Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XVI)

In this chapter we will continue our review of the apology given for Two Seedism by Elder T.P. Dudley of Kentucky in the early to mid nineteenth century. But, before we do this, I want to let the reader know that in my recent readings I have come across the entire review of Dudley's "Christian Warfare" as given by John M. Watson. It can be found in the "Signs of the Times" by editor Gilbert Beebe in Vol. xvii for Feb. 15, 1849. (See here) In that same issue Beebe responds to Watson's Review, from which we have previously cited. We will later perhaps give more citations from Beebe's response in the "Signs of the Times." In 1849 there was a good bit of exchange of views and discussion over the leading propositions of Two Seedism. We will give a good bit of this debate beginning in this chapter.

Since writing the previous chapter I have also noticed that Elder Wilson Thompson wrote an article for the Signs which shows that he did in fact believe in Two Seedism, the preexistence of the persons of the elect, the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, and the no change view of regeneration. I will post these citations in upcoming chapters, along with other citations from him that I have previously cited in years past in articles in the Old Baptist Test blog. So, Grigg Thompson, Wilson's oldest son, did not tell the truth when he said (as I remember reading somewhere) that his father did not hold Two Seed ideas. I will hunt for that citation where Grigg said this. It may be from the debates Grigg had with Elder Mark Bennett, who once was editor of the "Primitive Baptist" published in North Carolina, but who later left the Hardshells and joined the Missionaries, and then had a couple debates with Grigg Thompson. Or, it could be from a writing he sent to "The Primitive Baptist" periodical published in North Carolina. I have cited from these Thompson debates with Bennett previously in this blog.

So far we have identified several of the leaders of Two Seedism among the "Old School" Baptists: Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, T. P. Dudley, and Wilson Thompson. We have also seen who were the first leaders of the opposition to Two Seedism among the Old Schoolers, "Primitive Baptists," or "Hardshells," such as John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, and John Clark. In upcoming chapters we will add to this number, from Elders George Y. Stipp, Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, Grigg Thompson, etc. 

We have been citing from J. Taylor Moore's biography of Dudley, wherein he gives citations from Dudley and where he himself defends Dudley and Two Seed ideology. See Moore's writing (here). We will begin by reviewing an article that appeared in Beebe's "Signs of the Times" periodical, the first periodical for the Old School cause after the Black Rock Address in 1832 (that officially brought about the separation of anti mission Baptists from the general Baptist family), and written by Dudley and addressed to Beebe. Beebe, on more than one occasion, endorsed the views of Dudley and promoted the same Two Seed views in various writings, as we have seen in previous chapters. In that article Dudley seems to think that Beebe has backtracked on his Two Seed views. That article is titled "THE SOUL OF MAN" and written from Lexington, Ky., Aug.15, 1849. However, that article is not in the August 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (as you can see by reading that issue here). It does appear in the October 1st issue (1849). In that article, as given by Moore, Dudley begins as follows:

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: 

From the moment I read your response to Elder Williams’ queries in No.12 of the SIGNS, I have had it in contemplation to write to you, and drop some suggestions for your consideration – knowing Elder Williams, and being satisfied that I know the motive which prompted him in propounding the queries to you, I was prepared for his exultation at your admitting that the soul is regenerated. That brother Beebe, has committed himself in his reply to Elder Williams, I think will be manifest upon his re-examining the following positions taken in his reply. “If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian is a new creature, but what was actually in Christ.” A little lower down on the same page you say, “And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature.” 

In upcoming chapters we may perhaps give the back and forth conversation or debate from Elder Samuel Williams of Lebanon, Ohio and Elder Gilbert Beebe on Two Seedism and published in the "Signs of the Times." It is in Beebe's reply to Williams that Dudley thinks Beebe has contradicted himself and upheld a view that is against Two Seedism, wherein Williams affirms that "the soul is regenerated" and the "soul is made alive and becomes a new creature." I think Dudley is right, that Beebe does contradict his previous writings in promoting the Two Seed idea about regeneration not changing a person's soul or making him a new creature. Later we will see not only Beebe's reply to Williams but his reply to Dudley also. Further, Elder Samuel Trott, from whom we have already cited, jumped into the debate and addressed remarks to Williams on the leading points of Two Seedism.

Wrote Dudley:

"Now, I ask brother Beebe, was the soul actually in Christ? If not, and I think on reflection, brother Beebe will admit it was not, are you not found in conflict with yourself? “And so it is written the first man Adam, was made a living soul.” “And he called their name Adam.” “The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” “As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.”

Beebe, in defending Two Seedism in previous writings, has upheld the view that being born again or regenerated made no change in the "Adam man." The "new creature" was "created in Christ Jesus" in past eternity, according to Beebe, and not when a man is converted. Being "born again" in time is simply the time when the previously begotten spirit of the children of God enters into the Adam man, according to Two Seedism. When it does enter the man, this eternal child of God is not changed, for he remains a pure holy spirit, nor does this entrance change the Adam man in either body, soul, or spirit. This is why this Two Seed idea of no change in regeneration came to be called the "hollow log" doctrine. It is a metaphor for the Two Seed idea of the new birth. Like as a rabbit enters into a hollow log and its entrance and presence therein does not change the log at all, so too does the preexistent child of God's entering into a human being in the new birth not change the man. Being "born again" to Beebe was simply a time when the entrance of the child of God into the Adam man "manifests" that he is now a God's child.

So, let us give some citations from the editorial that Beebe wrote as an answer to the questions of Elder Williams and to which Dudley felt the need to correct Beebe. It can be read (here) in the June 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (Vol. XVII, No. 12) It is an editorial titled "Reply To The Queries Stated by Brother S. Williams, In His Letter of the 91 page".

Wrote Beebe:

"If brother Williams will admit that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that we are sons, which, of his own will he hath begotten; then he must also admit that we were begotten in him, as Mediatorial Head of the church. And if he denies this position, we challenge him or any other being to prove that we are or can be children of God in any other than a nominal sense.--Nor will it avail to say that we are vitally related to God by regeneration: for in regeneration that life which was and is in Christ only, is communicated to us. Regeneration does no more originate spiritual life, than generation does natural life. It does not originate, but it communicates to us that life and immortality which Christ only hath, and which cannot exist in us until Christ is formed in us the hope of glory. It will be found much easier to deny and denounce this doctrine than to overthrow it. In this we have not only a nominal union, but a union of existence--of Head and body."

So, being "born again" only makes a person a child of God in "a nominal sense"? The word "nominal" means "in name only." This is a novel, weird, and heterodox view of the Christian teaching about what it means to be "born again." The apostle John had a different idea about it however. He wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

Beebe also denies that "regeneration" is the time when a sinner becomes vitally united to Christ. His view is that the children of God have existed from eternity and had a vital (life) union with Christ. According to John believers were not children of God before they believed and received Christ.

When Beebe says that "regeneration" does not "originate spiritual life" he is again denying what is clearly taught in scripture. Of course spiritual life has always existed, for God is Spirit and Life, but affirming that does not in any way infer that those who are given eternal life in time when they believe already had it from eternity! When he says that being born again "communicates" that "life and immortality" that Christ has always had, he thinks that this means that God "communicates" to an Adam or natural man this eternal child of God. Ridiculous, and yet many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed it. It is highly ironic that Beebe would claim to be "primitive" or "old school" when he has such a new and novel view of what happens when a sinner is born again.

Beebe also says that his Two Seed view is not easy to refute or overthrow! How deluded was he and other Two Seed Primitive Baptists!

Wrote Beebe:

"Query 3. (As asked by Williams) "Were those quickened spirits (referred to in brother Trott's quotations from brother Dudley's paper) in the first Adam when he sinned? If not, were they ever dead in sins?" Answer: The souls of all God's people which are quickened and made alive by regeneration or by the communication of spiritual life to them--were all in Adam, did all sin in Adam--did all die in Adam--and were all left, so far as their existence was identified with Adam under the same wrath and condemnation that Adam was under; but that life of God which is communicated to them in regeneration, by which they that were dead are quickened and made alive, was not in Adam, did not sin in him, and never was dead in trespasses and sins."

Again, the error of Beebe is clearly seen in the above answer given to the questions asked of Williams. He makes a gigantic inferential leap that is completely without warrant. It is against reason and scripture. He thinks that the affirmation that the "life of God," or "spiritual life," being from eternity necessitates believing that the children of God existed from eternity! He falsely equates "life of God" with "children of God." This is clearly a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2), "corrupting the word of God," (II Cor. 2: 17) and "twisting" or "perverting" the scriptures. (II Peter 3: 16) As we will see, Williams affirms these very things in his attempts to "overthrow" the Two Seed view of Beebe.

Wrote Beebe:

"Query 4. (As asked by Williams) "Does the apostle mean that the man is a new creature, or that a new creature has come into the man?" 

"If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian "is a new creature" but what is actually in Christ."

"The. foregoing remarks are in answer to the first part of the query; the other branch of it remains to be answered, viz. "Or that a new creature has come into the man?" "We understand that the soul, not the natural body of the saint, is quickened in being born again. And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature. The life which is thus communicated, was not in that soul before he was born again; and this life is from Christ, who only hath immortality, and it is Christ; and consequently is the new, and not the old creation. And farther we believe that the same change substantially, which is effected in the soul by the new birth will also be effected in the bodies of all the saints, when that new and spiritual life which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, shall be communicated to them at their first resurrection; so that they shall not be raised up out of their graves in their old Adamic natures, but as particles of the new creature, "which after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." 

It is these statements by Beebe that provoked Dudley to write to the "Signs of the Times" and to make the comments he did as cited above. He thinks Beebe has contradicted himself by those comments, and indeed he does. Perhaps it shows that at this date (1849) that Beebe, like some other Two Seeders, were beginning to doubt the truthfulness of their views on the new birth. Later we will see where Williams later writes to the Signs to tell Beebe how glad he was to hear Beebe affirm that the soul of man was made spiritually alive when he was regenerated or born again. He does still emphasize that the eternal life that the sinner receives in his soul in being born of God in time existed from eternity, and that this is equated with children of God existing from eternity. 

In response to Beebe's editorial reply to the questions of Williams, we have the following written to Beebe and the "Signs of the Times" by "the Brethren About The Fort Mountain." I will give some of the leading parts of that communication.

"Dear Brother Beebe: In Number Ten, of the present volume of the Signs of the Times, we notice a communication from Brother Barton, on the subject of love being the bond of union."

"And passing over several remarks from Brother Trott, which we, the brethren, do not think exactly accord with our views, we, Brother Barton and the Ketocton brethren, are asked, "to point out any definite period in time where Christ was made (or created) a quickening Spirit, and then first stood as the Head of spiritual life in believers." 

By "Brother Barton" Beebe intends Elder Thomas Barton (1787-1870), a close friend of Beebe and yet reluctant to accept all of the Two Seed views of Beebe and Trott. He was present at the "Black Rock Convention" in 1832 when several Hyper Calvinistic churches declared non fellowship with other Baptists who supported missions, theological education, etc. 

From the above letter from the "Fort Mountain" brethren it appears that Barton believed what the Fort Mountain brethren believed, which was a denial of two of the leading ideas of Two Seedism, the preexistence of the children of God, and the no change view of regeneration.

They continued:

"We, the brethren about the Fort Mountain, by our experience and the word of Truth, never were taught to believe in any other quickening power than the Holy Ghost: neither do we believe that the Holy Ghost by his renewing us in the spirit of our minds (souls) created little independent gods in us; or that our Adamic nature is pure, in whole, or in part. Neither do we believe that the Head of the church is a creature, and that we are the creatures of that creature, this, we consider would be degrading the Head...but the spirit giveth life" (or quickeneth) and that spirit of life, or life giving spirit, is a self existent principle of life, and can, and does impart new life, spiritual life to sinners dead in trespasses and sins, and this new life is planted in the soul of the sinner, and is the new man, and eternal life."

This is a denial of the Two Seed idea that the dead sinner is not changed, does not go from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive.

They continued:

"Brother Trott has quoted two texts as proof of the creatureship of Christ, we do not understand them as he does; but we assure our brother, we desire to give the fairest construction that we can to the Tenor of Truth.--The first is Rev. 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the Creation of God." Great stress is laid on these words "the beginning of the Creation of God." Let us compare it with the 8th verse of the 1st chapter, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." How the beginning? The first creature that God ever created? no, for it is written, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." And he calls himself the Almighty in Rev. 1:8. He is the beginning of Creation, none ever created before him. He is the author of Creation, as will clearly appear from the second text quoted, Col. 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every Creature." 

In earlier chapters we showed how the Two Seeders were semi-Arian in their views about Christ not being the Son of God by eternal generation, but denoting his being begotten or created as a Mediator, which involved him having three natures rather than two. We have also addressed how they are very similar to the way Arians interpret Rev. 3: 14 and  Col. 1: 15. We made the same remarks that the above brethren did in response to this Arianism.

They continue:

"He is not born first, if it has reference to his humanity, for he was not born for four thousand years after the Creation. What can the first born mean? If you will read the 16, 17, 18, and 19th verses after the one quoted, it will appear very clearly; that he is before all Creatures, that he is the Creator of all creatures." 

Christ being the "firstborn" is true in several respects in scripture. As respects his divinity, he is not begotten in the same sense that humans are begotten, nor in the same way he was begotten of God in his humanity when conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. As the eternal Son of God he is the "only" or "unique" Son of God, which is intended simply to convey the idea that he and the Father are one, or equal. The term "firstborn" in this respect denotes Christ's rank over all creatures. 

Interesting is the fact that in this same issue of the Signs Elder Grigg Thompson writes a short piece and says nothing about the things being discussed relative to Two Seedism. Why was this? Why did so many Hardshells write often to the Signs of the Times at first without denouncing Two Seed ideas? Especially in light of the fact that many of them later decided to publicly and intensely oppose it? Albert Barnes in his commentary wrote:

"He does not say that, in all respects, he resembled the first-born in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created being himself. He that "created all things that are in heaven and that are in earth," was not himself created. That the apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature, is also manifest from the reason which he assigns why he is called the first-born. "He is the image of God, and the first-born of every creature, for - ὅτι hoti - by him were all things created." That is, he sustains the elevated rank of the first-born, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all things were created in heaven and in earth." 

In the next chapter we will continue to cite from the debate that was carried on in the Signs of the Times in 1849. 

Update, Prayers Needed

This past week my wife Paulette found out that her cancer in one of her lungs has returned. It is the same lung she had a cancer spot in twelve years ago and which was killed by radiation. On October 14 she will have a PET scan to obtain more needed information about the tumor and then decide what is next. I am hoping that it can be taken care of again by radiation and not surgery, for I don't think she is strong enough for such. We ask for your prayers. On September 14th she turned 73. She has had COPD (emphysema) for about eight or nine years, and has been on oxygen ever since. She has taken all this as a super trooper. If we both make it till October 25th, we will have been married for forty years. I thank God in my prayers each day that he gave her to me. 

If I live till October 5th, I will reach my 70th year. A milestone. When I was young I had it in my head that I would not make it to old age. I have my own health issues. I have a heart stent, put in when I had a heart attack about 4-5 years ago. I also was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis five years ago. My older brother Eddie died from it in June. He had it for twelve years. Most don't live that long. So, I know my time is short. 

I am hoping I can finish my series on Two Seedism. I am doing a lot of reading from old "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists periodicals from the nineteenth century and taking notes. I also would like to finish some other series I have begun, or want to begin. I want to finish my writings on the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. I have written extensively on the white horse, red horse, and black horse. So I only have to write yet on the pale green horse. I also have some finishing chapters on my long series titled "God's Elect or World's Elite?" I also want to write a series on "prevenient grace." I also have hundreds of initial drafts on numerous subjects and biblical texts. 

I am thankful for brethren Kevin Fralick and Ken Mann for being contributing editors to this blog. I hope they will keep writing after I am gone to be with the Lord. I am thankful for our readers, the number of which grows each month, setting records. I have numerous blogs, many of which are for specific subjects. See the link list on this web page. We are on track to have a hundred thousand page views this month for all these blogs. 

Brothers and Sisters, I believe we are on the verge of the time of the Apocalypse and Great Tribulation which will "come upon all the world to try them which dwell upon the earth." (Rev. 3: 10) I have a separate blog to which I am moving all my writings on the second coming. I possibly will add to this in the coming months, the Lord willing. I am thrilled that we have seen evidences of a possible end time revival and ingathering, with many sinners turning to the Lord before it is too late. We saw preludes to this in the Asbury phenomenon. Brother Mann and I both wrote articles on this back in 2023. (See this page for a list of those articles - here) We see it now in the aftermath of the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk, a warrior for the Lord. For years now I have been praying for an end time revival before the "time of the Gentiles is fulfilled" (Luke 21: 24). I have been praying for a restoration of the charismata, for the miraculous gifts. Paul said that we should "earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially to prophesy." (I Cor. 14: 1) If the rapture occurs towards the end of the great Tribulation, which I believe is the case, then end time believers will surely need these gifts in order to be kept safe. Since they will not be able to buy or sell when the Antichrist reigns, being able to turn stones to bread would be a great help. If saints will then be unable to pay for a doctor, gifts of healing will then be of great help. Etc. In the days of the Judges we read:

"Gideon said to Him, “O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the LORD has forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.” (Judges 6: 13 nkjv)

I don't think there will be any reason for the saints in the time of the great tribulation to say "where are all his miracles" because they will be occurring often as a way to "keep" the saints from the evils of that awful time.

Let us be ready for what is coming. Let us warn our neighbors and friends. Let us do all we can to win souls to Christ before it is too late.

Signs in the Heavens?

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Matt. 24: 29)

Over the past month I have watched numerous videos on two particular comets, or interstellar objects, that are in our solar system, one called 3/Atlas the other called Swan (or c2025 R2). One such is given by astrophysicist Michio Kaku titled "9 Hidden Objects Discovered Escorting 3I/ATLAS Through Our Solar System!" (See YouTube video here). One I watched today is titled "Seven visitors Are Approaching Earth, 3I/ATLAS Brings its Friends" (See here). This video tells us that there are seven other comets also in our solar system and is what some are calling a "swarm." Just awhile ago a new video with updated information has appeared in YouTube by Kaku and gives amazing information. Instead of seven other comets there was suddenly nine, and then ten, with more showing up each day. These other comet-like interstellar objects are putting out massive amounts of power, more than Atlas which is leading the way. Each is emanating ten gigawatts of power! (See that video here) It gives more information for us laymen. These speeding objects seem to be contradicting known laws of physics. They seem to be made of materials unknown to us, with properties never seen before.

The two leading comets, especially Atlas, are not behaving like a comet and scientists cannot say it is a comet. Some speculate it is an alien spaceship. Atlas is travelling faster than anything we have ever seen. It also slowed down when approaching the sun (on the other side from earth), something that comets do not do. It has also changed course, another thing that is odd. Many think it is a machine. It is not composed of water and ice and dust as are most comets. They are made of nickel, cobalt, and materials we do not know, and they radiate light and power, even bending light. In the next month Atlas will reappear, after being hidden on the far side of the sun, so that our telescopes can track it again. Swan is coming from another part of deep space, outside of our solar system, and appears to be coming to intercept Atlas, with each coming near the far side of the sun at about the same time. Fascinating. Some NASA and other space agencies say it will come close to the planet Mars and has a chance of hitting it if it alters course a little. If that happens, we can expect Earth to receive many fragments from that explosion.

Elon Musk recently hurried up a rocket to try to get to Atlas. However, it is going so fast that it cannot be caught. He hopes however to get into its long unique tail and obtain information about its makeup. Other space agencies of other governments are deeply concerned and racing to send up rockets in order to gain more information about what is going on. 

The above text tells us that there will be things happening in outer space, in the second heaven, in conjunction with the return of Christ and the day of wrath, judgment, and tribulation. He says "the powers of the heavens will be shaken." Could this swarm of comets be a sign of this? Notice also these verses:

"looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat." (II Peter 3: 12 nkjv)

"Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger." (Isa. 13: 13; See also Heb. 12: 26-27)

Is this swarm of comets the result of this shaking? A prelude to it? In the Book of Revelation, "stars falling from heaven" appears in a few instances, notably in Revelation 6:13 where they fall like figs from a tree "shaken" by a wind, signaling a catastrophic event following the sixth seal. In Revelation 8:10-12 and 9:1, it describes a great burning star falling onto water.

Could these comets be angels and their chariots? The Bible does describe angels, horses, and chariots of fire, particularly in 2 Kings 6:17 where the prophet Elisha's servant sees the mountain "full of horses and chariots of fire" surrounding them for protection. The book of Psalms also mentions God's "chariots" and "thousands of angels" in Psalm 68:17. The coming of Christ will be attended by angels, angels who will come to gather together the elect from the four corners of the world (Matt. 24: 31), and with angels who will be extensively involved in the judgments of the Apocalypse.

My only problem with believing that these comets are such is the fact that it seems to be too soon, for this shaking of the heavens seems to occur after the judgments of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse and not till the sixth seal is opened.

Some scientists have also suggested that these "space travelers" have been impacting the sun. There is a big hole in the sun ("coronal hole) that some think is being caused by Atlas, even though they are normal. It is approaching the other side of the sun and will reach its closest point to the Sun, or perihelion, in late October 2025. Others believe they are, directly or indirectly, causing earth tremors and quakes. There is a video titled "Earthquakes Are Multiplying as 3I/ATLAS Wakes Up the Sun" (here).

I don't know anything for sure about all this. But, I do know that what is occurring in our solar system at the present time is strange.

What think ye?

The "Ablest Primitive Baptist Minister"?

Elder Sylvester Hassell, the leading "Primitive Baptist" historian, recognized as such by Hardshell Baptists, in his and his father's (C.B. Hassell) history titled "History of the Church of God" wrote the following in chapter XIX (See here):

"Elder Wilson Thompson (1788-1866), a native of Hillsborough, Kentucky, is regarded as the ablest Primitive Baptist minister that ever lived in the United States." 

How "Primitive Baptists" can hold this man in such high esteem is bewildering. Today's Hardshells mostly reject the idea that one must believe by the gospel to be born again, and yet Thompson did. Thompson was a Modalist or Sabellian, denying the ontological Trinity, and today's Hardshells would reject any minister who taught such. Thompson was also a Two Seed Primitive Baptist and most Hardshells today would say that they have previously declared non fellowship for such. 

I have written numerous articles on Wilson Thompson. I know a lot about his views and his life. I read his biography when I was a young Hardshell. You can read it (here). I have also read his other books: 1) "The Triumph of Truth or, The Scripture of True Guide to Zion's Pilgrims; in Which Some of the Most Important Branches of the Christian Theology are" (1821) and 2) "Simple Truth" (1825) and 3) "An Address to the Baptists of the United States" (1850). You can read the first (here), the second (here). His autobiography can also be read online (here). One can also read the "Signs of the Times" periodical from the 1830s till Thompson's death in 1866. 

I became a member of "Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church" in Franklin, Ohio where my father was the pastor and who chose that name for the church which he founded. He would talk to me a lot about Wilson Thompson, Grigg Thompson his eldest son, and his other relatives, J.M. Thompson and R.W. Thompson, all who were leading Hardshell Baptist ministers. He had such a high esteem for the Thompson clan that he thought it was a good name for their church, especially seeing that it was in the area where Wilson and Grigg Thompson lived for many of their years. Grigg was once a member of the Hamilton (Ohio) "Primitive Baptist Church" in the 1820s (a church he was excluded from for awhile and then reinstated). I was born in Hamilton. My sister, who is a Hardshell Baptist, is a member of Thompson Memorial (though they have changed the name since father's death) and she lives in Lebanon, Ohio which is where Wilson labored for years in pastoring the church there. That old church building is still there though the church has died. Father used to drive me by it. When I visit my sister I drive by the old building. 

I am also well versed in the history of the "Miami Association" of Baptists, taking in the first Baptist churches along the Miami river, a river I lived beside when I lived in Hamilton. It was constituted in 1798, five years before Ohio became a state. Thompson was a leader in this association along with Elder Stephen Gard. When I moved with my mother and step father to a little town called "Reily" I would visit, sometimes with father, the old church building there that was once a Baptist church that split and then disbanded over the division over the "anti mission movement." Father used to tell me - "Gilbert Beebe came through here and preached here." It was called "Indian Creek Regular Baptist Church" and I have a picture of it and a writing on it (here). I.T. Saunders, of Hamilton, was the clerk of the Miami Association for many years and he often wrote to the "Signs of the Times" and supported Beebe. He is buried in the cemetery at the Indian Creek Church, a cemetery I often walked in when I was a teenager and young Hardshell Baptist. Saunders was a staunch supporter of Wilson Thompson and defended him and agreed with him on his denial of the Trinity and took issue with Elder James Osbourn, a founding father of "The Primitive Baptist Church," who accused the Miami Association of holding to heretical views on the Trinity. I don't doubt that he also, along with many others in the Miami Association, believed in Two Seedism. 

I have read Thompson's books, the writings and sermons and debates of his son Grigg, and also the writings of John M. Thompson who served churches in Indiana and in the Miami valley and who was a writer for "The Primitive Monitor" for several years in the late 19th century. I believe he is the nephew of Wilson. Father and I would also talk about Wilson's grandson R.W. Thompson who was also a leading Hardshell in the late 19th century. He was born in Fayette county Indiana as was J.M. Thompson. R.W. was the editor and founder of "The Primitive Monitor" periodical. I have read old issues of this periodical. 

Said Hassell further:

"He moved to Lebanon, Ohio, on a call from the church at that place, and while living there he published two books, “Simple Truth” and “Triumph of Truth,” opposing Fullerism, and thus brought upon himself much persecution. Considering “person” to mean a distinct and separate individual, he objected to the saying that there were three persons in the Godhead; though he maintained the unity of God, and, at the same time, the divinity of the Father, Son and Spirit."

I have written about Wilson's views on the Trinity, along with critiquing Sylvester Hassell's narrative of his views (as stated in the above citation), in this post (here). Clearly Hassell, in order not to deface the reputation of this founding father of his denomination, tried to downplay the views of Thompson, for in other sections of his history, Hassell calls Sabellianism a heresy. Also, though Hassell exults in Thompson affirming that "regeneration" is accomplished apart from means, he does not tell his readers that Thompson believed that the new birth followed regeneration and necessitated believing the gospel. Also, the two books Hassell mentions above were not so much an attack on "Fullerism" but on the Trinity and a defense of Parker's Two Seedism. Hassell does not mention that in those books Thompson affirmed the preexistence of the man Christ Jesus, the preexistence of the children of God, and their eternal vital union with Christ, and his denial that Christ's being the "Son of God" denoted Christ's divinity. 

Said Hassell further:

"In regard to the use and effect of the preached gospel, Elder Thompson held, with the majority of Old School Baptists, that it is not the means of imparting spiritual life to the dead sinner; that as no means can be used to give life to one literally dead, even so no means can be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sins; that, as all temporal means are used to feed, nourish and strengthen living subjects, and not dead ones, so the preaching of the gospel is the medium through which God is pleased to instruct, feed and comfort His renewed children, and not by which He gives life to the dead sinner whom the Spirit alone can quicken; that the gospel is the proclamation of good tidings of great joy to those who have a hearing ear and an understanding heart to receive it, and to these it is the power of God unto salvation, saving them from the false doctrines of men, and feeding and making them strong in the truth." 

Two things need to be stated in reply to Hassell, who is writing to defend Thompson, even though he knew that he held to unscriptural ideas. First, Hassell does not tell us that Thompson in his early days believed that the gospel was a means in regeneration or the new birth. Second, even when he changed his mind and accepted the view that regeneration was effected without the means of the word of God, he still held to the view that the new birth was effected by the means of the gospel. He, like many Baptists in his day, believed that regeneration and being born again were not the same thing, affirming that regeneration corresponded to the implantation of the seed in the womb and the new birth was deliverance from the womb. So, he believed that being born again was effected by the means of the word of truth. Further, Hassell, in the above citation, acknowledges that not all "Old School Baptists" denied means, although he wants the readers (who are Hardshells for the most part) to believe that the majority of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists denied means in either regeneration or rebirth, but I don't believe that such is the case. Hassell certainly did not prove his assertion. 

Wilson Thompson Denied The Trinity

In my posting "Wilson Thompson's Heresies" (See here) back in 2013 I cited these words of Thompson from his two books mentioned previously.

Thompson wrote:

"...so the God in Christ, or Christ as God, was the only Lord God of the apostles, to the exclusion of all persons distinct from Him." "Some may try to evade the force of all these plain, and pointed Scriptures; by acknowledging that Christ is God, in common with the Father and Spirit; but yet a distinct person, from them both. To destroy this futile and illogical refuge, I will adduce a few pointed texts, which will be like fire among thorns, to this cobweb refuge."

"Now, if the Godhead consists of three equal, and distinct persons, and Christ be only the second one of these, how woefully the apostle missed it, and how improper the caution in the text; but if the apostle be correct, and the whole fullness of the Godhead, to the exclusion of all distinct persons, be in Christ bodily, how woefully the tri-personal scheme misses it, and how well timed the warning given by the apostle to the church, to beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy, etc."

"...neither is there one text that says anything about three persons in the Godhead." In a small Book which I published in 1821 entitled “Simple Truth;” I said something against the notion of three distinct persons in the Godhead; as being a defect in the Trinitarian plan of reasoning. On this account, some men, not very well disposed toward me, have seized this one reference as a good opportunity to poison the minds of their friends against me, by falsely saying, both, in print and verbally, that I had treated the doctrine of the Trinity with the utmost contempt. This is a false allegation, but I hold nothing against any man on this account; to his own master he stands, or falls. By the word Trinity; I understand three in one. By the divine Trinity; I understand the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; being one. But I never thought, nor do I yet think, that these three must necessarily be distinct, divine, and equal persons of one indivisible essence, and each of these persons, separately considered, truly and properly God, and yet all of them but one God, in order to the existence of a trinity; nor did I believe, that the three must necessarily be persons at all, in order to the existence of a trinity; nor do I yet believe it."

So, we say to Hassell (even though he is in his grave) and to all those who are "Primitive, Old School, Hardshell" Baptists, is this the man you think is so great as Hassell says?

Wilson Thompson Was a Two Seeder

I have been writing a series on the history and heresies of Two Seedism, or Parkerism, in the Old Baptist Test blog and I even have a separate blog which has all my writings on that subject (See here). I have mentioned Wilson Thompson relative to whether he was or was not a Two Seeder. I plan, in upcoming chapters, to give citations from Thompson that show this to be the case. I ask every Hardshell Baptist who reads this write up this question - "is Thompson the ablest Primitive Baptist minister that ever lived" as Hassell affirms in view of the fact that he was a Sabellian and Two Seeder? In spite of the fact that he believed that the children of God have existed from eternity? In spite of the fact that he believed that the humanity of Christ was what was begotten as the Son of God in eternity? 

Thompson wrote the following which shows that he was a Two Seeder:

"...we are lost when we go to hunt the antiquity of this union. We can only say it is as old as God, for God is love; but love must have an object or it ceases to be, for I cannot love and love nothing; love is that endearing or uniting perfection of God, which could only exist, so long as the object beloved existed; nor could God be love before the object was beloved, neither can love be controlled, for it brings forth, produces, or sets up its own object, that is, must necessarily have an object, in order to have its own existence; and as God is self-existent and independent, His existence as love, brought forth its object, which was the soul of Christ with all His people in it, and the very existence of God as king could only be because He had subjects: for a king without a kingdom, is no king at all; so love without an object is no love at all. So we see that in order to our speaking of God as being love, or His existing as love, there must be an object beloved, and in order to His being a king there must be subjects, and thus the pre-existent soul of Christ, was the object of the love of God and His people in it were the subjects of His kingdom, and Christ was the medium of operation through whom God exercises His authority in the government of His kingdom; for in the pre-existing soul of Christ, the subjects of this kingdom were chosen, before the world, when we speak or read of a choice being made in Christ before the world, we are not to understand, that God was looking through Adams posterity, and picking out one here, and another there, and writing their names in the book of life, and refusing the rest, for they were chosen in Christ before the world and not in Adam; for He did not exist before creation; and the choice was not an act that took place, or was planned some time after the existence of God, either before the world or since, but was a consequence of and inseparable from the existence of God as king, and this kingdom was organized in the pre-existent soul of Christ..."  (DISCOURSE #5 On the Atonement, and Man's Justification by it. in "Simple Truth")

In my present series on "Two Seedism" I show where not only Daniel Parker, but Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and T.P. Dudley also taught the leading premises of Two Seedism. The latter three were the foremost defenders of Two Seedism. But, we must not exclude Wilson Thompson. The fact that he was a Two Seeder is generally a fact kept concealed by Hassell and a fact that most Hardshell Baptists who hold Thompson in such high regard as Hassell do not know. Thompson was a close friend of Daniel Parker and never said anything against him or his view on the "two seeds." He was also a close friend of Beebe and often wrote into the "Signs of the Times" and never did Thompson object to the Two Seed views being promoted in that periodical. I have shown where Dudley had Thompson's endorsement of his Two Seed writings. In fact, as I will show in upcoming chapters in my series on Two Seedism, he wrote articles in that periodical defending Two Seedism. The above citation also shows that the believed 1) in the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, and 2) the preexistence and vital actual union of the elect, or good seed, in Christ from eternity. These are two foundational beliefs of Two Seedism. In this way he was not only a Sabellian, but an Arian also, for like other Two Seeders he believed their views, which deny that Christ is God by being the Son of God, and affirms that his being begotten by the Father before the world began only produced his human soul, and that he begat all the souls of the children of God at the same time.

In "Warren County Local History" by Dallas Bogan, he writes about "The First Baptists In Ohio And Warren County" (See here) and says the following about Wilson Thompson:

"Salary compensations for the pastor were not noted in the Lebanon Church until 1827, when Elder Wilson Thompson's salary was fixed at $500 annually. The pastors generally had some other means of support other than preaching. Some of them were farmers or farm hands. Elder Thompson practiced medicine during his tenure as pastor." 

Isn't that interesting, my Hardshell brothers? A large majority of the first Hardshells vehemently denounced as an evil the paying of salaries or stipulated amounts for their pastors, but their "ablest minister" took a salary! I did not know that Thompson practiced medicine! Of course, back then, anyone could put up a shingle and say he is a doctor for there were no state licensing or requirements. 

Bogan writes further:

"Responsibility for the division into branches of the Old School and New School appears to have been a publication entitled "Simple Truth," authored by Elder Thompson. Another book written by Elder Thompson was entitled "Triumph of Truth." He became a leader of the Old School Baptists and opposed all religious and moral associations except the church. A meeting of the Lebanon Baptist Church was held on Saturday, October 1, 1836. With this gathering a decision was made to divide the church into two distinctive branches. The Old School branch with sixty-one members formed the West Baptist Church. The New School branch with forty-two members formed the East Baptist Church."

The division in the Miami Association in the 1830s was devastating. The New School party grew and the Old School party died. Old Indian Creek Church, mentioned above, though once a thriving church, died over both the anti mission controversy and the Two Seed controversy. The churches that at first sided with the Old Schoolers were very numerous up and down the Miami River, from Cincinnati, through Hamilton, Middletown, Dayton, etc. I have seen old minutes of the Old School faction of the Miami Association for the late 19th century and seen where in Butler county, where Hamilton is located, there were numerous Hardshell churches. Today there are hardly any. What a falling away! This has a lot to do as a result of the work of Wilson Thompson.

Brothers: Beware of the Animals (IV)

In this short series we are talking about the "beasts" that Christians encounter and fight as Paul said that he did when at Ephesus defending the doctrine of the resurrection. (I Cor. 15: 32) In chapters two and three we looked at those people who are appropriately called "dogs" and "wolves." These two animals are similar, for when Paul says "beware of dogs" (Phil. 3: 2) he has wild dogs in mind, and not pet dogs, or shepherd or guard dogs. Dogs and wolves are of the same genus. We saw where in both cases the dogs and the wolves of which we are warned in scripture are people who are false teachers, and who are infiltrators, hypocrites, and deceivers. In this short chapter we will see how they are also called "foxes" (or jackals).

"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy out of their own heart, ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’ ”Thus says the Lord God: “Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! Israel, your prophets are like foxes in the deserts." (Eze. 13: 1-4 nkjv)

Here the foolish, false, deceitful prophets are compared to "foxes in the deserts." These foxes "follow their own spirit" and have no insight into the things of God. They are charlatans. But, if they are foolish, then why label them as "foxes," for aren't foxes known for being cunning? That is why we say someone is "sly as a fox." But, people also say that someone is "crazy as a fox." That would seem to be more appropriate for "foolish" prophets. As leaders among the community of the Lord's people are of several kinds, so there are various kinds of dogs and several kinds of foxes. Some are crazy, and some are sly and cunning. So people also say of some folks that they are "smart as a fox." This is generally said of those who are "wise to do evil." (Jer. 4: 22) People also say "he outfoxed me." "Foxy" is another word we often hear said of others and means to be "sly, cunning, crafty, wily, tricky, foxy, artful, slick" or means to  "attain or seek to attain one's ends by guileful or devious means." 

John Gill in his commentary wrote the following about the false prophets being labeled as "foxes" in the above passage:

"...such (false prophets) are comparable to foxes, for their craftiness and cunning, and lying in wait to deceive, as these seduced the Lord's people, Ezekiel 13:10; and such are false teachers, who walk in craftiness, and handle the word of God deceitfully, and are deceitful workers; and to foxes in the deserts, which are hungry and ravenous, and make a prey of whatsoever comes within their reach, as these prophets did of the people, Ezekiel 13:19." 

The Lord Jesus Christ also called certain people foxes. Wrote Luke:

"On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.” And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’" (Luke 13: 31-32 nkjv)

Jesus called Herod Antipas a "fox" to emphasize his cunning, manipulative, and deceitful nature. It was an insult designed to convey the fact that Herod was a base, insignificant, and worthless person rather than a legitimate ruler, using sly tactics to achieve his aims. It makes us think of the unjust steward who his Lord commended for his conniving.

"So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." (Luke 16: 8 nkjv)

The master did not commend the steward for being unjust. Perish the thought. Rather, he acknowledged that the thieving steward had shown himself a strategist, one who was wise to do evil. There is an old saying about "giving the Devil his due,"  which is an idiom meaning to give credit to a person or thing that is generally disliked, unpleasant, or considered bad. 

The history of the church shows that many human foxes have invaded it. The kingdom of God is compared to a vineyard. (Matt. 20: 1) Wrote the Psalmist:

"Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts; Look down from heaven and see, And visit this vine And the vineyard which Your right hand has planted, And the branch that You made strong for Yourself." (Psa. 80: 14-15 nkjv; See also Isaiah 5: 1-10)

In the Song of Solomon we are warned of the foxes who spoil the vines.

"Catch us the foxes, The little foxes that spoil the vines, For our vines have tender grapes." (2: 15 nkjv)

John Gill in his famous commentary on the Song of Solomon wrote:

"By foxes may be meant false teachers, to whom the false prophets of old were compared, Ezekiel 13:3; foxes are crafty and subtle creatures, malignant and mischievous, hungry and voracious, full of deceit and dissimulation, are of an ill smell, and abominably filthy; so false teachers walk in craftiness, use good words and fair speeches, and thereby deceive the hearts of the simple; their doctrines are pernicious, their heresies damnable, and they bring destruction on themselves and others; they are hungry after worldly substance, are greedy of it, and can never have enough; devour widows' houses, and make merchandise of men, to enrich themselves; they put on sheep's clothing, transform themselves into angels of light, mimic the voice of Gospel ministers, use their phrases and expressions, that they may not be easily discovered; and are abominable in their principles and practices, and to be shunned by all good men. Now ministers of the Gospel are ordered to take these, to detect them, and refute their errors, and reprove them sharply for them; and, after proper steps taken, to reject them, to cast them out of the vineyards, the churches, and keep them out."

"that spoil the vines; as foxes do, by gnawing the branches, biting the bark, making bare the roots, devouring the ripe grapes, and infecting all with their noxious teeth and vicious breath (x): so false teachers make divisions and schisms in churches; disturb their peace; unsettle some, and subvert others; sap the foundation of religion, and corrupt the word of God; and therefore by all means to be taken, and the sooner the better."

Solomon says to the vineyard keepers - "Catch the foxes." Samson did so and even used those foxes to wreak havoc on the enemies of the Lord's people.

"Then Samson went and caught three hundred foxes; and he took torches, turned the foxes tail to tail, and put a torch between each pair of tails. When he had set the torches on fire, he let the foxes go into the standing grain of the Philistines, and burned up both the shocks and the standing grain, as well as the vineyards and olive groves." (Judges 15: 4-5 nkjv)

Solomon said to "catch the foxes." Does he mean like in a "Fox hunt"? Before we answer that question, let us notice a few more biblical texts that show how false teachers act like foxes when they come among the Christian community. Wrote Jude the Lord's brother:

"For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 1: 4 nkjv)

Wrote the apostle Peter:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber." (II Peter 2: 1-3 nkjv)

Wrote the apostle Paul:

"And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." (Ga;. 2: 4-5 nkjv)

Foxes, like wolves and lions, sneak up on their prey. So, we need good watchmen to guard the sheep of God. As wolves can come among the sheep, and foxes enter the vineyard, or in the chicken house, so too will human foxes come among the saints. Therefore, God's shepherds and guard dogs should always be on guard against the wolves, the wild dogs, and the foxes.

So, are we as Christians or ministers called to hunt down the heretics as men hunt wolves and foxes? No, that is reading too much into the analogy. They will be hunted down one day by the Lord in the day of judgment. The Catholic church has a history of hunting down those who they judged to be heretics (and who often were not), but this is not our calling. We are to fight the wolves and foxes only when they approach the sheep, but we are not called upon to hunt down the heretics.

Thoughts on Charlie Kirk's Assassination

Eight days ago Charlie Kirk was murdered by a sexual deviant over his views on the transgender debate, which views were based upon his Christian faith, which he often used to explain many of his moral and political beliefs. I agree with many other Christians that Charlie is a martyr for the truth of God. 

I was watching Charlie's rally with the students of Utah Valley University when it happened. When the shooting took place, I was in shock. The first reports were that he had been taken to the hospital and was in critical condition which spurred me to fervently pray for him, as it did for many other Christians. However, in my mind I was sure he was either dead or would die, for the shot tore into his major arteries in his neck. But, I did not know that for sure and prayed that somehow, by God's grace, a miracle would occur and that he would survive. Yet, it was not long till the hospital pronounced him dead. I was so sad and angry too. I loved brother Charlie. I enjoyed his debates with others, being one who studied debate in college and believed in debate.

He was so good at the right kind of debating. He was a modern day Socrates, and like Socrates, was killed because of his beliefs and for his being a "gadfly" to the Athenians. Charlie, like Socrates, knew how to ask his opponents the right questions, how to force them to give logical and coherent defense to their beliefs, and to challenge them with counter arguments. He was very effective at "convincing the gainsayers" (Titus 1: 9).

In my anger at the assassin and of those on the Left, the Liberals in the Democrat Party, I even told God - "Lord, why did you not prevent this? What good do you intend to come to pass by his death?" Since then I have seen the good. Millions of people in this country have held vigils for him. Thousands of new applicants from high schools and colleges to organize Turning Point chapters. Many have turned to the Lord and returned to the church. So, though the killer meant evil in murdering Charlie, God meant it for good. (See Gen. 50: 20) Over a million people walked the streets in London and all over England in memory of Charlie.

We have so many murders today, which is a sign of the last days. (See Rev. 9: 21) Further, it will even get worse when the rider on the red horse causes civil war all over the globe so that it contributes to one fourth of the world's population being slaughtered. (See Rev. 6: 3-8) In many places prosecutors and judges are too lax on criminals, due to liberal ideas such as defunding the police, no bail, etc. Criminals with long rap sheets are let loose to continue their criminality. The death penalty is rarely enforced today. If we want to reduce crime, this must change. If we began hanging murderers in public, it would reduce instances of murder.

It is a sad and depraved state for many to rejoice over the death of Charlie, who left his wife a widow, and his two little children without a father. It reminds me of the prophecy in the Apocalypse where God's two witness prophets are slain by the Antichrist and all the world rejoices and sends gifts one to another. (See Rev. 11: 3-10)

Charlie Kirk was such a large part of my day. Every day from noon till 2pm I listened to him on Real America's Voice. Now I can't do that. It has left a void. I loved him and his commentary. He was such a devoted Christian. Years ago I encouraged my daughter to listen to him.

Just yesterday I was listening to one person on a campus visit ask Charlie whether he believed that water baptism was essential for salvation. He said that he felt like there were good arguments on both sides. He then began to ask the questioner about the thief on the cross and other examples of people who gave their hearts to the Lord and yet could not get baptized. He asked the questioner, in the Socratic method, whether God would not allow such people into heaven. The questioner paused a good while, saying that was a good question, but then stubbornly held on to his belief that water baptism was essential. Still, Charlie challenged him to think more deeply.

I hate that some are misquoting him and misrepresenting his views. One such instance is where he said that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the "solution." The Catholics (many of whom loved Charlie) jumped on this and tried to make more of that statement than Charlie intended, taking him out of context.

In a July episode of his show, Charlie Kirk said, "Mary is a phenomenal example," and "a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era." That is true, but it is a far cry from believing all that the Catholics say about Mary.

Kirk explained that he believes Protestants do not venerate or talk about Mary enough. He said:

“Mary was clearly important to early Christians.” - “Have more young ladies be pious, be reverent, be full of faith, slow to anger, slow to words at times. Mary is a phenomenal example, and I think a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era.”

“But let me first say, I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior. “I think that we, as Evangelicals and Protestants, we've over corrected. We don't talk about Mary enough. We don't venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians. There's something there. In fact, I believe one of the ways that we fix toxic feminism in America is that Mary is the solution."

All this is true, but to interpret Charlie as supporting Catholic teaching on Mary is unwarranted. Peter also pointed to Sarah as an example of how women are to live, but that doesn't equate with worshiping Sarah.

Charlie was not an evangelist like Billy Graham or D.L. Moody, although he was from Chicago as was Moody. Just as the disciples asked - "can any good thing come out of Nazareth" (John 1: 46) so we wonder whether anything good can come from Chicago today. Charlie was used by God to save many sinners and is enjoying the promise of God which says: "And those who turn many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3 nkjv) So, not only does he have the crown of a martyr but the crown of a soul winner for the Lord.

Charlie oozed heavenly wisdom in his dialogues with those who opposed truth and morality. He had that "wisdom that is from above" that James spoke about when he wrote:

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." (James 3: 13-18 NKJV)

Charlie manifested "the meekness of wisdom." He did as Paul described to Timothy when he wrote:

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." (II Tim. 2: 23-26 nkjv)

Charlie met earthly and demonic wisdom with the wisdom of God. He was gentle and humble in his attempts to reason with others, even with unreasonable people. Charlie's wisdom produced the "good fruits" enumerated in the above text. Further, he was no hypocrite, but lived by the morals he taught to others. 

He was an "autodidact." He denounced how universities had become indoctrination machines, instilling in young minds devilish wisdom. Charlie ably fought the Sophists of these institutions. He was a man of courage, as John the Baptist who was not afraid to denounce Herod's sin, even though it led Herod to chop off his head. Charlie tried to show how foolish it was to say that men can become women or women becoming men. He pointed people to common sense, to biblical morality, to western values. For this he was hated by evil men. We are living in a day when men "call evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5: 20), and when many are "despisers of those who are good" (II Tim. 3: 3).

Charlie was on the front line in the battle for truth and righteousness, being a "good soldier of Jesus Christ" (II Tim. 2: 3) and he "endured hardness" as such. He fought in the trenches against evil. It reminds me of the song "Keep on the Firing Line." The lyrics are as follows and describe Charlie and all good "Christian Soldiers."

1. If you’re in the battle for the Lord and right, Keep on the firing line; If you win, my brother, surely you must fight, Keep on the firing line. There are many dangers that we all must face, If we die still fighting it is no disgrace; Cowards in the service will not find a place, So keep on the firing line. 

Refrain: Oh, you must fight, be brave against all evil, Never run, nor even lag behind; If you would win for God and the right, Just keep on the firing line.

2. God will only use the soldier He can trust, Keep on the firing line; If you’ll wear a crown then bear the cross you must, Keep on the firing line. Life is but to labor for the Master dear, Help to banish evil and to spread good cheer; Great you’ll be rewarded for your service here, So keep on the firing line. 

3. When we get to heaven, brother, we’ll be glad, Keep on the firing line; How we’ll praise the Savior for the call we had, Keep on the firing line. When we see the souls that we have helped to win, Leading them to Jesus, from the paths of sin, With a shout of welcome, we will all march in, So keep on the firing line.

Charlie was murdered for doing good. He was like our Lord in this respect, who "went about doing good" (Acts 10: 38) and was hated for it. 

The work of the Lord will go on. Charlie's death has inspired many to volunteer to become one of the soldiers in the army of the Lord. So, "Onward Christian Soldiers"!  

Our prayers are with Charlie's wife, children, and family. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XV)

In this chapter we will continue to give the Two Seed views of "Old School Baptist" Elder T. P. Dudley, one of the chief defenders of Two Seedism in its beginnings in the nineteenth century among those called "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists. We have been citing from his biography as given by J. Taylor Moore (See here).

Wrote Moore:

"The idea of substituting a part of the generation of Adamic sinners as “the generation of Jesus Christ” is to subvert the whole general tenor of Bible truth. And this is just exactly what the learned John M. Watson did in his “Review of the Circular Letter of Licking Association of Particular Baptist;” namely, “the circular on the warfare,” and all others who war in like manner against the truth of God." 

Watson was one of the first "Primitive Baptists" to lead the opposition against Two Seedism, as we have before seen. An Internet search does not locate the work of Watson referenced above, wherein he reviews the Circular letter of Dudley. Perhaps he incorporated his "Review" into his book titled "The Old Baptist Test," which was first published in the late 1850s. In upcoming chapters we will read of others who followed in the steps of Watson and opposed the Two Seed wing of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church," such as Elders George Stipp, Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, and Grigg Thompson, etc. 

Wrote Moore:

"In a reply to this lengthy review of J.M. Watson, the venerable editor of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Elder Gilbert Beebe, says: “It is not our human existence that is born again. ‘That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’ Elder Watson falls into the same error in confounding the two births that Nicodemus did, in supposing them both to be applied to us as merely human beings, whereas the new birth is a spiritual birth. But in what language shall we treat the conclusion arrived at by Elder Watson that, ‘if the children of God are born of him as a consequence of a previous existence in and union to him before they are born again, as in the case of Adam, then they must needs be born gods, and not merely saints or new creatures.’ This is a very extraordinary conclusion for a man of Watson’s superior understanding to draw from the premises. We think that it is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures of truth that Christ is the life of his mystical body, that He has been their dwelling place in all generations, even from everlasting, and that upon this very principal they are his seed that shall serve him, and they shall be accounted to him for a generation."

The burden of proof was on the Two Seeders to prove that the children of God were begotten in Christ before the world began. They have no scripture which asserts such a thing. They have only one argument, which is to say that "as all human souls were created in Adam so were all spiritual souls created in the second Adam before the world began." They argued that "the seed" of Adam (his sperm) contained all the souls of every human being as Levi was in the loins of Abraham. (Heb. 7: 10) Beebe would cite Hebrews 2: 14, as we have seen, as a proof text that affirmed that Christ becoming flesh is the same in all respects as the elect becoming flesh, that as Christ existed before his incarnation, so too did the children of God. But, that is certainly not what the text is affirming. 

As we have before suggested, Two Seedism was in part spawned from a belief of some Hyper Calvinists of the 18th century who affirmed that the human soul of Christ was begotten in eternity. It was easy to jump to the conclusion that the bride of Christ (the elect) was also begotten when Christ was begotten. Thus, we have the doctrine of "eternal vital union" and of the preexistence of souls. We will have more to say on this when we give citations from Elder Lemuel Potter's articles against Two Seedism in the latter end of the nineteenth century. 

Wrote Moore:

"If they are his seed then that seed was in him as their spiritual progenitor, or seminal head, and so long as he has sustained the relationship of everlasting Father, they have existed in the relationship of children. By virtue of this relationship they are born ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ Does this birth, then, make them gods? By no means. Our pre-existence in, and lineal descent from Adam did not make us all Adams, or public federal heads of all the human family, but it made us manifest as the sons or children of Adam. So our relation to and previous existence in Christ, and our consequent descent from him by regeneration makes us manifest, not as gods, but as the sons or children of God. To charge that, the doctrine of vital relationship and the pre-existence of a spiritual life in Christ, savors very much of Manicheism, falls harmlessly and powerlessly at our feet, so long as we find in support of that soul-cheering, God-honoring, and hell-defying doctrine, that cluster of direct Scripture testimony, which he [Watson] has copied from the Licking Circular immediately preceding this charge.”

What "cluster of direct Scripture testimony"? Where do the scriptures affirm the preexistence of the souls of men in either Adam or in Christ before the world began? Is it not built upon taking some scripture hyper literally? Upon unwarranted inferences? Is it not a case of reading Two Seed ideas into certain texts?

If those who are the "children of God" have been such from eternity, then they do not become children of God in time when they are born of God. 

Many of the first "Primitive Baptists" believed in dividing the birth experience into conception, gestation in the womb, and final birth from the womb. They believed this to be true in regard to the new birth, where "regeneration" was equated with "conception" or the sowing of the seed (sperm) in the womb, and "conversion" with "deliverance" from the womb, and the time in the womb as a time when the fetus was being developed, corresponding to the time when a soul is under conviction of sin and before he finds hope in Christ. Alexander Campbell also took this paradigm and altered it by saying that the "birth" of a sinner occurs in the act of baptism, though his conception occurred when the sinner believed. Many Two Seeders also adopted this paradigm and said that the children of God were "conceived" (or 'begotten') before the world began when the Son of God was begotten, when Christ's human soul was conceived, but they are "born" when they are "born again" by the Spirit. 

When Paul spoke of "casting down imaginations" (II Cor. 10: 5) we cannot help but see Two Seedism as one of those theological "imaginations." It is certainly one of those theological "inventions" that we are warned about in scripture. (Eccl. 7: 29; Rom. 1: 30)

As we will see, such a view not only is opposed to the biblical teaching that one becomes a child of God by being begotten of God  when he believes, but also is against the Calvinist belief in "unconditional election." In the above words of Moore, defending Dudley and the Two Seed doctrine, he says that it is because of one's "previous existence in Christ" that they are born again, or God's chosen people. Two Seedism says that Christ was obligated to save his elect because they were his wife, and a husband is obligated to pay the debt of his wife. He chose them because they were in Christ. Many of those who opposed this narrative said that it taught a conditional election and was thus "Arminianism" because the choice was based upon some difference in the ones chosen. Beebe on several occasions argued this view. The reason why God chose anyone, before the world began, is because he was already "in Christ." The choice was not in order to place a person in Christ, but because one was in Christ. Thus, as Potter and others would argue, this denies unconditional election.

Wrote Moore:

"We will now give the extract from Elder Watson’s review: “We should note the qualifying adverb again in the declaration of the Savior that a man must ‘be born again, before he can see the kingdom of God.’ We shall then learn that human beings are born again, those who have already derived by a natural birth personal existence from Adam in such a manner that each one has become a distinct person, an I, me, one’s self. The very I, one’s own self must, says Christ, be ‘born of the Spirit.’ How? In consequence of an actual eternal existence in and union to the spirit? No, verily, for that would be downright Manicehanism. The I, me, or one’s self is brought into an actual union with Christ through the quickening, sanctifying, and transforming power of the Holy Spirit; thus this actual union has a beginning with the creature, and becomes one of life, the soul that is dead in trespasses and sins is quickened into spiritual life … Hence to be born again does not imply a previous actual eternal existence in and union to the spirit.”

In other words, why would the Lord say to Nicodemus "you must be born again" if he was already spiritually born before the world began? Further, is the "you" not the human Nicodemus? The one who had been born physically, i.e. the "Adam man"? It is a gross twisting of scripture to read the text as "you must have your preexistent self enter into you to manifest your prior birth of God"? Watson correctly affirms that actual vital union with Christ occurs when "the soul" or spirit that is spiritually dead is made alive. 

Wrote Moore:

"Now I desire to ask in all candor, what better is the position of Modern Old School Baptists who claim that it is “the sinner that is born again” of the Spirit, or from above, for their view of vital union is the same sporadic disease that affects every religious organization known on earth, that profess to believe in the operation of the Spirit? And all classes of Arminians can receive it as a weapon against the chosen generation of Jesus Christ."

Two Seedism is a novelty, and not the Orthodox view of Christians, and they even acknowledge this fact. Yes, it borrowed ideas from other sources, as we have seen, but the particular combination of those ideas is what is new, at least among Baptists. "The sinner" is not the one who is born of God? It is bewildering that a Baptist, or any other Bible believer, could read the bible and come to that conclusion.

Next, Moore begins to give us some other writings of Dudley and from these we now wish to cite.

SELECT WRITINGS OF T. P. DUDLEY. THE ADAMIC STATE. Near Lexington, Ky., Feb.16, 1841.

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - Although a controversy has been going on between the Old and New School Baptists in the west, for some years, in relation to what Adam was antecedently to his transgressing the divine command, yet I was not aware of a discrepancy in the views of “Old School” Baptists, on that point, until I read your editorial remarks in number 20, vol.8, of the SIGNS, in which your readers are informed that “a part of the Redstone Baptist Association, Pennsylvania,” take exception to the views contained in the circular of the Licking Association of 1839. I had hitherto supposed that association to be “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone,” and consequently that she recognized the Bible as the only infallible standard of faith and practice. I am very sure that no evidence can be had thence to sustain the opinion that he was spiritual; and I confess I was surprised to learn that such an idea was entertained even by a part of that body. The New School party in this country assume that he was a spiritual being; hence he was obliged to the performance of spiritual duties, such as evangelical faith and repentance, and liable to condemnation for non-compliance. I say assume, because it is assumption without proof; indeed the proof is altogether on the other side, and we have abundant cause of adoration to God that it is so – were it otherwise, the christian’s hope would be entirely prostrated."

The Two Seed idea that Adam was unfit for heaven and enjoyment of God even before his fall is totally untenable. In my years with the Hardshells I often heard them saying that Adam was not in any sense a spiritual being, and as such could do nothing spiritual, nothing holy, nothing pleasing to God. However, if Adam became spiritually dead when he sinned, then he must have been spiritually alive. Yet, many Hardshells would say that Adam did not die spiritually. I used to reject that idea when I heard it. So too did father, probably because he came to the "Primitive Baptist Church" from the Missionary Baptists and did not cease believing in some truths held to by the Missionaries. One of those beliefs, as we have seen, was father retaining the view that Satan and other angels fell from heaven, a view that got him into hot water with many Hardshells. He would often argue with other Hardshells who wanted to say that Adam did not die spiritually when he sinned.

It is absurd for the Two Seeders to say that Adam, prior to his sin, had no duty to believe God or obey him, for according to them he had no ability to do anything spiritual. 

Wrote Dudley:

"If, as is contended by some, the object of the second Adam was to restore the ruins of the first, why is the curse not removed from the ground? Why does it yet produce “thorns and thistles?” And why has man yet in the sweat of his face to eat his bread?" 

This is fallacious reasoning by Dudley. Does he not know that salvation occurs in stages? That redemption is not yet complete? Restoration will be fully realized when Christ returns, and then there will be no more curse, no more thorns and thistles, etc. So we read where Peter said:

"whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 21 nkjv) 

Initial restoration occurs when a person is united to Christ by faith and is converted. It is then that "the image and likeness of God" is recreated. Adam was originally made in the image and likeness of God. But, sin and death altered or defaced that image. Restoration of that image begins when a soul is born of God. Yet it is not complete, for that restoration or transformation is continuous and progressive throughout the life of the believer. He is being "conformed to the image" of the Son of God, which is a restoration of the image that was lost by sin. 

Wrote Dudley:

"But to return; All the perceptions and powers bestowed upon man in his creation were purely of the natural kind; hence his feelings, his enjoyments and happiness are all earthly. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

That is false. Adam was a spiritual man. If he was not, then he could not die spiritually. But, he did die spiritually. Ergo, he was previously alive spiritually. 

"The natural man" that Paul mentions in First Corinthians 2: 14 is not Adam as originally made, but of a sinful fallen man. Yes, he does refer to Adam's body as being natural in First Corinthians chapter fifteen, but he does not affirm that Adam was not spiritual in his soul, mind, heart, or spirit.

In "Was Adam Made Spiritual?" Sylvester Hassell, "Primitive Baptist" historian and apologist, we find the following comments made by him (Posted by Marchtozion.com on August 21, 2020 - See here):

"Question. Was Adam made a spiritual man, and did he die a spiritual death when he ate the forbidden fruit?"

"The truly humble soul does not desire to indulge in such speculations, or to hear or read such speculations from other (Psa. cxxxi.; Isa. viii 20.; Acts xvii. 11; 1 Tim. Vi. 3-5; 2 Tim. Iii. 15-17). We know from the scriptures that Adam was made with a body and a soul (Gen.ii 7; Ecc. Xii. 7), and yet that he was made a natural man (1 Cor. Xv. 45-49). Though he had a human spirit, he was not spiritual in the sense in which God’s children are who are born of the Divine Spirit. And we know, from the Scriptures, that, when he ate the for bidden fruit, he died to the pleasant communion that he had before with God, became dead in trespasses and sins (Gen ii. 17; Eph. ii 1), and that he became subject to Divine wrath and to physical and eternal death unless saved by Divine mercy. Gen iii. 17, 19; Rom. V. 12, 21. Some call the death in trespasses and sin spiritual death; if by the phrase “spiritual death” they mean death in trespasses and sins, let us bear with them, and not make our brother an offender for a mere word or expression, when he means only what that Scriptures declare (Is. xxix. 21).” (From Gospel Messenger of Oct., 1902) (emphasis mine)

Though Hassell was an opponent of Two Seedism, nevertheless, as we have seen, he, like many of today's "Primitive Baptists," often showed remnants of Two Seedism in various ways. The above is another example of this fact, just as was Hassell's and others of his brethren's reluctance to say that Satan and the angels fell from the third heaven. How can he deny that sinners are spiritually dead? The text from First Corinthians chapter fifteen that says that Adam, when created, was a "natural man," refers to his physical body. It is not till the resurrection that the natural body will be made spiritual. If Adam had "pleasant communion with God" as Hassell says, then that is the essence of spirituality. 

When I was a young Hardshell Baptist I traveled with my father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett Sr., as he went on preaching tours among the "Primitive Baptists." Often father would have Bible discussions with various elders and I remember many of them not wanting to admit that Adam died spiritually. Father believed that Adam did die spiritually. Father came to the Hardshells from the Missionary Baptists and that kept him from embracing certain Two Seed ideas that would come up in those discussions, because he continued to believe that Satan and other angels fell from the third heaven, that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens to the saved and unsaved when they die, and that Adam died spiritually. 

In the "SELECT WRITINGS OF T. P. DUDLEY" as given by Moore, we have Dudley's article titled "THE ADAMIC STATE" written from Lexington, Ky., Feb.16, 1841. His article was published in the "Signs of the Times." He wrote to the editor, fellow Two Seed Primitive Baptist leader, Gilbert Beebe as follows:

"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: 

Although a controversy has been going on between the Old and New School Baptists in the west, for some years, in relation to what Adam was antecedently to his transgressing the divine command, yet I was not aware of a discrepancy in the views of “Old School” Baptists, on that point, until I read your editorial remarks in number 20, vol.8, of the SIGNS, in which your readers are informed that “a part of the Redstone Baptist Association, Pennsylvania,” take exception to the views contained in the circular of the Licking Association of 1839. I had hitherto supposed that association to be “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone,” and consequently that she recognized the Bible as the only infallible standard of faith and practice. I am very sure that no evidence can be had thence to sustain the opinion that he was spiritual; and I confess I was surprised to learn that such an idea was entertained even by a part of that body. The New School party in this country assume that he was a spiritual being; hence he was obliged to the performance of spiritual duties, such as evangelical faith and repentance, and liable to condemnation for non-compliance. I say assume, because it is assumption without proof; indeed the proof is altogether on the other side, and we have abundant cause of adoration to God that it is so – were it otherwise, the christian’s hope would be entirely prostrated."

Dudley uses a fallacious argument when he infers that those who are called "Old School" Baptists cannot believe that Adam died spiritually because this was believed by "the New School party." This argument is built upon the premise that the "New School" or "Missionary" Baptists cannot possibly be right on anything. Further, even as Hassell admits, the Hardshells of the nineteenth century differed on the question, some affirming that Adam died spiritually. Hassell stated that the issue should not be a test of fellowship if those who say Adam died spiritually simply meant that he became "dead in trespasses and sins." This statement reveals that the question was often a bone of contention among the Hardshells, and this is because the denial that Adam died spiritually is another instance of the remnants of Two Seedism among them.

Wrote Dudley further:

"But to return; All the perceptions and powers bestowed upon man in his creation were purely of the natural kind; hence his feelings, his enjoyments and happiness are all earthly. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Here Dudley presents what is called a false dichotomy by assuming that the "natural man" of First Corinthians 2: 14 and First Corinthians 15: 44, 46 are the same. They are not. In the former passage "the natural man" is the man in his fallen state and who is either without the biblical revelation and Holy Spirit or one who rejects both. The "natural man" of the latter refers to what Adam was before the fall in his physical being, in his body. 

To be spiritually dead is to be "cut off" from God. So the prophet said "your iniquities have separated you from your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you." (Isa. 59: 2) Adam, when first created, was without sin, and enjoyed God's presence, and seeing God face to face. Therefore he was spiritually alive. Further, being created in the image and likeness of God implies having spiritual life. Further, if sin "separated" or "cut off" Adam from God, then he must have been previously joined or united to God.

Thankfully some "Primitive Baptists" do affirm that Adam died spiritually, and that all are born spiritually dead as a result, except for Christ. In "The Fall of Man" by Elder Jeremiah Bass (See here), pastor of Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, we see the truth affirmed which says that Adam died spiritually when he sinned. Wrote Bass (emphasis mine):

"The curse that fell upon Adam and all his offspring was death, according to the terms of God’s covenant with Adam: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). Now certainly physical death is partly to be understood here. But Adam and Eve did not immediately die in that sense. Rather, we are on surer footing if we understand death as the curse accompanying disobedience to the Divine command in its fuller sense as encompassing spiritual, physical, and eternal death. Thus, Adam and Eve were not only going to die physically (which they did, see Gen. 5:5), but also they immediately died spiritually, and were exposed to die eternally."

This was father's position and would argue it with other fellow Hardshells who were against that idea.

Wrote Bass:

"What does it mean to die spiritually? The apostle Paul again comes to our aid with his words to the Ephesian church: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:1-3). Here we learn that spiritual death is characterized by bondage to the world, to the Devil, and to the lusts of the flesh."

Adam walked with God before he sinned. Therefore, he was spiritually alive. He also was under law, and Paul says that "the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14), and so Adam was obligated to be spiritual in obeying it. He had a duty to be, and actually was, when originally made in the image and likeness of God, "spiritually minded" (Rom. 8: 6), and so was "spiritually alive," for Paul says "to be spiritually minded is life and peace." The logical conclusion of Dudley and the Two Seeders on this point leads them to deny that any man is spiritually dead, and if not spiritually dead, then being "quickened" by the Spirit does not give spiritual life to the spiritually dead.