Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIV)

 

In this chapter we will continue to review what Elder C.H. Cayce called an "unholy war" (or the biting and devouring of the above text) that was occurring in the first part of the twentieth century among those who called themselves "Primitive Baptists" concerning what was known as the "whole man doctrine." This was one extreme that came out over the controversies over Two Seedism. The other extreme was known as the "hollow log doctrine." We discussed these two doctrines in previous chapters. These issues were periphery issues to the central question as to what is "regeneration" and being "born again" or "born from above," whether the written word of God is a means the Spirit uses to effect it, and whether faith and repentance are means thereunto. It also involves the question of whether evangelical conversion is essentially the regeneration Paul speaks of in Titus 3:5, or whether conversion is an after effect.

The several articles we have been examining are from Cayce's periodical "The Primitive Baptist" under the title "Curtain Raised." In this chapter we look at another article titled "Curtain Raised Again" for November 14, 1916, being Number four in that series. In it Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"In our last article we promised to let our readers see some things concerning some parties nearer home. According to that promise we now raise the curtain again and let our readers see some of the productions from Elder W. E. Brush. Under date of May 9, 1916, he wrote us the following letter while we were in Georgia filling appointments in that country: 

Greenfield, Tenn., May 9, 1916. ELDER C. H. CAYCE:

My Dear Brother-After long and due and prayerful consideration, as I hope, have decided that it would be best for me to come off the staff of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper. It's indeed sad to me for us to come where the ways separate (and I don't mean by this that I declare non-fellowship for you), as I have been with the paper so long, and have walked together with its former editor, Elder S. F. Cayce, your dear father, and my father also in the ministry, and a man whose sacred memory lingers still, and shall ever linger in my poor heart, and it's with tender emotion that I remember his kindness to one so unworthy as myself. And since his departure to the better land our association together has been just as sweet and pleasant until this unhappy affair came up in Texas, and from there came on to this country to the extent, at least, that it has caused confusion among our dear brethren." 

In the previous chapters we saw where Hardshell leader Elder J.M. Thompson was so sharply against Elder C.H. Cayce for his views on the nature of "regeneration" that he had his name removed from the editorial staff of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, edited by Cayce, and also canceled his subscription to it, and went even further and would not call Cayce "brother." Next to do the same is Elder W.E. Brush.

Elder Brush letter continues:

"But now to get at my reason for coming off the corresponding staff of the P. B. is because I feel that you are in sentiment lined up with the Primitive Baptist Signal, of Texas, edited by Elder Collings, in which such statements as the following are found, and that, too, from the pen of Elder M. W. Miracle, who is the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of the P. B. to-wit: 

"I am forced to the conclusion that man in his completeness or complexity is born again in the change we call from nature to grace. No man can arrive at any other logical fact from the context. It is to say that man is born again in spirit, but such an expression does violence to the whole tenor of the Scriptures. Just as well say that a man is out of debt in part." -P. B. Signal, Jan. 4, 1916. 

"Now Elder Miracle has come out plainer in this statement than anyone that I have read after, but I only think the more of him for that. But now, Brother Claud, if the above statement is old or primitive doctrine, or in other words, the doctrine of the Bible, I have never known nor believed it yet. One thing I know, and you know it as well as I do, that doctrine like the above statement contains has not been advocated among the Old Baptists for the past twenty years, and if very many of them receive it today I will be very much surprised."

Up till this time Elder Cayce has repeatedly said that Brethren were accusing him of believing the "whole man" doctrine and that he continued to deny that he believed it. However, Brush is giving evidence that Cayce either does in fact believe it or else tolerates those who do.

Brush continued:

"Now, my dear brother, you may say that you don't believe what Elder Miracle has said. If you don't, why do you keep him as the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of your paper? And if you do believe as Elder Miracle, why don't you come out plain and above-board and say so, so the Baptists would know where to place you? There are not very many of your readers that read the Signal, and therefore have no opportunity to know the doctrine that is being advocated by the Signal, but are led by the writings of Elder Lee Hanks, especially, to believe that the Newman faction in Texas are the sound element of Baptists out there." 

Obviously Elder Brush believes the "whole man doctrine" is a heresy and should be a reason to break fellowship. Also, Elder Cayce either did not know that Elder Miracle held to that doctrine or did not think it was a reason to declare non-fellowship.

Brush continued:

"Neither do I think that all the error has been on one side, for I condemned Elder Sarrels' idea that these bodies, or the bodies of the saints, do not render service to God. But, as I told Elder Newman, in my condemning his erroneous idea that our bodies did not serve God, I did not mean that our bodies had been quickened or made alive-but simply meant, as I have believed all the way along that it's the man that is born again, but not born again all over. If he is born again all over why not come out and say so." 

It is true that the body does not need to be regenerated in order for it to be sanctified for use in the service of God. (Rom. 12: 1) That is because the body is controlled by the brain (or mind) and it is controlled by the soul or spirit, especially in renewed spirits.

Brush continued:

"And, as it presents itself to me, if I object to you saying that man is born again in part, I certainly must believe that he is born again in whole. If I don't, please tell me what I would believe. Now, my dear brother, if any man on earth can work out this problem for me he certainly will do me a great favor. When a man says, "Oh, it won't do to say that man is only born again in part," and then, in the face of this statement, say that he don't believe that man is born again in whole-now then the man that neither believes that man is born again in part nor in the whole, pray, for the sake of truth, tell me what that man does believe." 

The real you is your cognitive self, your mind, soul, and spirit. Your corporeal self is controlled by your incorporeal self. It is the heart, mind, and spirit that is positively changed by regeneration, repentance, renewal, and rebirth. So, it is true that a man is born again in part, meaning that it is the inner self that experiences it.

Brush continued:

"First, it has stood for the doctrine of election and predestination, and that unconditional on the part of the sinner...And now all that God the Father chose in Christ, Christ died for, the Holy Spirit (the third Person in the divine Trinity) will, here in time, make known to the heirs of promise what God the Father and Jesus Christ have done for them, by going where they are and revealing this one most noble truth to them. And now in this revelation I have understood the P. B. to teach that men and women, together with children as well, were taught to know God, whom to know is life eternal; and that in this teaching they were taught to know God only in soul, spirit, or heart; that this work of regeneration or the new birth did not teach men to know God in the flesh. Am I right? Or have I been mistaken all this long time as to what the P. B. taught on this point? I never understood it to teach that this revelation that the Spirit makes to the heirs of promise here in this life, with its purifying power, reached the entire man and partially purified him all over; or in the revelation, or the work of quickening the heir of promise, it left him, in some mysterious way unexplainable, quickened, both soul and body that is, it did not leave any part of him dead in trespasses and sins, and if not dead in trespasses and sins, then necessarily alive in Christ." 

All this is quite interesting to me as a "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist historian. It seems, from the words of Elder Brush, that at the time this was written (1916) it was the view of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists that a regenerated person has the Gospel of salvation revealed to him by having been taught to know God. Many of them, after this date, began to teach that people could be regenerated in heathen lands by the direct speaking of Christ to them and yet remain cognitively ignorant of Christ and believers in other deities. Elder Sarrels, who was part of this debate about the "whole man" doctrine, as we have seen, later in his life wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (1978). I have cited much from this book in several posts which showed that he believed that regeneration did NOT teach people about who is the true God, nor of Jesus Christ and the way of salvation through him. (See this post here for instance)

Brush continued:

"Now if the P. B. stood for this late (to me) heard doctrine, I confess I never knew it until a recent date. But at this point, and with reference to this point of doctrine, I always understood the P. B. to stand for this principle-that in the work of the new birth, or regeneration, or quickening, or giving His sheep eternal life (and many other expressions that have reference to the same great change), that this work was wrought in the soul, or spirit, or heart, of God's people while they yet live here in time; that this change was an inward work, and only brought eternal life to the soul, or spirit, or heart, and left the body just as it was before the Spirit of God entered the heart; that is, it left the body in an unquickened state, or in an unregenerated state. Am I mistaken with reference to this point? If I am, will you please explain to me wherein I have been mistaken all this long time? Further, at this point I have understood the P. B. to believe that where Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” that the Spirit in this work gives eternal life to His people in soul, or spirit, or heart. Am I right or wrong? Will you tell me? Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural, that God's people may and can, and, in fact, ought to bring this old body under subjection by the Spirit, that we should present these vile bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service; that we should mortify the deeds of the body. Then I have always understood the P. B. to teach that the saint is two in one, composed of an inward and an outward man, the inward man being the renewed soul, or spirit, or heart of man, and the outward man being this old body that is still subject to death and must die, because it has no eternal life. Paul said, {(II Corinthians 4:16)}" 

"P. S.-Brother Claud, here is what Elder Sylvester Hassell says on the subject under consideration, in the three questions asked by himself or some other one, and answered by him, as found in his paper of a recent date: 1. What is regeneration? A. It is the impartation of spiritual or eternal life to a human being. 2. What part of that work takes place in time? A. The impartation of such life to the soul, or spirit, or hearts, of men. (Romans 2:29); (Jeremiah 31:33). 3. When is the body regenerated? A. At the final resurrection at the second personal coming of Christ to the world. (Romans 8:23); ((20) (Philippians 3:20-21)." 

As I have stated in the immediately preceding chapters, the error in thinking of those who Espoused the "whole man doctrine" was the belief that the body 1) could not be considered a child of God or a special possession of the Lord unless it was also regenerated, and 2) could not serve God without experiencing regeneration. Though the body will not be perfected until the resurrection, yet it belongs to the Lord by his purchase of it via his atoning death. So wrote Paul:

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 19-20 nkjv)

Paul does not say "glorify God in your body because it has been regenerated as the spirit" but glorify God in your body because it has been purchased and belongs to the Lord, and is Lord of it, rather than yourself owning it and have Lordship over it. 

In reply to Elder Brush Elder Cayce wrote:

"Concerning the foregoing we have to say, first, that this paper stands for the same principles and the same truths which it has stood for since the first issue was sent out on January 1st, 1886...Therefore, as we stand where we have always stood, if Elder Brush and we have come to the parting of the ways, it is Elder Brush who has left the old path and not us." 

"Again, Elder Brush said, "Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural-and then these words follow with a pencil mark through them-or carnal or a child of-Now, what did he start to say? Could he have started to say anything else only that the body is still a child of wrath? Why did he mark those words out and not finish his sentence? Evidently that is what he believes now, and what he started to say. Has Elder Brush always believed that? Let the following article answer, which is copied from the Primitive Baptist Signal of April 1, 1915: Jan. 21, 1915."

"ELDER R. V. SARRELS: My Dear Brother-I have read your article in the Trumpet of Dec. 17 on the subject of the new birth, and it seems that the subject is very clear to you, but to me your article is very confusing." 

"We come now to notice your text at the head of your article already named, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature." Now, the first question I want to ask you is, What does it take to constitute the man? Paul said it was the MAN that was in Christ Jesus. It makes no difference how it may appear to us, nor to what extreme we may go on either side, it still remains a fact that Paul said the MAN. Our Master said to Nicodemus, "Except a MAN be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This was a mystery to this ruler of the Jews, nevertheless our Master did not modify it to suit his understanding. Now, my brother, if you can, tell me how a MAN can be in Christ and his body in no way changed or affected, when he is not a man without his body and the MAN is in Christ-not simply his spirit, but the MAN. That is what the Bible says. It makes no difference what you may think about the matter, nor what I think; our think so's do not weigh very much, unless they are in keeping with a "Thus saith the Lord.""

So, as Cayce is showing, Elder Brush at one time believed in the whole man doctrine. But, does Cayce? As we have seen previously, Elder Cayce denied believing it though he was often accused of believing it and would often emphasize that Christ said that it was the "man" who was born again and created in Christ Jesus, often implying that by "man" meant the whole man, body, soul, and spirit.

Brush continued further in is letter to Sarrels:

"My brother, is it not a fact that it takes soul, body and spirit to make man? If it does, and the MAN is in Christ, is not the body in Christ in some sense of the word? If not, please explain how the MAN could be in Christ, and at the same time the body, which is one of the component parts of MAN (in fact, if it were not for the body there would be no man), is not changed in any way at all no not so much as to be under the commandments of Christ, for I note that you say in your article that no living man can prove by God's word that we serve God in our flesh or body relation. Now I suppose that you mean by this statement that we don't serve God in, or with, our bodies. Why don't you come out plain and above-board so people of ordinary sense would know just what you mean? I take it for granted that you mean that no living man can prove by the Bible that men serve God with their bodies. If this is not what you mean, please tell me what you do mean. Paul said to the Roman brethren, "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."-(Romans 12)."

