Sins of Satan (#2 - Liar)

In this chapter we will focus on how Satan is the first and greatest of liars or deceivers. We introduced this series with the words of the apostle John who said that "the Devil has been sinning from the beginning" (I John 3: 8) and began with his chief sin, which was his pride. We also mentioned the fact that all men, because they are themselves sinners, are full of pride, self love, egotism, and narcissism. They "walk according to the prince of the power of the air." (Eph. 2: 2) But, even God's born again children may sometimes find themselves being led by, or inspired by, or otherwise acting like the Devil. This seems to have been the case with the apostle Peter, so we read in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew where Jesus called Peter "Satan":

"Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16: 22-23; See also Mark 8: 33)

A few years ago I wrote upon this incident (here). On what is meant by the Lord calling Peter Satan I wrote the following:

My own view of this question is to say that Jesus was not using "Satan" as the name of a person or being. "Satan" means "adversary" just as "devil" means "accuser." So, when Jesus said to Peter "get behind me Satan," he was saying "get behind me adversary." Every opposition to Christ and his will puts us into the category of "opponents" or "foes." But, Peter was saved, a man who was the "friend" of Christ, so how could he be his "Satan"?

When any man opposes God he is putting himself in league with Satan, and imitating his rebellion. To the extent a person "savours" (regards, sides with) the things of God, he is God's friend, but to the extent a person does not so savour it, he is God's enemy, or Satan. When we are in agreement with God in word and deed, then the Lord says "walk with me friend," but when we are opposing God, then the Lord says "get behind me enemy."

Satan is both an adversary (Satan) and a false accuser (Devil). "Satan" even in the Greek N.T. is a Hebrew word and means adversary, opponent, antagonist, enemy, and accuser, which is how Peter was acting in his opposition to Christ's announcement of his coming foreordained crucifixion. "Devil" is from the Greek word "Diabolos" and means slanderer, false accuser, or deceiver. So we read this prophecy: "...the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down." (Rev. 12: 10 nkjv)

To the extent that we oppose God, or his word, or the truth, we are imitating Satan. To the extent that we are falsely accusing others we are imitating Satan.

Satan the Liar and Deceiver

When Christ was conversing with his accusers he said to them:

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." (John 8: 44-45 nkjv)

Not only did Christ tell these accusers that they were "of their father the Devil," but said that their lies and accusations against him were proof of it, an instance where they were "doing the deeds of their father" (vs. 40). Satan was the father of their persons as well as the father of their lies, accusations, and deceptions. Satan is the chief liar, because he is the best liar and because he is the inspiration for all liars. If you want to be a liar or deceiver, then follow Satan's methods. The Bible speaks of Satan's wiles, schemes, devices, or methods. (II Cor. 2: 11; Eph. 6: 11) All deceivers, liars, false witnesses, con artists, tricksters, manipulators, swindlers, bamboozlers, etc. are inferior copies of Satan. If there was a club for liars and cheats, Satan would no doubt be celebrated as being "the best of the best" in lying and deception. He is skilled at fooling people. He masquerades or disguises himself, even appearing as an "angel of light" (II Cor. 11: 14). He is the best counterfeiter and is a fake and a fraud. He is sneaky, sly, conniving, and sinister.

He has many followers, or many sons who learned to lie and deceive from his inspiration and example. In the Book of Revelation we read that he is "the great dragon" and "that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan," and who is "the deceiver of the whole world." (Rev. 12: 9 esv) So, not only is Satan "king over all the children of pride," as we saw (Job 41: 34) but holds the sole position of being the most successful deceiver that has ever existed. Paul spoke of false teachers who taught false doctrine "by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Eph. 4: 14 nkjv). In this they were mimicking the Father of lies, the master of deception.

The Case of Eve

When Christ says that the Devil was a liar from the beginning, or John speaks of the Devil as sinning from the beginning, the allusion is to his temptation or enticing of Eve. Here is that story:

"1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." (Gen. 3: 1-7 nkjv)

Satan's tactics in his first deception on earth towards Eve and humankind are revealed in this account of man's first encounter with the arch deceiver. First, he asked her a question in order to test her fealty to the Lord and to his law, so as perhaps in order to cause her to doubt God and his word, doubt God's truthfulness, sincerity, and honesty. He started by asking if God really said that she and Adam could not eat from any tree, perhaps provoking her to think that God's command seemed to be unreasonable and for no good purpose or lead her to thinking that there was a different interpretation of God's word that would allow her to partake of it rightfully.

Twisting the truth was another tactic. He directly contradicted God, saying, "You will not surely die." This put her on the spot, forcing her (in her mind) to ask herself - "how do I know that God is being truthful with me?" Maybe he is not being truthful. Next he shows his sinister ways in his suggestion that eating the forbidden fruit will actually be good for them rather than killing them. He says to Eve - "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" when you eat that which God forbade to you. With this implanted thought she must have produced other thoughts, such as "maybe the serpent is right, how could I know?"

Next, Satan uses another tactic. He appealed to lust and desire, or perhaps we should say he turned her to desire what is forbidden, for "lust" means "desire," and some desires are good, while other desires are not. Notice these words of James the Lord's brother and apostle:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." (James 1: 13-15 nkjv)

We see this process in producing man's first sin in Eve. Eve was tempted by Satan the serpent. By that temptation he appealed to Eve's desire and she was drawn and enticed. Her desire to be a god, her own god, was "conceived" in her by the implantation of the seed of doubt by Satan, and once that seed was sown in her mind it gave "birth" to the act of sin, first in her mind and then in act, and thus sin was "full-grown" and brought forth "death." He presented the fruit as good for food, and a delight to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom, playing on the "lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and pride of life." (I John 2: 16)

We also see in the temptation of Eve the subtle manipulation of Satan, and which is imitated by his children and by his ambassadors. Paul says that "the serpent deceived or beguiled by his subtilty or craftiness" the mother of all living. (II Cor. 11: 3) We can also say that Satan "seduced" Eve, as he has done to many others since, for to seduce means "to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty" or "to lead astray usually by persuasion or false promises," and though used to denote those who entice by charm for sexual gratification (fornication), yet may be used to denote those who seduce people in other ways. Satan is a seducer or "smooth operator," one who knows how to "charm" or "bewitch" (See Gal. 3:1), the latter word meaning to be charmed or fascinated by errors. So Paul warns of "seducing spirits" and "doctrines of demons," and of those who are "speaking lies in hypocrisy." (I Tim. 4: 1-2)

The Case of Annanias and Sapphira

An example of Satan inspiring people to lie is seen in the case of the above named members of the church in Jerusalem.

"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things." (Acts 5: 1-11 nkjv)

We call attention to this text because this is such a well known case of lying and by two professing Christians, and because we see how it was inspired by Satan, the chief of all liars. The text says that Satan filled the heart of Annanias (and probably his wife also) "to lie to the Holy Spirit," or to lie "not to men but to God." In this case we see where Satan himself also sinned as well as did Annanias and Sapphira. He was the inspiration behind the sin of lying.

Satan's Attempt at Deceiving Christ

We must also mention the temptation of Christ by Satan, who attempted to deceive Christ as he did Eve.

"1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” 5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ” 7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ” 8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” 11Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him."

Here we see Satan as the trickster he is. Yet, he had not the least bit of success with the Lord Jesus Christ. He used the same type of reasoning and the same kind of tactics that he used with Eve, but they failed. 

We might also could mention how Satan even tried to manipulate God himself in the prologue of the Book of Job.  We could mention many other instances. Satan is the chief liar and he inspires all liars to follow his example.

Sins of Satan (#1 - Pride)

 

If I asked you - "what are the sins of Satan," what would you say? The above text says that Satan, or the Devil, has been sinning from the beginning. What were his original sins? What have been his sins since he first sinned?

By "from the beginning" is no doubt a reference to the beginning of the human race and his sins against God and our race in the Garden of Eden when he tempted Eve and caused her to sin, and indirectly to the sin of her husband Adam, although it would also be true "from the beginning" of his first sin as an angel of God, though not true of him from the beginning of his creation by God as a holy angel. Satan's sins began in heaven, sometime after his creation. That sin chiefly was pride, and such pride as led to his rebellion against God and the monarchy of heaven. We have several Bible passages that reveal this to us.

Sin #1 - Pride

When writing to Timothy about the qualifications of elders and deacons, Paul wrote: "not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil." (I Tim. 3: 6 nkjv) By this he does not mean that your being or acting in pride will bring upon you the denunciations of the Devil, for Satan rather exults in seeing people sin against God and his law. Rather, Paul means that ordaining a novice increases the likelihood that the novice will be lifted up with pride and fall as did Satan. The following words are applicable to Satan (or "Lucifer"): “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor..." (Eze. 28: 17 nkjv) His pride, or hubris, involved his narcissism, his love for and idolizing of self, his haughty spirit, and his egotism. In his fall through pride we see the truth of these words of the wise king Solomon: "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov. 16: 18 nkjv) When people are proud, egotistic, or narcissistic, they are imitating the Devil. That should not surprise us in view of what the scriptures reveal to us. For instance, Paul wrote:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Eph. 2: 1-3 nkjv)

By "prince of the power of the air," or "the spirit that now works in" those who are dead in sin, is the Devil. He inspires people to sin and to follow their lusts. That is what is meant by people walking "according to" both "the course of this world" and "the prince." These are two sources from which inducements to sin originate. That is not to exclude the depravity of the flesh, for the apostle also says that while dead in sin people "conduct" themselves "in the lusts of our flesh," and follow the "desires of the flesh and of the mind." But, it is to this inner depravity to which both Satan and the world appeal when they entice to sin. In inspiring men to sin, we may well say that the Devil has been sinning from the beginning.

Satan is the best example of pride and of the destruction that such pride brings. In the text the Greek word for "sins" comes from the word "hamartia." In Greek tragedy, hamartia is a character's tragic flaw, error in judgment, or moral failing that leads to his downfall. This flaw can be a personality trait like hubris (excessive pride), or it can be a specific poor decision, or immoral activity or choice. The tragic hero is personally responsible for his fate through his hamartia. The character's hamartia is often the cause of his peripeteia (a sudden reversal of fortune) and his anagnorisis (a moment of critical discovery).

Jesus said to those who refused to believe in him:

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do." (John 8: 44 nkjv)

And of the first murderer the apostle John wrote:

"Not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous." (I John 3: 12 nkjv)

So, all of us who walk according to the prince of the power of the air are children of the Devil. It is not until we have believed in Christ and turned from sin and Satan that we become children of God. Once inspired by Satan we are now inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In describing the monster Leviathan, who is a picture of the sea dragon Satan, Lord God said:

"He beholds every high thing; He is king over all the children of pride.” (Job 41: 34 nkjv)

In the chapters following we will look at other sins that Satan has been committing since the beginning.

A Guaranteed Bonanza (another follow up)

This is a follow up to the two preceding postings. My second was prompted because of what I read the day following my initiatory writing. That is because I read these comments:

"Which means that we should beware of serving God from mercenary motives. We should beware of the attitude that says to God, “I have done this for you; what shall I get in return?” Such a question betrays a fundamental ignorance of God and what he has done for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It displays an ignorance of God’s sovereign grace. It elevates the merit of our efforts and displays a mistrust and misunderstanding of God’s goodness and generosity."

I have since pondered over what I wrote and tried to discern where I wrote something that was so out of harmony with scripture that would have provoked such a harsh denunciation. Was what I wrote evidence that I was fundamentally ignorant of God (either personally or theologically)? Or, ignorant about the person and work of Christ? Or that what I wrote shows that I elevate merit in salvation? Or that it showed a "mistrust and misunderstanding of God's goodness and generosity"? I have deeply mused upon this interpretation of what I wrote and of the scriptures I cited. I have also prayed over this and spoken to the Lord about it and asked to show me where I was right or where my brother is wrong, and to correct one of us. 

I believe it is appropriate to say to anyone that "it pays to serve God"; and perhaps to say "it does not pay to serve the Devil." It is just as appropriate as saying "crime doesn't pay." Or, "it pays to be honest." If I say "it pays to serve God" am I promoting the idea that God is to be served strictly because it pays well or that I am promoting merit over divine grace and mercy and lovingkindness? I don't think so and the verses I have cited so far back me up. Just to refresh you, here are some of the passages I cited in the previous two entries:

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8 nkjv)

I then made this comment, which I believe is true based upon the above text:

"Godliness" is "profitable unto all things." There is no limit to the profits of living a godly life. It yields great rewards for both the present life and for the coming life in eternity; a great bonanza of blessings indeed."

Perhaps my brother reacted to the word "profits" in those words. But, the word "profits" and "profitable" are in the text, so why should he object to that? Godliness, or serving God, is profitable. I also cited these words of Paul also in the same letter to Timothy:

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain." (I Tim. 6: 6 nkjv)

I also cited this text:

"Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.” So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18: 28-30 nkjv) 

In commenting upon this I wrote:

"Jesus assured him that he would reap "many times more" from his investment, bringing a bonanza of blessings "in this present time and in the age to come" as well."

Was the brother emotionally reacting to the word "investment"? And, about it bringing a bonanza or profits? 

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16: 26 nkjv)

Jesus is the one who used the word "profit" in the matter of whether it pays to serve God. He even used not only the word "profit" but the words "gains" and "exchange." It is Christ asking which is the better deal, to serve Satan, Mammon, or the world, or to serve the one true God and Jesus Christ his Son? Further, I don't think it is wrong to say, in common lingo, that we either make our deal with God or with the Devil and the world. 

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance. Incline your ear, and come to Me." (Isaiah 55: 1-3)

"I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see." (Rev. 3: 18 nkjv)

"Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding." (Prove. 23: 3)

People should be told that spending their time, labor, money, energy, etc., in the service of sin and Satan, and of self and the lust of the flesh, is a bad deal. It will cost you, both now and forever. Is that a betrayal of grace to say this?

"By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward." (Heb. 11: 24-26 nkjv)

So, is it wrong for me to tell people to forsake worldly treasures and seek the heavenly treasures? Also, when I speak of obtaining profits, or gains, or abundance (bonanzas), I do not allude to material things primarily, but to the things that are more precious than gold, such as having God's smiles of approval, knowledge of spiritual things, fellowship with God, peace and joy, etc. But, I don't exclude material blessings, both in this life and of life in eternity. Remember Paul said "all things are yours" (I Cor. 3: 21) and the words of Jesus who said "the meek shall inherit the earth." (Matt. 5: 5) Is it wrong to say to people that in becoming Christians they will walk streets of gold and live in the New Jerusalem in wealth?

In the comment section for the second in this short series, I added this text:

"Moreover by them (God's judgments or word) Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward." (Psa. 19: 11)

I added this because I keep thinking of other verses that say that there is "great reward" (a bonanza of blessings) for those who are godly, who keep the commands of the Lord. I also today thought of another text that should be considered in thinking upon God's promise of eternal profits for serving him. It involves what Christ said to the rich young ruler who asked him "what shall I do that I might have eternal life?" After telling him to "keep the commandments" and after the young man says "all these have I kept from my youth up," we read what he then said. The text says:

"Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Matt. 19: 21 nkjv)

"Go, sell...and you will have treasure in heaven"? Was Jesus giving this man the wrong counsel by giving him mercenary motives for him giving up all his assets and following Jesus?

So, how do we harmonize all this with what is recorded by the prophet Malachi who gave us this oracle of Yahweh:

"You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God; What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance, And that we have walked as mourners Before the Lord of hosts?" (Mal. 3: 14 nkjv)

These people were not doing wrong by viewing service to God as both a cost and a reward, for it is. The error was in thinking that the profits from obeying God were not worth the investment, the result of putting too high a value on their labors and putting too low a value on what God gives as rewards for service. They made a bad decision.

There is no contradiction in texts which promise a bonanza of blessings to the faithful and the godly and such blessings being a result of unmerited favor, of grace and mercy, of kindness. That is because

1) "God has worked all our works in us" (Isaiah 26: 12)

2) "It is not I that do it, but the grace of God in me" (I Cor. 15: 10).

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXVIII)

                      

Historian and Professor John G. Crowley, author of "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999) said that one may still find Two-Seed doctrines expounded by Primitive Baptists "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) This is true of today's "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Though they will tell you that they have declared non-fellowship against the heresy of Two Seedism, yet they still have remnants of Two Seedism in their thinking. We have already seen how this is true in regard to their "no change" view of regeneration, of their denial that God uses the gospel or word of God in rebirth, etc. 

In this chapter we will continue our examination of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in 1860 against Two Seedism in his book "The Measuring Rod..." We see how he took aim mainly at Elder Gilbert Beebe whom he considered one of the foremost apologists for Two Seedism. We will also see what Beebe said in response to Thompson. 

Thompson wrote in "The Measuring Rod":

"I have now showed that they are Arians, in their views of Christ, and the quickening spirit of God, and hold them both to be creatures in a sense that is in palpable contradiction to God’s word. I shall now examine their Two Seed notions, and try them by the infallible rule. I quote first, from a pamphlet published by Beebe, in 1843, page 11, and 2d column:

“It is not true that the elect, as such, were created in Adam. . . But the elect of God, as such, were created in Christ Jesus, and existed in him before the natural creation took place.” . . . “In his (Christ's) Godhead he is not numbered with, nor compared to creatures, for his Godhead is self-existent, and, therefore, not begotten, created, or derived But in his Mediatorial offices, or Headship of his church, he was set up, created, and begotten; and all his church were set up in him, created in him, and begotten in him, so far as relates to their spiritual life and spiritual condition.” “And thus existing in his Mediatorial character, the fullness of the Godhead, and the fullness of the church were embodied in that Mediatorial existence. And hence it is said, that his people were “created in him, chosen in him, preserved in him, and called with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' Their origin, as his seed, is simultaneous and identical with Christ as their life.”—Signs of the Times, July 1st, 1849." (pg. 45-46)

Once again we see where Beebe did believe in the actual preexistence of God's elect and that Christ being "begotten" in eternity past was his creation as a "Mediator" and which involved him being possessed of a human soul and nature, and that when Christ was begotten or created so too were the elect begotten and created. So, when Beebe wrote in 1838 (see previous chapter) that he did not believe that the elect actually existed before the world began he was stating what was not true, for he did believe such.

Thompson wrote in response:

"In the above quotations, Eld. Beebe teaches that the elect were not created in Adam, and as such, did not exist in Adam; but that they were created in Christ, in his creation, and were a distinct seed, from Adam and his posterity: that when Christ the Mediator and Head of the church was begotten, created, and set up, all his elect were created, begotten, and set up in him: that their creation and begetting was simultaneous and identical with him. The creation of Christ and his elect before time, he calls the "spiritual creation; " and the creation of Adam and his seed in time, he calls the natural creation." (pgs. 46-47)

These are the chief errors of Two Seedism. The idea that Christ' sonship denoted not his divinity but rather his creation as a "God-man" with both human and divine natures is one error, and the idea that Christ was begotten or created as such before the world began is another error, and the idea that the elect or church were begotten or created at that same time is another error.

Thompson wrote:

"This is their Two Seed doctrine, the true philosophy of which is, that God, before time, created Christ a spiritual man, and his elect in him a spiritual seed; that their existence is simultaneous with Christ their spiritual head and progenitor; for Eld. Dudley says in the same letter: “The bride, and all the spiritual children, were created in, and simultaneously with, the last Adam, that they are of the same nature with him.” This spiritual seed has no real or actual existence in Adam, and is in no way related to him, but belong to another family, belong to a different creation, and have their actual existence in a different head. Eld. J. F. Johnson, in a letter published in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1, 1857, tells us that the children of God by descent, are spiritual children; that they pre-exist in their parent, and of necessity, partake of his nature; and in confirmation of this view, Eld. Beebe says, in the pamphlet above named, page 21, second column:— “As Eve was created in Adam, as identified with and a part of him—the bone of his bones, and the flesh of his flesh: so the church, the elect of God, the Lamb's wife was, as I have before shown, created in Christ—— existed in him, as one and a part of him—bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.”" (pg. 50-51)

The paper "The Southern Baptist Messenger" I have mentioned in previous chapters. It was begun by Gilbert Beebe's son William L. Beebe, about 1850 and lasted about ten years. It was, like the "Signs of the Times," a Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptist periodical. I have read some of the issues of this paper through the years, although the only issues now available on the Internet are from 1860, the year Grigg Thompson wrote "The Measuring Rod." The people who supported both those periodicals were generally Two Seeders. If a person read all the issues of that periodical throughout the decade of its existence, he will see Two Seedism written about and promoted. In fact, the 1850s was a decade where Two Seedism had its most influence and intensest debate with those opposing Two Seedism. 

Notice also how Beebe clearly affirms the preexistence of the children of God, though, as we have seen, he denied teaching it in 1838. 

Further, as we will see, the Two Seeders not only believed that the preexistent souls of the elect were "in" the mind or heart of Christ, but were actually part of Christ's physical body, that their bones and flesh are derived from the bones and flesh of Christ. This being so, it goes against what they were constantly preaching about the new birth, affirming that the new birth was not a case of flesh begetting flesh, but of Spirit begetting spirit. If the bone and flesh of the children of God are taken out of the bone and flesh of Christ, then they are contradicting themselves.

Thompson wrote:

"In the pamphlet above quoted from, on page 17, 2d column, he (Beebe) says:

"By the spiritual creation, I mean the creation in Christ Jesus; and by the natural creation, all that properly belongs to this world, including the creation of all the human family, as such, in Adam. In the natural creation, not even Adam, in his first estate, was a partaker of the Divine nature. But, in the spiritual, God's chosen people are made partakers of the Holy Spirit. In the spiritual creation, those who are the subjects of it are, after God, created in righteousness and true holiness. Christ, as Mediator and Head of the church, is The beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature." (pg. 47)

Thompson wrote the following in response:

"The true philosophy of this quotation is, that Christ, the spiritual Head, was created before time, and that identical with his creation, was the creation of the church, or elect, that their actual existence was in him, and as soon as he began to exist, they began to exist, that this spiritual creation of Christ and his elect, was before time, and that in this creation before time, they were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and that it was in this creation before time, that the elect were made a spiritual seed, in righteousness and true holiness, after the image of Him that created them, that Adam was created in the natural creation, and all his seed in him, and that, in that creation, neither Adam, nor any of his seed, were partakers of the divine nature, or, that anything spiritual or immortal pertained to them in that creation, that Adam, and his posterity, are a distinct creation from Christ and his posterity; and that as Adam's seed were made partakers of flesh and blood in him, when he was created, so Christ's seed were made partakers of the divine nature in his creation. Eld. H. G. Fuller, a prominent preacher of this sect, in Ga. , illustrates this idea in the following language, which will throw much light upon the subject, and will prove that I do not misrepresent them:- 

"All the human family are nothing but Adam in a state of multiplication, or expansion: and the church, or elect of God, are nothing but Christ in a state of multiplication or expansion." (pgs. 48-49)

Whether the children of God were in any sense created in Adam and represented by him was a point that not all Two Seeders agreed upon. Some say that the physical bodies of the elect were created in Adam, but not their souls or spirits, and these eternal souls were put within Adam when he was created. But, as we have seen, some of them even said that the human bodies and souls of the elect did not get their humanity from Adam, but from Christ. This led many of them to say that the elect were in no sense created in Adam, and that when Adam fell, it did not affect the elect. 

Thompson wrote further:

"This is their Two Seed doctrine, the true philosophy of which is, that God, before time, created Christ a spiritual man, and his elect in him a spiritual seed; that their existence is simultaneous with Christ their spiritual head and progenitor; for Eld. Dudley says in the same letter: - "The bride, and all the spiritual children, were created in, and simultaneously with, the last Adam,- that they are of the same nature with him." (pg. 50)

That doctrine makes the elect to be a distinct race of people from the race of Adam, or of humanity. So Thompson wrote:

"This spiritual seed has no real or actual existence in Adam, and is in no way related to him, but belong to another family,- belong to a different creation, and have their actual existence in a different head. Eld. J. F. Johnson, in a letter published in the Southern Baptist Messenger, for April 1, 1857, tells us that the children of God by descent, are spiritual children; that they pre-exist in their parent, and of necessity, partake of his nature; and in confirmation of this view, Eld. Beebe says, in the pamphlet above named, page 21, second column:- 

"As Eve was created in Adam, as identified with and a part of him the bone of his bones, and the flesh of his flesh: so the church, the elect of God, the Lamb's wife was, as I have before shown, created in Christ-- existed in him, as one and a part of him-bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh." (pg. 50-51)

Again, not all Two Seeders agreed on whether the elect were derived from, or in any way represented by, Adam. How Two Seeders believed on such things affected their views on the resurrection of the bodies of the children of God, some believing in the resurrection and others denying it. On this we will have some things to say towards the end of this series.

Thompson wrote:

"I want the reader to keep in mind that this is the spiritual creation, and as such, has bones and flesh; and that it not only exists in life, as we hear some talk, but that it has an actual flesh and bone existence in its spiritual creation, so that it is not connected with Adam's seed, either in life, or in flesh and bones. For he tells us, that as "Eve was quickened, and received life when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, so the church or elect were quickened, or received life, when God breathed life into Christ." The existence of the church or elect, was, de facto, an actual existence in flesh and bone, before Adam was created or before time. The difference between the flesh and bones of Christ and his Eve or elect, and that of Adam and his Eve and seed, was that one was spiritual and the other natural. And that as a spiritual seed, Christ and his elect existed, in life, in flesh, and in bones, distinct from Adam and his seed, and were created before the visible heavens and earth." (pg. 51-52)

The idea that the elect not only received their spiritual existence and life in Christ in eternity past, but also their physical or natural existence too, is the grossest form of Two Seedism.

Thompson wrote:

"Right here a difficulty presents itself, that I think must blow up the whole system, without applying the Measuring Rod to it; and that difficulty is involved in answering this question: How are the elect involved in Adam's sin? If their existence was not in Adam, but were a different family, a different seed, we might just as soon suppose that angels, or God himself, would fall under the curse of the law, and become corrupt through the disobedience of Adam, as to suppose that this spiritual, distinct seed, that existed in Christ, should fall and become sinful by Adam's act: one is just as reasonable as the other. The act of Adam could not be imputed to them, for they were not related to him in their creation; they were a different order of being, for they were spiritual, and he was natural; they sustained no relationship to him, and without relationship, imputation cannot take place.  Neither could they inherit his sin, for they were never created in him, never descended from him, and of course cannot receive his corrupt nature by inheritance or descent. The very same rule that would involve them in the guilt of Adam, might involve God, the Holy Spirit, or the angelic hosts; for any of them were as much in union with Adam, according to this theory, as were the church or elect." (pg. 52-53)

Thompson shows the absurd consequences of Two Seedism and how that heresy leads to other heresies.

Thompson wrote:

"3d. They hold that the elect were quickened and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, or divine nature, before time. The Scriptures, however, tell us, that God has given unto us great and precious promises, that by them we might (not eternally were) be partakers of the divine nature. See 2 Peter i. 3, 4. Hence it is, in time, the elect are made partakers of the divine nature, and experience the quickening and life-giving power of the Holy Ghost." (pg. 55)

We have seen in previous chapters where Beebe, Trott, and Two Seeders generally, said that being "created in Christ Jesus" or being made "new creatures in Christ" occurred some time in eternity past, and that the "new man" is that eternal child of God. They were children of God before they partook of flesh and blood. That is what Beebe taught, and yet at other times, we hear Two Seeders say that they partook of the flesh, bone, and blood of Christ in eternity past, and not from Adam. The idea that the elect were partakers of the divine nature in eternity past leads to many absurdities and unscriptural ideas.

Thompson wrote:

"I shall now return to the Two Seeds, for we must not lose sight of that important article in their faith; and if the reader has kept in mind the fact, that they teach that the elect is a spiritual creation, and make no part of Adam's seed; were not created in Adam, and do not descend from Adam; I expect by this time he is growing curious to know how they get under the law, and under the curse: for it is impossible for them to be involved in Adam's transgression, as they were not of his seed, and had no actual, or representative existence in him. The elect must, therefore, be brought under the law and under its curse in some other way be sides, or distinct from the transgression of Adam. In the following extract, made from the pamphlet quoted from before, Eld. Beebe has explained this matter in a way consistent with his system of doctrine, and believing that the reader will be interested in reading it, I make a lengthy extract." (pg. 55-56)

One must wonder what God's purpose was in creating the human race as it respects God's preexisting children. If he deposited these spiritual eternal children in Adam, for what purpose? If they come down from heaven, enter into the human body of a descendant of Adam, and then leave, what was the purpose of it all? Especially if there is no resurrection of the human bodies they inhabited. Was it for the purpose of teaching them?

Thompson wrote:

"Christ was set up, in the council and covenant of God, as the Head and representative of his people, before the highest parts of the earth was formed, or the fountains abounded with water; not as a spiritual Head, embodying a spiritual seed in him, but as a man- "The man of God's right hand." Paul calls him the "heavenly man," (not the spiritual man;) and in the fullness of time, he was "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." (pgs. 62-63)

I find this commentary by Thompson somewhat bewildering. Is he saying that Christ, "as a man," was "set up" in eternity past? He seems to speak like a Two Seeder himself in what he says. Is he parroting the view of Joseph Hussey, et al, when he believes that Christ was a "heavenly man" in eternity past? Or, is he simply saying that this being "set up" was in the eternal purpose or mind of God?

Thompson wrote:

"He is called the "Son of man," "the man Christ Jesus," the "man of God's right hand." But it no where speaks of him as a spiritual existence, which is neither God nor man: neither does the Bible make any distinction between the "Son of God" and the "Son of man, "for it was said to Mary that, "that holy thing which should be born of her, should be called the Son of God." But while he was man, we must not forget that he was "God manifest in the flesh." Hence, he was both God and man. As God, he was the "everlasting Father," and as man he was the "child born, the son given." His divinity was the uncreated, self-existent God, while in his manhood he was the mediator between God and men. To deny this, is to negative the Scriptures, for they declare, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Man had violated the law, and the law looked to "man," and not to some spiritual existence for satisfaction. Christ as man, was set up, or appointed in the covenant or will of God, our "Day's man;" and in the "fullness of time he came," as it is written in the volume of the book, to do the will of God, and as the appointed substitute, to die for, or in the room of, his bride or elect, and redeem them from the curse of the law." (pgs. 63-64)

Here Thompson seems to clarify himself, saying that Christ was set up or appointed to be the mediator, but was not actually so until he took upon himself a body in his incarnation. If he believes that Christ was a mediator from eternity, or in the old testament period, and believes that his being a man was essential to him being a mediator, then he would be affirming Two Seed views. 

Thompson wrote:

"There is one more difficulty in this absurd and vain philosophy, that I wish to notice. Eld. Beebe tells us that Adam was not spiritual but natural, which is the truth as testified by Paul. If Adam was not spiritual, how could any thing spiritual be involved in his transgression? and if he was not spiritual, the woman that was taken from him was not spiritual, and it was her "seed that was to bruise the serpent's head. "If Christ was therefore a spiritual man, he could not be the woman's seed, or else the woman had something spiritual about her; and it is not true, that Adam and Eve were nothing but natural beings." (pg. 66)

Again, this is all quite bewildering. Is he affirming or denying that Adam was spiritual? He says that Beebe and the Two Seeders were right in saying that "Adam was not spiritual but natural." But then he says that Adam must have been spiritual for something spiritual was "involved in his transgression," which is what I have previously noticed, saying that if Adam was not in any sense spiritual, then he could not have died spiritually. I think, however, that Thompson is showing the inconsistency in Two Seedism on this point. If Eve, being a type of the church, was "in Adam" as a type of the spiritual seed of Christ, then one must say that Adam had that which was spiritual in him. He also says that since Christ is a spiritual man and has descended from Adam and Eve, then this presupposes that Adam and Eve were spiritual. 

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)

First of all, not all Two Seeders believed that God created the Devil and his seed. Daniel Parker did not believe so, as we have seen. It is true that a belief in the preexistence of the humanity of Christ and of the elect in him led Two Seeders and Hyper Calvinists to deny the biblical teaching on regeneration. Our previous chapters have shown this to be true. Thompson, however, because he came to deny that God uses the means of his word or Gospel in the regeneration, rebirth, or eternal salvation of the elect, also altered his views on regeneration from what Baptists before him held to. Though Daniel Parker did not deny means, yet the Two Seeders that he helped to spawn did begin to deny such means. If the word of God is not a means, then neither is faith and repentance, for these are evangelical, being produced by the hearing of the Gospel, and so it led to the belief that you could be totally ignorant of the one true God and Jesus Christ, and the way of salvation through him, and be a heathen worshiper of other gods, and yet be "regenerated" or "born again." However, Grigg Thompson is on record as believing, like many of his Brethren, whether Two Seed or not, that conversion was equated with the "birth" of the Spirit, following "regeneration," and that conversion was necessary for salvation and required hearing the Gospel.  In Wilson Thompson's book "Simple Truth" (1821) we have his "Discourse #6 - On the Work of the Spirit After Justification" we have these words:

"This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God." 

So, at least in 1821 Wilson believed that the "new birth" followed "regeneration" and involved receiving the Gospel. Was this the view of Grigg as it was of the large majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the 19th century?

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at Grigg Thompson's opposition to Two Seedism.

A Guaranteed Bonanza (follow up)

A dear brother in Christ wrote the following, which I believe was in response to my recent post titled "A Guaranteed Bonanza."

"...we should beware of serving God from mercenary motives. We should beware of the attitude that says to God, “I have done this for you; what shall I get in return?” Such a question betrays a fundamental ignorance of God and what he has done for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It displays an ignorance of God’s sovereign grace. It elevates the merit of our efforts and displays a mistrust and misunderstanding of God’s goodness and generosity."

It seems that this brother reacted differently to Peter's inquiry about what he would obtain from the Lord in return for his sacrifice for him, than did Christ. Jesus did not react by scolding Peter, but rather assured him of rewards that far exceeded his investment.

So, what does "mercenary" mean? The dictionaries say it means to be "primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics" or denotes "one that serves merely for wages" or is "interested only in the amount of money that you can get from a situation." I don't believe that I implied such a thing, nor that I am one who "betrays a fundamental ignorance of God and what he has done for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ." If it does, then it condemns many of the Bible writers themselves. I also don't believe that what I wrote "displays an ignorance of God's sovereign grace" nor that "it elevates the merit of our efforts and displays a mistrust and misunderstanding of God's goodness and generosity."

I left a couple comments to my own post after reading the brother's commentary. Here they are:

I should add these passages:

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance. Incline your ear, and come to Me." (Isaiah 55: 1-3)

"I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see." (Rev. 3: 18 nkjv)

"Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding." (Prove. 23: 3)

These scriptures, along with many others, tell us to buy of the Lord the things mentioned. They also imply that these would be wise and profitable investments. Is God appealing to a mercenary motive? Or that this is the only thing that should motivate one to serve the Lord? Now let us notice a few more texts that bear on this point.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain." (I Tim. 6: 6 nkjv)

"By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward." (Heb. 11: 24-26 nkjv)

Was Paul guilty of the things the brother says when he, like I did, said that great gain comes from being godly? Was Moses guilty of mercenary motives and of the things associated with that motivation when he "esteemed" that suffering reproach for the sake of Christ (a cost to him) would bring him a bonanza of "greater riches"? Or, that he was a mercenary disciple because "he looked to the reward"?

Here is another text to consider:

"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 13-14 nkjv)

Was Jesus promoting serving him from mercenary motives and that alone? What about Paul when he tells believers to sow (which costs us labor and investment of our time) in order that they might reap a plentiful harvest? (Gal. 6: 9) Notice these texts:

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." (Matt. 16: 27 kjv)

"If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward." (I Cor. 3: 14 kjv)

Were Jesus and Paul appealing to mercenary motives? And if so, were they ignorant of God's sovereign grace? Were they elevating merit at the expense of grace?

In the parable of the talents, the "good (profitable) and faithful servants" were profited by their having been good stewards or investors for their Lord. (Matt. 25: 23-30) In fact Jesus says: "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance" (vs. 29). Again, I ask the same questions.

Above I cited Paul's words where he said "godliness with contentment is great gain." The words preceding that statement are these:

"who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. Now godliness with contentment is great gain." (I Tim. 6: 5-6 nkjv)

Does Paul contradict himself? No, for when he condemns some for thinking that "godliness is a means of gain" he alludes to those who think that living for the Lord and a godly life will make them rich in this world's goods, as many "Pentecostal" preachers have taught, being that "prosperity gospel." However, Paul is not denying that godliness does bring great gain, but not necessarily in worldly goods in this life. That is not to deny, however, that a man who serves Christ and follows the bible's advice on stewardship and handling money will not be better off than otherwise. Notice how Paul writes further in the same chapter:

"Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." (17-19)

What Paul advised Timothy to say to those who are rich in this world was to be rich in faith and good works, thereby storing up or laying up true riches in heaven and for eternity to come, just as did Moses, as we have seen. They should "esteem the reproach of Christ" to bring "greater riches" than the "treasures" of this age. 

Was Lord God appealing to mercenary motives alone when in Deuteronomy chapter 28 he promised material well being and blessings for faithfulness to God and promised bankruptcy and curses to those who refused to obey him? And if so, does that mean that God was ignorant as the brother I cited seems to think? 

Paul told the Corinthians to "be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord"? (I Cor. 15: 58 nkjv)

One of the motivating factors of my working for the Lord is that I might hear him say "well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord." (Matt. 25: 21) If that makes me a religious mercenary, then count me guilty. Recall that I cited these words of the Lord to Peter:

“Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18: 28-30 nkjv)

Was Jesus a mercenary when he promised such rewards for serving him? Rather than rebuke Peter for asking what will be his gain for sacrificing much to serve Christ, Christ rather "assured" him of great reward. Let us be like the man who found good treasure in the field and went and "sold all he had" to buy that field and to obtain its treasure. (Matt. 13: 44) That does not make us mercenaries, nor deny sovereign grace, but is the wise thing to do.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXVII)

Elder Matthew Grigg Thompson

(1811 - 1888)

In this chapter we will look at what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote in opposition to Two Seedism. As I have shown in previous chapters, his father, Elder Wilson Thompson believed in one of the key tenets of that heresy, the idea of "eternal vital union" or "eternal children." I have also stated that Grigg (this was his mother's maiden name) stated that his father did not believe in Two Seedism. I have not been able as yet to find where he said this, but I do remember reading it somewhere in years past. I don't believe that Grigg agreed with his father on the Trinity either, for Wilson was a Modalist or Sabellian and I don't believe that Grigg believed this. I know what it feels like to disagree with your father, as I disagreed with my father too, although we both claim to be "Primitive" or "original" Baptists. Grigg's book "The Measuring Rod" was published in 1860. In it he calls the Two Seeders "Arian Baptists" and "Beebeites," just as others called them "Parkerites," and I have cited from this work in previous postings on the subject, but I wish now to cite further from it and make some observations thereupon. The title of his book was a long one, being --

"The Measuring Rod, Or, Principles and Practice of the Primitive Baptists Stated and Defended Against Modern Arianism, Two Seedism, &c. ; with an Appendix, in which the Writer Has Met and Refuted the Many False Charges Made Upon Him by Elders T.P. Dudley, G. Beebe, & W.C. Cleaveland"

Here is the cover of that book and it can be read (here).

In Chapter Two Thompson writes (all highlighting mine):

"I Now come to that part of my investigation, in which I shall have to apply the Measuring Rod, for each party claims the name of Primitive Baptists, and as far as I know, are the same in their church government. Their difference is doctrinal, and each professes to get his views from the Scriptures, and to them they make their appeal. I shall call one party, Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, because that name seems to indicate some of their leading doctrinal views, and as both claim the name Primitive Baptist, the reader might become confused if we did not distinguish them by different names; and, I think, that before we are done, the reader will not think that I have done them injustice, in giving them the name I have." (pg. 36-37)

I have written quite a lot in my Old Baptist Test blog about how the first Hardshells had disagreements over the doctrine of the Trinity. Wilson Thompson was a Modalist or Sabellian. I have several articles where I cite from Wilson on that point. Elder Sylvester Hassell in his church history acknowledges this fact about Wilson Thompson. Wilson was also accused of believing in Two Seed doctrine, and as we have seen, he did believe it, even though his son Grigg later would deny this about his father. The late Dr. R.E. Pound used to have a web page where he documented a lot of the controversies around the doctrine of the Trinity that existed among the first "Primitive Baptists," a fact of history that today's Hardshells are not aware of. From his Web page (which is not now available) I cited him in my article titled "Dr. R. E. Pound on Hardshell Factions" (See here). He wrote:

"In those days the Old School brethren were in three groupings on theology: 1. The Delaware River and the Warwick, Samuel Trott, grouping, the deniers of Nicenism; 2. The Ketocton association, with John Clark, the followers of Niceinism; 3. The followers of Wilson Thompson, a Sabellian, who denied that the Father and the Son entered into an eternal covenant because these were not two distinct Beings, but only personalities of the One Divine Being. It seems to me that at the first, these divisions among the old schoolers was not over absolute predestination, but OVER NICENISM."

Dr. Pound's Web Page before he passed away was pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org. You can find some of Dr. Pound's writings (here).

Elder John Clark began to publish his periodical "Zion's Advocate" in 1854 out of his home state of Virginia and he frequently attacked the editors of the "Signs of the Times" for advocating Two Seed ideology and for affirming that Jesus was not divine because of his being the Son of God, or because he was begotten by the Father. However, as we saw in preceding chapters in writing about Elder T.P. Dudley, Dudley's biographer (Taylor) said that Clark had written to Dudley and stated that he believed much of what Dudley had written in his book on "The Christian Warfare" which promoted Two Seed tenets. Elder Beebe, like both the Hardshell Sabellians and Arians, argued that if Jesus was begotten of God in his divinity, then he would be inferior to God who begat him, would not be eternal but a creature of time. Wilson Thompson, the Sabellian (or Modalist) argued this way. Beebe and Trott, the semi-Arians, argued the same way. Christ being a begotten Son of God was an act that had a beginning. 

Elder John Clark in his book "Exposure of Heresies Propagated by Some Old School Baptists," published in 1873, wrote against the Arianism involved in the Two Seedism of many of his fellow Hardshells from the 1830s till the early 1880s when he passed away. So, both Grigg Thompson and John Clark referred to Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists as "Arians." John Clark's book is not available on the Internet. I was able to get the book years ago by using the benefits of the inter-library loan program, so that my local library had the book sent to them from another library in another state, and I was able to read it in my local library (but not take it home), and I did so and took some notes. I wrote about that in 2008 in my blog "The Baptist Gadfly" in a post titled "On Clark's Book." Here is my summary of what I read (See here).

"Back a couple months ago I posted an entry wherein I asked where a lost book could be found, one written by Elder Clark in 1873 (a crucial time period in the history of the Hardshells) and titled - "Exposure of heresies propagated by some "old school Baptists," from their own publications: showing their doctrines to be not according to the Gospel of Christ."

I can now report that I have read this short book and have taken some notes from it.

The book shows that many of the first Hardshells were Arian in doctrine, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ as an expression of his divinity.

In this book Elder Clark attacks the "no change" view of regeneration, a view prevalent among first generation Hardshells, or what has come to be called the "Hollow Log" doctrine. Those who generally held to this doctrine were they who retained the view of Elder Parker and his belief in "eternal vital union," or "eternal children," believing that the elect were in existence in Christ, by a creation before the world began, and that they simply, like Christ, "come down from heaven" and take up their abode in an "Adam man," like a rabbit would run into a hollow log and stay there, yet without effecting any change in the log.

Elder Clark found it absurd and a false doctrine worse than Arminianism. He did not believe that anyone existed before he was born into the world."

Thompson wrote:

"The Word is the infallible standard, and I intend to let the Two Seed, Arian party, express their doctrines in their own words, and then apply the Measuring Rod, or the Scriptures, to them; and, I think, that before I am done, the reader will see that, if possible, they have less claims to be the Apostolic church, than either of the parties already decided against." (pg. 37-38)

The "two parties" he alludes to are the "Campbellites" and "Missionary Baptists." Grigg believes that Two Seedism is a worse heresy than those. Elder John Watson said something similar, saying in his book "The Old Baptist Test" that in many ways "Parkerism" or "Two Seedism" was worse than the "New Schoolism" of the "Missionary" Baptists from whom they had separated. 

Thompson wrote:

"Before taking the subject up, I have another remark to make. Sometime past, I published an “Appeal to the Primitive Baptists,” in which I labored to expose the errors of the Arian party; in it I marked all my quotations, but, notwithstanding that, I have heard of some who have read the quotations from the stand, and affirmed it to be my doctrine, and made war upon it. In this work, I shall put every quotation from them in a different type from the body of the book, so that no one can be mistaken, but will know that they are reading their views, expressed in their own words." (pg. 38)

This shows either the gross ignorance or sinister doings of some "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. You have to be pretty ignorant not to realize what quotation marks mean. In a posting I made years ago titled "Duke Research Results (1)" (See here), I showed where Elder W.H. Crouse did what Grigg said others had done to his writings, attributing citations he gave of what others believed as being his beliefs. In that post I wrote the following:

In the book "Regeneration or the New Birth" by William H. Crouse in 1925 (see here), a book upheld by Sonny Pyles as stating things accurately, Crouse wrote:

"Elder John Clark, a recognized leader among Primitive Baptists, for years editor of Zion's Advocate (afterwards edited by T.S. Dalton, C.H. Waters, John R. Daily, and now by R.H. Pittman) in an editorial on this subject in June 1858, said:

"We can conceive how agencies and instrumentalities can be employed in ministering to the living, but what place they have in giving life we cannot so readily conceive.***Is it scripturally true that God uses instrumentality in quickening, or giving life, to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins. The burden of proof, we know, rests upon these who affirm this, but let us see a moment what saith the revelation of God upon the subject.***(John 5: 21; 25; Born 4:17, 2 Cor.3:6, Eph. 2: 4,5,10; Col. 2:13, I Tim. 6:13; Heb. 4:12.) This array of scriptural testimony is sufficient, we should think, to establish the proposition that God quickens the sinner independent of means."

Now, here is what Clark actually wrote (I have the copy right in front of me)..."

What Crouse said Clark wrote is not what Clark wrote, but were citations from his opponents that Crouse said were the words and beliefs of Clark. The above citation is not what Clark wrote but is what his opponents had written and which he disagreed with. You can read the entire citation that I gave in that post. So, what does this say about some "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists?

Thompson wrote:

"The Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, in common with all professed Christians, believe that there is one God, who is the Creator, and who exists in, and of himself; who is omniscient, omnipresent, all-wise, and unchangeable, a most pure and holy spirit.They also believe that this God exists, or is revealed in the Scriptures as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; so that there is not three Gods, but one. In this article of their faith I believe them, and the Primitive Baptists are identical, for the first article adopted by all the Primitive Baptist churches, with which I am acquainted, reads about as follows: “We believe in one only true and living God, and that there is a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” To sustain this article, they refer to Isa. xliv, 6: 1 John v. 7, and a variety of other Scriptures." (pg. 38-39)

This is not all quite true, however. Not all Two Seed or Arian Baptists believed in the Trinity. As we have seen, Grigg's father, Wilson Thompson, denied the Trinity and yet held to Two Seed views. So too did Samuel Trott. Also, how can Grigg say that Two Seeders were sound on the Trinity and yet call them "Arian Baptists"? Further, we have cited from Daniel Parker in previous chapters where he denied that Satan or his seed were created by God, calling the children of the Devil "the products" of Satan. That makes Satan a creator. He also taught that Satan was "self existing" and so did many Two Seeders, and so what Grigg says is not true. So, why did Grigg say these things? I can only guess. Why did he deny that his father was a Two Seeder or not say that he disagreed with the Modalism of his father?

Thompson wrote:

"The Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, believe that the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity, is a created, inferior existence, that he was created before the visible heavens and earth, and was the first thing God ever created. To show that I have not used a misnomer in calling them Arians, I will give the Arian faith, as given by Buck, and I will then give their faith as expressed by themselves. “Arians,” says Buck, “maintained that the Son of God was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God had created; the instrument by whose subordinate operation he formed the universe; and, therefore, inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity; also, that the Holy Ghost was not God, but created by the power of the Son.” (pg. 39-40)

Here Grigg seems to say just the opposite of what he said in the previous citation. He says Two Seeders believed in one God in three persons and yet says that they believed that the second person in the Trinity is a created and inferior being. Of course, men like Beebe and Trott believed that Christ was God, and believed in a Trinity of persons (disagreeing with Wilson Thompson), yet they believed that Christ being the Son of God had nothing to do with his being God, but had to do with him being begotten as a Mediator, which involved him being a composite person of three natures, from some point in eternity past when he was begotten or created as such. We have even seen where Joshua Lawrence, though not a Two Seeder, also believed that Christ being the Son of God did not mean Christ was God, but his being the Son of God denoted his being born a human being.

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. G. Beebe, of New York, Eld. S. Trott, of Virginia, and Eld. T. P. Dudley, of Kentucky, stand at the head of the Two Seed, or Arian party, in fact, they have given the party birth in the United States, and their views are received by their followers without a dissenting voice, as far as I know, and from them I shall quote largely." (pg. 40)

Why did Thompson leave out Daniel Parker or his own father? Why did he leave out Daniel Parker? Yes, I know that Parker died in 1844, several years before Grigg wrote the "Measuring Rod," and this may be the reason. He does give the leading apologists for Two Seedism, and we have cited extensively from these apologists in preceding chapters. However, he says that the men named had "given the party birth" and so he should not have left out Daniel Parker.

Thompson wrote:

"Eld. Beebe, in a pamphlet published in 1843, on page 17, and second column, says: “By the spiritual creation, I mean the creation in Christ Jesus, and by natural creation, all that properly belongs to this world, including the creation of all the human family, as such in Adam. . .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.” 

This is quite interesting in lieu of the fact that in chapter XXIV we cited the words of Beebe from the "Signs of the Times" for 1838 (Vol. 6, No. 25, page 198) where Beebe said:

"That the words of divine revelation declare two seeds among the family of Adam, viz: the children of promise, which are accounted for the seed, the chosen generation, &c', and also of the seed of the serpent, the generation of vipers, the seed of evil doers, &,c., we fully admit; but that the former of these actually and personally existed in eternity, in any other sense than that their life was children with Christ in God, and that the latter had an actual existence in the bottomless pit before they existed on earth, is a doctrine which neither the word nor Spirit has ever revealed unto us;..."

So, Beebe is on record as both affirming and denying the "actual being" or existence of the elect in Christ before the world began. The denial was made in 1838 but the affirmation was made in 1843.

Thompson then cites these words of Beebe from that pamphlet wherein he cites Trott:

“I will, in candor, answer the questions put to me. The first is ‘Whether the quickening and life-giving Spirit of God is a created existence? I answer decidedly, YES. They again ask “If the Scriptures give any information of any thing being created before the beginning?" If they mean by the beginning, the creation of God, I answer No, for Christ is that beginning; but if they mean by it, the beginning of time, as in Gen. 1st chap. and 1st verse, I say Yes; for in that beginning God created the heavens and the earth; but Christ being the beginning of the creation of God, must in this sense, have been created, or brought into existence before these, and therefore before time.”— Signs of the Times, Vol. 17, No. 16, Aug. 1, 1849. s TROTT." (pg. 41)

This is what the Arians taught and is the reason why Thompson and Clark both accused Beebe and Trott and some other Two Seeders as being such.

Thompson wrote:

"As far as the creatureship of the Son is concerned, their views are identical, and the name Arian is appropriate." (pg. 42)

Well, not exactly, and that is why I prefer to call the Two Seeders "semi-Arian." Arius and Arians denied the Trinity, but Beebe and Trott did not. 

Thompson then writes:

"Arius says, that the Holy Ghost is a creature, and was created by the Son. Elder Trott says, that the quickening and life giving Spirit of God, is a created existence. The only difference between him and Arius, is that one ascribes the creation of this quickening spirit to the Son, and the other simply calls it a created existence, without telling us whether it was created by God or the Son."

That is not the only difference between Trott and Arius, for Trott did not deny the Trinity as did Arius. The likeness between both is in how they understood Christ being the begotten Son of God.

Thompson wrote:

"I have now showed that they are Arians, in their views of Christ, and the quickening spirit of God, and hold them both to be creatures in a sense that is in palpable contradiction to God’s word. I shall now examine their Two Seed notions, and try them by the infallible rule." 

However, we will save Thompson's refutation of Two Seedism for the next chapter.

A Guaranteed Bonanza

A "bonanza" is defined as an "an exceptionally large and rich mineral deposit" or "a situation from which large profits are made." In becoming a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and living a godly life for him, there is promised a true and lasting bonanza. That is what the above text tells us. Yes, there is a little profit in bodily exercise, and in some other earthly pursuits. But, the profits that come from being a Christian are superlatively lucrative, being a great return on the investment. "Godliness" is "profitable unto all things." There is no limit to the profits of living a godly life. It yields great rewards for both the present life and for the coming life in eternity; a great bonanza of blessings indeed. Jesus said something similar to Peter and the other disciples when Peter began to count the cost of following Christ. So we read:

"Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.” So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18: 28-30 nkjv)

Peter thought of what he had invested in his decision to follow Christ, and of what it cost him. He wondered what kind of return he would get for it. Jesus assured him that he would reap "many times more" from his investment, bringing a bonanza of blessings "in this present time and in the age to come" as well. Jesus did speak of "counting the cost" when it comes to deciding to follow Christ. Wrote Luke:

"25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14: 25-33 nkjv)

Notice the words "count the cost." What "cost"? 1) Having friends and family shun you for deciding to follow Christ, and 2) hating (rejecting) not only one's family but one's own life, and 3) bearing the cross of shame and reproach, and 4) forsaking all to be Christ's disciple. So, what do we judge to be the outcome of this "cost-benefits analysis"? We see what it may cost us. What will it benefit us? Some sadly judge the cost too high, and don't have faith in profiting by the expenditure. Thankfully, others see that the profits far surpass the cost. Recall these words of our Lord:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16: 26 nkjv)

Here Christ calls upon all to consider the cost of choosing not to follow him. You may gain the whole world, but you will eternally lose your soul. Friend, make the right choice. Choose Christ and godliness and you will find a true bonanza that will be an eternal residual profit. What following Christ may cost you now is little compared to what profit you will receive now and forever.