny all that is essential to his Godhead. How can we conceive of absolute Godhead that has descended by generation or otherwise from any producing source higher than himself? That Christ exists in a Sonship which is begotten of the Father, is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures, and confirmed by his own declarations, but this we understand to be in relation to what he is as Head and life of his church."
Beebe accepts the words "eternal generation of the Son of God," but not in the orthodox sense, as denoting the divinity of Christ, that the Father and Son were of the same essence or substance, the same in kind. He believes that Christ being eternally begotten had to do with his being not only the mediator but the "head and life of his church." But, he has affirmed that being a mediator requires that he be human. Therefore, he cannot escape affirming that Christ had a human existence prior to his incarnation.
Wrote Beebe:
"This doctrine of a begotten Godhead is, to us, equivalent to a denial of his Godhead in all but a nominal sense."
Again, this is what the Arians taught. They said that God cannot be begotten. Beebe however believes that Jesus is God, unlike the Arians. That is why I have said that he and his ilk are better labeled as semi Arians.
Wrote Beebe:
"The argument, that the son is as old as his father, that a father cannot exist without a son, is quite too feeble to bring conviction to our mind. Stripped of all artificial verbage, the naked question returns; Is Jesus Christ absolutely, eternally, independently, underivedly, the very supreme and eternal God? To this question we emphatically answer, Yes!"
As we saw with the view of Hussey and others about the "God-Man" there seemed to be a connection between believing in the preexistent soul of Christ and a denial of Christ's being begotten as the Son of God in respect to his divinity. Many of today's Hardshells do not realize how many of their founders held heretical views on the Trinity, some like Wilson Thompson were Sabellians or Modalists, others like the Two Seeders were akin to Arians in their belief that Christ' being begotten of the Father denoted an inferiority to the Father. These simply did not properly understand how Christ being "eternally begotten" of the Father affirmed the Son's equality with the Father and did not denote inferiority. As we have seen, Hussey and other Hyper Calvinists of the early eighteenth century believed just as Beebe and said the exact thing he said in the above citation.
Christ is the Son of God in more than one sense. In a posting on this question I cited from David Schrock from an essay published in the Gospel Coalition web page who delineated the ways in which Christ is the Son of God.
Wrote David Schrock (emphasis mine):
"More specifically, Christ himself receives the title “Son of God” in at least 4 ways. He is the “son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam, (2) Israel, and (3) David. Yet, beyond being a covenant mediator who supersedes these previous “sons of God,” Jesus is also the (4) divine Son. Clearly, we can see why this title is “sometimes misunderstood.” (AN ESSAY BY David Schrock at the Gospel Coalition web page here and previously cited from me in this post here)
I have written several posts where I document how many of the first leaders of the anti mission movement and Hardshell or Primitive Baptist sect were deniers of the Trinity. Some were Sabellians and some were Arians. (See here and here and here) I also have cited from Dr. R.E. Pound, himself a believer in some Two Seed principles, and historian of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect (who passed away a few years ago and his excellent web page is not now available). I cited Pound in an article titled "Dr. R. E. Pound on Hardshell Factions" (See here) who said:
"In those days the Old School brethren were in three groupings on theology: 1. The Delaware River and the Warwick, Samuel Trott, grouping, the deniers of Nicenism; 2. The Ketocton association, with John Clark, the followers of Niceinism; 3. The followers of Wilson Thompson, a Sabellian, who denied that the Father and the Son entered into an eternal covenant because these were not two distinct Beings, but only personalities of the One Divine Being. It seems to me that at the first, these divisions among the old schoolers was not over absolute predestination, but OVER NICENISM."
What Beebe, Trott, and other Two Seed Baptists did was to follow Hussey et als in their belief that Christ preexisted his incarnation in a sense separate and apart from his divinity, and who saw his being begotten before time as either his becoming a man with a human soul, but not a human body, or becoming a Mediator and Head of his people.
As I have stated previously, Beebe and Trott believed that Christ had three natures, not two, as the orthodox view asserts. Christ had a human nature and a divine nature. But these Two Seeders said that the third nature was his nature as a mediator and head of the church. Wrote Trott (as cited by me here):
"In John 1st, as already noticed, we have the three natures, "The Word was God;" again, "In Him was life;" again, "The Word was made flesh," verse 1,4 & 14. In Isa. 9:6, we have A child born and a Son given, are not these distinct?"
In that same article I cite these words of Trott addressed to Elder John Clark who opposed him:
"They hold that His sonship relates to His Godhead, so that He is no otherwise God than as He is begotten of the Father; I deny this as contradictory to His being equal with the Father, and to His being the independent and self-existent God; and in distinction, I hold that His sonship consists in His being begotten of the Father as the Head of His church and life of His people and that they thus, in their spiritual life, were begotten in Him and proceed from Him, and that He is the "first born among many brethren" Rom.8:29."
Christ' being eternally begotten of the Father therefore does not relate to his divine nature but to his becoming possessed of a third nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment