Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXVI)

With this chapter we will begin to focus our attention upon the writings of those "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who rejected Two Seedism. We will begin with the writings of Elder Joshua Lawrence in the original "Primitive Baptist" periodical, the paper he was the foremost originator of, and who asked Elder Mark Bennett (son of Elder Philemon Bennett) to be its first editor. Philemon was the moderator who presided at the meeting of the Kehukee Association in 1827 that drafted the "Declaration and Address" that declared non-fellowship against mission societies and other things. I have not been able to find a portrait of Lawrence. The above image does give his name in regard to the old church mentioned. 

As I recently stated, it seems that the "Signs of the Times" was the voice for the Two Seed wing of the newly begotten denomination and the "Primitive Baptist" was the voice for those who opposed the Two Seeders. So, let us begin with these words of Elder Mark Bennett taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Meredith, editor of the "Biblical Recorder" for March 23, 1844 (See here).

"In the summer of 1835, I was consulted by bro. Joshua Lawrence, to know whether I would edit a religious news paper, to be printed in Tarborough, N.C. I consented to do so..."

The paper he is alluding to is "The Primitive Baptist" of which he became the first editor, and which I showed the image of the first issue in the heading of chapter XXIV. Interesting is the fact that Bennett in his letter said that the "Primitive Baptist" periodical was "principally intended to defend the Old School United Baptists." The United Baptists was a term denoting those Regular and Separate Baptists who chose to come together and recognize each other. The articles of faith of the United Baptists in Kentucky, and elsewhere too, says (See here at the Baptist History Homepage) the following under article #9:

"And that the preaching Christ tasted death for every man, shall be no bar to communion."

These are the terms of the union as given by Benedict in his history (page 821) and are from the committees of the Elkhorn and South Kentucky Associations.

Bennett wrote further:

"Towards the close of that volume, Elder Lawrence gave us his first two articles on "The two seeds." In the front of the fourth volume, stands his second. The sentiments contained in those two articles met a dissent in and some strictures from "The Signs of the Times." For this, he denied the editor of the "Signs" an identity with Old S. Baptists, and rejected him from their confidence."

So, it is clear that the "Primitive Baptist" represented those anti-mission Baptists who were opposed to Two Seedism and who seemed to be less Calvinistic, opposing Hyper Calvinism. They certainly believed that the preaching of the Gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. However, those who supported the "Signs of the Times" began to more and more oppose that idea, though many of them believed that "regeneration" was accomplished apart from evangelical faith, yet they believed that in order to be "delivered" or "born again" faith was necessary. My blog "The Old Baptist Test" gives several citations from Lawrence that show he believed that the Gospel or word of God was a means in being born again and in the perseverance of the saints.

Now let us give some of the things that Elder Joshua Lawrence wrote in "The Primitive Baptist" for October 27, 1838 (See here), wherein he gives his views on Two Seedism. Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine) the following about the parable of the wheat and the tares, one of the chief scriptures that Two Seeders used to support Two Seedism:

"Thus, brother Editor, I have given you a hurried running shoot at this parable. Think on my ideas. Now believing I should not have been written to from the west, had it not been for Elder Parker's two seeds that have made such a noise in the Western States among the churches, I will for the satisfaction of my beloved brother Fort and others, offer a few thoughts on the two seeds, which it is thought stands connected with the parable. And here let it be understood, that I have read in two or three of Elder Parker's papers called the Church Advocate, some of his ideas on the two seeds; but yet do not remember one single sentence in them, only that of the subject discussed, which was on the two seeds."

Obviously Lawrence wanted people to know that he thought Parker's writing and ideas regarding Two Seedism were not worth much. He also suggests that it was primarily in "the Western States" where Two Seedism found fertile ground. That is true, with but few exceptions. This reveals much. It was on the Western frontier where there was much illiteracy among both ministers and congregations. It was also among such people and demographics where Hardshellism and Anti-Missionism found its success. Very few churches and ministers in the east fell prey to these systems. Daniel Parker even boasted of the fact that he was uneducated and when asked how he learned to read he said "only as his Bible has taught me."

Citing page 48 of Daniel Parker's "Public Address to the Baptist Society..." Anna Holdorf, author of "GALVANIZED BY THE GOSPEL: NINETEENTH-CENTURY BAPTIST MISSIONS AND THE ANTI-MISSION RESPONSE," wrote (See here emphasis mine):

"Daniel Parker boasted, as did many other anti-missionists, that he was uneducated. He wrote that he had “no knowledge of the English grammar, only as my bible has taught me.” Parker further noted that the doctrinal “errors” that marked the beliefs of pro-mission Baptists “nearly all originated amongst the wise and learned.”

However, the doctrinal error of Two Seedism marked the beliefs of anti mission Baptists and came from their unlearned elders and was quickly accepted by their simple minded congregations. 

Lawrence wrote further:

"Now, question: Were these righteous good seed before they were born of the Spirit, or not? I let you pause. I say no, in no sense of that word. To the Book. Conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity; go astray from the womb; none righteous; all gone out of the way; dead in sin. Now put on the cap stone: We (saints) were children of wrath by nature, even as others. Then the righteous are not good seed, before being born again of the Spirit, but are as bad as the tares; for God hath included all under sin, both Jews and Gentiles."

This was a direct denial of the doctrine of "eternal children," the idea that tares had always been tares and wheat had always been wheat. Lawrence rightly taught that people do not become the children of God until they are born of God, and denies that being born of God is what took place in eternity when Christ was begotten of the Father.

Lawrence wrote further:

"The tares are said to be sown by the devil, as well as the good seed was by Christ. Now I would ask, were the tares bad seed before they were naturally born? I answer, that the very spirituous humor of man's body that is the life of generation or the part of the male, is sinful and corrupt; or how else was David conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity? And the righteous men and women of all ages are born in the same way, and are equally as corrupt in their conception and birth and practice as the tares. So then I put it down, that, in point of natural birth all men are born sinners; for by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death hath passed upon all men, in that all have sinned in Adam the first — both the tares and good seed. Then there is no such thing as good seed in the world, nor no children of the kingdom until made so by the Spirit and grace of God out of wicked men, or call them tares by nature if you will, for there is no good seed in the loins of men,, all bad, bad — too true."

Again, Lawrence gives not only his position on Parker's Two Seedism, but of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical and of its supporters.

Lawrence wrote further:

"Matthew, 13. 38: But the tares are the children of the wicked one. Then of course, the tares are the seed; for if children, then the seed of the serpent. Now the question arises again: are, or are not, all mankind the children of the wicked one, by the fall of Adam, by their first birth? Say. I say they are, as I have shown above. I ask, has God any children by their first birth — I mean their natural birth? Why you must answer, no; for God has all his children by their second birth, born of the word and Spirit of God, and thus they become his children and not before; thus born of the water, (which means a natural birth,) and then of the Spirit, this makes them children of God; nor are they so before, in any sense of that word. Then I put it down, that all mankind by nature and practice, are the children of the wicked one; and may thus be accounted in the text the serpent's seed, or thy seed; and that God has not a child among all the millions of the world, until born of his Spirit. What say you to this? Again: I put it down that you may not forget it, that all mankind as they come into this world, are the serpent's seed, and leave it here."

Of course, Lawrence does not deny that the elect are predestined to become children of God even before they are born into the world or born again from above. But, he is correct in affirming that all sinners, before they are born again, are children of the Devil. Notice how the apostle John confirms this when he writes:

"He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." (I John 3: 8 nkjv)

Of course, the apostle does not mean that all men, including God's born again children, are of the Devil because they sin. This is because he is speaking of those who make sin their practice, who love sin, and who have not repented. But, the apostle does affirm that even those who are born of God were once "of the Devil" when they "once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Eph. 2: 2-3 nkjv)

Lawrence is giving his thoughts on the parable of the wheat and tares for it was the chief text used by Two Seeders to teach their views. They were often heard saying that the tares could never become wheat and the wheat could never become tares, that the wheat had its origin in God from eternity and the tares had their origin in the Devil from eternity. They taught that the Lord first sowed grains of wheat in Adam and following doing that, Satan then sowed tares in Adam. 

Lawrence writes further:

"Then the sum of all is, God makes saints out of sinners, righteous men out of wicked ones, and makes his children out of the devil's children; by being born of his Spirit, or created in Christ Jesus unto good works. And thus the good seed are the children of the kingdom; and the remainder are the tares, or children of the wicked one, left to be burnt."

This of course was denied by the Two Seeders. Their belief was that the children of God were never children of the devil. However, if those who are children of God ever sinned, then John says that they were "of the Devil." Many who opposed Two Seedism also said that this is why becoming children of God involved "adoption," for God takes from those who are of the family of the Devil and adopts them into his own family.

Lawrence writes further:

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

From this statement and others which will follow, we see that Lawrence believed that people were born again by means of the gospel. This was the position of the first "Primitive Baptist" periodical and of those who supported it. It was even the position of many Two Seeders at the first, even of Daniel Parker, as we have seen, but as time went on, it became one of the leading tenets of Two Seedism to deny means in God's begetting children.

Lawrence writes further:

"Then I put it down, that the serpent's seed are all mankind in a state of nature, from Adam to the end of the world; and that Christ, and he only, is the seed of the woman by the power of the Highest, and overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. I also put it down, that the seed of Christ, or his people, are those born again; and that, by nature there is no difference in men to make one good seed, and the other tares or children of the devil, or the serpent's seed; that they are all bail seed, the serpent's seed, until born of the word and Spirit of God. Then he that is born of God cannot sin, for his seed remaineth in him: born of the word of God, which is an incorruptible seed. Then men and women thus born become children of the kingdom, good seed, Christ's seed, holy seed, thy seed, children of God, sons and daughters of God, &c. and not until then."

That is indeed what the Bible teaches and what Baptists of prior times had believed and taught.

Lawrence writes further:

"Then God foresees even the saints corrupt, and needing sanctification or cleansing, and to believe the truth to make them free from sin."

Notice again Lawrence's affirmation that "the truth" is the means God uses to free sinners from the slavery of sin.

Lawrence writes further:

"So then I set it down as a point that cannot be overturned from the Book, that the foreknowledge of God, the choice of God, and the predestination of God before the world began, and the appointment of God to obtain salvation by Christ, and his ordination to eternal life of any sinner, does not make him good seed before he is born of the Spirit of God; but that he is bad seed. So all must end here: God makes good seed out of bad seed, saints out of sinners, and his children out of the devil's children, and Christ's seed out of the serpent's seed; and all this is done by being born again, or born of his Spirit, or of the word of God that liveth and abideth forever." 

Again, all this is contrary to Two Seedism. Notice also once again how Lawrence affirms that sinners are "born again, or born of his Spirit," by the word of God.

The next article written by Lawrence on Two Seedism was in "The Primitive Baptist" for Feb. 23, 1839 (Vol. 4; See here). In that article he refers to his previous article of Oct. 27, 1838, which we have been citing from above. In this latter article he intends to address "The objectionable parts...are in vol. 3, No. 20, page 309, as follows..." He then cites what he said from that article and then adds further remarks in his attempt to answer those who objected to his denunciation of Two Seedism. Wrote Lawrence:

"The above quotation from the Primitive, contains all the objectionable parts that have yet come to hand, although there may be some who have objections to other parts. Without further remarks on my creeds, or in self claims, I now come to argument by the Book on the above quotation, and think I can comprehend all your objections under three general points: 

First, I have asserted that God makes all his children out of the devil's children. 

2nd. I have asserted that God has no child among all the millions of the world until born again, 

3rd. And that no man is a child of God until born again, in no sense of that word. 

This last I think is the bugbear. Knowing, brethren, you have been professors for years and are wise men, men well skilled in the scriptures and the doctrine of Old School Baptists, I shall be the more short in my explanation, as thinking a word to the wise is enough. Then on the first point: God makes all his children out of the devil's children. And I might as well take in the second point as they are so nearly allied to each other, and as the proof of the one point will confirm the other: That God has no children among all the millions of the world, until born again. These two points I believed when I wrote them, and I now believe them with all my heart, whether you do or not. And I will give you a few of my reasons for so doing, but shall not cite chapter and verse, because you are well skilled in scripture and will know them as soon as mentioned...We (saints) were children of wrath by nature, even as others; (that is such as had never been made saints, or children of God, or never will.) All clay of the same lump, and it is God the potter's hand that maketh one man to honor and another to dishonor; one a vessel of mercy and another part of the clay left to be a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction. All is owing to the hands of the potter that maketh the difference, and not a difference in the clay. Hence them he foreknew he predestinated to a conformity to his Son. Then they that he foreknew and predestinated were not in the clay conformed to his Son's image, so in the clay or first birth they were not children; for God foresaw they needed. In order to make them his children, a conformity to the image of his Son. Then he passed the act of unchangeable predestination, that they should be conformed to his Son, with every provision to effect it. And this conformity takes place in regeneration, and thus they are made his children, or like his Son. And they are not his children before, but the devil's children. Again: Chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame, &c. So then when he made his choice before the world began, he saw his chosen unholy and full of blame, (in nature and practice, and without love to him;) yet he chose them lying in the common mass, dead in trespasses and sins, without hope and a God in the world. Yet this foresight of their unholiness and blame did not hinder his choice of them, to fulfil his own purpose in making them holy, without blame, and in love, before him the chooser."

Again, this is contrary to Two Seedism, as we have seen. The "Parkerites" taught that the "new man" was a man who was created in Christ Jesus before the world began, being begotten in eternity when the Son was begotten by the Father, or when he became a Mediator, having a human soul in addition to his divinity. They taught that God's children were literally "in Christ" from eternity and never were out of Christ. However, if that is true, then they never were lost.

Lawrence wrote further:

"These few reasons, dear brethren, I have given you out of the thousands I could give, for your satisfaction of my faith. So then I put it down again as my faith, that all men come into the world sinners and are equally depraved by nature, Jacob as well as Esau, Isaac as well as Ishmael; and that the grace of God only maketh the difference as respects salvation, or children, of God and devil; and that God has no children without being born again — I mean actual children, that can be called so personally by the church of God, or claim the right to call himself a child of God, without he is born of God, and then he has the witness in himself, bearing witness with his spirit he is a child of God, and not before. I hope this you will understand — meditate upon and compare with| the Bible."

Lawrence wrote further:

"I will now come to the third point proposed, as I consider it the bugbear of all your objections, and drive it from before your sight if I can. 3rd. Here it is: And that no man is a child of God until born again, in no sense of that word.

If you say God has children before they are born again, then the argument will stand thus: What kind of children are they which are unborn? To which I answer on your side, as you may think: first, God has predestinated children to adoption; secondly, he has promised children; thirdly, he has children conceived in the womb yet not born; and those born of his Spirit. These four kinds of children will comprehend all sorts of God's children, whether foreknown children, elect children, or any else besides."

Beebe and Trott and the Two Seeders would say that being "born" of God follows having been previously "begotten" of God in eternity. Beebe would say "birth is not the origin of the child." This is quite interesting in light of the debate over abortion today. As we have seen before, many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed that "regeneration" corresponded to being begotten or conceived in the womb, and "birth" corresponded to being brought forth, or delivered from, the womb. Sometimes Beebe would say that the child was "begotten" in eternity past when Christ the Son was begotten by the Father. Other times he would say that being begotten occurred in time when a sinner had God's seed implanted in the heart (regeneration), which produced conviction of sin and a belief that one was in need of salvation, and which would later bring about the birth (conversion) of the begotten child.

Lawrence wrote:

"So then when you speak of predestinated children, speak of them as such; and when you speak of born children, speak of them as such: for the one may be called a nonexisting, only in the mind and purpose of God; the other, a fulfilled purpose of mind and an existing child."

This is what later opponents of Two Seedism and its "eternal children" doctrine would strongly argue. The only sense that one could be a child of God prior to being born of the Spirit was in a predestinated or chosen sense, just as Isaac was prior to his birth, being the "promised child." So today when a husband and wife are planning on having a child, they will often speak of that child even before that child is either conceived or born. We may say that the child was first "conceived" in the mind before it was actually conceived or born. Though many first generation Old Schoolers taught that one was "regenerated" (conceived) prior to being "born" (delivered), this does not equate with being begotten in eternity past.

Lawrence wrote:

"Now, brethren, here stand before us millions of Jews by God's promise, and it was surely his will and purpose to make the seed of Abraham such. Acts, 7. 5. Yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (Mark that word, no child.) Now a question here: Was Isaac a child before he was born? Yes, you will say, he was a promised child. Agreed. How then comes Paul to say, while as yet he had no child? If a promised child is a child, he could not have said so."

I am not sure what verse from Paul's writings that Lawrence refers to, but we do read this verse in Acts from the sermon of Stephen:

"But even when Abraham had no child, He promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him." (Acts 7: 5 nkjv)

Yes, Abraham had a child promised to him, but that child was not yet in existence. If Abraham's children already actually existed in Abraham's seed or loins, then what Stephen says is not true. 

Lawrence wrote:

"Isaac was a promised child, yet Abraham has no child. So Christ and the church has promised children, yet she has no children but promised children until they are born. At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. Say, was he a son before that time, of his conception and birth? When born then a son actually, and not before."

Lawrence wrote:

"Recollect in the laws of Moses, God commanded that if a man died childless, his brother should marry his widow and raise up children to his deceased brother; but there was one man who knew if he begat a child by his brother's widow, that that child would not be his; so he refused to give her seed and spill it on the floor. Now say, whether this spilt seed was a child or not? I pause for you to think. 1 say it was not a child."

Here Lawrence shows the folly of saying that children actually exist in the sperm of their fathers.

Lawrence wrote:

"For if...seed, be a child, then all bachelors are murderers of children; all that shed their seed in sleep are murderers of children, to a man."

Again, Lawrence is showing how ridiculous is the idea of someone preexisting in seed.

Lawrence wrote:

"So then, neither seed nor promised seed are children, until begotten and born. For will you call a seed a plant?"

This rebuttal argument we have noticed before. 

Lawrence wrote:

"These texts show to me, Jesus Christ was not actually entitled to be called the Son of God, until he was born of his mother Mary. In his divine nature he is not son, but God; and no other God but he, a three-one God — the Christian's God in all ages. For if in his divine nature he be son, then he is not God; for one God cannot beget another God, for he who is begotten cannot he God, for to be a God he must be self-existing."

"So then Jesus Christ is son of God in his human nature, and not in his divine; nor was he actually son of God until born of Mary. Was he son of God before he was conceived? I answer, no; except in the purpose, ordination, and determination of God, who speaketh of things by the mouth of prophets that should be as though they were."

Of course, Lawrence's view on the Sonship of Christ is not orthodox. In his denial that Christ is God by his being the Son of God he is in agreement with Beebe, Trott, and other Two Seeders. Many of the first "Old School Baptists" were in error on the Trinity and on the eternal Sonship of Christ.

Lawrence wrote:

"Was Jesus Christ a born child of God, when he was conceived by his mother Mary. I answer no, because conception is not born, nor born again, in no sense of that word. Born is a very different word from conception; conception means a child in embryo, but born, or born again, means a child brought forth in full perfection. Then conception is not a born child; in this sense of a born child I used that word, that no man is a child of God until born again, in no sense of that word; that is, the word born again was the design to apply the words no sense of that word to. Or, to make it plainer, a predestinated child, a promised child, a conceived child, is not an actual child, is not a born child; what say you to this?"

Though many "Primitive Baptists" at first believed that regeneration and rebirth were not the same, there was disagreement over when a child came into existence. Beebe would say "birth is not the beginning of the child." Lawrence says that scripture teaches that birth is the beginning of the child. Of course, a child is a child when in the womb prior to birth, and is why abortion is murder. However, there is no scripture that says that the birth of the Spirit is divided into conception (seed planting) and delivery (birth proper). To impose this upon scripture leads to theological problems and absurdities. Lawrence does acknowledge that a person is a "child in embryo" prior to being born from the womb.