Why The Warnings?

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Col. 1: 21-23 nkjv)

The above text, like so many others similar to it, say that if a believer does not persevere or continue in the faith, or abiding in Christ, etc., that he was never saved in the beginning and that he will not be saved in the end. However, the bible affirms that perseverance is a gift of God and that true believers will be kept from falling from salvation. 

In the several public oral debates I have had on the question of whether true believers could lose their salvation I was often challenged by my opponents who said that my view on eternal security made the numerous warnings about falling from grace, or not abiding in Christ and so being cut off, not enduring, etc., meaningless.

Arminian Argument on Losing Salvation

Proposition: The biblical warnings to believers about persevering are meaningless if they do not imply that a believer may not persevere and thus lose salvation.

Does the bible warn believers of being lost if they apostatize?

In my rebuttal to this line of argument I have often brought up the case of the apostle Paul and his being ship wrecked at sea. I pointed out 1) how God predetermined that in the shipwreck that was sure to come that none would be lost, and 2) how this did not prevent Paul from both warning those on the ship and commanding them to do something in order to keep them and those on board from being destroyed by the shipwreck. Notice the story as given in the Book of Acts.

"9 Now when much time had been spent, and sailing was now dangerous because the Fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 saying, "Men, I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives." 11 Nevertheless the centurion was more persuaded by the helmsman and the owner of the ship than by the things spoken by Paul. 12 And because the harbor was not suitable to winter in, the majority advised to set sail from there also, if by any means they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete opening toward the southwest and northwest, and winter there. 13 When the south wind blew softly, supposing that they had obtained their desire, putting out to sea, they sailed close by Crete. 14 But not long after, a tempestuous head wind arose, called Euroclydon. 15 So when the ship was caught, and could not head into the wind, we let her drive. 16 And running under the shelter of an island called Clauda, we secured the skiff with difficulty. 17 When they had taken it on board, they used cables to undergird the ship; and fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis Sands, they struck sail and so were driven. 18 And because we were exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day they lightened the ship. 19 On the third day we threw the ship's tackle overboard with our own hands. 20 Now when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest beat on us, all hope that we would be saved was finally given up. 21 But after long abstinence from food, then Paul stood in the midst of them and said, "Men, you should have listened to me, and not have sailed from Crete and incurred this disaster and loss. 22 And now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 For there stood by me this night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve, 24 saying, 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must be brought before Caesar; and indeed God has granted you all those who sail with you.' 25 Therefore take heart, men, for I believe God that it will be just as it was told me. 26 However, we must run aground on a certain island." 27 Now when the fourteenth night had come, as we were driven up and down in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors sensed that they were drawing near some land. 28 And they took soundings and found it to be twenty fathoms; and when they had gone a little farther, they took soundings again and found it to be fifteen fathoms. 29 Then, fearing lest we should run aground on the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern, and prayed for day to come. 30 And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, when they had let down the skiff into the sea, under pretense of putting out anchors from the prow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." 32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the skiff and let it fall off. 33 And as day was about to dawn, Paul implored them all to take food, saying, "Today is the fourteenth day you have waited and continued without food, and eaten nothing. 34 Therefore I urge you to take nourishment, for this is for your survival, since not a hair will fall from the head of any of you." 35 And when he had said these things, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it he began to eat. 36 Then they were all encouraged, and also took food themselves. 37 And in all we were two hundred and seventy-six persons on the ship. 38 So when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship and threw out the wheat into the sea. 39 When it was day, they did not recognize the land; but they observed a bay with a beach, onto which they planned to run the ship if possible. 40 And they let go the anchors and left them in the sea, meanwhile loosing the rudder ropes; and they hoisted the mainsail to the wind and made for shore. 41 But striking a place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground; and the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern was being broken up by the violence of the waves. 42 And the soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim away and escape. 43 But the centurion, wanting to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded that those who could swim should jump overboard first and get to land, 44 and the rest, some on boards and some on parts of the ship. And so it was that they all escaped safely to land." (Acts 27: 9-44 nkjv)

These verses show that God had predestined that the 276 persons on board that ship should survive the tempest and shipwreck. Yet, that fact (which Paul knew and was persuaded of) did not keep Paul from giving warnings and telling the ship's crew to do certain things to survive. Conclusion? The warnings and the commands of Paul were means God used to bring about the end God had decreed. So, the same is true with salvation from sin and death. God has predestined that believers will be saved and yet God, through his messengers, did not let knowledge of this fact keep them from warning believers to do or not do certain things in order for their final salvation. Was it possible that any be lost in the shipwreck? No.

The warnings in Scripture, such as those found in the book of Hebrews, are not necessarily meant to suggest that salvation can be lost, but rather to motivate believers to actively pursue a life of faith and obedience, and because predestination does not exclude God's use of human means and making the things predestined conditional upon some act or choice of men. 

Keep in mind that the warnings are also directed towards those who profess faith but do not truly believe, and are intended to show that their falling away reveals their lack of genuine salvation. The warnings serve as a safeguard against taking salvation for granted and becoming complacent in one's faith. They encourage believers to remain vigilant and actively pursue a life that reflects their commitment to Christ. 

The Bible’s warnings against apostasy exist because there are two types of religious people: believers and unbelievers. The warnings are means to bring about the perseverance of true believers and to manifest that those who fall away were never saved to begin with. Wrote the apostle John in confirmation of this truth:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (I John 2: 19 nkjv)

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (VI)

In the next few chapters we will once again look at the Two Seed doctrine of the preexistence of both the human soul of Christ and of the souls of the elect and how Two Seeders believe that the "begetting" of the Son of God occurred before the foundation of the world and had nothing to do with his being divine but with him being human, and when Christ' human soul was begotten so too were his elect people (or bride) likewise begotten or created in him. This is why this Two Seed belief is called "the eternal children doctrine." It involves the idea of the preexistence of souls, an idea that did not originate with the Two Seeders, as many religions believe in it. 

In beginning this section we will first give citations from Two Seeders to show what is their belief about the preexistence of the human nature of Christ and of the preexistence of the souls of the elect. We have already given extensive citations from Two Seeders in years gone by and in this series I will give some of those citations as a prelude to a further elaboration on that point. I will show how two major ideas from earlier times helped to produce Two Seedism. The first was the heresy of Arianism and the second was the idea that Christ's human soul was created when he was "begotten" of the Father before the world began. 

For my previous writings on Two Seedism's belief in "eternal vital union" see (here) and (here) together with others that I will mention as we go along. I have three postings on this heresy of the Two Seed Baptists and you can read them in the blog that contains all my previous writings on Two Seedism. There is a link to that blog on this page in the list of links titled "Two Seed Baptists." In beginning this section of our present series we will cite from those previous postings to give the reader a synopsis of what is involved in this Two Seed idea. 

What Is Eternal Vital Union?

In the debate that Lemuel Potter (a leader in the "Primitive Baptist Church" in the latter half of the nineteenth century and former Two Seeder) had with W.P. Throgmorton, Dr. Throgmorton said (See here ):

"Is Brother Potter responsible for the two-seeders among his people? or is Dr. Watson? He admits that they have a considerable party of two-seeders among them, in their denomination; and so does Dr. Watson. I will read some about them. This will not be so funny to the old brethren. O, no! They will not like to hear this. What do those two-seeders among the Hardshells believe? Dr. Watson's Old Baptist Test, page 292:

2. They believe there is an uncreated-self existent, eternal evil spirit, or devil, intelligent, wicked, cunning and antagonistic to God.

3. They say that the soul of Christ is uncreated and eternal.

4. They fancy that the souls of the children of God, or the elect, are uncreated and eternal and were always in actual union with God."

Now, Brother Potter talks pretty hard against that doctrine in his book. But I think they have quite a respectable portion who believe it.

8. "They deny the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust."

These two-seeders do, and there is a considerable party of them, among Mr. Potter's people, mark you. And what does Potter say about those that deny the resurrection? He says that they virtually deny the whole Gospel of Christ; they do not only say that Christ did not rise, but that we are yet in our sins." (166)

I wrote the following in a post titled "Eternal Vital Union" (See here), citing Gilbert Beebe's comments on James 1: 18 which says "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." 

Testifies Elder Gilbert Beebe

"Perhaps the means renders will try to make some capital of the words “with the word of his power,” construing the word of his power to imply instrumentality. One of two things must be intended by these words: “With the word,” they were begotten by the Father of lights, spoken of in the context. Christ is the only begotten of the Father; but as a begotten emanation from the Godhead, he is the life of his people, head of his body, the church, mediator, &c.; as God he is self-existent, equally with the Father; but as the life and immortality of his spiritual body, he is the beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature; and in this sense he only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, [not even by the magic Power of means,] whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting’. Amen. Now the one production of spiritual life was what we understand to be the begetting of both the head and the body, so that if Christ as the Word is intended by James, the saints have a common origin with Christ their head, and both be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? (See here) From the expressed belief of Beebe in the above words we can see why his view was identified as being "Arianism" by other Hardshells who rejected these ideas. In the above citation, however, Beebe does not deny the deity or divinity of Christ, but denies that his being begotten as the Son of God was designed to demonstrate it. This reminds me of my early days as a Hardshell Baptist elder when a leading minister, Conrad Jarrell, and a few other younger elders, such as Jackie Mott, taught that Jesus being begotten referred to his being born a human being. Their idea was that the second person of the Trinity was God and as such was called the "Word of God," and denied that the second person was God because of being begotten. It caused a stir among the Hardshells and both Jarrell and Mott were forced to form their own sub cult. These brethren argued as do the Arians and Beebe that a son who is begotten cannot be equal with his father. They denied the traditional orthodox view called "eternal generation," the belief that Christ being the begotten Son cannot be an event that took place in time, nor be in every respect like human begetting.

In an article titled "ROMANS 8: 38.39 Eternal Vital Union and Its Blessings," Gilbert Beebe wrote:

"Consequently if there ever was a period in time or eternity when any of the members of His church were NOT IN HIM, then there has been a period when His body was not full. But to imagine the existence of a Head without a body, or a body without a Head, or a perfect and complete Head, and an imperfect and deficient body, does not suit our understanding of the declaration that it pleased the Father that in Him all fulness should dwell. (Col. 1:19)" 

"All the members of Christ are IN HIM, even as the eternal Father is in Him. He is the dwelling place (not of one-third part of the Godhead, as some seem to understand it,) but of ALL the fullness of the Godhead. “That they all may be one, as thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one IN US.” “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect IN ONE,’ &c. (John 17:21-23)."

"If the church is in Christ as the eternal Father is in Him, must they not have been in Him from everlasting?"

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He [Christ] also Himself likewise [or in like manner} took part of the same.” (Heb. 2:14) His children partaking of flesh and blood, shows that their relationship to God as children was perfect before they partook of flesh and blood; and that participation of flesh and blood no more constituted them children, than Christ’s coming into the world, and “also Himself likewise partaking of the same,” constituted Him the Son of God, or the Head of Immortality to His body, the church."

Beebe believed that "Christ" was eternally begotten by the Father (and this is not to say that he is God by this begetting), or produced (created) in the manner believed by the Arians. As a caveat, however, what he meant by "eternally begotten" was that he was begotten before the world began, not that he has always been the Son of God. The term "Son of God" does not denote Christ's divinity, but his composite nature, as part divine, part human, and a third part, a hybrid mixture of the two (thus three natures). 

Many held, as I will show, to the belief that this created (begotten) Christ involved the preexistence of the human soul and/or body of Christ, and some went further and believed that all the elect were created or begotten in Christ when he was created and begotten before the world began. So, not only did Christ preexist before his incarnation (being made flesh) but so too did the elect preexist in Christ, and had a vital or seminal union with him.

In "ETERNAL VITAL UNION," Beebe wrote the following things on the subject. [Republished by request of brother Isaac N. Moon in The 1880 volume of The Signs of The Times, page 81-82] (See here)

"But the question still may arise, how, or in what sense, we the saints in Christ Jesus before the world began?"

"As the seed of Abraham existed in him before any of them we born; and being thus in him, unto them God gave the land of Canaan, before any of them were manifested by generation. God made Abraham the father of many nations, long before any of these nations were developed. Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; and that too, before any of her children were born. But the life of all the posterity of which Abraham was the father was in him, and though not manifested to men, they were personally identified by God; for Levi paid tithes unto Melchisedec, when he was yet in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham. If the life of all the human family had not been in Adam, how could their development by generation and birth been regarded as a multiplication of Adam? God blessed Adam and bade him be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. And in this, Adam is the “figure of Him that was to come,” which is Christ. And in covenant with Abraham, God said, “Surely blessing I will bless thee; and multiplying I will multiply thee.”"

"Our being born into the natural world did not make us the sons and daughters of Adam; but our original creation in him as his posterity, is that which constitutes the relationship, and our birth is but the manifestation of it. Our generation is the manifestation of that life which was given us in Christ, and makes us manifest as the children of God."

"Thus to be IN Jesus Christ seminally, as the spiritual embodiment and progenitor of “a seed that shall serve Him, and be counted to the Lord for a generation,” according to Psalms 22:30; Isaiah 53:10-12; I Peter 2:9, involves the Bible doctrine of eternal Union. A union of life, love and immortality. One with Christ even as Christ is one with the Father." 

"A birth is not the creation or origination of life, but the manifestation of life by what is called procreation. Our earthly nature which in Christians is called the old, or outward man, was created in Adam, but pro-created by natural generation. But that immortality which is in the Christian, and which is denominated the new, or the inward man, was given us in Jesus Christ, and is manifested by spiritual generation when born of God."

Of course, as the opponents of eternal vital union showed, no one has an actual existence prior to his creation and birth in the womb. Yes, they were foreknown, loved, and chosen, but only because God foresaw them before they existed. Yes, all men were "in" Adam not only by representation, but seminally (physically), as containing or contributing the seed of later generations. However, the teaching that all souls or spirits were created in Adam is not an indisputable fact. Were the souls or spirits of the elect created in Adam or in Christ before the world began? It seems the Two Seeders cannot logically have it both ways. Many of them said that only the souls of the non-elect were "in" Adam when he was created, for the souls of the elect were "in" Christ when he was begotten sometime in eternity past.

It is not appropriate to say that the elect were "in" Christ seminally when he was begotten (either in eternity past or in the womb of the virgin). The way one is joined to Christ vitally, according to the new testament, is to be born again by faith. So Jesus taught that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have him enter into the heart, mind, and spirit. (John 6: 53-57) This partaking of Christ is done in the mind when it receives the message of the gospel of Christ. 

Also, the begetting of the Son of God was not a creation of the man Christ. Christ, as man, did not exist till he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Two of the oft cited scriptures of the Two Seeders were those which speak of Christ as being the "beginning of the creation of God." (Rev. 3: 14; Col. 1: 15). They interpret such verses in an Arian fashion, except that they say they involve him being a mediator, and having both a God nature and a human from the time he was created or begotten. The doctrine of eternal vital union, and the preexistence of souls, is interwoven with serious errors on the doctrine of the Trinity.

One of the verses that has been cited to disprove that the elect preexisted with Christ in eternity past, or were "in him" before the world began, is the one from Paul who said of two named Christians that "they were in Christ before me" (Rom. 16: 7). If all the elect were literally in Christ from eternity, then how can one be in Christ before another? 

In my writings in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and copied for this blog (and the "Two Seed Baptists" blog) I had two chapters titled "Eternal Children Doctrine" and I want to cite from those two chapters. In the first (See here) I wrote:

Elder Gilbert Beebe - "INCARNATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD"

"...the participation of the children of God of flesh and blood, and the incarnation of the Son of God, are placed on the same ground, and based upon the same principle, by the inspired apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." [2:14] To our mind, this text is a key to the subject..."

Beebe interpreted Hebrews 2: 14 as saying that the children of God became incarnate just as Jesus. As Jesus existed before his being made flesh, so too did the children of God. However, that is not what the text is saying. 

Now I want to go back in history to the late 17th and early 19th century and cite from some "high" or "hyper" Calvinists, some of whom were Baptists, who believed that the human soul of Christ was conceived when he was begotten by the Father and that this idea, like the idea of Manichaeistic dualism, and the idea of the preexistence of souls, came from other sources and were blended together in Two Seedism.

