Did Allah Say The Jews Did Not Kill Jesus?

Muslims deny that Christ died by crucifixion. They do so in spite of the historical proof of it, attested to by non Christians and atheists. A large portion of Muslims disbelieve this historical fact based upon some statements in the Quran which they interpret to mean that Christ was saved from crucifixion by Allah putting in his place a substitute so that he only "appeared" to have been the one crucified. If this is true, then Allah is the reason why Christians have been duped into believing that Christ was crucified from a false gospel record.

Furthermore, Allah, through Muhammad, told the Christians in his days to judge themselves by the gospel. But, if the gospel had been corrupted prior to the time of Muhammad, then ergo the Christians were being advised by Allah and Muhammad to abide by a false gospel. That is one of the dilemmas of Islam. So we read in the Quran:

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious" (Quran 5:47). 

How could people of the Gospel judge by the Gospel if it had been corrupted and so much added to it? Also, since Allah promises to preserve his word, whether in the Torah, Gospels, or Quran, how can a Muslim say the Gospel has been altered and changed? The Gospel that was in existence in the days of Muhammad is the same Gospel we have today, and in it the crucifixion is testified to.

Here is the chief text in the Quran that Muslims think denies the crucifixion of Christ.

"They were condemned for breaking their covenant, rejecting Allah’s signs, killing the prophets unjustly, and for saying, “Our hearts are unreceptive!”—it is Allah Who has sealed their hearts for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few—and for their denial and outrageous accusation against Mary, and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise." (Surah 4:155-158; See here)

However, as we will see, this text is capable of being interpreted in a manner where the crucifixion of Christ is not denied. Many Christians who debate Muslims point these things out.

First of all, it seems that the above passage contradicts this passage in the same Quran.

"Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection. In the end, unto Me you all must return, and I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were wont to differ." (Surah 3: 55; See here)

The apparent conflict arises from the various meanings of the Arabic word mutawaffika in Surah 3:55. This Web Page (here) gives the many different translations of that text. It seems clear to me that the word means just exactly as it is often translated by Muslims themselves, and means "I will cause thee to die."

Further, in the Quran we are given these words that were said to be spoken by Jesus:

"Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (Surah 19: 33)

So, the question is not whether Jesus died, but did he die by crucifixion, and if so, why? Christians believe that it was in order that Jesus might die as a sacrifice for sin, and to take the punishment due to sinners. In this way God is just, for transgression must be punished (though Muslims deny this), and also merciful and forgiving, based upon that sacrifice, so that those who receive the sacrifice, atonement, or propitiation, may be saved.

Other Interpretations of Surah 3: 55

Surah 3: 55 is capable of several interpretations and so is not a clear proof that Allah is denying that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Also, if it means that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, then the Quran contradicts itself and denies what is an historical fact, as we have stated. Here are other possible interpretations:

1) When Allah says "but they (the Jews who boasted that they had killed Jesus and that this proved that he was not the Messiah per the context) neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that they did not kill him entirely, for only his body died and not his soul, even as the Quran teaches. Jesus also himself spoke of those who "kill the body but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10: 28).

2) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that it was really not the Jews who killed him, but God, for even texts in the Quran uphold this principle. In Surah 8: 17, in commenting upon Muslims who killed unbelievers in battle, Allah says "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them." So, when Surah 3: 55 says "they neither killed nor crucified him" it could mean that it was God who killed Jesus and that the Jews were merely his instruments. This would be what the Bible itself teaches. Further, as we have seen, Allah in the Quran says "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die."

3) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant just what Jesus meant when he said "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” (John 10: 17-18 nkjv)

4) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that their boast was untrue, that their thinking that their killing Jesus proved that he was not the Messiah was untrue.

5) The text could also mean "they did not kill him" because Allah raised him from the dead, and this is what is meant when the text says "Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself." Raised him from what? Was it not from the dead, and then later from the earth via the ascension into heaven?

There are some good debates on YouTube between Muslims and Christians. The best debaters for Christians, in my opinion, are Sam Shamoun, David Wood, and James White. Here are some introductory videos that are good.

"The Quran DOESN'T Say What Muslims Think It Says!" by David Wood, a man who has had many debates with Muslims and is an expert on the Christian versus Muslim debate. (See here)

"What the Quran REALLY Says about the Gospel" by David Wood (here)

What The Quran Says About the Gospels

Wrote one source (See here)

"The crux of the argument is this: The Quran affirms the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the New Testament Gospels; yet the Quran also contradicts the Gospels on major theological and historical points. Therefore, the Quran cannot be reliable."

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." (Quran 3: 3)

Said the source in commentary upon such texts in the Quran:

"These Scriptures from God were available and trustworthy when the Qur’an was revealed in the 7th century A.D., and those who had access to them were repeatedly told to obey them, judge by them, submit to their teaching, and stand fast upon them."

Qur’an 5:47 says, “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

"Furthermore, Qur’an 5:68 states, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord’” (see also 6:114; 3:3-4)."

Under "THE PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL" the same source says:

"If the Gospels were trustworthy in the 600s AD, then they are certainly trustworthy today because our extant manuscripts pre-date the Qur’an by centuries. Perhaps even more significant for Muslims is the Qur’an’s statement that no one can change the words of Allah.[3]"

Qur’an 6:115 says, “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (see also 18:27)."

The same source makes this commentary on these Quranic texts:

"If the Gospels are the words of God, and no one can change God’s words, then the Gospels must also have been perfectly preserved by God. Otherwise, the Qur’an is wrong."

"Here’s the dilemma for Muslims: If the Gospels are not trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches that the Gospels are the inspired, perfectly preserved, authoritative words of God. But if the Gospels are trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches contradictory, mutually exclusive facts about key issues. Either way, the Qur’an is false."

"While these verses and others (2:75; 4:46; 5:13; 3:187) do teach that people falsified the Scriptures for money and concealed the truth even though they knew it, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that teaches the Christian Scriptures have been permanently corrupted, with their message ultimately lost to history."

Brothers: Beware of the Animals (VI)

In the previous postings in this series we have spoken of the various animals that are used to describe certain people who antagonize and afflict the people of God. Paul said he had "fought with beasts at Ephesus" (I Cor. 15: 32) and we have suggested that he meant human beings who are beasts, some being compared to dogs, or wolves, or foxes, or lions. But, we cannot leave this subject without mentioning snakes. In the passage above Jesus speaks of his opposers being snakes or vipers. So too did John the Baptist, as Matthew records:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. 3: 7 nkjv)

In one topical Bible we have these words about snakes, vipers, or serpents. (See here)

"Snakes, often referred to as serpents or vipers in the Bible, hold significant symbolic and literal roles throughout the Scriptures. They are frequently associated with deception, sin, and judgment, yet also serve as instruments of God's will and symbols of wisdom. The imagery of snakes is woven into the biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation, reflecting their complex role in the spiritual and physical realms."

People today will say of someone that "he is a snake" or "he is a snake in the grass." By that they mean that such persons are sneaky, deceitful, and dangerous. You must be on the lookout for such. We also hear it said: "snakes can't be friends, but friends can be snakes." Sometimes we say of someone that he has "snake eyes," meaning an evil, sinister, devilish, or devious look. Sometimes we hear it said of someone or something that he or it is "lower than a snake's belly." The native American Indians often would say that a person speaks "with tongue of snake" or with "forked tongue," meaning they tell lies or speak out of both sides of their mouths. Not only that, but similarly we use the word "venom" metaphorically for people who "spew" or "spit" venom, as do cobras. By this is meant the words of hate that come forth from people's mouths, of their venting their anger through verbal attacks. These are words that are intended to "sting" or cause pain to others to whom they are addressed, sharp or cutting remarks that are "biting." We also see this usage in scripture.

Snakes as symbols are frequent and numerous throughout history as well as in scripture. They are symbols of wisdom and is why Jesus said --

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10: 16 nkjv)

Vipers (poisonous snakes) are not "harmless." So, Jesus wants his people to emulate one aspect of serpents or snakes, but not the aspect of being harmful to souls. Most often in scripture the symbol of the serpent or viper is a symbol of devilish wisdom. James wrote of this in his letter, saying:

"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." (James 3: 14-17 nkjv)

When Christ says "be wise as serpents" he means to be cunning, but not for evil ends. He also advises that his disciples be wise about carnal things, about handling money, about making good decisions, about being ingenious, clever, skilled, creative, inventive, in things dealing with life. The Lord spoke to Jeremiah about those "who are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." (Jer. 4: 22 NKJV)

Wrote Dr. Barnes in his commentary on Matthew 10: 16:

"Probably the thing in which Christ directed his followers to imitate the serpent was in its caution in avoiding danger. No animal equals them in the rapidity and skill which they evince in escaping danger. So said Christ to his disciples, You need caution and wisdom in the midst of a world that will seek your lives."

John Gill in his commentary wrote:

"The serpent is a very sharp sighted, cunning creature, and uses various arts and stratagems for its own preservation, and especially of its head; and is so far to be imitated by the followers of Christ, as to make use of all proper methods to preserve themselves from the insults and rage of men, and not expose themselves to unnecessary dangers: and, as much as in them lies, they should be careful to give no just occasion of offence, or irritate, and provoke them to use them ill, and to avoid all snares and traps that are laid for them; and, at the same time, maintain the innocence and harmlessness of the dove..."

Serpents have historically symbolized wisdom and medical knowledge and healing primarily due to their association with Asclepius, the Greek god of healing. Their ability to shed their skin represents renewal and rebirth. The single serpent on a staff, known as the Rod of Asclepius, is the correct medical symbol, while the double-serpent caduceus is mistakenly used as a medical symbol, originally representing commerce and communication.

Snakes, like the other animals we have discussed, are creatures that prey on other creatures, seeking to catch and devour them. In doing this they can be crafty and subtle, sly, sneaky, creepy. Their chief danger lies in their poison and venomous nature. So we read of "the poison of serpents of the dust" (Deut. 32: 24 kjv); And citing Psalm 140: 3, Paul writes: "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips." (Rom. 3: 13 kjv) By "asps" means venomous snakes. Paul connects asps or vipers with deceivers and their poison or venom with deception and harmful things that come out of the mouths of such.

In describing the wicked enemies of Israel, the Lord's people, Moses gave us this oracle: "Their wine is the poison of serpents, And the cruel venom of cobras." (Deut. 32: 33 nkjv) The Psalmist wrote: "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear, Which will not heed the voice of charmers, Charming ever so skillfully." (Psa. 58: 4-5 nkjv) Isaiah wrote: "They hatch vipers’ eggs and weave the spider’s web; He who eats of their eggs dies, And from that which is crushed a viper breaks out." (Isa. 59: 5 nkjv) Isaiah uses the imagery of vipers to describe the wickedness and deceit of Israel's leaders. In Isaiah 14:29 he warns the Philistines of a future judgment, stating, "From the root of the snake will spring up a viper, and its fruit will be a darting, venomous serpent." In Genesis we also read: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward." (Gen. 49: 17 kjv)

We have also seen how these various animals, in depicting evil men who are enemies of God and his people, also depict the chief leader of such men, i.e. Satan. We have seen how he is the Alpha dog, the leader of the pack of wolves, or foxes, and the lion king of his evil pride of lions. So too is he the chief serpent or snake. He is called "that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world" (Rev. 12: 9). This alludes to the first mention of a serpent in Genesis chapter three where the serpent is described as "more cunning (or subtil kjv) than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made" (Genesis 3:1). This serpent tempts, beguiles, allures, baits, traps, deceives, fools, cons, etc., Eve, leading to the fall of man, but who is later cursed by God. Paul refers to this when he writes:

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”" (II Cor. 11: 3 kjv)

There are lots of these kinds of deceivers who have slithered into the midst of the church of God. Peter speaks of them saying that they are constantly "beguiling unstable souls" (II Peter 2: 14). Sadly the church has had many of these snake preachers, or "snake oil merchants," who have crept in among them. Not only in the church, but in life every Christian will face men who are snakes, scorpions, lions, wolves, foxes, etc. So we read how the Lord, speaking to his covenant people, was the one “who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, in which were fiery serpents and scorpions" (Deut. 8: 15 nkjv) The wilderness journey pictures the life of believers. People who hike through the woods, or grasslands, or jungles, are ever on the lookout for snakes and other venomous creatures. So too do we all need to watch out for such as we walk through life.

Serpents of Divine Judgment

In the wilderness, the Israelites encounter serpents as a form of divine judgment. Numbers 21:6-9 recounts how the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and many Israelites died. In response, God instructs Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole, so that anyone bitten could look at it and live. This event foreshadows the redemptive work of Christ, as referenced in John 3:14-15.

“For behold, I will send serpents among you, Vipers which cannot be charmed, And they shall bite you,” says the LORD." (Jer. 8: 17 nkjv)

Though this is literally true as regards literal snakes, yet it is also true of people who are snake-like in their behavior. These snakes and other harmful creatures are sent as punishments, but they are also at times sent as tests to try people's profession and to uncover the hypocrites. So we read:

“If there arises among you a prophet or a a dreamer of dreams, band he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13: 1-3 nkjv)

It was in order to test our first parents that Lord God permitted Satan to appear as a serpent to tempt them to disobey the commandment given to them. Likewise, he permits Satan's brood of vipers, in the form of deceivers, to endanger his people as they journey through the desert wilderness of this world.

Victory Over Serpents

“Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you." (Luke 10: 19 nkjv)

This promise was given to seventy evangelists who Christ Jesus sent to go out to all the cities of Israel. He said this to them upon their return from their mission, wherein they were able to heal the sick and to work miracles and to cast out demons. This same power and authority was given to the apostles. Though there is some questions about the authenticity of the following verses, yet they do relate to the above promise.

"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16: 17-18 nkjv)

Though we cannot know for sure what "they will take up serpents" in the name of Christ means, yet I think it has several areas where it may have been fulfilled. The promise was not made to the apostles only, but to all "those who believe." This passage has been used by certain Pentecostal cults who handle vipers in order to demonstrate that they are those believers Christ referenced to in that passage. However, nearly all of them who do so end up being bitten, and many of them die, which shows that they were not the believers of the text, or that the promise of the text was limited to the early church. 

We know that Moses, when he appeared before Pharaoh, turned his staff into a serpent to demonstrate the power of the Hebrew God who had sent him. When Pharaoh's magicians appeared to do the same, the snake serpent of Moses ate those of the magicians. In the early days of the apostles and church, many of the saints "worked miracles" in order to give proof of their divine authority. So we read of the martyr Stephen who "did great wonders and miracles among the people" (Acts 6: 8). So too with Philip the evangelist. (Acts 8: 13) "God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul" (Acts 19: 11). To some in the church God gave the gift of "working of miracles" (I Cor. 121: 10). See also Gal. 3: 5 and Heb. 2: 4. So, it is quite probable that these miracle workers imitated Moses. This would be a case where they "took up serpents" by an act of choice. Most of us would run from such venomous serpents! But, when confronted with them, perhaps they simply picked them up and moved them out of harm's way. However, sometimes the vipers would not be picked up, but would bite a servant of the Lord without warning. This was the case with the apostle Paul.

"But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand." (Acts 28: 3 nkjv)

However, though this is true in a literal sense, it is also true as respects human snakes and other dangerous creatures. Just as dogs, wolves, lions, etc., are applied to the enemies of the Lord's people, so too are serpents, snakes, asps, and vipers. God has promised that his people will not be so harmed by these deceivers so as to be forever destroyed by them. They too are given power over serpents and scorpions, lions, wolves, etc. 

The following texts of scripture point to the final destruction of Satan the chief serpent, and of all other snakes who have invaded and attacked the people of God.

"In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." (Isa. 27: 1 kjv)

"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." (Rom. 16: 20 nkjv)

The end time second coming of Christ Jesus the Lord will completely fulfill this promise. The crushing of the ancient evil serpent was prophesied by God himself in the protoevangelium.

"So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Gen. 3: 14-15 niv)

We see how this promise of making serpents harmless will be fulfilled for the people of God and the sheep nations in the coming millennial age, and in the ages of the ages, and is described by Isaiah the prophet in these two instances.

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the LORD." (Isa. 65: 25 nkjv)

"The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest." (Isa. 11: 8 niv)

Prior to the time when the Lord fulfills these promises, we will once again see him send serpents among the world's population as he did to the Israelites when they departed from the Lord (Jer. 8: 17), but not only serpents, but demonic locusts too (Rev. chpt. 9) in conjunction with the day of judgment and great Tribulation. We also read the following words from the Apocalypse describing those years when terrible judgments from God are sent into the world for punishment, just as he did to the Egyptians prior to the redemption of his chosen people.

"So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth." (Rev. 6: 8 nkjv)

For now the fear of man has restrained the animals to some degree, but the day is coming when they (the beasts of the earth) will be moved to attack humans in a gigantic way and be one of the ways God kills the impenitent haters of God during that awful time.

So, let us walk carefully and circumspectly (Eph. 5: 15) and be on the look out for the snakes, wolves, lions, etc. Let us also be "wise as serpents" in the way Christ intended. Let us beware of the poison of false doctrine spewed from the mouths of false teachers.

Spurgeon on Ordo Salutis

The following is another proof that Charles Spurgeon did not believe, at least in his older and more mature years, that people were regenerated, or had spiritual life, before they believed. In his sermon "Life in Christ" (December 31, 1870; See here) he said:

"It is a distinguishing mark of a true follower of Jesus that he sees his Lord and Master when he is not to be seen by the bodily eye; he sees him intelligently and spiritually; he knows his Lord, discerns his character, apprehends him by faith, gazes upon him with admiration as our first sight of Christ brought us into spiritual life, for we looked unto him and were saved, so it is by the continuance of this spiritual sight of Christ that our spiritual life is consciously maintained. We lived by looking, we live still by looking. Faith is still the medium by which life comes to us from the life-giving Lord."

"As surely as I have this day eternal life by reason of faith in Christ Jesus, so surely shall I reach its fullness when Christ who is my life shall appear."

Many think that Calvinists all believe that regeneration precedes faith. But, this is an error. I have numerous articles in this blog and in the Baptist Gadfly blog which shows that many Calvinists as Spurgeon did not believe it, contending rather that sinners are born again, or obtain spiritual life, by faith. This was even the view of John Calvin.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XX)

The question that Lord God asks the prophet Job in the above text is intended to affirm that Job did not exist in any real sense when the world was created. Had God asked the same question to Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, and other apologists for Two Seedism, they would have answered - "Lord, you know that we existed from eternity in Christ, being in his loins as Levi was in the loins of Abraham." 

As we have seen in earlier chapters, the idea of the preexistence of souls was not only a leading tenet of Two Seedism among "Primitive Baptists" but also of other Christian cults, such as in church father Origen, and some sub cults within Catholicism. For instance I came across a book titled "Pre-Existence of the Souls of Christ and Mary. Falsification of the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople" (See here) In that book we read these citations (emphasis mine):

"The pre-existence of the Souls of Christ and Mary: Saint Gregory XVII taught this vital dogma in one of his first great doctrinal documents. It is an essential doctrine for understanding many Old Testament mysteries."

"Nonetheless, in the former Acts (falsified) of the Second Council of Constantinople is read: “If anyone should say or feel that the Soul of the Lord pre-existed united to the Word of God before the Incarnation and Birth from the Virgin, let him be anathema.” But this goes against the Bible, which has greater force, where Saint Paul says that “Christ, as Man, is visible Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of all creatures!” (Letter to the Colossians)." 

What these words show is that the belief of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists is also believed by other fringe groups of professing Christians. We have also stated that Mormonism also teaches the preexistence of souls, possibly a view that Joseph Smith and company borrowed from Parker et.al, seeing it was formulated in the 1830s and 1840s, and because Smith had read Parker's books on the subject and had been reading the "Signs of the Times."  

In previous chapters we have given the Two Seed view of Paul's "old man" versus "new man" wherein Two Seeders contended that the "old man" is the human being, or the Adam man's soul, body, and spirit, and where the "new man" is the preexistent child of God. Ironically, however, the Two Seed system makes the "new man" to be older than the "old man." 

The same may be true relative to Adam and to the "second Adam" in Two Seedism, for Two Seeders make the second Adam to be the "Mediatorial" Christ who was begotten in eternity past as the Son of God and which involved his obtaining his human soul. That being so, the human Christ, as the second Adam, preceded the first or earthly Adam, and must therefore be the first Adam and the earthly Adam then becomes the second Adam.

We have shown in previous chapters that one of the leading arguments of the Two Seeders was to affirm that the Son of God in being begotten by the Father, before the creation of the world or any other thing, was at that time "made" or "created" the "Mediator," or "Head," of all the "body of Christ," i.e. all the members of the church or body of the elect. This is why many of those who opposed the Two Seed wing of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist church accused them of being "Arian." The scriptures however do not teach that the Son of God has actually been a mediator, head, or high priest from eternity.

Christ the Head

Does the fact that Christ was pre-ordained to be the "head" of the church prove that 1) he existed as a human composite being from eternity, and 2) that the church or body of Christ existed from eternity?

Argument 

Christ is not only the head of the church, but is 1) the head of every man, and 2) the head of all principalities and powers. If Christ has been the head from eternity, and if being head implies the existence of the entity over which he is head, then all men are uncreated eternal beings, and so are all principalities and powers. Notice these verses:

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (I Cor. 11: 3 nkjv)

"...and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." (Col. 2: 10 nkjv)

If we accept the logic of the Two Seeders, then we will have to conclude that every man, and every other thing, is uncreated and has existed from eternity.

In another article by T. P Dudley, as J. Taylor Moore gives it in Dudley's biography (See here), titled "ONE MEDIATOR" and written from Lexington, Ky., Dec.10, 1854. Dudley wrote:

"Would there be any more propriety in denying that we had any existence, antecedently to our natural birth; than in denying the existence of the manhood of our glorious Mediator, antecedently to his being brought forth of the virgin?" 

Again, we remind the reader that this idea of the preexistent manhood of Christ was taught by Joseph Hussey and other Hyper Calvinists at the start of the 18th century in England. We will have more to say about this in future chapters, especially when we look at Elder Lemuel Potter's writings against Two Seedism. Needless to say, the Bible does not teach such. Christ, as man, was created or begotten in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. He preexisted his incarnation as the eternal Son of God, or Word of God, or second person in the Trinity.

Wrote Dudley:

"Jesus said, “I came down from heaven.” Was it the Godhead or the man that came down from heaven? As God, “Heaven is his throne; and the earth his footstool.” This is a very deep matter, and I dare not go beyond what is revealed. “Revealed things belong to us and to our children.” The world existed at least four thousand years before the incarnation of the WORD, was the world, in existence, these four thousand years without a Mediator? Who is the Mediator as known in the Bible? If we shall be told that Jesus Christ in his Godhead, or divine nature, was the Mediator during these four thousand years, we shall reply, is Christ not in his Godhead, or divine nature, essentially God? Is not God one? “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.” Gal.3:20. The question recurs, Who was the mediator during those years? The bible reply is, “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” But who is he? “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.” I Tim.2:5. Now, if this mediator, this man, Christ Jesus, did not exist during that period, through what medium did Abel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with many others, approach a mercy seat? What has become of the millions and myriads, who lived and died in these four thousand years?" 

It was God that came down from heaven. John 1: 14 is clear on this point. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth." John says "the Word was God" and this God was made flesh.

The second question asks whether the Son of God was a Mediator prior to his incarnation. No, he was not. He was appointed to be such, but was not actually so. The Mediatorship of Christ is connected with his Priesthood. 

When Did Christ Become High Priest?

"This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 6: 19-20 nkjv)

"For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." (Heb. 7: 28 nkjv)

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises." (Heb. 8: 6 nkjv)

"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 11, 15 nkjv)

In order for the eternal Son of God to become a mediator and high priest between God and man, he had to become a man, because he had to be both God and man. He could only represent God to men as God, and he could only represent men to God as a man. So Paul testified: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (I Tim. 2: 5 nkjv) The incarnation of the eternal Word and Son of God was essential to his work as a savior, redeemer, priest, and mediator. It is by his work as such that he is able to "reconcile" God and condemned men.

The above texts tell us 1) that the divine Son of God, before his incarnation, was not a mediator, high priest, savior, or redeemer, and 2) that his "becoming" such via his incarnation had retroactive results for all believers in the old testament. Therefore, Christ' mediatorial and redemptive work did not occur prior to his incarnation, and therefore the argument of Two Seeders is invalid, which says that the Son of God has always been priest and mediator even from eternity, and therefore his humanity must also have been from eternity. Such a view makes the incarnation unnecessary.

The above texts tell us that Christ' priesthood, which involved his work of mediation, began in time following his incarnation. His priesthood began with God's oath and is connected with the new covenant, and not with the old covenant, and this oath was not made before the law was given, nor from eternity, but in time.

Wrote Dudley:

"When we resort to the “more sure word of prophecy,” we there learn, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” John 3:13. Again, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” John 6:62. Again, “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” Eph.4:9,10."

The texts cited by Dudley do not prove that the humanity of Christ came down from heaven, nor that the man Christ existed from eternity. Wrote John Gill in his commentary on John 3: 13:

"Not that he brought down from heaven with him, either the whole of his human nature, or a part of it; either an human soul, or an human body; nor did he descend locally, by change of place, he being God omnipresent, infinite and immense, but by assumption of the human nature into union with his divine person: even the son of man which is in heaven; at the same time he was then on earth: not that he was in heaven in his human nature, and as he was the son of man; but in his divine nature, as he was the Son of God; see John 1:18..."

Prior to Christ taking upon him "the form of a servant" he existed in the "form of God." So, when he says he came down from heaven, he means he as God came down from heaven.

Wrote Gill further:

"...though this is predicated of his person, as denominated from the human nature, which was proper to him only in his divine nature; for such is omnipresence, or to be in heaven and earth at the same time: just as on the other hand God is said to purchase the church with his blood, and the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, Acts 20:28, where those things are spoken of Christ, as denominated from his divine nature, which were proper only to his human nature; and is what divines call a communication of idioms or properties; and which will serve as a key to open all such passages of Scripture..."

On John 6: 63 Gill writes:

"...ascend up where he was before? for Christ was, he existed before his incarnation, and he was in heaven before; not in his human nature, but as the word and Son of God: and he intimates, that when he had done his work, and the will of his Father, for which he came down from heaven, by the assumption of the human nature, he should ascend up thither again..."

Christ means that he existed prior to his incarnation as the eternal Word and Son of God. John 1: 14 says "the Word was made flesh" and tells us that his human existence is not coextensive with his divinity. We have already noticed what Paul wrote in Philippians chapter two when he speaks of Christ being in "the form of God" prior to his incarnation when he "took the form of a bondservant" and was "made in the likeness of men." Christ did not always exist in both forms from eternity.

Wrote Dudley:

"There are those who cannot, it seems contemplate the existence of the man Christ Jesus, except in communion with the body. Indeed, who deny his existence as man, antecedently to his being brought forth of the virgin. I would ask such, did you, or did you not exist, anterior to your development from your earthly parents? Is the one mystery more incomprehensible than the other? If we admit the first proposition, why reject the second; supported as it is by many unmistakable proofs?"

No, a person does not exist as a person prior to his being begotten in the womb. The Bible says nothing about the pre-existence of souls and has no basis in truth. The Bible makes it clear that every human being is a unique creation of God (Genesis 2:7; Zechariah 12:1; Jeremiah 1:5) and that each human soul begins at conception. (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 44:24; Job 38: 4) 

Argument 

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph. 5: 30 kjv)

"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5: 23 nkjv)

So, when and how do sinners become "members of his body"? When does Christ become the head of the church, his wife? The figure of body, with head and members, is one of several figures that depict the union that exists between Christ and his people. So, when is this union created? We do not deny that Christ and his people had a representative union before the world began when God (Father, Son, and Spirit) decreed that the Son become flesh and become the Lord, Savior, and Head of the elect or chosen people. But, that union is not vital or actual. Vital or actual union occurs when a person joins himself to Christ. One becomes a member of the body of Christ in time when he is united to Christ by faith and by being immersed into it by the Spirit. 

Testified Paul:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12: 13 nkjv)

Notice that this verse denies that believers were vitally or actually in the body of Christ from eternity. They were "baptized" or "placed into" the "one body" by "one Spirit" when they were converted to Christ and placed their faith in him, when they "received" him, that is, when they embraced him. In Ephesians 4: 15-16 we also learn that the body of Christ is growing due to new members being added to it. This fact overthrows the idea that the body of Christ existed from eternity. 

Further, a man and woman become one, or one body, when they are married or joined together in marital union. Wrote the apostle Paul in confirmation of this fact:

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (I cor. 6: 16-17 nkjv)

So, when does a man become one body or one flesh with a woman? Is it not when the man and woman are joined together? Two Seedism must affirm that believers were joined to Christ from eternity. But, that denies what is plainly affirmed in the scriptures, which assert that the union of the believer with Christ occurs when a person receives Christ and unites with him by faith. Wrote Paul further:

"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5: 28-32 nkjv)

A marriage between Christ and the church must occur before there can be an actual union. That marriage occurs when a sinner receives Christ by faith. That is when Christ and the believer become one body and one flesh. Wrote Paul to the Corinthian believers:

"For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2 nkjv)

If these believers had been united to Christ from eternity, then why does Paul say he has betrothed them? Also, Paul wrote the following to the Roman church:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7: 4 nkjv) 

This is another text that tells us that believers were not married to Christ from eternity.

Interesting is the comment that John Gill makes on this text in his commentary. He wrote:

"that ye should be married to another; or "that ye should be to another", or "be another's"; that is, that ye should appear to be so in a just and legal way; for they were another's, they were Christ's before by the Father's gift, and were secretly married to him in the everlasting covenant, before he assumed their nature, and in the body of his flesh bore their sins, satisfied law and justice, paid their debts, and so freed them from the power of the law, its curse and condemnation, or any obligation to punishment; all which was done in consequence of his interest in them, and their marriage relation to him; but here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead, and they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable..."

It is such commentary as this that no doubt helped to bring about Two Seed ideology. He affirms that believers were "secretly married" to Christ from eternity. He says that being married to Christ by faith is but "their open marriage to him in time." Gill was no Two Seeder, not believing in the preexistence of the souls of the elect, but he came mighty close to it. He did after all accept a lot of what Joseph Hussey taught as respects Hyper Calvinism and the preexistence of the humanity of Christ. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIX)

In this chapter we will continue to give the back and forth discussion that occurred in 1849 in the "Old School Baptist" periodical "The Signs of the Times." From the Signs of the Times (Vol. VXII, No. 12; June 15th, 1849) and written by Elder Samuel Williams, Lebanon, Warren Co., Ohio, May 24, 1849 (See here), we read these remarks in a letter to Beebe (highlighting mine).

"Dear Brother Beebe:

"Will you be so kind as to publish what follows?

2. If the people of God were created in Christ Jesus in eternity--BEFORE what--or BEFORE when--did God ordain that they should walk in good works? 

3. 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? If they were never "dead in sins," they cannot be the people that Paul was writing to in the second chapter of Ephesians. Paul says "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things become new."

4. Does the apostle mean that the man is a new creature--or, that a new creature has come into the man?

5. When Jesus said to Nicodemus--"ye must be born again," did he mean that Nicodemus must become a new creature, or that a new creature must come into him?"

6. Does the "new creature" in Second Corinthians fifth chapter and seventeenth verse, mean the same thing as "new man" in Ephesians fourth chapter and twenty-fourth verse?

I have never read in the Scriptures, that Christ came to save a people that were never lost; or, that he came to justify a people who were eternally justified. 

"...an eternal actual existence with Christ that needed no Salvation..."

These are good questions by Williams and get to the most important parts of the Two Seed heresies. Next we will cite from "Reply to the Queries Stated by brother S. Williams" by Gilbert Beebe in the "Signs of the Times" for the same issue (See here). Wrote Beebe:

"There is no sense in which we can consider Christ as the Head and the church as the fullness of his body, without necessarily involving the doctrine of vital union between that Head and body. If we take the natural figure of the body of a man, any man, a vital union is implied; together they live, but divided both head and body must die. Or if we take the figure of the seminal union of Head and body, all vital relationship is involved in it. Adoption, simply considered, constitutes no vital relationship; it only brings the persons adopted into the privileges of children; but to the offspring or seed of a natural or spiritual progenitor, constitutes vital relationship."

This line of reasoning we have examined somewhat before. Beebe reasons that Christ has from eternity actually been the Head of the body of the redeemed, and he argued that a head cannot exist without the body. Christ, however, though he had been ordained to be the head and representative of men from eternity, did not actually become the head until the body was being formed. God has appointed man to be the head of the woman, or of his wife, but it would be ridiculous to say that this implies that both the man and his wife existed as such from eternity. (See I Cor. 11: 3) Christ was also ordained from eternity to be a king, savior, lord, etc., but he did not actually become such until there were people created who he would rule over and save. God also ordained that Christ should suffer as a sacrifice for sin, but that does not equate with Christ suffering such from eternity. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Christ is not only called the Son of God, but he is emphatically called the "Only begotten of the Father." We cannot conceive that this or any other expression implying derivation, can apply to the eternal and self existent Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ; and certainly it is not applicable to his human nature, which he took on him when "he was made flesh," "made of a woman," &c., but to his Mediatorial Headship of the church. As Mediator, let it be remembered, he is as closely identified with his church as he is with his Godhead; for he says they are one with him even (or exactly) as he is one with his Father; and on this principle only could they have been loved of the Father simultaneously with himself, before the foundation of the world."

Beebe says that Christ being begotten as the Son of God is not intended to express the idea that Christ was God, of the same nature and essence of the Father, nor was it expressive of his "human nature," but was expressive of his third nature, his nature and being as Mediator and Head of the church body. As we have seen, however, many Two Seeders connected Christ' being begotten as the Son of God, before the world began, with his acquiring his human soul or nature, for how could he be the Mediator and Head of the church if he was not human? Here then is another instance where Two Seeders were contradictory in their ideology. If Christ could be mediator, savior, and head of the redeemed without being human, then what need for his becoming flesh and blood?

Wrote Beebe:

"This life or immortality was in him, and no where else; and it is begotten of the eternal Father and is the Firstborn of every creature...And this immortality being an emanation from the Godhead, begotten and born of the Father before any creature was created, covers the only ground on which our relationship to God, as his children can stand. 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."

"Life and immortality" is what is "begotten of the eternal Father"? Life and immortality are not persons and are not begotten. Neither are they "an emanation" of God but are qualities, characteristics, or attributes of God. Again, as stated in earlier chapters, that is Gnostic language. Life is not a creature. God is life, just as he is light. Beebe makes this begotten life and immortality to be the Son of God. What Beebe is trying to prove is that the church (group of believers or elect) was begotten in eternity past when life, immortality, and the Son were begotten by the Father.

Wrote Beebe:

"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."

Of course the life which is given to believers when they believe and are regenerated is eternal, without beginning or end. But that certainly does not imply that those who are regenerated are not made alive when they experience regeneration or the new birth, because they were already alive. Nor does it imply that they preexisted, being "that life" which is "communicated" in regeneration. "That life" does not mean "that preexistent child of God." Of course "regeneration" does not "originate spiritual life"! But, it does originate it in those who were previously spiritually dead.

Wrote Beebe:

"...the body cannot survive if the Head be dead, nor can the Head survive if the body dies. And it is upon this principle that when Christ died for his people then were they all dead, and when he arose from the dead, they were quickened together and with him."

We have already spoken of this argument for Two Seedism by Beebe and shown it to be fallacious. Christ is also said to be "the head of every man" (I Cor. 11: 3) and if the argument is true that the head cannot exist without the entity over which it is head, and if Christ is head from eternity, then so too are human beings eternal and without beginning. It is true that when Christ the head and representative of the church died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven that the apostle Paul said that the church also died, was buried, etc. But, this is far from saying that all the elect (or all believers) were then in existence, and therefore literally crucified, buried, raised, and ascended into heaven.

Wrote Beebe:

"...we will next call his attention to the words of inspiration recorded in Psalms xc. 1&2 and xci. 1. "Lord thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations, before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou God." 

Beebe often cited this text as if it proved that the elect actually and literally existed from eternity. He thinks that "from everlasting to everlasting" refers to God being a dwelling place for God's people, and therefore asserting that they existed from everlasting. But, that is not the case. "From everlasting to everlasting" refers to God existing as God from eternity.

Wrote Beebe:

"The foregoing remarks are in answer to the first part of the query; the other branch of it remains to be answered, viz,7.-- "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 or spiritual life which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, shall be communicated to them at their final resurrection; so that they shall not be raised up out of their graves in their old Adamic natures, but as particles of the new creation..." 

It is these rebuttal comments of Beebe to Williams that provoked Dudley to write to Beebe and take issue with him for agreeing with Williams that the man who was spiritually dead is what is made alive, for the view of Dudley and other Two Seeders, and even of Beebe himself in prior writings, is that nothing about the unregenerate man is changed in regeneration. So, Dudley thinks that Beebe has recanted.

Beebe does speak out of both sides of his mouth at this point. He says "new or spiritual life" was "given them in Christ Jesus before the world began" but then says it is given to them when they are born again in time.

Williams in the following issue responded to Beebe's answers of his previous address to Beebe via the Signs of the Times and here are some of the excerpts of what he said. You can read it here for July 18, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 17 (See here)

Brother Beebe:

"I have just received the 12th number, present volumne, of the Signs: and I am much pleased with your reply to my letter contained in the same paper. I freely admit, that Jesus Christ is the life of the church; and that that life existed prior to the creation of this natural world. But, I have never understood that "life," to be the church. I believe the church as a body, is composed of sinners of Adam's race--and that sinners of Adam's race are adopted into the family of God. In God's appointed time that life enters the "vessels of mercy,"--quickens their dead souls--washes them from all sin by the washing of regeneration--and is in them the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry Abba Father. I agree with you, my brother, that the natural or mortal body, does not become a "new creature" until the resurrection day. And, I am glad that you admitted that the souls of God's children are "quickened" and become "new creatures" by being born again."

Of course, though Williams was glad that Beebe "admitted that the souls of God's children" are what is made "new creatures," fellow Two Seeder T. P. Dudley did not, as we saw in previous chapters. 

Wrote Williams further:

"With your answer to my second question I do not fully agree. I believe that the apostle in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians is speaking of the great change wrought in the souls of his brethren by the Spirit of the living God. Consequently, when he says,--"we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." he means by the word "created," the regenerating influence of the Spirit, by which their souls were made new creatures. And these Ephesian brethren, together with all who have been born of the Spirit since their day, are the "created" people spoken of by David--"This shall be written for the generation to come, and the people WHICH SHALL BE CREATED shall praise the Lord." Psa. cii. 18." 

Williams rightly objects to the idea that being "created in Christ Jesus" is something that took place in eternity past rather than in time when a sinner believes in Christ and receives him into his heart.

Samuel Trott writes to Beebe about Williams letter in the "Signs of the Times" for August 1st, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 15; See here) Trott wrote:

"2. From the general current of Brother Williams' queries and remarks I should infer that with him, the "New creature" is a mere change in the natural man, in that they imply that there is nothing in the new creature that was not through Adam dead in sins, and needed salvation...If this be his ground, then he occupies the very position from which originates all the differences between Old School Baptists and most popular religionists in reference to experience. For although brother Williams may hold in distinction from the Reformers or Campbellites that the natural man cannot arrive at the knowledge of spiritual religion only as he is taught by the Holy Spirit, yet the moment he assumes that no new faculty is imparted to the man, that it is a mere enlightening of his natural or rational faculties to understand spiritual things, he places this knowledge within the scope of human reason; and I have a right to challenge him to show according to the principles of reason why a man cannot impart to others, of like rational faculties, any knowledge which he has himself received by the powers of his natural mind. Let me be discipled to this belief that the natural man is capable of receiving the things of the Spirit of God, and I shall be an advocate for the popular course of religious instruction by Sunday Schools, &c. If this be the ground really occupied by our brother, (which, by the by, I still hope is not the case) he has evidently overlooked the true import of what the Scriptures deny to the natural powers of man."

Trott states a couple serious errors that helped to create the Two Seed ideology of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. He argues that "the natural man," meaning the man as originally created by God, is incapable of arriving "at the knowledge of spiritual religion." Second, he argues that this natural man lacks the "faculties" to "understand spiritual things" and that when a man is made spiritual he is given new faculties. As I have stated before, when Paul says "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God" and "neither can he know them" (I Cor. 2: 14), he is not talking about Adam or Eve as they were originally created. Rather, he is talking about a fallen man who is without divine revelation, and who is following his own whims and speculations, and "leaning upon his own understanding." (Prove. 3: 5) 

Also, the "natural" man in First Corinthians chapter fifteen is a reference to Adam's physical body, and not to his soul, mind, or spirit as in I Cor. 2: 14. Further, Paul's description of Adam's body focused on his body as it became when he sinned, for he speaks of the body as being corrupt, dishonorable, infirmed, and subject to death.

Trott's belief that the new birth gives new faculties to a man is another error. No one who is born again of God receives any new faculties. Man's depraved and lost condition is not characterized by a loss of faculties. This is another area where Hyper Calvinists have erred. 

Wrote A.W. Pink (as cited by me in this post - here):

"It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence"; Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

In another old post of mine (See here) I cited from an old circular letter of South Carolina Primitive Baptists. I wrote:

In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following. 

"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"

"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."

In my series on Hardshell Pelagianism I cited from several able theologians who showed that man was originally able to obey God and to enjoy him and how his fall into sin did not take away any of his natural faculties for doing what God said. Man's inability to please God is strictly moral and not physical or a result of lacking the needed faculties, contrary to what Trott was arguing. (See my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism" in the archives of the "Old Baptist Test" blog for the year 2013)

Wrote Trott further:

"But we see the full denial of the capability of the natural or Adamic man of receiving the things of the Spirit of God in I Cor. ii. 14. "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." The natural man embraces all that belongs to man as he was originally created in Adam. As to the idea that the new birth is a production in the soul of a spiritual existence or life by immediate creation instead of its being produced by regeneration from an original creation in Christ as a Head, as brother Williams' queries and remarks do not involve it, I will not now notice it."

The words highlighted in red above are a false proposition. The "natural man" in that passage, as we have said, is not a reference to Adam as God originally made him. It is totally untenable to believe that God made Adam as a being incapable of receiving the things of God. Then why did God give him his law which is spiritual? Then why did he enjoy fellowship with God, and walk with him? Even after he had sinned, God gives him a Gospel revelation about the coming Messiah in what is called the protoevangelium (See Gen. 3: 15) Why give him the good news if he could not receive it? Adam being made in the image and likeness of God involved divine "knowledge" and "true righteousness and holiness." (See Col. 3: 10, Eph. 4: 24)

Wrote Trott further:

"The scripture to which Elder Dudley referred is found in I Cor. xv. 45-49. In this passage the two Adams are spoken of and contrasted. And is it not too manifest to be denied by any candid enquirer after truth, that they are presented to view as two Heads, having each a distinct posterity or seed like unto himself, the one earthly as is the earthly, the other heavenly as is the heavenly? (verse 48) If the first Adam was an actual head having actual seed; was not the last Adam an actual Head having an actual seed? If the posterity of the first were created and received a being in him, when he was made a living soul, were not the posterity of the last Adam in like manner created in him, when he was made a Quickening Spirit"?"

Adam was the head of the human race even before he had any offspring. It is true that all men came from Adam's seed (sperm), but that is not to say that all men existed as persons in Adam. Further, Adam was head over Eve and yet she did not come from his seed but from his rib. All the children of God were not made when Christ was made a human being, nor when Christ was begotten of the Father in eternity past. Trott is reading all that into the passage. Further, in God's decrees, he ordained that the incarnate Son be the head of all men, of the church, and of all principalities and powers, even before they actually existed. They did exist as an idea in the mind of God.

Wrote Trott further:

"Again does not verse 49, "And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly," clearly show that the same we who bear the image of the heavenly, and are thereby manifested as his seed, also bear the image of the earthly, and are thereby manifested as his seed; first manifested as the seed of the natural, and afterwards as the seed of the spiritual? How are they manifested in the image of the earthly as to his nature, and in his likeness as to his depravity? We are told Gen. v.3, that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness and after his image." There then is the answer. May we not then safely conclude that the seed of Christ are manifested in his image as spiritual, by being born of the Spirit, and in his likeness as the glorified Jesus, by their resurrection or being born from the dead, according to the two begettings, ascribed to their Head, Christ Jesus?"

Notice how Trott uses the word "manifested" over and over again. In earlier chapters we spoke how this word, like several others, is inordinately used by Two Seeders. So, in being born of our parents, we did not come into existence, but only manifested our prior existence as persons in Adam. Likewise, in being born of God, we did not become children of God but were only manifested that we were children of God from eternity. That of course is no where taught in the Bible.

Wrote Trott further:

"...will not brother Williams be constrained to acknowledge this comparison between the two Adams and their seeds as holding good? If so, all the ground is taken from him to infer that, because we have been quickened by the spirit of Christ and therefore existed in him as his seed before the foundation of the world, we therefore never existed in Adam, were not dead as his seed in sin, and did not need salvation. Indeed I cannot conceive how he could ever draw such an inference, if he admits that those who have been born of the flesh may actually be born again of the Spirit. As to the new man, the spiritual life of the believer, as Christ is that life, I am free to admit, that it was not created in Adam, did not fall in him, and never needed salvation any more than Christ did personally. But to draw the conclusion from this that the persons quickened with this life, were never in a lost state needing salvation, is to me strange logic, and stranger divinity." 

What a confusing mess this is theologically and philosophically! Were believers created in Adam or in Christ? Do they owe their origin to both? If they "existed" in Christ before the world began, then they were not created in Adam or in time. Trott seems to say that part of a believer was created in Christ before the world began and part was created in Adam. The part that was created in Christ Jesus never sinned and the part that was created in Adam sinned and needed salvation. There are so many absurdities, and ridiculous consequences of this ideology that it would take much time to delineate them.

Wrote Trott further:

"5. As to eternal justification, I see not that it is involved in the subject of his queries. Besides brother Williams probably was not aware that the first complaining among the readers of the Signs about doctrinal controversies, arose from our opposing the idea of the saints being justified from eternity, as he has in his communication."

Here Trott affirms that his view, which denies that the elect were justified from sin's condemnation from eternity, is not the prevailing view of the majority of Two Seeders. Trott believes that the elect are not justified until Christ has come and paid the penalty of sin and has been declared to be so with an individual until he believes in Christ. This shows us a fact that has been often stated about Two Seeders, which is that they did not always agree among themselves on several of the tenets of that system. Some denied the resurrection of the bodies, some did not. Some affirmed that the Devil was uncreated and self-existent, others did not. The same may be true with the doctrine of eternal justification.

40 Year Anniversary

The above is a picture of my wife Paulette and me not long after we were married on this day forty years ago. We have had our ups and downs during those years. We were even separated for about five years. But, our love and commitment got us through it all by the help and grace of God. She is 73 and I am 70.

I met her through my friend Mike Fisher who was my speech professor and debate coach in my first two years of college. He was the same age as I was (due to my starting college when I was 28) and we became close friends. He also was a good piano player and a Baptist. He played the piano for Paulette and her mom and sister, who were a Trio that sang for churches. I first met her at a Southern Baptist Church here in Monroe when Mike took me there and I saw her in the fellowship hall when a meal was being served. I was instantly drawn to her. Later I also went to her mother's house with Mike for their practice session. It was there that I asked her for a date. She was reluctant to accept (she was not looking for a husband). But, when I told her I had tickets for an Elton John concert in Charlotte she accepted. She had two teenage children, a boy named Andrew and a girl named Miranda. 

God gave her to me. He knew what I needed after my divorce from my first wife. She was my soul mate. We think alike, and we share our faith. She is a good singer. She sings alto, and the professor of music at Wingate University (my alma mater) said her voice was even closer to being a contralto. Her mother, Doris Myrick, was for many years the music and choir director at their church, Sandy Ridge Baptist Church here in Union County. She and her husband, Irving Myrick, were devoted Christians. They built a house beside us shortly before we moved into our house (in a subdivision I created with a partner) and after Irving passed away, I became very close to Doris (who we called Nina). She was one of the sweetest women I have ever known. Now she has passed on.

Paulette has had many battles with her health the past twelve years, as I have too the past five years. As I recently announced, her lung cancer has returned and so we ask for the prayers of all. She is a super trooper. We thank God for bringing her through so many of these battles. She has been on oxygen for many years now. She has COPD or emphysema on top of her battles with lung cancer. She will be seeing her pulmonary doctor in a couple weeks and then her oncologist. When she had a spot on her lung twelve years ago the doctors were able to use radiation to kill the cancer. We hope that this will happen again, although the cancer spot is larger now and is malignant. 

When we were separated for those five years, they were tough on me. Some of the darkest days of my life. But, thank God, we were able to reconcile and that occurred about 1997. Couples who are struggling to keep their marriage from falling apart, or who are separated, should try to mend their relationship, to be reconciled, and not give up hope. 

God has been good to us both. We are content. I thank God that she knew how to be poor as I also did. She did not covet what others had, nor was she envious of the wealth of others. She is that virtuous woman that Solomon wrote about in Proverbs chapter 31. 

She is a stickler for good grammar as I am. We would often correct each other when we spoke incorrectly, which she also did with her children. I believe her mother also did the same. She also loves puzzles, especially anacrostic ones. She also loves reading books, especially about real murders such as "In Cold Blood." She watches a lot of court cases on Court TV. 

I have told her over the past few years that God may take us both out of this world before the Great Tribulation begins, and I still believe this may be true. I have also prayed that God would bless her and me (and all my loved ones) to have a peaceful death without undue anxiety, stress, fear, and pain. 

Thank you all for your prayers. Thank you Lord for your goodness towards us.

Did Jesus Say "I Am God"?

 

Muslims and deniers of the deity of Christ often will ask Trinitarians - "where did Jesus say I am God"? Or - "where did Jesus claim to be God?" They know that Jesus, in the four Gospels, did not explicitly say such. They think that this proves that Jesus did not believe nor claim that he was God. I do not have to go around saying "I am human" for people to know that I am such. Likewise, Christ did not need to go around saying "I am God" for his words and deeds spoke loudly. They also claim that Jesus never said "worship me." Nowhere, however, did Christ say "I am not God, don't worship me" either. They are wrong who say that Jesus never claimed to be God. Why? Because -

1) Christ proved his divinity by his deeds, by his miracles, by his sinless life, by his teaching, and finally by his resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven, and actions speak louder than words

2) It was counter productive for him to go around saying "I am God."

3) Christ did say he was God by taking to himself divine titles, such as when he said (during his life)

- "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11: 25)

- "I am the way, the truth, and the life"  (John 14: 6)

- "The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" (Matt: 9: 6; Luke 5: 24)

- "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12: 8)

- "Before Abraham was I Am" (John 8: 58)

- etc.

4) Christ, after his resurrection and ascension, said

- "I am the First and the Last" (Rev. 22: 13)

- "I am the Alpha and Omega, the "Beginning and the End" (Rev. 1: 8; 22: 13)

- "I am the Almighty" (Rev. 1: 8)

5) Christ received worship and never refused it, such as when Thomas said to him

- "my Lord and my God" (John 20: 28)

6) Christ claimed to be the Son of God and equal with God

- "I am my Father are One" (John 10: 30)

- "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (said Peter; Matt. 16: 16)

The Jews rightly said that his claim to be God's Son made him God (John 10: 31-33)

7) Christ is the Creator of all things, therefore he is God

- "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1: 2)

- "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" (Col. 1: 16)

8) The apostles acknowledged that Christ was God

- "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2: 13)

- "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 2:1)

- "Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." (Rom. 9: 5)

9) Even God the Father referred to Jesus as God:

“About the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever’.” (Heb. 1:8; Psalm 45:6)

Here the "he" is God the Father and he calls "the Son" "God."

In the same context the Father says to the angels "let all the angels worship him" (Heb. 1: 6).

10) His name Immanuel proves that he is God:

"they will name him Immanuel, which is translated ‘God is with us'" (Matt. 1: 23-24).

Christ took upon himself the "form of a servant" when he was made flesh, and Paul says that Christ in his divinity as "the form of God" was not a thing to be "grasped" or "exploited" while in his earthly state of humiliation. Paul also said that he, prior to his incarnation as the "form of God," was "equal with God."

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2: 5-8 nkjv)

Other translations give us these words:

"...did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men..." (Legacy; LSB; etc.)

"...did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage..." (NIV)

"...who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited..." (Christian Standard)

"...counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God..." (English Revised)

"...did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped..." (Weymouth)

In all four Gospels, and in the writings of the Apostles, Christ is declared to be God. In the Gospels, his claims to equality with God are more subtle and indirect. But why? The above text tells us why. It was because he did not "consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." It was part of his humility to act this way.

The Lord Jesus Christ proved who he was by his power and holiness, and by his resurrection from the dead. So Paul wrote:

"Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1: 1-4 nkjv)

Not only was his power and holiness and resurrection evidence of his divinity and equality with his Father, but even the Father bore witness to the divine Sonship of Jesus. When Christ was baptized by John the Baptist, we read where the Father spoke from heaven, saying:

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3: 17; Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 22)

Also, when Christ was on the mount with Peter, James, and John, he was seen in his divine glory, and we again hear the Father say:

“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matt. 17: 5; Mark (9: 7; Luke 9: 35)

For these reasons the rhetorical question posed by Muslims and other deniers of the deity of Christ is not any proof that Jesus was not God the Son. The fact is, he did say and demonstrate that he was God in the flesh.

My PB Brothers - Can You Say This To The Lost?

We ought to be able to say to any man, saved or lost, that if he or she would draw near to God, then he would draw near to them. Hyper Calvinists like the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists, however, cannot say this to those who are lost. However, in the above text, James addresses "sinners" who need to be cleansed of sin, and who need their hearts purified, and who are double minded. This exhortation of James is similar to the words of the apostle Paul to the Athenian idolaters.

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17: 26-27 nkjv)

The exhortation to "seek the Lord" so as to "find Him," is akin to the exhortation "draw near to God." It is also similar to the words of Psalm 24.

"Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive blessing from the Lord, And righteousness from the God of his salvation." (Psa. 24: 3-5 nkjv)

It is also similar to these words of the prophet Isaiah who gives us this oracle of Lord God:

“Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes...Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool." (Isa. 1: 16, 18 nkjv)

Notice how "wash yourselves" and "make yourselves clean" is not intended to mean that cleansing of sin is accomplished by literal washing of the body or body parts, but that what is symbolized by such washings is to be effected.

The words of James also resemble those of Peter who wrote:

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart." (I Peter 1: 22 NKJV)

Sinners, you need to be cleansed of sin, and this can only be accomplished by having the blood of Christ mystically or spiritually applied to your heart, mind, soul, conscience, and spirit. It is also accomplished by taking heed to the word of God, as David says: "How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word." (119: 9 nkjv) Also, Paul spoke of the "washing of water by the word" for cleansing and sanctification (Eph. 5: 26). With confession and repentance of sin by faith you are promised cleansing of your sins, cleansing of your hands, feet, eyes, heart, mind, soul, spirit, etc. (I John 1: 9)

No Charge For This

As an ad extra, or what is outside the scope of what is above written for the benefit of Hardshell Baptists and other Hyper Calvinists, from the text in James 4: 8, we now offer a few words relative to the debate over whether water baptism literally cleanses away sin and whether in eating the bread and drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper Christ' body and blood are literally eaten and drunk. Christ is eaten when the mind is meditating upon Christ and the Gospel. When James says "cleanse your hands you sinners" as a way to approach God, he did not mean that literally washing ones hands is a necessary condition for cleansing of sins. It is a metaphor. Cleansing of hands is figurative of repentance as are the words "purify your hearts," for in repentance there is a change of mind and behavior, or a spiritual or moral cleansing. When Annanias told Paul to be baptized in order to "wash away" his sins (Acts 22: 16), he did not mean that the baptismal waters literally cleansed of sin. Notice these words of the apostle:

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 22 nkjv)

Again, this is metaphorical. The washing of the bodies in pure water, an old testament ritual, or perhaps even an allusion to water baptism (which was not always done in pure water), corresponds to "cleanse your hands." In doing these things the intent is for sinners to do what those washings symbolize, which is an inward washing of the heart, mind, and spirit by the word and Spirit of God.