Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXI)

The above text cautions us about being carried about by various kinds of "strange doctrines." Few will deny that Two Seedism is such a doctrine. It is indeed a "doctrine of demons" (I Tim. 4: 1). It is interesting that when true Bible "doctrine" is referred to in scripture, it is in the singular, whereas false doctrine is often in the plural, "doctrines."

In this chapter we will conclude our examination of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1860-1861 against Two Seedism in his book "The Measuring Rod."

Thompson wrote:

"They also deny that the washing of the saint's feet is an ordinance established by Christ, and that it is the duty of saints to attend to it in obedience to his teaching." (pg. 109)

How true this is I cannot say. I do know that some Two Seeders and those who favored the name "Old School" Baptists did practice feet washing. Also, some who opposed Two Seedism and favored the name of "Primitive Baptist" did not practice feet washing.

Wrote Thompson:

"If it was the purity of the seed, or the particular quality or nature of those chosen, that caused their election, then the election was not of grace, but of works, for the elected procured their own election. On this point Beebeism, or modern Two Seed, Arianism, is as much at fault as Armenianism (sic), for while Beebeism makes election rest upon an actual spiritual, holy nature, possessed by the elect; Armenianism places it upon foreseen virtues, which by their own act they are to possess themselves of: either of these views destroy the doctrine of election by grace, which is an unconditional act of the Divine mind. The elect were sinners of Adam's race, for they were chosen out of the world, from among men, and were ordained unto eternal life, or to be conformed to the image of Jesus. This election was not based upon the actual existence of those elected as taught by Beebeism, but upon the foreknowledge of God." (pgs. 139-140)

In previous chapters we have mentioned how Two Seedism contradicts the idea that God chose to salvation unconditionally, his choice not being based upon any merit or distinguishing quality in the ones chosen. Beebe and the Two Seeders say, however, that God chose the elect because they were "in Christ" from eternity, and that Christ was obligated to save them because of this fact. As we will see in the next few chapters Elder Lemuel Potter in 1880 also attacked Two Seedism's consequences for the doctrine of unconditional election. If Christ was obligated to save the church because she was his wife from eternity, then salvation is not by grace, not unmerited.

Wrote Thompson:

"We have already seen that the church of Christ cannot be of the Beebe, Two Seed, Arian faith, because their articles are at variance with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and destroy the idea of a visible church, composed of men and women of Adam's family, who have been regenerated and born again. For if their views are correct, the church is a mystical, invisible, spiritual existence, that was created before time, and has no connection with fallen men and women." (pg. 167) 

Thompson was a reader of the writings of Dr. J. R. Graves, who was contemporary with him, and seems to accept many of the Landmarker views of Graves, the recognized spokesman for Landmarkism. One of the ideas of many Landmarkers is to deny that the word "church" (Grk. eklesia) denotes a universal church composed of all the elect, affirming that it always refers to local churches or assemblies, or to the visible institution and not to an "invisible" church. Not all "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists agreed with this view, affirming that the "church" sometimes refers to all the saved, and not only to local assemblies. The former definition has been referred to as the "invisible" church since no one can see the whole assembly of saints (though that will change when all are assembled together at the second coming of Christ and afterward), and as the "universal" church because it is a body that contains all the saved, it being believed that not all the saved became members of a local church. So, in this area Thompson is not correct in saying that a belief in such a universal invisible church "destroys the idea of a visible church." What Beebe and the Two Seeders were wrong about is their view that says the church, or elect, had an actual existence in Christ before the world began, and their saying that the church or spiritual seed had "no connection with fallen men and women."  

Thompson wrote:

"The practice of passing non-fellowship resolutions against men without giving them a hearing, is unjust and iniquitous, and will destroy the peace and prosperity of any community of saints. This practice has of late prevailed to a considerable extent among the Bebeeite Baptists. The Hanes' Creek church, in Yellow River Association, passed a resolution declaring nonfellowship for me, and all who were friendly with me, without ever giving me a hearing, or even letting me know that they had aught against me. When I heard of the action of the church, I wrote them a letter, asking for a trial, and offering to come to their own church, and be tried by their own members, if they would give me a fair hearing; but they would not do it, knowing that their conduct would not bear investigation. In fact, this has been the course pursued by the Beebe party in Georgia, from first to last, where they have had a majority. A solitary instance cannot be pointed out, where they have ever given a member a fair trial, and allowed him to defend himself, who has dissented from their views. When Eld. T. P. Dudley, of Ky. , first made his assault upon me, I wrote him a private letter, begging him to meet me, and to submit our differences to our brethren, and to let them decide between us, but he refused; and subsequently, when Beebe made his attack upon me, in the "Primitive Baptist, " I wrote to him twice, begging of him to meet me, and to refer the matter to brethren chosen by us both, and let them judge between us, but he would not. I done the same thing with D. W. Patman, and J. R. Teat, and others of the party, who publicly made attacks upon me, but I never could get one of them to consent to have a fair investigation, and to submit the matter to our brethren...But where the Beebe party have been in the minority, they have refused to stand a trial, but have abruptly withdrawn, and refused to hear the church, or to be tried by them" (pg. 189-191)

The practice of the Beebe or Two Seed party in their mistreatment of Thompson, if true (and I tend to believe it is true), reveals the spirit that was motivating them. But, sadly, as I know from my years of being in the "Primitive Baptist Church" and from studying their history, both sides, Two Seeders and non Two Seeders, were guilty of such things. 

I have not spent the time to go through all the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical to find where Beebe "made his attack" upon Thompson. As I have shown in previous chapters, Elder Joshua Lawrence, who was the impetus in the creation of that periodical and wrote many articles for it, was not a Two Seeder and considered Elder Beebe to be unsound and would not recognize him. So, it is surprising that Beebe would write for that paper. Perhaps it was published after the death of Lawrence (1843), and after the departure of Elder Mark Bennett, its first editor, and when Elder Burwell Temple was its editor. 

Thompson wrote:

"The Primitive Baptists, of late, have had a Diotrephes among them, who has obtained the exclusion of many brethren where he has had the majority. He has had the control of the press, and the communications of the brethren, Diotrephes like, have been suppressed, so that the brethren have never got to see them. This modern Diotrephes is to be found in the person of Eld. G. Beebe; and I can produce a number of instances where worthy brethren have been slandered, and falsely accused in his paper, and he has refused to let those brethren say one word in self-defence; but one or two cases may suffice." (pg. 198-199)

The "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists have had many splits, many wars and fights since their beginning, the kind that James wrote about in James chapter four ("whence comes wars and fightings among you"). They have split over so many issues, and every time the in-fighting has been ferocious, vicious, where the combatants were biting and devouring one another as Paul spoke about. (Gal. 5: 15) In these fights the combatants often used associations, and councils, and presbyteries, as weapons against their enemies. Recall that Elder Daniel Parker threatened to "burst the association" if the associations did not declare non-fellowship for mission societies, seminaries, Sunday schools, etc. These threats were the means of forcing others to kowtow to them. I wrote about how my father and I, and our church, experienced this first hand when the Powell Valley Association held a council over father's view on the origin of Satan and his fall from heaven. You can read about that in my online writing titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," which has its own blog with all the chapters. (See chapter two titled "Personal Experiences" here) When a schismatic faction wants to force their views on others they will begin to ask candidates for ordination their views on the questions dividing the Hardshells. This was another way to force others to kowtow. I also had this happen to me in my second ordination when I was a Hardshell Baptist. 

I also believe that Beebe did crave being the head dog among the newly created cult. He was at the Black Rock Convention when that convention declared non-fellowship against fellow Baptists who were supporting mission societies, religious education, tract distribution, and a  host of other things and he was chosen by the ministers in that convention to represent them by starting the "Signs of the Times" periodical with their support. So, I agree with Thompson that Beebe was like Diotrephes in desiring preeminence. But so too did Samuel Trott. So too have a host of others. Grigg's own father seemed to enjoy being put on a pedestal and being admired by many Hardshell Baptists. 

In 1846 in the trial over church doctrine in Indiana, in the White Water Association, Wilson Thompson led the no-means side, and the editor who published the record of that trial called him "the leader, the Ajax" of that side. (See here for my post on that) I also think that Grigg Thompson too was probably jealous of the influence of Beebe, coveting that for himself. I saw such a spirit when I was with the Hardshells, how each association or area had one minister who was the "ringleader" or pope, the one whom the other ministers feared. In the early church there were those who only sought a following, and who had "men's persons in admiration because of advantage." (Jude 1: 16 kjv) Even many "historians" of the "Primitive" Baptist church have said that many of their associational divisions resulted from ministers fighting for supremacy. 

Thompson wrote:

"When I reviewed Eld. T. P. Dudley's circular on the "Christian Warfare," he (Dudley) wrote a letter to Beebe, and it was published in the "Signs of the Times," calling me a "libeler," and many other hard things. I then wrote a letter to Beebe denying Dudley's charges, and proposing to meet Dudley, and submit the matter to our brethren; but he refused to publish my letter, and would never let me say one word in self-defence. Shortly after the division in the Licking Association, Ky., between the Primitive Baptists and the Dudleyites of that Association, Eld. J. F. Johnson, then of Indiana, wrote a letter, which Beebe published in the "Signs of the Times," stating that he had just been a tour through Ky. , and in it, he, in the strongest kind of language, said that the Primitive Baptists, who had left the Licking Association, denied the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election. The charge was false, as the articles of faith adopted by those brethren and published to the world showed; and Eld. Beebe knew the same, for he had seen the articles. I again wrote to him, desiring that he would let me correct the falsehoods published against the brethren by Johnson, but he would not suffer it, and the brethren had to lay under the false charge, without any means of defence. Thus, where the brethren who loved the truth would write, their letters were suppressed by this Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence, and with malicious words heaps reproach upon the brethren, and will not receive them himself, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (pgs. 199-200)

I find it interesting that each side in the Two Seed debate accused the other side of denying the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. We have already taken notice of this and have stated that the Two Seed view does in fact deny that doctrine. In the next chapter, when we look at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism in 1880, we will see how Potter also says that Two Seedism denies unconditional election or election by grace. 

Though there were no doubt some formal debates on Two Seedism, whether in oral or written debates, I have not found any. We will see where Beebe did make a formal reply to Potter, and have seen where Beebe responded to Elder Samuel Williams' criticisms of Two Seed ideas, but nothing was extensive. It seems that the Two Seeders, like Beebe and Dudley, were not interested in debating their views, but chose rather to force them on others. 

Thompson wrote:

"I became a Baptist about the time that Campbellism began to interrupt the peace of our churches. I passed through that war, and next came the machinery system of modern missions, which brought with it another war, and division in our denomination. I was called to bear my part in that struggle, and to suffer in common with my brethren. But we had hardly got through that war, and began to enjoy peace and union among ourselves, before the Arian, Two Seed notions of Beebe & Co. were introduced into our churches, and produced another war among us which has effected a third split, and built up a Beebe, Two Seed party in our midst. This last war has been conducted in a different way from either of the other two." 

I have written about the Campbellite schism several times through the years. That schism clearly showed one thing that destroys many things that the Hardshell Baptists say about the state of the Baptist denomination at the beginning of the 19th century. They have said that the Baptists, prior to the anti mission schism, were all believers in the peculiar tenets of Hardshellism. They say that they all at that time believed in the "no means" view of regeneration and salvation, and that they all opposed Sunday schools, mission societies, theological education, revivals, etc. All of this is untrue, however. The fact that Campbell led off many Baptists into his movement shows that many of the Baptists, at the start of the 19th century, were Arminian or semi Arminian. Actually, history shows that nearly all Baptists at first had no qualms about supporting the things that the Hardshells would later declare to be heresies. Even Wilson Thompson supported missions at first and believed that the Gospel was a means in salvation. I have shown this to be true in many postings through the years. His book "Simple Truth," published in 1821, shows this to be the case, as does his "autobiography." 

I find it interesting that Grigg does not mention the fact that his father believed in Two Seed tenets, a fact we have shown to be the case in previous chapters. He speaks of the split over Two Seedism, it being "a third split," as having occurred at the time of his publishing "The Measuring Rod." However, that is not quite true either. It is true that some churches and associations had begun to declare non fellowship with Two Seedism, many others had not yet. Just as the splits over "missionism" occurred over several decades, so too the split over Two Seedism. We have already shown how the Powell Valley Association did not split over it until 1879. In a previous chapter we showed this to be the case, citing Lawrence Edwards who gave us what the minutes of that association for that year declared. (See my posting here) The same is true about two other doctrines that split the churches in the 19th century. After the Civil War there began to be disputes and divisions over the doctrine of "absolute predestination of all things" and over the question of whether God uses the means of the Gospel or word of God to effect regeneration, new birth, or eternal salvation. The truth is, prior to all these splits, the "Primitive Baptist Church" had within it both sides, and existed together for several decades before a formal split occurred, each side tolerating the other for several decades prior to the formal splits. 

Thompson wrote:

"The Beebe party have on all occasions shunned investigation; and whenever their doctrines have been called in question by any one, they would at once make it a personal business, and at once assail the moral character of the brother, and do all they could to destroy his good name." 

The shunning of open debate, however, is alive and well today among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. In the Powell Valley church council that I write about in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" that occurred when I was a young member of that association in the early 1970s it was clear that the opposers of father's view (that Satan was a fallen angel from heaven) did not want to debate the merits of his view from the scriptures, though father tried to get them to do so. Consider also the fact that as time went on, the Hardshells had fewer and fewer debates with those of other denominations. Though they had many in the late 19th century, and the early 20th century, they had very few in the late 20th century, and only one or two in the 21st century. This is the same thing that we often see among the liberals in politics today. Rarely do they want to debate the issues with conservatives, but rather make personal ad hominem attacks upon conservatives. 

Thompson wrote:

"When Eld. T. P. Dudley began to preach this doctrine in Kentucky, I met him at Mount Gilead church, Mason County, and publicly opposed him, and invited him to discuss the subject; but he refused, and in a secret and under-handed way, immediately began to put in circulation reports prejudicial to my character, and offered them as reasons why he would not meet me. The reports put in circulation by him, which have since been published by Beebe in substance, though changed a little in phraseology, and last of all, by Eld. W. C. Cleaveland, will be fully explained and refuted by the following letter from the Hamilton Primitive Baptist church, in Butler County, Ohio..." (pgs. 225-227)

Why did Thompson not "publicly oppose" his own father for believing in Two Seedism? Was it not because he thought it might hurt his influence? If so, then is he not also like Diotrephes? Why did he not object to Two Seedism in the 1830s, or 1840s, or 1850s? He often wrote affectionate letters to the Signs of the Times in those decades and I have yet to find where he ever raised an objection to Two Seedism. Perhaps he waited till 1860 because at that time more and more of his brethren began to oppose it. 

Thompson wrote:

"For I have been known among the Baptists for thirty years, and from the time I was restored by the Hamilton church up to now, have never had a charge preferred against me in any church; and up to fifty one or two, was a constant writer for the "Signs of the Times," edited by Eld. Beebe, and all these things were no objection to me with him, until he came out with his new doctrine, and I opposed it. He then saw that his only chance was to blacken my character if possible, and as his pen was accustomed to slander, it did not take him long to concoct and publish anything without regard to truth, that he could think up. Eld. D. W. Patman visited several Associations in Georgia, and read a letter to many of the brethren, which he said was from my father, stating that I had been twice excluded from the church, once for lying, and a second time for abandoning my family. I wrote to him for a copy of the letter, but I could not get it. I then wrote to my father, and asked him if he had ever written such a letter, and I got a letter, bearing date at Acton, Ind. , May 3, 1860, in which he says, "Patman, nor any other man, has not now, nor ever had, nor will have, any such a letter as you allude to, written by me, for I never wrote any such letter to any one." (pgs. 229-230)

Here, it is clear that Thompson is writing a false narrative, and the only reason I can surmise for it is the fact that he did not want to do anything to hurt his own influence prior to 1860. He says that he was a "constant writer" to the Signs of the Times and implies that during those times that Beebe did not advance Two Seedism in his periodical. But, that is simply not true. I have in previous chapters cited from the Signs of the Times from the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s and have shown where Beebe and Trott were promoting Two Seed ideas in those decades. So, Thompson is not telling the truth when he says that Beebe did not "come out with his new doctrine" until the late 1850s. I don't doubt that he was unfairly treated by the Two Seeders.

Why did Thompson want people to think that Beebe did not promote Two Seedism prior to the time that Thompson finally went public with opposition to it (1860)? Especially since it is not true? Why did Thompson not write to that paper in the years from 1833-1860 and object to the Two Seedism, as did men like Elder Samuel Williams? We cited from him in previous chapters for that time period. By his saying that he was a "constant writer" to Beebe's periodical he implies that Beebe had not yet "come out with his new doctrine," or else Thompson would have publicly opposed it. Why did he in 1860 not just simply and honestly say - "I saw Two Seedism as a serious error but did not oppose it till now, and I should have"? I think that Thompson, like many of the frontier lay preachers, did not want to do anything to lesson his standing and support, financial or otherwise. It was not until he saw the tide turning away from Two Seedism that he got on the bandwagon of the opposition. 

Further, since his father Wilson Thompson believed in the chief tenets of Two Seedism, he may have been held back from denouncing it. Elder John Clark of Virginia (who began his paper "Zion's Advocate" to oppose the views of Beebe and the Signs) and Elder John Watson of Tennessee (who wrote the "Old Baptist Test" to combat Two Seedism) were friends of Grigg. In the 1850's both of them waged a war against Two Seedism. Grigg finally jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, I am also fairly certain that he did not believe Two Seedism, at least in 1860 when he wrote "The Measuring Rod." Elder Lemuel Potter, who wrote his diatribe against Two Seedism in 1880, said that when he first began preaching in Illinois, a place where Two Seedism was widely believed, that he rather favored it. Perhaps that was true of Grigg Thompson also.

The same seems to be true also of Elder W. M. Mitchell of Alabama (1819-1901). Throughout the decades of the 1840s through the 1870s, Mitchell frequently wrote to the Signs of the Times and to the Southern Baptist Messenger, both Two Seed publications, and never objected to Two Seedism, though I have not read every issue of both. However, in 1880, the year before Beebe's death, and the year wherein Elder Lemuel Potter wrote his treatise against Beebe and Two Seedism, we find Mitchell writing to Beebe and the Signs and questioning Two Seedism (Signs of the Times March 1st, 1880; Vol. 48, No 5; See here). In the previous chapter we cited Thompson's citation of Mitchell, which showed that he was a Two Seeder who denied the resurrection, at least of the non-elect, and affirming annihilationism for them. We will delve into what Mitchell wrote to Beebe and of Beebe's response in the next chapter. It seems that many of the first anti mission Baptists jumped on to the Two Seed bandwagon when Parker first gave it prominence by his first books on that subject. However, as time went on, the opposers of Two Seedism began to increase, so that it appeared that Two Seedism had lost its glitter; And, for those seeking popularity and a following, they saw it better to abandon ship and get on board the Anti Two Seeder bandwagon.

Thompson wrote:

"But, last of all, W. C. Cleaveland came out with a letter in the "Southern Baptist Messenger," an Arian, Two Seed sheet, published at Covington, Ga., reiterating all these charges as though they were something new with him, when he and I had talked them all over in 1857, and he had been active in defending me against them. While I was at the Echonna Association, in 1857, W. C. Norris was there, and was secretly whispering thes e things, and W. C. Cleaveland said that "He thanked no drunken preacher for coming there and trying to injure good men." But in 1859, he whirled over to Beebeism, and like all the rest, began to slander all who would not go with them. In the "Herald of Truth" I published him guilty of falsehoods, and proposed to meet him before a tribunal of brethren, and prove it by as good Baptist testimony as could be found, but he refused to meet me." (pgs. 232-233)

Both the Signs of the Times and the Southern Baptist Messenger were leading Two Seed publications, and Gilbert Beebe was the editor of the former and his son William L. Beebe was the editor of the latter. Elder John Watson, prior to his death in 1866, spoke of the need to have Two Seedism debated through a paper called the "Herald of Truth." I have searched through the years trying to find a library that might have old issues of that periodical. I know that in the later 19th century that Elder T. S. Dalton, a person who became a leader among the Hardshell Baptists, took over the editorship of that paper. Dalton (1846–1931) served as the editor of the Primitive Baptist publication The Herald of Truth from February 1891 until 1898. The Herald of Truth was originally established in January 1858 by Elder Fain, it seems. Dalton purchased the paper in 1891 and merged it with his own existing publication, retaining the name The Herald of Truth. He was succeeded as editor by Elder John R. Daily in 1898. The Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, Illinois, says (See here):

"After his  (Elder John Clark) death, in 1882, it ("Zion's Advocate") was published for several years by Elder C. H. Waters (1849-1920) as editor, and Bro. J. G. Wiltshire as publisher. In February 1891 the paper was purchased by Elder T. S. Dalton (1846-1931), who merged it with the Herald of Truth, and served as editor until 1898. Elder John R. Daily (1854-1920) then served as editor for eight years." 

I believe that Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow "Primitive Baptist" minister, doctor, and friend of Elder John M. Watson, who helped Watson to revise his book "The Old Baptist Test" before his death in 1866, and who would later promote Watson's book and begin the periodical "The Baptist Watchman" with Elder J. B. Stephens (also a doctor) and others, which was a leading periodical in the 1870s, carried on the debate over Two Seedism through the "Herald of Truth."

According to the Primitive Baptist library (here) Dr. Fain was editor of the "Herald of Truth," for they say:

"HERALD OF TRUTH Elder R. W. Fain, (1807-1876), Shelbyville, Tennessee, founder, in 1858. Elder John M. Watson may have later served as editor of this paper. No issues of this paper have been located yet." 

I cited this in a post on Elder Fain, where I also had a picture of him (which took me years to find). You can read that (here). I have read recently where the library has obtained a few copies of that periodical, probably when Elder Dalton took it over. 

I find it strange that Grigg Thompson would be writing articles in "The Herald of Truth" against Two Seedism, for that periodical promoted the view that the gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners, which was the view of Watson and Fain and Stephens. Yet, Thompson would at some time reject that view, as he did in his debate with Elder Mark Bennett, first editor of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, which debate first occurred in 1853. (See my write up about it here) So, though Thompson would deny the means view, at least in "regeneration," he nevertheless still associated with Elders Watson, Fain, and Stephens, and John Clark, who believed in means. Keep in mind also that a denial of means first developed among the Two Seeders who came after Elder Daniel Parker. Elder Dalton, who took over the Herald of Truth in 1891 when he took ownership of Clark's paper "Zion's Advocate." Dalton, as I have shown in several postings through the years in my "Old Baptist Test" blog, believed in means at first, but later jumped ship when he saw that the anti means side was gaining the ascendency in the latter part of the 19th century. (For instance, see this post here)

With this chapter we conclude our look at what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote against Two Seedism in 1860-1861 via his book "The Measuring Rod." In the next several chapters we will look at what other elders would later say in their disputes over Two Seedism.

It Is Incredible

 

I often find myself "lost in wonder, love, and praise" as says the line in the spiritual song "Love Divine." It also sings of "love excelling." It blows my mind to think that God loves me, thinks upon me, and has made me his child, and that he dwells in my heart. It is hard to wrap one's mind around such profound truth, just as it is almost inconceivable to have eternal life and immortality. It is all quite fascinating. David also felt this same way. He wrote:

"1 O Lord, You have searched me and known me. 2 You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. 3 You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways. 4 F or there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. 5 You have hedged me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it." (Psalm 139: 1-6 nkjv)

The things I mentioned in the opening paragraph, and the things the Psalmist mentions, represent such blessings that are simply "too wonderful for me," such revelations being so high and lofty that we confess - "I cannot attain to it." They are simply beyond our comprehension, unable to fathom such knowledge. When the apostle Paul was called up into the third heaven, he heard things so wonderful and so stupendous that he could not put into words what he saw and experienced, saying they were "inexpressible." (II Cor. 12: 4) He also spoke of "the peace of God which surpasses all understanding" (Phil. 4: 7 nkjv).

The fact that God makes his sons and daughters out of sinful condemned rebels is amazing, amazing grace and love. The fact that God dwells in penitent believers is amazing and wonderful. The fact that we can call God our Father, our Friend, and our Helper is incredible. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, and I cannot attain it. Such thoughts make me rejoice with "joy unspeakable or inexpressible and full of glory" (I Peter 1: 8). To have God walking with you through life is also incredible. This is one of the reasons why we see the word "Selah" often in the Psalms. This wonderful knowledge about which I have been writing makes me pause and stand in awe. The Psalmist spoke of standing in "awe" of God. (Psa. 4: 4; 33: 8) He also spoke of being in "awe" of God's word. (Psa. 119: 161) Sometimes we can't even express in words our thanks to God for such blessings, but simply say - "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" (II Cor. 9: 15 nkjv)

When I think of my inheritance as a begotten child of God, I am also in awe. We know that the natural man, the man without divine revelation or without the Spirit of God, cannot understand "the things that God has prepared for those who love him." (I Cor. 2: 9) But, even with the bible and Spirit of God, we must say, as did the prophet Job, "Lo, these are parts of his ways: But how little a portion is heard of him? But the thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26: 14 kjv) So another Christian hymn says "the half has not been told." 

Sins of Satan (#4 - Thief)

"The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy."

(John 10: 10 nkjv)

In my previous entries we have focused on the sins of the Devil, and how he has been "sinning from the beginning" as the apostle John says. (I John 3: 8) In the first in that series (here) we spoke of his chief sin, which is pride, or narcissism. In the second entry (here) we saw where Satan was called, by the Lord Jesus, a "liar." In the third entry (here) we saw where he also called Satan a "murderer." In this entry we will focus on how Satan is a thief or robber.

The above text (John 10: 10) alludes chiefly to Satan and identifies him as a thief. He is the inspiration for all thieves. His messengers or servants (II Cor. 11: 15) are the demons and the false prophets and teachers and they are involved in stealing from God and his people, and from anyone and everyone. So the apostle Paul warned: "Let no one cheat you of your reward" (Col. 2: 18 nkjv). Satan, through his ministers and agents, will steal your peace, joy, and even your soul. In the parable of the sower and seed, of the various kinds of soil, Christ in interpreting the parable said:

"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside." (Matt. 13: 19 nkjv)

This is another indictment of Satan. He is a thief. He steals the word out of the hearts of those who are hearing the word of God. In the old testament we hear God say:

“Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings." (Mal. 3: 8 nkjv)

Can God be robbed? Yes and no. God cannot be robbed of his essential glory and attributes, nor in any other way except in cases where he suffers it. Men may rob God of what naturally belongs to him, such as praise and worship, or in tithes and offerings. We rob God when we do not give him the love and adoration and thanks he deserves, when we do not give him our time, our efforts, and our hearts and minds.

Satan seeks to rob God of his sovereignty, and of all that belongs to him. When he came to tempt the Lord Jesus Christ he said:

"Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” (Matt. 4: 8 nkjv)

By tempting Christ and others to worship him he is acting as a thief.

So, how do we protect ourselves from being robbed by the Devil? We know of the ways we try to protect our stuff from being stolen by men. We have alarms, door locks, safes, etc. to prevent it. Yet, they are not always successful. However, how do we protect ourselves from being robbed of the Devil? One thing is to do as Jesus said when he said:

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matt. 6: 19-21 nkjv)

What more secure place can there be to put your most valuable treasures? Your most valuable treasure is your heart and soul. All the good works you do for Christ are also ways you can lay up treasures in heaven, for God will surely reward you for your service done in true faith.

We also must guard our hearts lest they be stolen by the Devil and his army of thieves. Solomon said:

"Guard your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life." (Prov. 4: 23 LSB)

We need to be on the look out for thieves. We cannot let down our guard. Satan has his pickpockets. He can sneak upon you unawares and can take away your peace and joy and your assurance. Thankfully, by God's watching, Satan cannot steal away the gift of eternal life, nor your standing with the Lord. He can steal only so far as God's providence suffers him to do so. He cannot steal any of the sheep of Christ because Christ is such a great shepherd. So, though Satan comes to steal and rustle away the sheep, as rustlers rustle cattle, he is never successful. Yet, he keeps on trying. 

Beebe on the Trinity

This will be a short addition to what I have written on the fact that many of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the 19th century were in error on the doctrine of the Trinity. In reading some old issues of the "Signs of the Times" I came across an article by Elder Gilbert Beebe on the Trinity. In this article he also gives his Two Seed view of the eternal manhood of the Son of God, a view that I showed was promoted by Joseph Hussey, and other Hyper Calvinists, at the beginning of the 18th century. I will give the most important and revealing statements he made in that article and make some observations. The article in question was written to respond to a question by a sister Brown. You can read that article in the "Signs of the Times" for May 1st, 1862 (Vol. 30, No. 9) (See here)

Beebe wrote (all highlighting mine):

"We will not attempt to settle or review the positions occupied by Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Sosinocians (sic) and Saballians (sic), or others who have distinguished themselves by their masterly efforts to secure the mastery; but simply give sister Brown and our readers generally the limited views which we have, making no pretension to infallibility, or even desiring that our views shall be regarded with the least favor, any further than they shall be found clearly sustained by the infallible record which God has given of his Son."

This opening statement drew my attention as I was perusing through the issues of the "Signs of the Times" for the year 1862. I was stunned by how Beebe did not want to condemn any of the heresies mentioned, and viewed the disagreements over the Trinity with such a cavalier and dismissive manner. This is perhaps because there was so much disagreement among the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century and he did not want to offend any of them and so lose support for his paper and his influence.

Beebe wrote:

"We view the subject thus--First: that all the fullness of the Godhead is embodied in our Lord Jesus Christ...If he were not absolutely, and to the fullest extent of the word, God, we could not scripturally rely on him as our Savior; for he has said, I am God, and beside me there is no Savior. Nor could we worship him without involving the sin of idolatry; for he has said, He will have no other God before him, and has forbidden us to worship any other God. We therefore believe he is the true God and eternal Life. The only wise God our Savior."

Nothing wrong with these remarks. What he says next however is what is highly objectionable. Beebe wrote:

"We believe he is not only God in the most absolute sense of the word, but he is also The Man whose name is The Branch, who shall be a priest on his throne, &c. according to Zechariah vi. 12, 13; that he is the Man of God's right hand and the Son of Man, whom God has made strong for himself according to Psa. lxxx.17."

This is also true. He wrote further:

"And we also firmly believe that he is "The Mediator between God and men; the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time, according to I Tim. ii, 5, 6."

That is also true. Now notice what he says next:

"As God, he is one and identical with the Father, and embodies all the fulness of eternal Godhead. As the Man of God's right hand, and as he is called the Man Christ Jesus, and the Man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; he existed in this manhood with his Father from everlasting; not in a fleshly nature, until he came in the flesh, but in the perfect and complete manhood indicated in the declarations of scripture referred to; and which we clearly infer from the divine testimony that man was created in his image and likeness, and that Adam is the figure of him that was to come. As the Man Christ Jesus, he embodied, and from everlasting did embody his church, which is his body and the fulness of him that filleth all in all, according to Eph. 1, 23."

In my series on Two Seedism I showed how the idea that Christ as a man with a human soul existed from eternity, being what is meant by Christ being eternally begotten (or created) as the Son of God, laid a foundation for later Hyper Calvinists to embrace the idea that the children of God were also begotten in Christ the man from eternity, being begotten when Christ as man was begotten. This is why their doctrine involved what came to be called "eternal vital union"or "eternal children."

The Two Seeders also taught that Christ as a man was the image or pattern followed in the creation of Adam and Eve, so that when Elohim said "let us make man in our image and after our likeness" he was indicating that God or Christ was a man. That is so close to what Mormons teach. The Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists of North Carolina, which I was once a part of, has this article in their articles of faith:

"Art. 2. We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity."

This is what any Arian, "Jehovah's Witnesses," or other deniers of the Trinity would say.

Beebe wrote further:

"That all these members which make up the fullness of the stature of Christ were in him before the foundation of the world, is proved.--Eph. 1.4...and that they were and are in him, as the fulness of his body and members, is equally clear from the whole tenor of Paul's arguments throughout his epistle to the Ephesians. This is what we call eternal vital union of Christ and the church; and upon this union rests the eternal salvation of all who are or ever can be saved."

"Now as we have proved from I Tim. ii.5, Christ is not only God and Man, but he is also the one and only Mediator between God and men. We do not controvert the testimony that Christ has come in the flesh; but we contend that he was Christ, or the Anointed One before he came in the flesh. That he was made of a woman, made flesh and dwelt among us, is clearly true, and that the fleshly body in which he came was made, of the seed of David after the flesh; in his flesh he took part of the same flesh that his members are partakers of is admitted; but that he was the Man Christ Jesus before he came in the flesh is what we contend earnestly for."  

So, we see, as I suggested in my Two Seed series (all articles now have their own blog; See link on this page), how the belief that the humanity of Christ was begotten or created in eternity past laid the foundation for Two Seedism. If one accepts that Christ was a man before his incarnation, and from eternity past, he will then easily make the jump to saying that all the elect were in Christ from eternity.

It is also a strange idea that Beebe and other Two Seeders believed that there were four and not three eternal distinct entities or persons of the Godhead. There was the Father, the Word, the Spirit, and the Mediator who is both God and man. This is what the Bear Creek article intends when it says that "the man Christ Jesus" was eternally united ("relative union") to the Trinity, which makes God four persons rather than three.

Of course, the truth is, that Christ did not in any sense become a man until he was born of the virgin Mary. He did not exist as "Christ" or "Jesus" either from eternity. He was from eternity God the Son, or the Word of God, possessing only divinity and not humanity. So, if people were "in" Christ from eternity, it could not be that they were in his humanity, but only in his divinity. Neither case is correct. 

No one was literally or actually in Christ from eternity. Paul's statement that believers were "chosen in Christ" from "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1: 3) does not affirm that those chosen actually existed in Christ from before the world began. "In Christ" in that statement means the same thing as when he says "in love having predestined us to the adoption (or son placing) of children (or sons)." The choice and the ordaining to salvation was done both "in Christ" and "in love." That simply means that Christ and divine love were the impetus, context, or reason behind God's choice and predestination. 

When Paul says "in Him all things consist" (Col. 1: 17) he does not mean that all things are from eternity. The Greek word "en" (English "in") often carries the meaning of "by." "En" is often translated by the words in, by, with, among, at, on, through. "En" can carry the idea of instrumentality. 

Many 19th century Hardshells Denied the Trinity

In the Signs of the Times for April 15, 1881 (Vol. 49, No. 8) J. F. Johnson, a Two Seeder who highly esteemed Gilbert Beebe and T. P. Dudley, writes the following (pgs. 87-88; See here):

"The next trouble was the division of the church on the subject of "three persons in the Godhead." Myself and a few others could not conscientiously indorse the sentiment. There had previously been much controversy on that subject in the churches and associations in Ohio and in Indiana, and they had finally settled on an agreement that it should not be a test of fellowship. Finally a candidate presented himself to the church for reception, and the pastor of the church asked him if he indorsed that article. He replied that he could not fully indorse the idea that he understood those words to convey. He was then told that he could not be received into that church. I then arose and observed that that article had caused much contention among the Baptists, and they finally agreed that it should not be a bar to fellowship; that Lebanon church had through her pastor made it a bar; and if it must remain one, put it up against me, for I did not believe it. It raised a terrible storm over me, which continued to rage for about eighteen months. At first, I suppose, three-fourths of the church were opposed to me, mostly relatives or connections of the pastor. Finally, at the time of the division, out of over eighty members, twenty two went with them, and the others remained with us. There were then mutual exclusions on both sides; but in a few months they came back, made acknowledgments, and were received, not very cordially, however, by myself and some others. Not long after the means controversy came up, and the same ones, with one exception only, went off with that error."    

I have written several articles through the years showing that Wilson Thompson, who is considered "the ablest Primitive Baptist preacher" (See this post for that citation: here) of the 19th century, denied the Trinity, being a Sabellian or Modalist. See these postings for proof of that (here, here, here, here, here). In those posts I showed that a large portion of the old Miami Association of Ohio followed Thompson in his denial of the Trinity and of the anathemas of Elder James Osbourn, another widely recognized leader of the anti mission Baptists, against the Miami Association for those heretical views. The above links will give you citations from Osbourn. Elder Samuel Trott was also a denier of the Trinity and Elder John Clark of Virginia opposed Trott on that subject and ended up starting his own paper called "Zion's Advocate" about 1854 to combat several prevailing errors of "Primitive Baptists" such as Arianism, Modalism, Two Seedism, and those who denied God used human means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Some of the argumentation of Clark and Trott towards each other was published in the "Signs of the Times." 

The above citation from the Signs of the Times by Johnson gives information about how extensive was the denial of the Trinity among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, especially in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, and in the Miami Association, in the area of Ohio where I was born and raised till I moved to North Carolina in 1976. What I find rather striking about that citation is that it shows that there was a large number of "Primitive Baptists" who in 1881 still denied the Trinity. What is even more striking, however, is the statement that both sides of the question had in previous years agreed to not make the issue a test of fellowship. Can you believe that? They declared against missions, Sunday schools, seminaries, revival meetings, salaried ministry, etc., but they tolerated Two Seedism and deniers of the Trinity? No wonder today's Hardshells want to run away from any discussion of their history! 

If a denial of the Trinity is a heresy, then what do today's Hardshells say about the validity of the baptisms administered by Trinity deniers? And the Two Seeders? I am sure that such a question produces all kinds of cognitive dissonance and moves most of them to try to ignore such stubborn facts. The Landmarker views of the Hardshell Primitive Baptists force them to admit that if one administrator of baptism in their link of baptismal administrators was a heretic of an heretical church, then all succeeding baptisms are invalid. If you were baptized by an administrator who is descended from a chain of administrators that had one unqualified administrator, then you must admit that your baptism is invalid. (See my series on Landmarkism by using the search engine to find the months when I wrote it) Thankfully, Landmarkism is not true.

The citation also mentions the division over the "means" question. But, in many churches in the states mentioned above, where Wilson Thompson labored, there had already been divisions, going back to the 1840s. In 1846 there was a trial over church property by both sides, and the means side won the case and Thompson's side lost. (See here for that post) For many years, both the question of the Trinity and of means in salvation found people on both sides of the questions and yet did not divide. In the 1880s, however, a formal division began to occur on a wider scale. The same is true relative to the doctrine known as "the predestination of all things." Those who believed it (who came to be called "Absoluters") and those who did not were content to not divide over it, at least till the end of the 19th century.

Death Blows to Hardshellism

My writings are full of refutations of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism. That is especially true with three blogs, The Baptist Gadfly, the Hardshell Baptist, and the Old Baptist Test. Links to the first two are on this page in the list of links. In this post I want to mention two passages of scripture that are insurmountable obstacles for Hardshell Baptists, and for Universalists. First, let us notice these words of the apostle Paul:

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22)

I have written on this text as it relates to Hardshellism in this post (here) from four years ago. Hardshell Baptists, with few exceptions, believe that people who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Some of them, the more wise among them, will say that this is a description of what happens to people who have heard the gospel concerning Christ but who reject it and does not refer to those who live and die without ever hearing about Christ. That is not the majority view, for the majority say that many of the elect and born again people will live and die without faith in Christ or love for him. But, that view is clearly overthrown by the apostle Paul in the above declaration. By the words "Anathema Maranatha" he means "accursed (from Christ) at his coming again." Further, Paul's words cannot be interpreted or paraphrased to say:

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, with the exception of those who never heard of Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha."

However, the text says "any man," which would exclude no group, even that class of people who lived and died without hearing about the Lord Jesus Christ. I realize that even Christians who believe that one must believe in Christ to be saved will make excuses for those who died without hearing, even saying that those who do not hear may be saved if they live up to the light they have in nature. However, that too is wrong. 

Another text that is a death blow to Hardshellism, and one that produces all kinds of cognitive dissonance among them, are these inspired words of the same apostle:

"For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom. 10: 13-15)

I have also written on this text many times through the years and how it destroys Hardshellism. How? Because they say either 1) that believing in Jesus and calling upon him is not a condition for "eternal" salvation, though it would be for "time" salvation, or 2) that Jesus is able, and actually does, appear to his chosen people who live in heathen lands and speaks to them, preaching the gospel to them and revealing himself to them. So, we read the following from one of the leading spokesmen and historians for the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, Elder Sylvester Hassell:

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." (From "Questions and Answers" by Elder R.H. Pittman and Sylvester Hassell - See here)

If that is true, then it upholds the teaching of the apostle in Romans chapter ten, affirming that faith in Christ requires learning about Christ. However, the Bible does not teach that Christ personally appears to people and preaches the gospel to them, nor that he sends angels to preach it. If that were true, then why send out the apostles and others to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

The apostle Paul clearly says that one must have faith in Christ to be saved and that in order to believe in Christ a person must hear about Christ by a preacher bringing the good news about Christ to that person.

Also, if the view of Hassell is correct (which other leading pbs have stated, such as C.H. Cayce), then all those to whom Christ preaches the gospel will be saved both in time and eternity.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXX)

In this chapter we will continue to review what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote against Two Seed Primitive Baptists views on regeneration or the birth of the Spirit in his work "The Measuring Rod." 

Thompson wrote:

"We have now found them to be Arians in their views of the Mediator, and to be Two Seed in their views of the origin of the elect and non-elect. It is true that they believe God created both; but they hold that he created the elect in Christ before time, and that he created the non-elect in Adam in time; that the elect are by creation a spiritual family, and that the non-elect are by creation a natural, or earthly family. These views have led them to deny the doctrine of regeneration as taught in the Bible, and by the Primitive Baptists. For if the elect were created in Christ in eternity a spiritual seed, and were in eternity made partakers of the divine nature, regeneration can effect no change in them, unless it should be a change for the worse; for it is contended that the elect are a "spiritual, holy seed," therefore a change could not better their condition. But they deny that any change is wrought in the sinner, in soul, body, mind, spirit, or matter, in regeneration, as I shall show before I am done with this point, and teach that regeneration is nothing but the generating or making manifest the spiritual child, which has laid dormant in the loins of Christ, from the time of his creation. Eld. T. P. Dudley says: "Regeneration is not a reforming, remodeling, or working over, like a hatter taking an old hat, and working it over, and making a new hat of it, but that it is the bringing forth of a new hat, or new man." (pg. 67-68)

Thompson here gives a fair description of what Beebe and Trott and some other Two Seeders taught about regeneration and the origin of the elect and non-elect. However, as we have seen, not all Two Seeders "believe God created both" the elect and non-elect, for Daniel Parker did not believe that God created the Devil or his children, did not believe that God "created the non-elect in Adam."

Thompson wrote:

"By the “Golden Rule” they cannot be the true church, and have no right to bear its name. If there are any among them that have ever been born again; have ever been made a new creature in Christ Jesus; have ever been changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness, I would say, “Come out of her, my people,” for the doctrine is at war with the Bible, is at war with the interests of the true church, and is at war with your own experience." (pg. 82)

Here Thompson questions whether the Two Seeders were even born again. He certainly denies that they could be "the true church." This is somewhat strange in view of what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe, for they are quasi Universalists and want to make nearly all religious people, whether heathen or Christian, to be God's born again children. As I have shown in other writings the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists often questioned the salvation of all who did not agree with them. In an article I wrote back in 2013 titled "How Far Removed" I wrote the following:

"In reading the oldest Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s I am stunned by how different today's Hardshells are in doctrine. The first Hardshells were very strict in judging all other groups as not truly Christian, or not truly born again. They were quick to affirm that the true born again child of God would not follow others in supporting mission boards and societies, or Sunday Schools, or theological schools, etc. They constantly referred to those who supported such as being part of the whore of Babylon, and of the Antichrist. They thought they were wolves, and not sheep. True, they thought that some of the Lord's elect were among these groups, for they were often heard citing this verse - "come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18: 4) But, they did not believe that such chosen people would remain in Babylon once they were regenerated and converted."

Thompson's statement about the Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists reflects this view. He doubts that the Two Seeders were saved. He certainly doesn't believe that they are a legitimate church of Christ. But, such a view creates problems for Thompson and for the entire "Primitive Baptist" denomination. Why? Because a large number of their churches in the 19th century believed in Two Seedism and those churches and elders who believed it baptized a large portion of their members, and therefore were not qualified administrators, and because of their Landmarker views they must therefore say that all the baptisms performed by Two Seeders are invalid. See my series on Landmarker beliefs in "Hardshells and Alien Baptism" in the archives for 2017. I recall reading where there was a lot of debate in the mid to late 19th century among "Primitive Baptists" about whether to rebaptize those who had been declared to hold to heresy and I believe Thompson said that no one could undo the past, that it would be impractical and impossible to try to rebaptize all who had been baptized by those in disorder. He therefore suggested accepting those baptisms but not to do it any longer. However, that did not alleviate the problem.

Thompson wrote:

"I shall now come to another article of their faith, which may be stated in these words:— “God has two kinds of children, one are children by descent, the others, children by adoption. The children by descent never sinned, were never under the curse of the law, and needed no redemption.” (pg. 82-83)

I hardly know what to say to this belief by some Two Seeders. I would encourage the reader to read my lengthy series on adoption (which are all in one blog devoted to that subject). The link is (here). Such a view is obviously against what the Bible teaches.

Thompson wrote:

"Elder J. F. Johnson, in a letter publish ed in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1st, 1857, uses the following language:– “There is a visible difference manifested in the Scriptures between the children born of God, and those adopted by him.” (pg. 83)

I have not been able to find any copies of "The Southern Baptist Messenger" for the year when Johnson published the article Thompson refers to, but I certainly would like to see more writings by Two Seeders on this point.

Thompson wrote:

"The children by descent, had their preexistence in God, inherited their holiness from him, and descend from him a spiritual, holy generation. The adopted child is the Adam man, and this adopted child never can possess the nature of a child, because it did not pre-exist in the parent. But I will let the Elder tell it in his own words, and then he cannot grumble at me—here they are: 

“A birth necessarily involves the idea of a pre-existence in the parentage. Not so with adoption. The child born, are children by lineal descent; those adopted, are made children by a legal process, from first to last.” (pg. 83-84)

I find all this quite interesting in light of all my writings on the adoption question. You can read all those writings in a blog devoted to that issue. (See here) I can see how Two Seeders like Johnson might say that the soul or spirit of a child of God was begotten in eternity, and needed no adoption, but that the human body was begotten in Adam and needed to be adopted. 

Further, the reasoning of the Two Seeders forces them to say that any person "born of God" eternally existed in God. But, that is far-fetched. Those who are in time born again did preexist in the mind of God, but had no actual existence.

Thompson wrote:

"He tells us that those two children are “antagonistical” in their natures, and can not live together in peace. The child by lineal descent, is a holy, incorruptible child, and was preserved in Jesus Christ holy, so that the taint of sin was never upon it. Elder Johnson represents the children by descent as a “spiritual seed, eternally existing in God, and preserved in him, as a woman preserves fruit in a jar.” Elder Beebe, in speaking of the origin of this spiritual seed, says, “The same spiritual creation which set up our Day’s man, our spiritual Head, gave actual being to all the elect of God, in him.” (pg. 84)

That is a strange view. God has birthed children and adopted children, and they are different. There is no Bible teaching that affirms such a thing. All those who are born of God will, in the day of the resurrection and judgment, experience "adoption" or "son placement," as Paul said. (Rom. 8: 23) Adoption involves the redemption or glorification of the body, as Paul said in that text. See my series on the birth/adoption question in this blog dedicated to that one subject. (here)

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. Dudley says, “The bride and all the spiritual children were created in, and simultaneously with the last Adam—they all are of the same nature with him.” “The seed of the last Adam make manifest his nature.”" (pg. 85)

Again, this is one of the fundamental beliefs in Two Seedism. The elect or children of God were not created in Adam along with the non-elect, but were created in Christ in eternity past. Further, one can see how this belief requires that "the last Adam" was created or procreated (begotten) in his manhood before the world began, a view that we saw was taught by Joseph Hussey and other Hyper Calvinists at the beginning of the 18th century. 

Thompson wrote:

"Elder Beebe, in running the parallel be tween Adam and Christ, tells us, that “identical with the creation of Christ was the creation of his elect, his bride—bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.”" (pg. 85)

So, when was Christ created according to Beebe? Answer: some time in eternity past. Not that Beebe believed that Christ was created in his divinity, but in his humanity or in his state as a Mediator. Still, it is very close to Arianism, or what perhaps would be better to say, they were semi-Arians. 

Thompson wrote further:

"The reader will see that they are not talking about eternal life, which God promised before the world was, but that they are teaching an actual personal existence of all the elect before time, and that this spiritual creation, this spiritual seed, whose existence is identical with Christ, bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, is the child by descent, the legitimate heir of God; and that it never has sinned, or in any way lost the purity or holiness it had in its creation; therefore, the doctrine of adoption can have no reference to it, for it has never forfeited its estate, and become, by wicked works, a foreigner, a stranger, an alien, and an enemy." (pg. 85-86)

One can see how the doctrine of adoption, as generally understood by most Christians, is a death blow to the doctrine of "eternal children." The Bible does teach that those who God chose to salvation before the world began are foreknown children, or planned and purposed children, as Isaac was the promised child of Abraham before Isaac was born, but this does not mean that the children of God or Isaac were actual existing children before they were born.

Wrote Thompson:

"Eld. Wm. Mitchell, of Ala., says, that "the penalty of the law given to Adam was death, and when the transgressor dies, he has paid the penalty, and that is the end of him." Another says that, "These bodies are only adapted as a temporary residence for the spiritual man to dwell in, and that when this spiritual man leaves it, God will have no farther use for it; that it will return to the earth, and be destroyed with the earth. "I know of none of them in Georgia but what teach that "the Adam man, soul, body, and spirit, dies, and sinks down into the grave." (pgs. 88-89)

Elder Mitchell, a leader of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in Alabama, was a Two Seeder, a fact that today's Hardshell Baptists in that state want to hide. Thompson thinks he was. If one reads old issues of the "Signs of the Times" or "The Southern Baptist Messenger" he will see Elder Mitchell writing in support many times. If what Thompson says is correct, it appears that Elder Mitchell did not believe in the resurrection of the bodies of the wicked. He also says that a large number of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed in annihilation for the wicked non-elect.

Wrote Thompson:

"Another gross error of this Two Seed, Arian doctrine is, that it teaches that "the elect of God are no part of Adam's posterity." This sentiment is in direct opposition to the teachings of God's word, for we are there taught that they are chosen out of the world from among men, and out of all nations." (pg. 106)

Not all Two Seeders denied that the elect were of Adam's posterity. Some say that the preexisting souls of the elect were implanted within Adam, and had Adam never sinned, only the elect would have been born of his seed. Parker taught that the sin of Adam and Eve made it possible that the non-elect or seed of the Devil to be born, and that this was what was meant by God telling Eve that he would "multiply" her seed. Some Two Seeders said that the physical bodies of the elect came from Adam but not their preexisting souls. Others said that even the physical bodies of the elect came from the preexisting human body and soul of Christ. 

Wrote Thompson:

"The beauty of the Gospel is, that it presents a Saviour in every way suited to the sinner in his lost and helpless state. When embraced by faith, this is good news to the weary, heavy laden soul, pressed down under a sense of its just condemnation. But if this new theory be true, the poor sinner of Adam's race may sink down in eternal gloom and despair, for he is not the elect seed, and has no part, or lot, in Christ, or the precious promises of the Gospel. I think that I can speak for every reader of these pages, and say, I am glad the doctrine is not true, for if it was, I should be without hope, and without God in the world, for I am a sinner of Adam's race, and if ever saved, it is all of grace. But, notwithstanding this Arian heresy, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (pgs. 107-108)

This reminds us of what we noticed in preceding chapters about Beebe and others affirming that being "created in Christ Jesus" or being a "new creation" or a "new man" refers to what took place in eternity past rather than in time when a sinner believes and is converted. Thompson is correct to show how this undermines the good news message to sinners of Adam's race.

Wrote Thompson:

"In solving a problem, if we start wrong, our whole work will be wrong, and we will never obtain the correct answer; so with this Two Seed, or Arian, theory, they start wrong, and they never get right. Their peculiar notions that the elect is a spiritual seed, that was created in Christ Jesus before the world was, that never sinned or fell in Adam, has led them to deny that the Gospel is to be preached to all the world. I have frequently heard their preachers say, "I was never called to preach to sinners. The Gospel is only an address to the saint, &c." If they tell the truth, they have received quite a different call from the apostle Paul, for he was called to bear his name far hence among the Gentiles, to testify both to Jew and Greek, repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (pg. 108)

This is quite interesting for several reasons. First, because Thompson himself led the way in the mid 19th century in denying that one must hear the gospel in order to be saved or regenerated. What kind of Gospel did Thompson preach to those who were lost sinners? If one reads his book "The Primitive Preacher," which has many of his sermons, he did often address the dead sinners, a thing which Hardshell Baptists do not do today. See this post (here) where I cited from that book and showed how Thompson often appealed to the lost sinner about his salvation and his need of Christ. Second, he is another witness to the fact that it was the Two Seeders (with the exception of Parker himself, as we have seen) who denied that the Gospel was a means in eternal salvation. Thompson was a friend of Elder John Watson, who we cited much from in earlier chapters, and Watson believed in the Gospel and faith in it being a means in eternal salvation and decried other Two Seeders who thought that preaching to the unregenerate was Arminianism. Another witness was Elder Hosea Preslar, who lived in middle Tennessee and labored with Elder Watson, who wrote the following about Two Seeders and their views in this doctrinal area in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" and cited by me in this post (here):

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

He says that the gospel, in his view -

"is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

He goes further (same page), saying:

"But some object (the "ultraist" Hardshells - SG) to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice." (pg 187)

Also, from the same book I cited these words of Preslar (See here) which give the Two Seed view:

"That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address."

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

So, we can add Grigg Thompson's testimony in support of the fact that it was Two Seeders who taught that the preaching of the gospel was no means in regeneration, rebirth, or eternal salvation. So, those "Primitive Baptists" today who say that they are not Two Seeders and yet agree with Two Seeders in their view of the purpose of the gospel, are fooling themselves, for they retain this false idea of Two Seeders. I should also say, however, that many Two Seeders, such as Beebe, Trott, Wilson Thompson, etc., though they denied that the word of God or gospel was a means in "regeneration," nevertheless did not deny that it was a means in conversion, for with them conversion was the "birth" that followed regeneration. I have numerous citations in the "Old Baptist Test" blog that show this to be so. For instance, I cited what Trott wrote in 1833 in his writing titled "The Absolute Predestination of All Things" (See here or here for the original source) where he wrote:

"But we as firmly believe that God “has chosen” His people “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;” that: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” (II Thessalonians 2:13) and that while the “preaching of the cross is unto them that perish, foolishness; unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:18)."

"In reference to the charge that our belief in the doctrine of predestination occasions our not preaching that men should repent and believe, I would remark in the first place that according to our understanding of the Scriptures, “repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ” are essential parts of that salvation to which the elect of God are predestinated. These things therefore we preach."  (pg. 335)

So, it is ironic that Thompson is writing against Two Seedism and yet he holds to Two Seed views when he denies that the Gospel is a means in begetting faith and in saving sinners. It is also somewhat ironic since his father held to Two Seed views.

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at what Grigg Thompson wrote about Two Seedism among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. Following that we will look at what others wrote in their attacks on Two Seedism.

David Pyles Contradicts Paul

Elder David Pyles, pastor of Grace Primitive Baptist church of Pearl, Mississippi, and son of the late Elder Sonny Pyles, wrote the following in "Perfections of Grace: Comparisons & Contrasts of Old Baptist Doctrine & Calvinism" (See here; emphasis mine):

"A man does not believe in order to be occupied by the Holy Spirit; rather, he is occupied by the Holy Spirit in order to believe. So what is the practical consequence of him being accounted condemned until the point of faith? It appears that no reasonable answer can be given to this question except to say that he will be denied the visible certification of the righteousness Christ has bought for him." (pg. 68)

David states the doctrinal position of his group of "Primitive Baptists," but that position is clearly against what the Bible teaches. First, we will call the apostle Paul to the witness stand. He testified:

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3: 1-3 nkjv)

Paul by this language affirms that people become possessed or indwelt by the Holy Spirit by faith in Christ or the gospel. Therefore David is in direct contradiction to the apostle. This is what Paul also affirmed in his epistle to the Ephesians, praying "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." (Eph. 3: 17 nkjv)

Next, we call our Lord Jesus Christ to the witness stand. Said he:

"Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14: 23 nkjv)

Primitive Baptists like David say that Christ dwells in people who don't even know Jesus, and certainly no one can love or trust in one they do not know. Jesus said that he and the Father will come to make their abode in those who love him and believe his word.

Jesus also often spoke of people believing "into Christ," rather than believing because they were previously in Christ apart from believing. Notice these texts:

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-into him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40) 

 

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-into him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29) 

 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, into) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Entering Christ occurs at the same time Christ enters the believer. It would be absurd to say that we enter Christ by faith but then say he enters into us prior to, and apart from, faith. 

Christ also said:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." (Rev. 3: 20 nkjv)

Christ comes and dwells in the heart when people by faith invite him to come into them.

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." (John 6: 56 nkjv)

Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, the sacrificial or Passover Lamb, is an act of faith following hearing the gospel that informs about salvation through that sacrifice. David will say that Christ dwells in most people who have not eaten this supper by faith.

Finally, let us call the apostle John as a witness. He wrote:

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (I John 4: 15 nkjv)

If you have not confessed that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior, then God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do not dwell in you.

So, David is clearly wrong to say that people have Christ dwelling in them apart from knowing, loving, confessing, or believing in Christ.

David also says that one is justified (not condemned) even while in unbelief. Jesus taught differently, however, for he said:

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3: 36 nkjv)

Sins of Satan (#3 - Murderer)

 

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8: 44 nkjv)

In the last chapter in this series we focused on how the Devil or Satan is the "father" of lies and of all practicing liars. In this chapter we focus on how he is also the father of murders. The above text says that Satan was both a murderer and a liar from the beginning and that all his children lie and murder as does their father. What do we learn will be the eternal destiny of unrepentant liars and murderers? These verses give us that answer:

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev. 21: 8 nkjv)

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (I John 3: 15 nkjv)

So, how was Satan a murderer in the beginning? Was it not because he murdered Adam, Eve, and the human race by lying and deceiving Eve to disobey God and bring upon them the sentence of death? Satan killed Eve by talking her into suicide, and there is a lot of that going on in our day, especially due to the Internet. Recall that in our first post in this series we cited the words of the apostle John who said that "the Devil has been sinning from the beginning." (I John 3: 8) So, how has he been sinning or murdering "from the beginning"? What murders is he now guilty of? Consider this text first:

"And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth." (Rev. 18: 24 nkjv)

This is said of the whore of Babylon, but may be also said of Satan who inspires her. She rides a beast who is none other than Antichrist, the son of Satan.

Satan is a killer, murderer, assassin, and is one of the reasons why he is called Abaddon and Apollyon (Rev. 9: 11), the former being the Hebrew and the latter being the Greek, and both meaning a destroyer, which would of course include killing or murdering. He is responsible for every human death by his tempting Eve to sin, and Adam doing the same. Though Satan is not the direct cause for each person's death, yet he is the murderer of all for by his killing of Adam and Eve he killed the human race. In World War II Hitler murdered no one directly, except himself, and yet who can deny that he was the murderer of all who died in that great war?

We generally think of Cain as being the first murderer, but that title really belongs to Satan who inspired Eve to kill herself by sinning, and who incited Cain to murder his righteous brother. The apostle John says "Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother," and then asks "And why did he murder him?" He says it was "Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous." (I John 3: 12 nkjv) He also was the chief instigator in the murder of Jesus Christ.

"Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them." (Luke 22: 3-4 nkjv)

"And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him." (John 13: 2 nkjv)

So, Satan was inspiring Judas and others to murder Christ. So, who can claim to be a greater murderer than Satan? Not only did he murder the human race, but was the ringleader of those who crucified the innocent Jesus. 

In the previous post, in speaking of Satan as the "father of lies" we gave as an example his inspiring Annanias and Saphirra to lie to God the Holy Spirit and for this they were killed by the Lord. Of course, God did not murder them, but we may well say that Satan murdered them, or that they killed themselves by Satan's leading them to lie. In an allusion to the Devil the Lord Jesus said: "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy." (John 10: 10 nkjv) Peter says:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." (I Peter 5: 8 nkjv)

These verses show that Satan is a murderer who is trying to murder all he can. We know that he was behind the murders of Job's children, for he, by God's permission, moved others to do it. So the text reads:

"12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord. 13 Now there was a day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house; 14 and a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, 15 when the Sabeans raided them and took them away—indeed they have killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 16 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 17 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands, raided the camels and took them away, yes, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 18 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!”" (Job 1: 12-19 nkjv)

All this death came from Satan. He killed by means of the Sabeans and the Chaldeans and by causing fire to fall from the sky and tornadic winds which killed Job's sons and daughters. He "moved" the Sabeans and Chaldeans to murder. He did this even with king David, for it is recorded thusly:

"Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel." (I Chron. 21: 1 nkjv)

This was an act of disobedience to the Lord. Even Joab, David's right hand man, tried to talk him out of taking the census, and even refused to number two of the tribes. So, what was God's reaction to this sin of king David?

"7 And God was displeased with this thing; therefore He struck Israel. 8 So David said to God, “I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing; but now, I pray, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.” 9 Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, 10 “Go and tell David, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “I offer you three things; choose one of them for yourself, that I may do it to you.” 11 So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Choose for yourself, 12 either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking you, or else for three days the sword of the Lord—the plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now consider what answer I should take back to Him who sent me.”

David of course wisely chose the last option, saying “I am in great distress. Please let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are very great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man.” (vs. 13)

Then we see the death that came from the sword of God as a result of the sin of David, a sin that Satan "moved" him to do. The record says:

"14 So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell. 15 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.” And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite."

Some followers of Satan challenge Christians and Bible believers by asking "Who has killed more? God or Satan?" This is the kind of question you would find a son of the Devil asking. Yes, God kills, but he only kills as capital punishment those who have committed capital crimes. But, that is far different from the killing of Satan, for he kills the innocent. He violates the express will of God as expressed in his commandments, and yet without God's permissive will he could not murder anyone. We see that in the case of Job and in the case of Christ. The people who the government employs to execute those on death row are not murderers. Nor is God for the same reason. Yes, God via the angel killed thousands of people as a punishment for David's sin, but David's sin is the result of Satan's incitement of David. Many question God's justice in killing people for the sins of others, which is what he does here. But, that is beyond the scope of this post and short series. You can read about my answer to this in my long series titled "Divine Justice Issues" which are in the archives of this blog for February through May. Or I have begun moving all my writings in that series in its own blog along with my writings on "Determinism." (See here)

Other examples of the murders of which Satan is guilty is in the history of child or human sacrifices. Of these we read about in the old testament and in conjunction with pagan idolatry. To Jeremiah Yahweh said:

"And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’" (Jer. 32: 35 nkjv)

The old testament and history is filled with records of this practice, which is abominable and has Satan promoting it through his demons, his agents who are behind all such pagan practices. He is certainly behind the modern practice of abortion which has killed millions of innocent children in the womb.

We must also remember that anyone who hates another person so as to wish them harm is a murderer. Said the Lord Jesus Christ:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt. 5: 21-22 nkjv)

Satan inspires such hatred and unrighteous anger in the hearts and minds of the lost, those who are "of the devil" as was Cain and others. So Jesus said to those who rejected him - "you are of your father the devil." So, like father, like son. They hate and murder just as he does. In previous chapters in this series we spoke of how those who are "dead in trespasses and sins...walk according to the prince of the power of the air," according to Satan, and while thus walking according to that evil spirit they are "living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another." (Titus 3: 3 nkjv) This malice and hate shows that murder is in the heart of sinners while they are in their fallen depraved condition.

Satan kills through his lies, through sorceries (drugs), false religions, evil rulers, and a host of other ways. He is the greatest "serial killer" of all time. He is behind all, or nearly all, of the wars that have plagued our planet since the apostasy of our race in the beginning, since our parents chose to follow Satan.