In "THE EMERGENCE OF HYPER-CALVINISM IN ENGLISH NONCONFORMITY 1689–1765" (here) well known author Peter Toon writes the following in chapter one titled "CALVIN AND CALVINISM" and under the sub-title "Modifications in the doctrine of the Trinity." Wrote Toon (all emphasis mine):

"Not a few “Calvinists” found the doctrine of the Trinity as explained in the traditional Creeds and Confessions difficult to accept. In his lectures on the Larger Catechism, Thomas Ridgley, minister of the Congregational Church which met at the Three Cranes, Thames Street, London, revealed that he found two orthodox positions untenable. He believed that the expressions “the eternal generation of the Son” and “the procession of the Holy Ghost” were absurd and unscriptural phrases. He thought of the Second Person of the Trinity as Son of God by virtue of His office as Mediator and not through eternal generation by the Father. Yet he did not deny the equality of the Son with the Father and His proper eternity." (pg. 47)

This was the view of Beebe. Beebe actually believed that Christ had three natures, a human, a divine, and a mediatorial. He also connected Christ's being begotten by the Father with his becoming a mediator, and his becoming a mediator necessitated that he be human. Thus, if one believes that Christ functioned as a mediator before the world began, or in the old testament before his birth of Mary, then Christ must have been human before his incarnation.

Wrote Toon:

"In his The Glory of Christ Unveil’d (1706), Joseph Hussey set out his belief that the human nature of Jesus Christ existed in heaven from the agreement of the covenant of grace by the Trinity. He believed that the verses in Proverbs 8. 22 ff. referred to the Second Person as God-Man possessing the human nature before the creation of the world." (pg. 47)

Joseph Hussey was a Hyper Calvinist. He wrote several books, but the one that promotes one of the foundational beliefs of Hyper Calvinism is the book titled "God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of His Grace" (1707). Hyper Calvinism began with the denial that salvation was to be offered to lost sinners in Gospel preaching. It seems to me that Beebe, the leading apologist for Two Seed propositions, at times parroted things that Hussey taught. One was the no offers of salvation proposition, and the other was the proposition that the human soul of Christ came into being when he was "begotten" sometime in eternity past. So, Two Seed views on this are not new. However, as we will see, they also added the idea that all the souls of the elect were also begotten or created when Christ was begotten, and thus came their tenet known as the "eternal children doctrine." I have written on this proposition in chapters 37-39 in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" book (See here). This belief in the preexistence of souls is a belief borrowed from other religions, such as Gnosticism and several Oriental religions. 

Wrote Toon:

"Isaac Watts, who had maintained a neutral position in the subscription controversy at Salters’ Hall, found himself confused by the doctrine of the Trinity for most of his life. It was in 1725 that he first gave a clear statement of his view that a human soul was joined to the Second Person of the Trinity in heaven before the creation of the world. He believed that the human race, in its creation, was modelled by God on this archetype, the God-Man, the Mediator, Who became “the first born of all creation” (Col. 1. 15). Then from Mary, the God-Man received His human flesh and form. This Christology also appeared in his "The Glory of Christ as God-Man (1746)." (pg. 48)

I have mentioned this view of the great hymn writer in the past. I strongly believe that Beebe and his fellow Two Seed Baptists not only had been influenced by reading Hussey on the preexistence of the human soul and nature of Christ, but also in reading Watts also.

When Toon says that Watts, following Hussey, affirmed that "the human race was modelled by God as the archetype," or "God-man," that he was stating the view of Primitive Baptist Two Seeders who a century later read his writings. One Hardshell article of faith affirms this teaching of Watts. In my posting titled "Bear Creek Association & Two Seedism" (See here) I wrote about how Elder Hosea Preslar (who I have cited already in this series on Two Seedism) wrote about how Two Seed ideas had been embraced by the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists, an association I was part of when I was a young Hardshell preacher. I cited from that association's articles of faith that affirmed belief in what Hussey and Watts taught. In that posting I wrote the following:

"Here is what Elder Preslar wrote about the Bear Creek Association in the days just preceding the Civil War. 

 "But in the midst of all this confusion, my desire and prayer to God was that the Bear Creek Association might be saved,--saved from the many errors by which she was surrounded, (her well known enemies) And also from some erroneous things or principles, that are now in her midst, or in her ranks, going under the name of "Old Baptist;" but when named by those who are better acquainted with its signs and marks, is the old Two Seed Parkerite heresy." 

(This citation was taken from the periodical "The Primitive Baptist" after Preslar had moved back from Tennessee to his home state of North Carolina, and mingled among the Bear Creek churches)

In that posting I then cited from the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association which read as follows:

"Article 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 exactly what Joseph Hussey and Isaac Watts had taught, and others too as we will see.

In the next chapter we will continue with an investigation into these Two Seed ideas about the preexistence of both the human soul of Christ and of the human souls of the elect, and the doctrine of "eternal children" and of the effects of this teaching on other areas of theology.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (V)

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, 

he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." 

(Jude 1: 6 kjv)

The above text speaks of the "estate" and special "habitation" of angels. What is the original dwelling place of angels? Is it heaven? The third heaven? Or, is their dwelling place outer space or in earth's sky and atmosphere? Other translations give us these translations:

"but abandoned their proper dwelling" (NIV);

"but left their proper dwelling" (ESV);

"did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode" (NKJV).

"Their first estate" literally means their first rank or position in the hierarchy of creatures. On "their own habitation" Albert Barnes in his commentary rightly says:

"But left their own habitation - To wit, according to the common interpretation, in heaven. The word rendered "habitation" (οἰκητήριον oikētērion) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means here that heaven was their native abode or dwelling-place."

John Gill in his commentary writes:

"...for they were drove out of their native habitation, heaven; they were turned out of it, and cast down to hell; see 2 Peter 2:4. And this their habitation, which they left, or fell from, or they were cast out of..."

I dare say that this is the view of the vast majority of bible teachers. The view of semi Two Seeders, who we cited in the previous chapter and who said that the "heaven" out of which Satan and the non-elect angels were cast when they sinned was not the third heaven, but some other heaven, gave to heaven other meanings. Many of these meanings were not in accordance with the image at the head of this chapter. Rather than seeing the first and second heavens as described in that image, they come up with strange and novel meanings for heaven. John Robbins who debated father on the point said that maybe the heaven out of which Satan and the angels were cast was "the old Jewish heaven" or "the church heaven." But, this is farcical and a gross mishandling of scripture. It is nonsensical and leads to gross absurdities, reduction ad absurdum.

The bible is very clear on what is the natural abode of angels. This we will demonstrate shortly. The first heaven of earth's atmosphere was not the original home of angels. If that is the heaven from which Satan and the sinning angels were cast out of, then why do the scriptures show them as still occupying the aerial region? The second heaven of outer space cannot be the original home of angels, for again the fallen angels still occupy those regions. The church of either the old covenant or the new cannot be the original abode of angels because angels existed before there was a church, and trying to explain what that could possibly mean leads to further absurdities. We will enlarge upon these points but first let us show the absurdity in saying that angels are human beings.

Angels Are Not Humans

"What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor." (Psa. 8: 4-5 nkjv)

This text is very clear in showing that humans are not angels. Man was made a little lower than the angels, which statement shows that human beings are a lower order of creatures than are angels, and that the Two Seed notion of angels being humans is false. Wrote Peter:

"They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord." (II Peter 2: 10-11 nkjv)

This is similar to these words of the Psalmist:

"The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all. Bless the Lord, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word." (Psa. 103: 19-20 nkjv)

These verses again show that human beings are inferior to angels as a species. To say that angels in these verses are human beings make the verses nonsensical. Who are the angels superior to? Answer: human beings. Therefore, angels are not human beings. Wrote the writer of Hebrews:

"And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”...But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?" (Heb. 1: 7; 13-14 nkjv)

Angels are "ministering spirits." Spirits are incorporeal. Jesus said this about being "spirit":

"Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24: 39 nkjv)

On Hebrews 1: 7 John Gill wrote the following in his commentary, giving the nigh universally understood meaning:

"...the design of the apostle in citing them, which is to show the superiority of Christ to angels, of whom it is said, that they are made spirits: they are "spirits", created ones, and so differ from God the Creator: they are incorporeal ones, and so differ from men; they are immaterial, and so die not; they are spiritual substances subsisting in themselves..." 

It is against such clear statements about who are the angels, and what is their nature, that Two Seeders oppose when they say that angels are human beings. Shortly after Hebrews chapter one, the writer of Hebrews says the following in the second chapter:

“For verily [Christ] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Hebrews 2:16). 

This verse indicates clearly that the "nature of angels" is not the same as the nature of human beings. On this verse Dr. Gill writes:

"...but of a non-assumption of their nature; there was no need of it with respect to good angels, and there was no salvation designed for evil ones; and to have assumed the nature of angels, would have been of no service to fallen man; an angelic nature is not capable of death, which was necessary to atone for sin, save men, and destroy Satan..."

These verses, along with many more we could cite, show that angels are not human beings. It is a ridiculous idea for Parker, Beebe, and the Two Seeders to affirm that angels are human beings and that Satan is uncreated, possibly even was originally a snake of the animal kingdom. Such a view denies that angels are superior to humans and rather says that humans are superior to angels.

The writer of Hebrews also speaks of an “innumerable company of angels” and distinguishes them from “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:22-23). 

Now let us return to showing that the third heaven is the proper abode of angels.

Angels of Heaven

"And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (John 1: 51 nkjv)

We cited this verse in the previous chapter when we cited Hassell's mentioning the dream of Jacob wherein he saw a ladder extending from earth to heaven and found it ironic because Hassell did not believe that the proper abode of angels was the third heaven. Clearly the above text indicates that the heaven from which angels descended and ascended into is the highest heaven where God's presence is fully manifested and where he sits on the throne.

Jesus in speaking of those little ones who come to him said:

"...in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 18: 10 kjv)

Notice how the word "heaven" is twice used. Only those who come to the text with man-made biases and presuppositions as do the Two Seeders will fail to see that angels are from the third heaven. Jesus also spake of resurrection saints becoming immortal "as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22: 30 kjv) To give to the word "heaven" in these texts the meaning of first or second heaven, or the heaven of the church, is totally untenable. Jesus more than once spoke of "the angels of heaven." (See also Matt. 24: 36)

We have also already mentioned this text from the Book of Job:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them." (Job 1: 6)

This is obviously heaven, for it is in the presence of the LORD.

Recall these words of the angel Gabriel:

"And the angel answered and said to him (Zacharias), “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you glad tidings." (Luke 1: 19 nkjv)

Can anything be more clear that angels are in the third heaven? Does not that fact disprove the premise of Beebe and the Two Seeders who say 1) that angels are humans, and 2) that if they fell from heaven, it could not have been the third heaven? Though Gabriel probably appeared to Mary in a human form, as they have often done, he was not human. Now let us notice these words from the Book of Daniel:

"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?” (Dan. 4: 35 nkjv)

It is universally acknowledged by all that by "army of heaven" is meant the "heavenly host" of angels. They are distinguished from "the inhabitants of the earth." Next, let us notice these words of the apostle Paul:

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph. 6: 12 kjv)

On this Dr. Gill comments:

"...against spiritual wickedness in high places; or wicked spirits, as the devils are, unclean, proud, lying, deceitful, and malicious; who may be said to be in "high" or "heavenly places"; not in places super celestial, or in the highest heavens, in the third heaven, where God, angels, and saints are; but in the aerial heavens, where the power or posse of devils reside, and where they are above us, over our heads, overlooking us, and watching every advantage against us; and therefore we should have on our armour, and be in a readiness to engage them; and so the Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it, "under", or "beneath heaven"; and the Arabic version, "in the air"."

These "rulers" and "principalites" and "wicked spirits" are NOT "flesh and blood" beings, i.e. not human beings. Further, they occupy the first and second heavens, and therefore these heavens cannot be the heaven out of which they were cast.

Therefore we see how absurd is this idea of the Two Seed Baptists which denies the creation of angels and of the fall of some of them and which attempts to say that angels are human beings. Though Watson, Hassell, and Daniels, who we cited in the previous chapter, don't accept those Two Seed ideas, yet they show remnants of that ideology when they deny that the proper habitation of angels is the third heaven.

In the next chapter we will look at another false idea of the Two Seeders, which says that Christ being the begotten Son of God has nothing to do with his divinity, but with his humanity, and that his humanity preexisted his birth of the virgin Mary. We will then deal with their belief that the souls or spirits of the elect were created when Christ was begotten before the world began, being then in Christ, being a case of the preexistence of their souls. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (IV)

In this chapter we will continue to trace the beliefs of the Primitive Hardshell Baptists since their genesis in the early nineteenth century. We began with a look at the views of Daniel Parker, the first Two Seed Baptist, who denied the creation and fall of the angels. We then introduced Gilbert Beebe who promoted the basic propositions of Two Seedism, although he did not believe Satan was an uncreated being. So, we will pick up where we left off and continue with citations from Beebe taken from his paper "The Signs of the Times," for the years 1840-1842. 

Beebe wrote his first article on the angels who sinned and on the elect angels in 1840. Sometime later Elder John Clark of Virginia, another first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" sect, who often found himself at odds with Beebe and his followers over elements of Two Seedism, and who later started his own paper in 1854 titled "Zion's Advocate," objected in writing to the views of Beebe and the Two Seeders on the creation of angels and of the fall of some of them. Beebe wrote a response in the Signs, beginning with these words:

"We designed only to defend our former views upon the subject of fallen angels, which we had published some three years ago by request: of a brother in Kentucky..."

He is (in 1842) referring to his previous article from 1840, from which we cited extensively in the previous chapter. From the above remarks by Beebe we learn that he had not changed in his views at all, even though he received kickback from Clark and no doubt from some others who were part of the newly formed sect. 

Beebe wrote further:

"Brother Clark proceeds to congratulate us upon what he calls our retreat from views which we had formerly published; but let him check his exultation one moment, and lay his finger on the passage in any thing we have ever written, contradictory to the sentence which he calls our “retreat.” Perhaps, however, his idea that we had at some previous time advanced the sentiment that Satan had come a sinful being from the hand of his Creator, and that he had not apostatized, was based, as in the other case, on prima facie evidence, and not on any thing we had ever said or written: for we do most positively and unequivocally deny that we have ever published any sentiment contradictory of that which he hails with affected triumph and exultation."

Clark apparently objected to the Two Seed view of an eternal Devil and though Beebe accepted the basic premises of Two Seedism, did not go so far as to affirm that the Devil was an uncreated being. That part of Two Seedism which affirmed an uncreated Devil being was rather quickly objected to by some Two Seeders and by all those who opposed Two Seedism. Also, Beebe says that he rejects the idea that God made the Devil a Devil. But, he still rejects the idea of angels (incorporeal beings not of the human race) falling from heaven, especially from the "third heaven." Clark's opposition to Beebe on his Two Seedism forced Beebe to come out more clearly on those two points.

Wrote Beebe:

“From these considerations,” he continued, after the above declaration, “it is clear that the apostles in the use of the term ‘angels,’ &c., did not mean men or human beings.” Very clear, truly. If it be, as he has asserted, a wresting of the scriptures to assert that the apostles meant men or human beings, why, it must be as clear as daylight itself that the apostles meant no such thing."

Clearly Clark was right to assert that "angels" generally, though not universally, is a reference to heavenly spiritual beings. Beebe and the Two Seed view says that angels are not a higher order of beings but are human beings. That is, of course, ridiculous. But, more on that in the next chapter.

Wrote Beebe in further reply to the objection of Clark:

"With the place occupied by the fallen angels before their apostacy, brother C. says he has but little to do. He seems in this expression to treat that matter with a degree of independence, but in his subsequent remarks he evidently inclines to the notion that they existed in that heaven of unfading glory where the saints are destined ultimately to dwell; and the argument, if argument it may be called, is that they “kept not their first estate,” that they “left their own habitation, and that they sinned,” &c.: also that of the devil our Lord said, “He abode not in the truth.” Therefore, to admit that the fallen angels were once associated with the elect angels would not frighten him! Neither do we see anything frightful in the admission, for we have already so understood the subject; but neither the elect nor the reprobate angels as mentioned in the scriptures mean those heavenly spirits which have only existed in the world of glory. The elect angels mentioned by Paul were the messengers or presbytery in whose presence Paul gave the ordination ministerial charge to Timothy."

Here Beebe says that Clark's view was the traditional orthodox view (that says the heaven from which some angels fell is the place of God's throne), the view my beloved father believed and defended against his fellow Hardshells who took the Two Seed view, and my firm view. Beebe says it is frightening to him to think that fallen angels were once "associated with" the "elect angels." He does not seem to be frightened however by fallen men associating with elect men. This argument is without strength. Many will find it stunning that a leading minister of any sect of Christians would say that "the elect angels" was an allusion to "the messengers or presbytery" that assembled to ordain Timothy. That is indeed a stretch of the imagination and a gross mishandling of the scriptures. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Brother Clark discovers no more difficulty in conceiving of the entrance of sin among the angelic hosts, than in the introduction of sin into the human family. Neither have we the least difficulty on that subject, for we are perfectly satisfied that there never was, nor ever will be, any sin or impurity in that world of ineffable glory where the holy angels are. If sin has originated in that world, and the theory at whose fountain brother Clark has drank so copiously be true, then is earth indebted to heaven for the origin of corruption and all that is opposite to God and holiness, and the remaining angels are liable also to fall at every moment."

It is astounding and bewildering that Beebe and the Two Seeders found it easy to believe that sin could occur among men in an earthly paradise (Eden) but impossible to believe that sin could occur among angels in the heavenly paradise. This reminds me of father's debate with John Robbins (see the previous chapter) on this point. Father told him that the security of anyone's standing with God, whether men or angels, is not based upon his physical location. The believer's security is owing to the blood of Christ and the keeping power of God. Beebe takes his idea about how being in heaven makes it impossible for sin to occur TO the Bible and makes the bible to square with it, and he does this by saying heaven doesn't mean heaven and angels don't mean angels. He ought however to see how the bible does teach that sin originated with Satan when he was lifted up with pride and sought to exalt himself above the throne of God in heaven, and other angels also fell from heaven, and therefore his idea is false. Though Beebe and the Two Seeders had mental problems with believing sin originated in heaven before sin on earth, his problems should not force them to deny what the scriptures say but to rather throw away their presuppositions. 

Wrote Beebe:

"And if there be any testimony in the scriptures of truth to prove that sin existed anywhere, among any order of beings, in heaven, earth or hell, before the six days in which God created the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them, we have never found the passage. It must be clear, from bible testimony, that if the children of God are stained with sin that originated in heaven, the mediatorial work of Jesus does not purge it away from them, as his work was to take away the sins of the world."

However, the scriptures do assert that sin originated with Satan's sin, and later by the fall of some of the angels. Satan appeared in the form of the serpent as a fallen angel before the sin of Adam and Eve. Further, the "mediatorial work of Jesus" was not needed before sin entered into the world nor does it pertain to angels.

Wrote Beebe:

"Brother C. says that we have left our readers in the dark as to the whereabouts or locality of the devil before his fall. This we did not design, for we intended to be understood to represent him among the other creatures which the Lord our God had made, and to give brother C. and all other men and brethren all the hight on that subject which the sacred scriptures furnish. The precise locality assigned him in the divine record, is among those beings which were presented to Adam to receive such names as he should give them. Of this assemblage of all the people of God belonging to the six days’ creation, a particular description is given of Satan, thus: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” – Gen. iii. 1. This text, compared with Rev. xii. 9, will show that this very old serpent, the oldest of which the sacred pages furnish any account, is the devil and Satan."

Beebe says that Satan was a reptile! Rather than viewing him as an angel who fell from heaven as the bible describes (Isaiah 14: 12-15; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-9), and as merely possessing the serpent reptile, he instead says Satan is a lowly beast of the earth. That is indeed absurd. In the gospels we read where demons, when cast out of a man by the Lord Jesus, went into a herd of swine. If we use Beebe's reasoning we would have to say that the demons are pigs and not rational spirits!

Returning to what Watson wrote in "The Old Baptist Test" book, we note that he said this:

"From all of which we learn that angels were created somewhere in the heavens, but we know not whether in the first or second heaven; not in the third, we presume. 2 Co 12:2. They, however, had a habitation, somewhere in the created heavens. Further we read in the word of God that those who kept not their first estate and left their own habitation, were cast down out of it, after they had sinned, to hell; though, for certain reasons, and at certain times, they are suffered to come forth, and rove, about in this earth, and in the air." (pg. 202)

Why did Watson say that he did not know if the "heaven" where the angels were first created, and was their proper habitation, was not the "third heaven"? Why have the overwhelming majority of "Primitive Baptists" since have likewise shown an unwillingness to believe that the proper abode of angels is the third or highest heaven? He possibly took that position because he believed that it was repugnant to think anyone could fall from heaven, as did Beebe. Perhaps he did believe, as did Elder Clark, that it was the third heaven, but did not want to do battle on that point, choosing to restrict his debate with the Two Seeders to whether Satan was uncreated or that he was created wicked. He says he "presumes" that it is not the third heaven, which means he is not sure. As we will see in the next chapter, the first and second heavens have not been cleansed of the presence of Satan or the fallen angels, so those heavens cannot be the proper abode of angels.

Watson wrote:

"In this way, we presume, the elect angels were confirmed in a holy and happy state, by the Lord working in them "both to will and to do" his commandments, and thus keeping them, by his divine power, from sinning; wherein we see the grace of internal guidance and safe keeping, but not the grace of redemption, as they never sinned, through which grace, however, they become united and associated with saints here on earth, and will hereafter be associated and united with them in the saints' third heaven, or heaven of heavens; while, on the contrary, the angels who sinned and kept not their first estate had, by sin and a change of state, become fit associates for wicked persons here, and hereafter." (pg. 205)

Watson does not believe that the "elect angels" are human beings and objects to that view. He believes that they are incorporeal beings with wings and who dwell in the highest heaven with God. It is interesting that Watson allows that one day the "elect angels" will dwell in the third heaven with redeemed and glorified saints. 

In Hassell's History we read:

"God is the only eternal Being revealed to us in the Scriptures. — Gen. i. 1; Deut. xxxiii. 27; Isa. lvii. 15; Romans i. 20; 1 Timothy i. 17 ; vi. 16. Angels, as well as men and animals, are His creatures (Psalm civ. 4; Heb. i. 6, 7; Rev. xxii. 8, 9); and all God's creatures were "very good" when He made them. — Gen. i. 31. When and where angels were created, has not been revealed to us. Some of them, the non-elect (1 Tim. v. 21), kept not their first estate, but sinned, and left their own habitation, and are now reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. — 2 Peter ii. 4; Jude 6. There is, therefore, no redemption or salvation for them. Our Lord speaks of them as "the devil and his angels." — Matt. xxv. 41. We learn from Paul that pride was the condemnation of the devil. — 1 Timothy iii. 6. Left to his own free will, instead of worshiping, he rebelled against the Son of God." (pg. 32)

We know that earth was created to be the habitation of human beings. We also know that heaven was created to be the habitation of angels. Hassell says that the bible does not tell us "when and where angels were created." But, he surely must have known better. As we will see, the bible is very plain in telling us that heaven was the home of angels when created. We have also seen how the Bible tells us that the angels were witnesses to the creation of the world and so they must have been created before God created the world. Hassell does not know what the bible says is the proper "habitation" of angels? Hassell, like Watson, does not want to believe what Beebe and other Two Seeders believed about the creation and fall of angels, but they don't want to affirm that they were created to dwell in the third heaven. That is quite bewildering.

Hassell also writes:

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here is a promise of Christ, a Savior, "the seed of the woman," who was to bruise the head of Satan, while Satan could only bruise the heel of Christ. Christ is the seed of the woman, and his elect children are his seed. The seed of the devil are his angels and wicked men who die without repentance; the term seed here being understood, not in a physical, but in a spiritual sense. He is a fallen angel, and led his comrades in rebellion, and through the medium of the serpent seduced man also from his allegiance to God. The contest is to be between Satan and Christ; so that while Satan is to bruise the heel or the church of Christ, Christ is to bruise the head or the power of Satan. Satan may annoy, but Christ overcomes, by destroying him that had the power of death. — Heb. ii. 14 ; Rom. xvi. 20; I John 3: 8." (pg. 53)

Here Hassell says that Satan is "a fallen angel." But, he does not want to say that Satan fell from the third heaven. This reluctance is hard to understand. What damage does a belief in Satan's fall from heaven (Luke 10: 18) do to other bible doctrines? The only answer the Two Seeders give, and one which both Watson and Hassell are willing to grant to the Two Seeders, is that if any creature in heaven can sin and fall from that place, then so too may the saints once they take up their abode there. But, that, as we have seen, is not a sound objection. 

Hassell also writes:

"Though a poor, selfish sinner and an outcast, in a "waste, howling wilderness" (Deut. xxxii. 9, 10), a covenant-keeping God graciously visited him in a, dream, showed him a ladder reaching from earth to Heaven, upon which the angels of God were ascending and descending, and he heard the voice of God renewing His promises of protection. Jacob concluded that place to be the house of God and the gate of Heaven." (pg. 73)

Why should anyone think that "Heaven" in the above text means some lower heaven than the highest, or "third heaven"? Most bible scholars believe that the three heavens Paul references (II Cor. 12: 2) are as follows: the first heaven is the place where the birds fly, heaven being their natural habitation; the second heaven is the place where the planets, stars, etc. are located, or outer space; the third heaven is the place where God dwells in the fullness of his glory and sits upon his throne, the habitation or estate of spiritual beings and angels. Paul calls this third heaven "paradise." Compare the above text about Jacob's dream of a ladder reaching from earth to heaven with these words of the Savior:

"And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (John 1: 51 nkjv)

Again, why is this heaven not the third heaven? If it is, then the angels are found there. But, Watson and Hassell, because they deny that angels fell from the third heaven, could not see these texts as referencing the third heaven. Though angels exist in all three heavens, the third heaven is their proper habitation just as earth is the proper habitation of humans. 

In "Questions and Answers" Sylvester Hassell answered a number of questions from readers. Later, a protege of Hassell, Elder R.H. Pitman, published them. At the head of that publication are these words: "The answers given to the questions appearing in this book are mainly the work of that Authoritative Historian, Scholar and Editor: Elder Sylvester Hassell." Pittman says that they were copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger" and compiled by R.H. Pittman (April, 1935) (See here). Notice this question and answer:

"Q. Revelation chapter 12:7,8,9 - does this mean that the Devil or Satan, was up in God's heaven and was cast down from there? 

A. Not in the third heaven, the habitation of God. There is no discord or fighting there, but peace, love and joy. The church here on this earth is sometimes called heaven. Paul, speaking of the Ephesians, says, "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Chapter 2, v. 6. I think the war between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels was in this world, and that the Devil was cast out of heaven, or heavenly places, into the earth."

Recall that Elder Watson, even though believing that Satan is a fallen angel as did Sylvester, yet said he "presumed" that the heaven out of which Satan was cast was not the third heaven. Hassell, in the above answer, is more dogmatic. Where is the church ever called "heaven"? Yes, it can be a "heavenly place" but that is not the same as saying it is heaven. If one looks at the places in the bible where the words "heavenly places" or "heavenly realms" are used, he will see that it does not refer to the church. The text Hassell cites from (Ephesians 2: 6) says that it is that place "where Christ sits at the right hand of God." That is the third or highest heaven. Keep in mind that Watson and Hassell believed that angels were not human beings as Beebe and the Two Seeders taught. The text in Revelation chapter twelves reads as follows:

"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (12: 7-9 nkjv)

This text says that Satan was "cast out" of heaven or "cast to the earth," but if this was a casting out of the church, then he was already on earth for the church is on earth. Therefore, the "heaven" cannot be the church. Secondly, how and when was Satan cast out of the church? If Satan has been cast out of the church, never to be present there again, then why does the church still battle with him? What is meant by the angels? Would Watson and Hassell be forced to agree with Beebe and the Two Seeders to say they are human beings who are members of the church? When did angels fight Satan and his angels in the earthly church? 

These brethren had a proposition that said that it was impossible for sin to take place in heaven and they work hard to make scriptures like the above to agree with it by giving secondary meanings to heaven and angels, and making them nonsensical thereby. They ought to see by such texts that their proposition is false and should be discarded. 

Hassell, in the late nineteenth century spoke of the damage that Two Seedism had caused among the "Primitive Baptist Church" and yet he shows remnants of their teaching on the origin of Satan and the creation and fall of angels in what he says about the impossibility of angels falling from the third heaven.

Having seen what were the views of Daniel Parker (1820s onward), Gilbert Beebe (1830s onward), John Watson (1830s onward), John Clark (1840s onward), Sylvester Hassell (1880s onward), we now look to this day and time. I have already referred to the controversy with my father, Eddie K. Garrett Sr., a Hardshell Baptist minister for over fifty years, and the Powell Valley Association over the origin and fall of Satan. But, let us look at one writing on the fall of Satan by another present day Elder.

In an Internet article titled "Origin of the Devil" by Elder Allen Daniels from Bethlehem Primitive Baptist Church of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (2016; See here) wrote the following things (emphasis mine except where noted otherwise): 

"Now look at Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The point I want to make here is that he fell from heaven. What caused his fall? The next few verses tell us." (emphasis by Allen)

One might think based upon this introductory comment that Daniels believed what the scriptures say about the fall of Satan and of the non-elect angels. But, as we will see, he likewise does not believe this is the third heaven.

He writes further:

"The main objection to this view of Satan’s Origin, seems to be that he was cast out of heaven. Paul speaks of the third heaven in 2Cor 12:2, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.” In accordance with this verse, we see that there are at least three heavens; therefore, we must concede that he was cast out of one of these heavens. I think we can all agree that there is no sin in eternal heaven (the abode of God). If there is sin there, then we really don’t have much in which to look forward. Are we going to have to battle the same lusts and temptations there as we do here on earth? I don’t think so. All is perfect in Heaven’s glory world. If there is no sin in heaven, how can we say that Satan lusted after the throne of God? I do not argue that Satan wants the glory that only belongs unto God; but, I do not believe that Satan ever occupied a place in eternal heaven."

No, we can't all agree that there has never been any sin in heaven. The overwhelming consensus of Bible commentaries don't agree with that proposition. Again, where is that premise stated in scripture? Where does the bible say that it is impossible for sin to take place in heaven? Ironically, we see where the scriptures say just the opposite! Daniels says he does not "believe that Satan ever occupied a place in eternal heaven." But, why does he believe that? Is there a text that says so? Daniels got that proposition outside of the bible and took it to the bible and tried to make the bible, by twisting texts, to agree with his man-made proposition. 

He writes further:

"As for the word heaven, we must ask, “Which heaven is under consideration?” (How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!) Jesus said in Luke 10:18, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Jude 1:6 speaks of some angels which kept not their first estate, but left their habitation. 2 Peter 2:4 speaks of some angels that sinned and were cast down to hell. John writes (Rev 12:9) of Satan (the great dragon) was cast out (of heaven),” …that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” The scriptures do not say which heaven, so let us for the moment deal with what we know."

Is it true that "the scriptures do not say which heaven" where the angels dwell and out of which some were cast when sinning? If that is so, how does he know that it is not the third heaven? As we will see in the next chapter, the context of the verses on the subject show that it is indeed the third heaven.

He writes further:

"Now concerning the statement, “there is no sin in heaven“; it must be qualified. Which heaven? The Scriptures are very clear, there was sin in one of them at one time; however, I agree, there is no sin in the “third heaven”: the eternal abode of God, where Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father."

It is quite clear that the above named elders, from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, had "cognitive dissonance" on the subject of Satan's origin, and of his sin and the fall of angels. They simply cannot handle the truth on this subject. That is because they think their eternal security rests upon the place where they exist. 

Wrote Daniels:

"Let’s look at a couple more verses in Job 1:6-7 “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence camest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” My point here is this: Satan is not in Heaven any more, but he was cast down to the earth." 

I find this citation quite puzzling. Obviously by "sons of God" are meant angels, and this is the nigh universal belief of ancient Jews and Christians. Further, this place where the angels came was the very presence of God and was not on earth. Daniels seems to recognize this fact, and says in response "Satan is not in Heaven any more" but was "cast down to the earth." In this comment he seems to contradict what he has previously said. Satan, as a fallen angel, was allowed by God to come once again into his presence, and so this disproves the man-made propositions of the Two Seeders and even of those who fighting Two Seedism still retained remnants of their beliefs on the creation and fall of angels.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (III)

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 1: 6)

"God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment." (II Peter 2: 4)

"How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isaiah 14: 12 nkjv)

"And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10: 18 nkjv)

The above texts speak of the fall of Satan and some angels "from heaven." There then ought to be no disagreement about it. So, why do the Two Seeders and many Primitive Baptists deny it? In this and the next chapter we will address the Two Seed views on the creation and fall of angels.

John Watson had this to say about the Two Seed views on angels and their falling from heaven in his book we cited from extensively in the previous chapters:

"As the Parkerite denies the creation of angels, we will have to premise a little." (pg. 202)

Sylvester Hassell in his history, from which we cited also in the previous chapters, says:

"Elder Daniel Parker, who had some following in the West and Southwest, denied the creation and fall of the angels..." (pg. 636)

Hassell mentions some other Christian teachers who likewise denied the creation and fall of angels, including Satan, naming these men:

"Origen (born A. D. 185, died 254), who also taught that men are fallen angels, and that all men, and all the wicked angels, even Satan himself, will be finally saved." (pg. 328)

"Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, of Germany (1768-1834), the modern reviver of Clement's or the Greek Theology, and "the typical theologian of the nineteenth century," as he is called, also rejected the fall of the angels, the personality of the Devil, the personality of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity; he was a Pantheist, holding that God dwells in every man forever— like Spinoza, identifying God and the universe." (pg. 590-591)

We should also mention the fact that though the Pharisees believed in angels, the Sadducees did not. (See Acts 23: 8)

In light of the scriptures cited above, how could anyone deny that the scriptures teach a creation and fall of angels? Obviously those who do deny it take their views on angels TO the Bible rather than deriving them FROM the Bible, a case of eisegesis rather than exegesis. Today's Primitive Hardshell Baptists generally reject Parker's view and believe in the creation and fall of angels (though it took decades for them to rid themselves of it), but they still show the remnants of the Two Seed view on angels in other ways, as I began to show in the previous chapter. They still want to deny that the angels that sinned fell from heaven, the third heaven, and generally want to avoid talking about where the Devil came from, still claiming it is a mystery. I have heard some of them say "we have better things to preach than the Devil."

What was it that led Parker and the Two Seeders to deny the fall of the angels? Answer: It is because it contradicted some of their premises. It is because they sought to exonerate God in the creation of evil and because they thought that if angels could fall from heaven so too could redeemed men.

In writing upon the views of the Hardshells on the creation and fall of the angels, we will look first at what Daniel Parker believed (1820s) followed by what Gilbert Beebe believed (1840s) followed by what John Watson believed (1840s-1850s) followed by what Sylvester Hassell believed (end of the 19th century), and finally by what Hardshell Allen Daniels believes (in our time). We will also mention that Elder John Clark of Virginia objected to the views of Beebe and the Two Seeders (1842). 

Wrote Watson:

"We have been thus particular, in order to show the different sources of evil, as they exist in the finite state of all created things, as many of our good brethren have turned Parkerites, because they could not trace evil to any other source than Satan, and then, that they might disconnect the source of evil from God, and His works, have created in their fancy an eternal evil spirit or devil, without a single solitary text of scripture to sustain such a notion." (pg. 206-207)

However, this Parkerite explanation described by Watson is not the way to deal with the problem of evil, being a totally untenable theodicy. Notice how Watson says that in the middle nineteenth century that "many good brethren have turned Parkerites." Today's "Primitive" Hardshell Baptists do not want to admit that many of their forefathers in the church held such heretical views. Even their most highly respected leaders such as Elder Lemuel Potter who confessed in his early days that he was a believer in Two Seedism. In Potter's book "Life And Travels Of A Poor Sinner" (See here) he will find Potter saying this:

"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it...For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it..." (pg. 262)

I cited this in previous writings on Two Seedism. (See my blog on Two Seedism - here)

Watson writes further:

"But, after all, we must forestall the Parkerite here, as he will say that all we have quoted from the word of God, in relation to angels, has reference to Adam and Eve, and their posterity. But this he cannot do, with any kind of consistency, according to another tenet of his - that souls cannot be lost - cannot go to hell. As he is bound to admit that they had souls - Adam, at least, according to his own notion - these scriptures, of course, will not apply to them, as the angels who sinned and were cast down to hell; nor to the elect, as they likewise have souls. And, as he says, that the non-elect never fell in Adam, but have kept their first estate, these scriptures do not embrace them either, as the angels who fell kept not their first estate." (pg. 203)

The Parkerite Two Seeder says that none of the elect or non-elect, men or angels, fell from Heaven and were cast down to Hell because the non-elect have no souls and no elect angel can fall from heaven. The non-elect angels have always been in a fallen condition because they originated in Satan himself, being his seed and have always been evil. Anyone should see the contradiction in the Parkerite view of the fall of angels, the non-elect angels. If the non-elect never fell in Adam, and if angels are but human beings, then it must have been elect angelic humans who fell from heaven, and who kept not their first estate, and were cast down into Hell. What absurdities, reductio ad absurdum. 

Wrote Watson:

"The scriptures assure us that "sin is the transgression of the law," also that the angels sinned." (Ibid)

He also wrote:

"Man fell very soon after his creation, and may we not also infer that Satan did likewise?" (pg. 206)

This is the scriptural orthodox position. Angels are not corporeal beings, but spirit beings, although on some occasions the word angel is used of human messengers, the Greek word for angel meaning such. But, this is a secondary usage, and not the primary usage in scripture. To overthrow the view of the Two Seeders all one has to do is to first show that angels are not humans, though they have the ability to appear in human bodies. Secondly, to show that the third heaven is the proper abode of angels.

Wrote Watson:

"Moreover: May we not recognise (sic) Satan at their head as one who abode not in his first estate, in the truth, as Christ stated; for we have no idea that Satan was created in his present state, but was created an upright, intelligent spirit, in the light of truth of some kind, in which state he, however, abode not. John 8:44. Being lifted up with pride, he sinned, and was cast down and cursed with a change of state. After he sinned, we may safely infer that he involved other angels in the same sin, curse and change of state; for he is said to be a murderer from the beginning of this state, when he ceased to abide in the truth. His involving other angels, and soon afterwards Adam and Eve, in disobedience, sin and death, show his murderous course very plainly." (pg. 202-203)

"The angels who sinned were cast down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness; who like Adam and Eve, KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but were changed into devils. They, however, according to an unresolvable Providence, which however, must, all the while be predicated of infinite wisdom, goodness and power, are permitted by the lengthening of their prison chains, to come into this world; and Satan was suffered to enter the Garden of Eden, and to tempt and seduce our First Parents; Satan as the chief devils, then became the Prince of the power of the air, and the Chief Ruler of the powers of darkness, and often took up his abode with other spirits in the hearts of sinful men, as in a palace, where he was, and is yet kindly entertained with his associate spirits, until ejected from thence by the Lord." (Ibid)

"We have proved that man's state at first admitted of disobedience, and his present fallen state is a sad consequence of his disobedience. May we not then infer, in the light of analogy, that the origin of the Satanic state is the same, or analogous to that man. But we will look at it under a clearer and surer light. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1 Tim. 3:6. Satan was lifted up with pride, and was therefore condemned, and became Satan, devil, etc. Man disobeyed, and was condemned, and became a sinner, etc. However exalted the state of Satan may have been before he fell, there was in it a liability to pride; and if it be asked how this liability to pride was brought into sinful action, we answer, one of the very elements of his state or nature, inferiority to God might originate it, in violation of a precept to the contrary." (pg. 205-206)

Watson has the correct orthodox view on the fall of angels and on the origin and fall of Satan. However, as we will see, he did not want to say that it was from the "third heaven" that he fell. 

Wrote Watson:

"We think we have, in some respects, indicated the origin of the Satanic state satisfactorily; but we freely confess that there are many unresolvable problems connected with it which we shall not presumptuously attempt to explain: our design is rather to direct the candid enquirer in a way which will not lead to hurtful heresies, than to remove all its difficulties. Let us, however, present one more view of it." (pg. 205)

Watson does not tell us what are those "many unresolvable problems" that are connected with believing the scriptures and confessing that God created the angel Lucifer who sinned in heaven and was cast out and became forevermore Satan, the arch enemy of God and his people. He does not tell us the "hurtful heresies" and "difficulties" that some are led into on this subject. They no doubt have to do with the reluctance to believe that any creature in heaven can sin and fall from that blessed place.

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the chief founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive Baptists," and editor of the first periodical of that new sect, "The Signs of the Times," and who was himself a Two Seed Baptist, and its best defender, writes the following in that periodical under the title of "FALLEN ANGELS," January 15, 1840 (Read online here - emphasis mine):

"Our attention has been called to the subject of the “angels which kept not their first estate,” &c., by brother Gaines, of Kentucky, who desires our views on Jude 6, and 2 Peter ii. 4. It is rather a thankless undertaking to set forth our views upon a subject on which we must necessarily come in collision with the long established opinions and deep-rooted traditions of others..."

Beebe acknowledges that the traditional orthodox view affirms the creation and fall of angels from heaven, their original state. His view will be abnormal. So, why did Beebe, following Parker, deny the creation and fall of angels from heaven?

Beebe continued:

"We have not been able to see, with Milton and others, either beauty or scriptural authority for the notion that the angels here spoken of were ever residents of that heaven above, where the saints are ultimately to rest, nor that they had an existence prior to that date in which God created the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them – to believe that they were once associated with those holy angels that sang the joyful anthems to the shepherds in Judea; nor to believe that in their creation they were created for or capacitated to enjoy the immediate presence of their Maker, or that he designed them for any other purpose than that which is and shall be fully accomplished in their case, to us seems to conflict seriously with divine revelation."

No scriptural authority for the creation of angels as incorporeal beings who are superior to humans and who dwell in heaven where God especially dwells? Beebe loses much credibility when he says such things. Though the Two Seeders often said, as we have seen, that the Bible does not tell us when and where Lucifer and the angels, both elect and non-elect, were created, a sentiment Beebe at times would agree with, nevertheless says that he can tell you when they were not created and when they did not fall. The angels that fell were humans? That is astounding and bewildering! The angels who fell from heaven were human beings who fell from some other place called heaven? Again, that is shocking. He says that angels did not exist before the six days of creation. But, that is false. Recall that God asked Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38: 4-7 nkjv)

Laying the foundations of the earth takes one back to the very start of the creation, to day one of the six days of creation. Angels were there to witness God's work from its start. Ergo, they had to have been created before the creation of the earth and heavens. 

In the above words of Beebe he gives the impression that though he believes the fallen angels were never in the heaven of God's presence he believes that the holy elect angels were there. Yet, as we will shortly see, Beebe not only said that the non-elect angels were human beings, but he will also say that "the elect angels" were likewise human beings. 

Beebe continued:

"Can we rationally suppose that the place originally provided for one description of beings shall ultimately be occupied by another so essentially different, without relinquishing the doctrine of the immutability of God. Or, if the saints are finally to occupy a place originally designed for the devil and his angels, how can it be said in truth that the heavenly kingdom was prepared for the saints before the foundation of the world, when, according to Milton, it was not known that the place would be vacated until the world was founded, and the decree of bringing his Only Begotten into the world, and that all the angels should worship him?" 

It is ironic that Beebe would use the words "rationally suppose" for there is nothing rational or reasonable about what he says in the above words. How does Beebe deduce that a belief in the fall of angels from his presence in heaven denies the immutability of God? That is a non-sequitur. How does the traditional orthodox view lead to a belief that heaven was therefore designed for the Devil and his angels? God cast Lucifer and the fallen angels out of Heaven the very moment they sinned. Besides, when we say that the angels and Satan fell from heaven, we mean that they lost heaven as their proper dwelling place. Their sin might have occurred somewhere outside of the immediate presence of God but their sin now kept them from ever occupying heaven, their proper abode, once again. But, we will say more on these things in the next chapter. 

Beebe continued:

"Again, would not the saints feel sad in prospect of being placed where angels could not stay? If a higher order of beings, holy, happy, and in a place where temptation and sin could not enter, and such beings as could have no predisposition to sin, did fall from that estate, and were cast over the battlements of glory, would not the poor lambs of Jesus, who have all their lifetime been tormented with temptation and struggling against inbred corruptions, have great cause to fear that they also might fall from the height of glory and sink at last among the damned? But lest we be tedious, we will leave the negative part of our subject, and give our opinion of the angels." (Editorials of Elder Gilbert Beebe – Volume 1, page 311)

This has been the reasoning of Hardshells throughout their history. Though some, like Watson and Hassell, believe that angels are not human beings, and that they fell from their sinless state, and from some heaven, they all would not, with few exceptions, say that they fell from "the third heaven," for they surmise that no one can fall from heaven, it being an impossibility. The two propositions highlighted above in red were not either induced or deduced from scripture, but were obtained outside of scripture and taken to the scriptures. If we prove that the angels that sinned did in fact fall from the third heaven, this will nullify those propositions. But, again we will have more to say on this later. 

Beebe continued:

"By the angels that kept not their first estate, we understand the children of the devil. Satan is called an angel, and sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light; and as far as we have been able to discover from revelation all the names by which he is known in the scriptures are applicable to his seed. Hence Satan is called “The old serpent, which is the devil and Satan,” (Rev. xx. 2;) his children are also called “a generation of vipers,” – Matt. iii. 7; also xxii. 33. So also is Satan called an angel, and in Rev. xii. 7, his children are also thus denominated: “There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels.”

Notice the theory of Beebe. The angels that sinned, the non-elect angels, are human beings who are "children of the devil." Every lost sinner of Adam's race is a fallen angel! Incredible! Is Satan then a human being? He is after all a fallen angel, as Jesus said. But, shortly we will see how Beebe takes an even more incredible position on the kind of being is Satan. He will also say that "Michael" in the text is Jesus, and "his angels" are redeemed children of God of Adam's race. 

Beebe continued:

"The term angel also signifies messenger, and hence every emissary of Satan employed to disseminate heresy, to oppose the gospel of Christ; to afflict and persecute the children of God, are properly denominated his angels. It can be by no means difficult to perceive that the dragon and his angels, mentioned in Rev. xii., are designed to show the powers of darkness in array against the cause and church of Christ. Michael, the only archangel spoken of in the bible, is none other than Christ; his angels are those who are denominated “The remnant of her (the church’s) seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” – Rev. xii. 17. Admitting then, as we are compelled to do, that the disciples of Christ, in this case, are his angels, it is perfectly plain that the opposite angels are those unto whom Christ said, “Ye are of your father, the devil.” – John viii. 44. These two descriptions of angels, in our opinion, include the whole human family; the chosen generation, or that seed which Jesus saw when he poured out his soul unto death; a seed that should serve him, and that should be counted to him for a generation; these constitute the one family, and are all in time born of a spiritual birth, by the Holy Ghost, and when discipled in the ranks of the followers of the Lamb, are known as his angels, keeping the commandments of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ."

So, Jesus, being Michael, is an archangel? I guess Beebe would be forced to say this of the humanity of Christ and not of his divinity. Every human false teacher is a fallen angel? Every human being is an angel? What absurdities are these! Today's Hardshell Baptists have Two Seeders as their ancestors and must accept what they said about angels or denounce their views.

Apparently not all agreed with Beebe when he published his views on angels in the Signs of the Times, for Elder John Clark (who I have cited much form in my blog writings) wrote to the Signs on April 1, 1842 about the matter which provoked Beebe to write the folowing (See here) under the title "REPLY TO BROTHER J. CLARK."

We will take up Clark's reply in the next chapter and also continue to look at what other Hardshells have said on the creation and fall of angels.