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 -
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment