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).
"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."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.
No comments:
Post a Comment