The body does not need to be regenerated or born again in order for the renewed spirit to use it in the service of God. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God." (Rom. 6: 12-13 nkjv) 

Here we see how the "mortal body" of the regenerated believer is still a source of sin and lust and when it is followed or obeyed becomes an instrument of unrighteousness. The believer's renewed spirit that is indwelt by Christ and the Holy Spirit and is possessed of the divine life and nature ought to be the lord of the body and its members. The members of the body ought to be servants of the renewed spirit and not the king of the spirit. So we read of such exhortations as these:

"Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Eph. 4: 28)

"I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 nkjv)

By "holy hands" we are not to think that the hands experienced a regeneration or spiritual cleansing. Rather, that they are "set apart for religious service." 

Likewise we read in James where he admonished Christians about using their "tongues" for good purpose, to control it, and not allow it to be used for evil. (James 1: 26; 3: 5-8; See also I Peter 3: 10) The same is true for the feet. Prior to being saved, when under depravity's control, the "feet are swift to shed blood" (Rom. 3: 15). After conversion, however, the feet begin to bring "glad tidings" to a lost and dying world. (Rom. 10: 15) 

Brush continued further in his letter to Sarrels:

"I am sure you will agree with me that it's only in service to God that we can glorify Him, and if so, we can serve God in our bodies as well as our spirits. "For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (I Corinthians 6:20)." 

Yes, but as I said, the body needs not be regenerated in order for the regenerated spirit to make use of it in the service of God. The body belongs to the Lord because it has been purchased and will experience its own rebirth in the resurrection.

Brush continued further in addressing Sarrels:

"I note in your same article you say, "I think it is not safe to say that the body is not a part of the new creature." Now, how could the body be a part of the new creature without having been changed in some sense? Please answer this question, for it is one of great importance. Could not the soul or spirit just as well be a part of the new creature without a change as the body? If not, why not? seeing that the entire man is alike contaminated in sin-or, in other words, the whole man is dead in trespasses and sins. Now, I have never understood, neither do I yet understand, that a man is so changed that he cannot sin in any sense of the word. We know that John said, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The same writer said, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

So, clearly Brush at that time believed in the "whole man doctrine" and that the body experiences a regeneration just as the soul or spirit. 

Brush continued further:

"Then I believe just as Elder J. S. Newman expressed himself to me in a letter, "I believe that eternal life is implanted in the heart or soul of man, but it so affects his whole being that -it makes him hate the things he once loved and love the things he once hated. Yes, the very lips that we used to curse with, we now praise God with; and the feet that once carried us to the ballroom now carry us to the church of God." My dear brother, if you had a neighbor that had been a wicked man, and he claims to have been changed from nature by grace, and yet he still lives the same wicked life that he has been living heretofore, what evidence have you that he has met with any change?"

It is interesting that in 1916 the "Primitive Baptists" seemed still to hold to some beliefs connected with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and not to a mere preservation. In the above citation we see where Elder Newman believes that when a sinner is given eternal life that he no longer lives the same wicked life he did before. Many "Primitive Baptists" today believe that many of the regenerated children of God are never converted, but remain in idolatry and in a wicked lifestyle.

Brush continued further:

"Elder Sarrels, it does seem to me such a pity for the Baptists of Texas to divide over nothing but preacher jealousy. I feel sure that if there were, or had been, one half dozen preachers taken away from Texas, and not allowed to return, that you would have had NO trouble over the WHOLE MAN DOCTRINE as it is called."

I have stated that many of the divisions in the "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination have been due to a large degree a result of preacher feuds where preachers were contending for supremacy in a given area or association. I write about this in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." I witnessed this myself after I had been in the "Primitive Baptist Church" for two years when Elder John Robbins of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists began to fight against my father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr., who he felt threatened his ascension in that association, and used father's view on the origin of Satan as the way to bring charges against him, and convening a "council" of churches, of which he was the moderator, he led them to declare that his view that Satan fell from heaven was heresy and unless he agreed to never preach that view that they would declare him in disorder. Father, of course, could not allow his conscience to be brought under the tyranny of him or his followers. Many "Primitive Baptist" ministers and historians have also confessed to this fact about preacher jealousies.

Cayce replied to Brush as follows:

"This letter from Elder Brush to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to the letter from Elder Brush to us. Elder Brush has a long article in the Trumpet of Oct. 19, giving us "down the country." This letter of his to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to that also. We simply answer Elder Brush with Elder Brush. It appears to us that he should observe a little of the advice he gave Elder Sarrels-"Let's be careful that we don't take a position that we will meet ourselves coming back before we get far." Elder Brush has simply met himself coming back, and did not get far, either."

It is obvious that Elder Brush had in fact changed his mind on the "whole man" doctrine.

Why I Am A Calvinist

I hear lots of people tell why they are NOT Calvinists. In this post I will tell you why I am a Calvinist. It is not because I am a follower of John Calvin, although I agree with him on many things. The doctrines Calvin taught did not begin with Calvin, of course. Nor did the counterpoint of Calvinism, i.e. Armianism, begin with James Arminius. These are simply terms now used to denote what Bible believers believe about sin, salvation, and the sovereignty of God. 

In a nutshell, I am a Calvinist because I believe that God can save a sinner any time he pleases. This is the way the apostle Paul prayed, saying: "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." (Rom. 10: 1) I also believe that everyone God saves, he chose to save before the world began.

Arminianism says God cannot save sinners unless they let God do so. Yet, even though Arminians affirm this, they often do not pray like this. Rather, they pray like Calvinists when they pray for God to save another person, for such a prayer implies that God can save them any time he chooses. The same is true when we pray for God to heal another person, our prayer is based upon our belief that God can heal anyone any time he desires. They also are willing to admit that God convicts people of sin apart from people allowing him to do so.

A.W. Tozer, well known Bible teacher is reported to have once said: "I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist." I have not been able to find where he said this, however.

Said Spurgeon:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it." (Sermon - “Free-Will A Slave,” 12/2/1855)

I wrote about this in this post (here), writing:

Such a prayer reveals that the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of any soul is the prerogative of God.  It shows that the one uttering such a prayer believes that the one for whom they are praying can only be saved if God simply wills and makes it so.  If God is already doing all he can to save the friend who is being prayed for, and is already as disposed as he can be to save that friend, then why pray that God save that friend?  Would it not be more apropos to Arminian theology to pray to the sinner rather than to God?

The fact is, God is able to conquer the will, for we are told that God "is able to subdue all things" (Phil. 3: 21) and that would include the stubborn will of sinners, God taming the will as a man tames a wild horse. Christians sing about their conversion experiences by saying they "surrendered" to God as in the song "I surrender all." They surrendered and God conquered or subdued.

God is able, when he pleases, to work in people so as to make them willing to will what God wants them to will and do. (Psa. 110:3; Phil. 2:13; Rev. 17:17) He has "the king's heart" in his hand, under his control, and can turn the heart "withersoever he will." (Prov. 21: 1) He is able to "move" people, to "stir them up," and to do things in providence so as to cause people to do and act as he wants. (Ezra 1:1, 5; Hag. 1:14)

Why pray to God for our leaders, for all in authority over us (per I Tim. 2: 1-2), so that we "may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," if God cannot control what such authorities choose to do, or actually do? We pray that God will give them wisdom, for instance. We assume he can give them wisdom any time he chooses, and even in cases where those in authority are not asking for it themselves; And, giving this wisdom will cause those authorities to make choices different than they would have made otherwise. 

By Grace Through Faith (2)

I had not intended to write a follow up to the previous article I published Sunday. However, I did a Google search using this question -- "is the salvation of Ephesians 2:8 quickening?" One of the Web pages given was from a "Primitive" (Hardshell) Baptist and the article was titled "Saved Through Faith" posted by Joshua Winslett on September 10, 2020 for the Web page "March To Zion" (here). I have written against some of the writings of Elder Ben Winslett who writes for this Web site (this link HERE will take you to those articles). I assume that Joshua Winslett is a relative of Ben. When I began to read Joshua's article I was surprised that he rightly affirmed that the "salvation" of Ephesians 2:8 was the quickening or regeneration described in verses 1-7 and in verses 9-10. So I, with some increased interest, kept reading.

What I discovered was that, in order to deny that belief in Christ and the Gospel was essential for salvation, Joshua, rather than denying that the salvation was regeneration or eternal salvation, denied that the "faith" of the text referred to a cognitive belief resulting from knowledge, making the faith to be some kind of a seed deposit that has no knowledge of Christ. I also saw where Joshua would say something about the text and then say something just the opposite. His article, as we will see, had several glaring contradictions in it. So, let us begin our critical look at what he wrote. 

Joshua wrote (emphasis mine): 

"There are many Bible passages that can bring both comfort and debate among Christians. Among these verses is Ephesians 2:8. Is this verse describing regeneration? Is this verse speaking of Christ’s legal work on the cross? Is this verse saying that a person must do something to be saved? There is no small assortment of views concerning this text. The following essay will consider the verse in context, as well as the various other components of the verse."

So, is the verse describing regeneration? Clearly, yes, as I showed in the previous article. Does the verse say that a person must do something to be saved or quickened? Obviously yes, for faith, or believing something, is something someone does. In the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, "coming" to Jesus with the heart and mind, is what is involved in believing or having faith in Christ. (See John 5: 40; 6: 35, 65; Heb. 11: 6; I Peter 2: 4-7) Now, let us see if Joshua will affirm or deny that the salvation of the text is regeneration and whether faith is a necessary condition and something a person must do to be saved.

Joshua wrote further:

"Ephesians 2:8 describes regeneration. Ephesians 2:1 starts with “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” The context seems to build up to regeneration."

Absolutely true! I am glad that this Hardshell brother sees that this is what the context demands us to understand. But, I tell you, trying to get his fellow Hardshells to take this view is not going to be easy! Most of them are going to say that the salvation of the text is a mere "time salvation" corresponding to evangelical conversion, which they deny is a necessity for being regenerated or saved in the end with an eternal salvation. Joshua says that regeneration is "through faith." Great! But, don't hold your breath! As we will see, he will so dramatically change the meaning of "faith" so as to uphold Hardshell Hyper Calvinism, and this unfounded definition of "faith" will lead him to deny that the salvation of the text shows that people must do something to be saved or quickened. 

First, let me give some more statements that he made affirming that the context shows that quickening (or regeneration) is the salvation of the text. Joshua wrote further:

"Being that these chapter breaks are not original to Paul, the end of chapter 1 leads perfectly into the discussion of regeneration in chapter 2. There is no disconnection."

"Furthermore, both verse 8 and 10 starts with the word ‘for’. The word ‘for’ denotes the idea of an explanatory reason...How are we saved (regenerated)? By God’s grace through faith." 

"Also, the context of Ephesians 2:1-7 shows consistent pattern and flow that points toward the context as being regeneration."

"The overwhelming context of verse 8 seems to be directed towards regeneration."

"In chapter 2, Paul is explaining why God had called the Ephesians from death to life. Regeneration is a necessary part of the purpose of salvation."

"If the above exegesis is correct then the salvation mentioned in verse 8 is being vitally saved at regeneration. Though Christ accomplished the legal work of redemption on the cross, the elect sinner must also have this redemptive work applied to the soul. Regeneration makes the soul fit for heaven. This deliverance then is being saved from a death in sins unto a life in Christ. The person is also saved from the full bondage of sin in their life as their soul has now been radically changed."

So, this is great. He agrees that the salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 is the quickening and is through faith. That is different from how others, who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, or other Hardshells, interpret the text. Many Hardshells say the salvation of the text is a "time salvation" (conversion) that is not necessary for eternal salvation. Reformed Baptists who teach the regeneration before faith view will also say that the salvation is what occurs immediately when a person is regenerated and given faith.

Reformed Baptists (like James White) and Presbyterians (like R.C. Sproul) will say that the text is talking about conversion and see it as saying that regeneration instantly produces faith which then instantly produces the salvation of conversion and justification. This interpretation, however, denies that the salvation of the text includes regeneration, for if regeneration precedes faith, then the salvation of the text cannot be regeneration because it is declared to be "though faith," and that shows that faith preceded the salvation.

Union With Christ

Joshua said:

"Notice that these verses flow from active depravity to the factor of change brought about by the new birth. This living spiritual union is described by Paul with three different prepositions; with, in, and through. We have been made alive with Christ."

I agree that union with Christ is described by two of the prepositions he names. Paul is affirming that spiritual life is obtained by union with Christ by faith. It is when a sinner goes from being outside of Christ to being "in Christ" that he is made alive spiritually. Christ is "the Life." (John 14: 6) To have spiritual life, one must be joined to him as that Life. So the apostle John said: "he who has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) How is Christ received into the heart? It is by faith. 

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

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

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

These verses show that it is by believing in Christ that one enters into Christ or becomes "in Christ." Also, notice that the verbal participle is used (believing ones) rather than the noun (faith). 

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." (John 1: 12 nkjv)

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2: 6 kjv)

These verses speak of receiving Christ, which is how Christ comes to be with or in the one who receives him. We also notice that this "receiving" is done in the "believing." Christ is not possessed nor is he abiding in a person until that person has received Christ. Christ enters believers at the same time believers enter into Christ. 

Paul spoke of believers dwelling "in his heart" (I Cor. 7: 3; Phil. 1: 7), which is what is characteristic of people who love each other. Christ is in believers because believers love Christ and "faith works by love" (Gal. 5" 6). So Jesus said: "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14: 23 kjv) Likewise, believers are in the heart of  Christ because he loves them, especially since they have become "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26). Believers are married to Christ (Eph. 5: 22-33) by love and this is how they become one with Christ. So Paul says:

"30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

So, people are "joined" to Christ by marrying him, or by entering into his covenant, by "cleaving" to him in love and marriage. That is when they become "one" with Christ. Paul also wrote of this union through love and marriage in these words:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7: 4 nkjv)

And to the Corinthians he also wrote: "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” And, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." (I Cor. 6: 16 nkjv)

Christ is received and enters the heart by eating him as the bread of life by faith. So Jesus said:

"50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”...53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me." (John 6: 50-51, 53-57 nkjv)

In order for Christ to enter a person, a person must take him into himself, typified by eating him as a loaf of bread, eating his flesh and blood, the sacrificial lamb, by receiving that sacrifice by believing in his sacrificial death and trusting in it.

So, in Ephesians chapter two, being "with Christ" or "in Christ" denotes a union that brings every spiritual blessing, including spiritual life and communion with God; And, this union or being in Christ, or Christ being in you, is effected by believing and trusting in Christ, by receiving him. However, Joshua is wrong to say that the preposition "through" as in "through faith" or "through Christ" has the same meaning as "with" or "in." Notice what Paul says in verses 12-13:

"...that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

What "time" is Paul alluding to? Is he not alluding to the time when they heard the gospel or word of salvation and were made believers, repented, and were converted? In verse two Paul indicates that their quickening occurred in conjunction with their repentance. Prior to this "time" they "walked according to the course of this world, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind," but at the time of their quickening they turned and changed their conduct. 

So too do the Scriptures speak of receiving the Spirit for salvation and this receiving is done by faith, a faith that is the result of "hearing" the gospel. Wrote Paul:

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2 kjv)

Receiving the Spirit is how sinners are saved and the Spirit is received when Christ is received. How are Christ and the Spirit received? "By the hearing of faith," which means the same thing as "faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) 

Keep in mind also that believing and receiving are actions done by sinners. These verbs are in the active voice. It is true that in some aspects of salvation a person is passive, God doing the work, but to insist that no part of the salvation process involves any active doing of people is false. See my chapters titled "Passive or Active?" in my long series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." (here and here)

Dr. John Piper, though he believes that a sinner is first regenerated before he receives Jesus by faith, nevertheless sometimes contradicted that belief, affirming that sinners are quickened by faith. In this post (here) I cited these words of Piper:

"The way this happens (as we have seen in the first six messages in this series) is that the Spirit of God supernaturally gives us new spiritual life by connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith. The new spiritual life that we receive in the new birth is not separate from union with Jesus, and it is not separate from faith. When God in the riches of his mercy and the greatness of his love and the sovereignty of his grace chooses to regenerate us, he gives us new life by uniting us to Christ." ("Born Again Through the Living and Abiding Word"; here)

Notice that "spiritual life" comes by the Spirit of God "connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith." In that statement he puts faith before receiving spiritual life or regeneration.

Joshua said:

"Faith itself is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Being a fruit, it is an effect and evidence of the Spirit within a person and not the cause. A person must first have the Spirit of God in them before they can have faith."

When Joshua says that a person must have the Spirit of God in them before they can have faith, he not only contradicts himself, as we will see, but the apostle Paul who said in the above text that the Galatians received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. Yes, faith is a gift of God, a product of the Spirit, but this does not necessitate that faith follows salvation. Ephesians 2: 8 says faith preceded salvation, and Joshua even agrees with that, but he here says faith comes after salvation. 

So, it is good that Joshua sees that the salvation of verse eight is the quickening, spiritual resurrection or regeneration, and being created in Christ Jesus. So, is he then no longer a Hardshell denying that one must believe in Christ by hearing the gospel in order to be regenerated, born again, or eternally saved? Sadly, no, for the reasons he will next explain.

Joshua said:

"Some may be under the assumption that man can exercise faith in order to be born again. One must always remember that depravity is literally a death and regeneration is literally a resurrection. It would be utterly ridiculous to expect the dead to do anything of themselves to get life."

Of course saving faith is not what a person authors or produces. There is no physical or natural inability to believe, though there is a moral or spiritual inability. So, a man "can" believe in the former sense, but not in the latter. Admitting that dead sinners lack the spiritual ability to believe savingly does not necessitate that we believe that faith can therefore be no means unto salvation. Has Joshua forgotten Ephesians 1: 19 that he himself cited in his article? It says that sinners believe by the working of God's mighty power. So, though the power to believe is not in the dead sinner, it is in God. 

It indeed "would be utterly ridiculous to expect the dead to do anything of themselves to get life." But, that does not equate to saying that the spiritually dead don't do things by the power of God to get life. "The dead" must first "hear" the voice of the Son of God in order to live. (John 5: 25) Ezekiel prophesied to the dry dead bones as a means in resurrecting them. (Ezekiel chapter 37) Said God: "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live." (Isa. 55: 3) In John 5: 40 Christ said to dead sinners - "you will not come unto me that you might have life." The coming is an action the dead sinner does in order to obtain spiritual life. 

Joshua wrote:

"Whereas I agree that regeneration precedes the gift of faith, we cannot be born again without also being given the gift of faith."

How in the name of reason can Joshua say that regeneration precedes faith when he has already admitted that the salvation of Ephesians 2:8 is regeneration? That text says "by grace you are saved (regenerated or quickened) through faith." So, faith precedes regeneration. Joshua is contradicting himself and it is amazing that he seems to be totally unaware of it. Further, in the above statement he says that regeneration precedes faith and then says faith is given in regeneration. Huh? How could faith precede regeneration if it comes in regeneration? 

Joshua said:

"The gift mentioned is God’s grace causativally acting in the vital work of regeneration, by which we are given the gift of faith."

Here Joshua does the same thing again. Even though he sees the text as saying "for by grace are you regenerated through faith" he nevertheless says faith is through regeneration. He is being somewhat like Dr. Piper in contradicting himself, all which shows how confused Joshua is on the text and how he is allowing his Hardshell biases to affect his interpretation of the text.

Joshua said:

"This initial gift of faith that is worked in the child of God at regeneration is the foundation by which we are able to understand the gospel..."

How can the regeneration be "through faith" if faith comes in or after regeneration? Further, it is ridiculous to say that faith is given in order to believe the gospel. Paul says "faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Where is his proof from scripture that faith comes apart from hearing any word of God and that there is faith that believes or knows nothing?

What is the "Faith" of the Text

As we just saw, Joshua is going to affirm that the "faith" of the text is not faith as it is defined in scripture but is defined in a new way so as to not contradict their view that says cognitive evangelical faith in Christ and the Gospel are not means in regeneration or any aspect of salvation.

In further affirmations of this view Joshua says:

"Faith: This is probably the most debated part of the text at hand. What is the faith here mentioned? Does the word faith always have reference to gospel belief?" 

The only people who make the faith of the text to be something different than faith or trust in Christ and the good news are the Hardshells and those Paedo-Baptists who teach that infants have a seed or root faith. I just wrote about this in a recent series (See here) showing the debate between Paedo-Baptist Thomas Bakewell and Particular Baptist John Spilsbury in 1646 where Bakewell tried to defend infants having faith and Spilsbury denying it. Years ago I gave a written critique of Elder Sonny Pyles's sermon wherein he denied that God uses the means of his word in effecting regeneration (See here). In it he argued that infants are not able to have faith (believe the Gospel).

Yes, the word "faith" implies cognitive knowledge. You cannot place faith or trust in a person you know nothing about. You cannot believe truth claims or propositions apart from knowledge of those truths. Why do the Hardshells disregard what Paul said on this point? Paul clearly affirms that a person cannot have faith apart from knowledge.

"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10: 14-15 nkjv)

What does it say about a Bible teacher who, in light of the above, would say that people do have saving faith apart from hearing the word of God, who have it in a person they do not know, who have it but believe no truth?

Joshua says:

"Is faith always a verb, meaning something performed by the believer in Christ? I would contend that there is both a gospel or evangelical faith which not all of God’s children will experience, and an intrinsic faith given to every child of God at the new birth."

Joshua says he "would contend that there is a gospel or evangelical faith" and also contend for an "intrinsic faith" that does not believe the Gospel or word of God, a kind that is without knowledge or cognition! Unbelievable! Where in the context of Ephesians 2:8 is faith used or defined to mean that people have faith in Christ without knowing Christ or any truth? In the first chapter of Ephesians Paul speaks of the Ephesians and himself ("we") "who first trusted in Christ" and says that they trusted Christ "after you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation." (1: 12-13) In verse fifteen Paul says he had heard of their "faith in the Lord Jesus." This is not a non-cognitive faith that knows nothing. 

Then, in verse nineteen, a verse Joshua has already cited, Paul says that the omnipotence of God is what made believers of the Ephesians. That is not some "intrinsic" or "seed" or "root" or "dormant hidden latent" faith, for there is no such thing. There is not a single text in scripture that uses the word faith (noun) or believe (verb) to denote a non-cognitive faith. Paul says that he was made a believer or came to faith by the same working of God's almighty power. Did Paul become a cognitive believer in Jesus when this power converted him on the Damascus Road? Did he come away with a faith that did not know Jesus?

Joshua says:

"What then is this gift of faith? The word faith in Ephesians 2:8 is not a verb, it is a noun. From that we can gather that this is not an action performed by man, but instead, it is something possessed by the individual."

So, faith, the noun, does not know or believe anything? Why then did Paul speak of being saved by a "belief (noun for faith; pistei) of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) "Faith of the truth"! Paul uses the noun when he says "so then faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Yes, faith is something possessed, like love, but how does that prove that faith or love in or for a person or creed is non-cognitive? Further, why does Joshua say such things and gives absolutely no proof for what he says? Where is the Greek scholar who defines "pistis" as do the Hardshells? Where is the verse in the Bible that says people who know nothing of Jesus or the Gospel nevertheless have faith in Jesus? Or that infants have faith and that apart from hearing the word of God or knowing anything? Can I possess love (noun) for my wife without loving (verb) or knowing her? 

Joshua says:

"Faith proceeds from God, as is caused by his operation, or work of regeneration on the soul."

This is true. But, is it also true of evangelical faith, cognitive faith? Can God use his word or gospel as a means in this "operation"? Is the Gospel not "the power of God unto salvation to all who believe" it? (Rom. 1: 16)

Joshua says:

"If Ephesians 2:8 taught that man must do anything of his own ability and volition to be saved, then it would contradict itself, as well as the entirety of the written word. Salvation is by grace and grace alone."

Faith is doing something. It is an action of the heart and mind, the act of placing trust. Granted, sinners do this by the power of God and the power of the Gospel, but that fact does not lead to denying that sinners must do something to be saved, such as believe and repent. Yes, salvation is by grace alone, but it is also by penitent faith alone, for the text says "by grace are you saved through faith." 

Joshua says:

"Some have thought Ephesians 2:8 to describe either Christ’s faithfulness as Savior or God’s trust in His son, or vice versa."

Yes, the "some" are the Hardshells who spend lots of time trying to figure out ways to interpret Ephesians 2: 8 so as not to contradict their foundational propositions, one of which says that a person does not have to do anything to be saved. One of those ways is to deny that the salvation mentioned in any text that is conditioned upon faith or repentance can be eternal salvation. Another way is to say that the "faith" that is a means in salvation is some ill-defined thing that is deposited in someone, like a virus, and that knows nor believes nothing cognitively. These will say "faith" means Christ, or faith means grace, or faith means faith of God, or faith of Christ, or seed faith, etc. All these are efforts to twist scripture so as to make it conform to their unscriptural propositions! In this post (here) I wrote about how the Hardshells give all sorts of synonyms for "faith" that are totally unfounded.

"Ways Hardshells Define Faith":

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

Joshua also said along this line:

"Faith is Christ in you! Faith is also literally Christ in you, the hope of glory."

"John equates the gift of faith as being Christ in you."

So, Joshua does the very thing he seems to disallow. Though he does not believe that the faith by which sinners are saved and regenerated denotes "God's faith in his Son" or the "faith that Christ himself had" (See my series titled "God's Faith?" on this point in the archives for January through March, 2016), yet he also tries to redefine saving faith.

Joshua wrote further:

"The Greek word for faith in Ephesians 2:8 is PISTIS. One definition of the word PISTIS is “firm persuasion.”...This firm persuasion happens to every elect upon regeneration."

"Again, faith is a persuasion."

"It is evident that our God-given faith is most certainly a persuasion."

Here is another blatant contradiction by Joshua and these glaring contradictions are quite revealing about the way Hardshells read and interpret the bible. How can he not see his contradiction? He rightly says faith is a "firm persuasion." But, why then does he say it may also not mean such? What is it that "all the elect" in their "regeneration" are persuaded of? Joshua has already said that the faith that is given in regeneration is not cognitive. He says that "firm persuasion" is but "one definition" of pistis. Where is there another kind defined by Greek scholars or by the new testament writers? Paul said "faith" comes by hearing the word of God, and did not say "this kind of faith comes by hearing the word of God." Paul defined what faith means. Where did he ever define it differently? 

After giving the right definition of faith as "firm persuasion" Joshua wrote:

"It must again be pointed out that this gift of faith is not measured by or is dependent upon knowledge."

Well, tell that to the apostle Paul! I tell you, these Hardshells simply do not believe what Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten about what faith is and how it is produced! When Paul asks rhetorically "how shall they believe (or have faith in) in him of whom they have not heard," Paul is denying that one can have faith without knowledge, and in this contention he is uprooting Hardshell definitions of faith.

Joshua wrote further:

"Of faith and Ephesians 2:8, Elder Michael Gowens writes,

“This verse describes the initial gift of faith in regeneration. When the Lord Jesus Christ speaks the life-giving voice to one who is dead in trespasses and sins (Joh 5:25), He creates faith in the soul by the sheer power of His command, so that the sinner irresistibly responds to His effectual call. The sinner is “made willing in the day of [God’s] power” (Ps 110:3). Like Lazarus, he responds to the Divine imperative involuntarily – below the level of consciousness. The power that raise Jesus from the dead is the very same power that creates faith in the soul (Eph 1:19).”

Where is there a single verse in the Bible that shows that faith is without knowledge or "below the level of consciousness"? Notice that Gowens (whose writings I have critiqued thoroughly) admits that "the dead" must "hear" the voice or word of Christ before they are made alive! That is the dead doing something in order to come to life! Lazarus "responded." Would he have come to life without responding? By the way, in John 11: 44 the words "came forth" are in the active voice! 

The faith of Ephesians 1: 19 and 2: 8 is a cognitive belief in Christ and the Gospel. The context clearly shows that to be the case.

Joshua next says this about what occurs in regeneration:

• We are taught to know God and Christ. –John 17:3, Hebrews 8:10-13
• We are taught to deny ungodliness. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to deny worldly lusts. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live soberly. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live righteously. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live godly. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to groan for deliverance from sin. –Titus 2:13, Romans 8:20-23
• We are taught to love. –1 John 3:14

How is all this non-cognitive? So, all the elect come to know the one true God and Jesus Christ? This is not the general view of today's Hardshell Baptists. If all these things are "taught" and learned in regeneration, then why contend for a nonsensible or non-cognitive faith? Further, why exclude the preaching of the Gospel and word of God as a means God uses in doing this teaching? Especially seeing what Paul said about it in Romans chapter ten? 

Earlier Joshua said the "faith" of Ephesians 2: 8 was a synonym for "Christ." He seems to be jumping all over the place in his attempt to uphold his view that people must have cognitive faith in Christ and the Gospel to be regenerated or eternally saved. 

Joshua said further:

"Now, lets specifically consider the faith mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9. This specific principle of faith is what all the elect are saved through in regeneration. This is a universal principle for all of the elect and must, by necessity, be identical to every child of God. In other word’s, being that it is a principle that will apply to all the elect, it also must be something that is applicable to infants, mentally handicapped, adults, and Old Testament saints."

I thought the faith of the text was a "firm persuasion" wherein a person was taught the enumerated things above? Why then turn around and say the above things about the faith of the text? Where is there a text in all the Bible that says people have faith without knowing or believing anything?

Joshua, in order to teach that people have faith apart from the word of God, and to contradict what the apostle Paul said, wrote:

"Old Testament Saint: There was a time when full gospel knowledge was not revealed...Full historic gospel information was not completely revealed until the time of Christ."

"There was a time before full gospel knowledge. Yet, God had a people before the gospel dispensation that served him through faith (Hebrews 11). If gospel faith was nonexistent during the law dispensation and faith is always evangelical gospel faith, how did these OT saints exercise faith?"

"There was a time before full gospel knowledge. Yet, God had a people before the gospel dispensation that served him through faith (Hebrews 11). If gospel faith was nonexistent during the law dispensation and faith is always evangelical gospel faith, how did these OT saints exercise faith?"

The old testament saints may not have had as much information about Christ and the good news concerning his salvation, but they had enough knowledge to be saved. It is not necessary for a person to have "full knowledge" of Christ and the Gospel to be saved. This is a classic "red herring." The new testament writers tell us that the saved people of the old testament had the Gospel. (Gal. 3: 8: Heb. 4: 1-2; Rom. 1: 1-2) Abel, son of Adam and Eve, had faith (Heb. 11:4) and his faith came via the word of God given in Genesis 3: 15 through what is called the "protoevangelium," which means "the first Gospel," for in the divine oracle a Savior and Redeemer is promised to come and undo what the Serpent had done, and from that time forward the Messiah was called "the desired one." (See Hag. 2: 7; Dan. 11: 37) Abel put his faith in this promised Redeemer who his parents told him about via the Oracle of God.

Notice that Joshua speaks about the old testament saints not having "full knowledge" of the Gospel and then concludes that this lack of full knowledge means that they did not have "gospel faith." Huh? Be astonished oh heavens! No one in the old testament believed the good news of a Messiah! 

By Grace Through Faith

I am amazed at those Calvinists who say that regeneration or quickening occurs before faith in their preaching on Ephesians chapter two. They will say that the salvation of that chapter is the quickening of verse one. In verse five when Paul says "even when we were dead in trespasses and sins he made us alive together with Christ (for by grace are you saved)," they cannot deny that the salvation of this text is the being made alive or regeneration. But, when they get to verse eight where Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith" they will say the salvation of the chapter precedes faith. Huh?

Paul says the dead are quickened by grace through faith and that this quickening is a being "created in Christ Jesus" or being God's "workmanship" (verse 10) and says people are saved by grace through faith "UNTO good works." Why did he not say created in Christ Jesus "UNTO faith"? Is that not what those Hyper Calvinists who put regeneration before faith teach? Why does the text not say "for by grace are you saved unto faith"? Where in the Bible is there a single text that says people are saved before faith?

Some of these Hyper Calvinists, such as the Hardshell Primitive Baptists, say that being saved by faith is a case of being saved by works. But, that won't work, for in the text Paul says "through faith unto good works," clearly showing that faith is not a work, which is what he also said in Romans 4: 5.

Some of these Hyper Calvinists will argue that being created in Christ cannot be by faith because an uncreated non-existing person cannot choose to be created. However, did not David say to God -- "create in me a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me"? (Psa. 51: 10)

I challenge any of the advocates for the born again before faith view, whether James White or anyone else, to come and debate whether Ephesians chapter two shows that regeneration precedes faith. I challenged White to debate this years ago, but he declined.

I have shown that the authors of the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith did not say that regeneration (effectual calling) occurred before faith. Their Catechism, approved in 1680 and attached to the 1689 confession, says:

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

I have numerous writings of many of the authors of both these old confessions where they affirm the same thing, men such as John Spilsbury, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, etc.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIII)

Elder John M. Thompson

1844 - 1940

In this chapter we will continue to examine the editorial writings of elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" and what he wrote about the controversy he was engaged in about "the whole man" doctrine. In the previous chapter we ended it with what Cayce said about the above minister, who was a grandson of Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading minister who we have referred to in earlier chapters. We ended the previous chapter with these words:

"Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"We have some letters from Elder John M. Thompson which we will publish soon, in which he denies that regeneration makes a man better. We will publish his letters so our readers can see for themselves what he says. We want no man to preach in our churches who is not made better by regeneration.""

In the next issue of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical under the title "CURTAIN RAISED AGAIN," being "Article No. 3" for October 10, 1916, Cayce wrote: 

"We promised last week that we would give some letters from Elder J. M. Thompson soon, and we do that this week. In our issue of Nov. 16, 1915, we published our views on regeneration, and stated that we would not publish more on that question, hoping the brethren would drop the matter and not continue the unholy war. Elder John M. Thompson evidently did not endorse our article, so he wrote us the following letter on Jan. 18th, 1916: -Tipton, Ind., 1-18-16."

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE:- 

Dear Brother--In sorrow I write you owing to the strange position you have taken on the vital subject of regeneration. Regeneration is one of the essentials in the eternal salvation of sinners, on which there should be agreement."

Actually the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists is filled with strange views on the subject of regeneration or the birth of the Spirit. Thompson continued:

In your article on regeneration, P. B., p.p. 5,9,10, Nov. 1915, you say regeneration is a spiritual work by the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man; that in that work the sinner is formed anew in his soul, or spirit, or heart; that the body is not formed anew in regeneration, but that it will be formed anew, will be made spiritual, in the resurrection; and you quote as your belief: "The apostles' doctrine teaches that it is the man that is dead in sin that is quickened...that is made a child and fellow citizen." In this I understand you to teach, that in regeneration the spirit of man is formed anew, is made spiritual, but the body is not, but that it will be formed anew in regeneration (we suppose he means to say in the resurrection.-C. H. C.), will then be made spiritual; that man in spirit is quickened in regeneration, is made a child of God. Yet, strange indeed, you say, that the work of regeneration does not take the old nature away, but gives him another nature. This you say of that that is regenerated-the spirit."

"You teach that the evil man is made good by the Lord making his heart good. Then you say, "If that does not make a man a better man, we confess that we do not know what would make him better." Primitive Baptists have held and do hold that alien sinners are totally depraved, not good. If not good naturally, by nature the children of wrath--Paul--morally depraved, how is it possible that regeneration can or does make them better? Man prior to regeneration is a good man if regeneration makes him a better man--good, better, best. He has to be good before he can be made better. So the Newman-Collings contention cannot be true."

"As to the two natures in regenerated people, Paul locates the bad nature in the body, but never in the regenerated soul, spirit, or heart. I cannot conceive that it is possible for a man in spirit, soul, or heart to possess a vile-nature according to your presentation of the great change in regeneration in soul, spirit, heart." 

I have addressed this issue in the preceding chapters. I agree that the body is a source for doing evil. This is why Paul said that he worked hard to "discipline" and "bring into subjection" his "body" (I Cor. 9: 27) and prayed to be "delivered" from "the body of this death." (Rom. 7: 24) I also agree that it is the heart or spirit that is the object that is changed in regeneration and renewing. However, I don't believe as many of the Hardshells, such as Lemuel Potter, that whatever inner part of a man is born again cannot sin, a view that they in part derive from their interpretation of I John 3: 9 where it is said that "whoever is born of God cannot sin." 

We saw how Paul, for instance, exhorted believers as follows: "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) So, though the heart or spirit is renewed when a sinner is born again, that renewal continues (II Cor. 4: 16) and there is a need for daily cleansing and for progressive sanctification. 

About Thompson's picking a fight over whether it is correct to say that being saved or regenerated makes a person "better" versus making him "good," I will have more to say shortly after we hear Cayce's response to this point. 

Thompson continued:

"You inform us that communications arguing regeneration will go into the fire. Strange! Truth relative to regeneration cannot be argued and error exposed! A fundamental tenet of our faith suppressed! thus it appears to me. I feel constrained to request that my name be discontinued and your paper to me be discontinued. - I am for principle regardless of financial consideration. The Lord bless truth and faithfulness." J. M. Thompson 

I have said it many times over my lifetime since leaving the Hardshell cult. If you are on the good side of the Hardshells they will patronize you to death, as they did my father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett) and Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. for a long time. But, when they turn against you, as they did to father and Bradley, you will become the object of their wrath and scorn. The history of the Hardshells is full of such vicious fighting.

Elder Cayce responded to Thompson as follows (emphasis mine):

"We sent the following letter to Brother Thompson in reply: Feb. 19, 1916. 

ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: 

Dear Brother--I am very much surprised at the tone and contents of your letter of Jan. 18th. According to your statement and argument a good man is no better than a bad man; a good tree is no better than a bad tree; and if a thing that is bad cannot be made better, then the soul or spirit of the unregenerate must be good, or else they are not made good in regeneration, and are, therefore, still bad. I am utterly surprised that you would take such a position. My brother, please do not think me presumptuous or impertinent when I tell you that you know too much about language to make such an argument, or to take such a position. I am sorry to see that you would do this. Now, I wish to say that I do not care to discuss the matter further. I have said my say in the paper, and there is no room for misunderstanding. You and others may read things into the article which I did not say, but I am not responsible for that. I have no more to say concerning the matter. I have today had your name taken off the editorial staff, and also had your name dropped from the mailing list, as you requested. I hold no ill feeling nor malice toward you. I trust that after you have carefully considered the matter you will feel differently to the way you manifested in your letter. Yours in sorrow, C. H. CAYCE."

Thompson was a school teacher, having gone to college to become such. I am sure that he taught his students grammar about "good, better, best." Of course, Cayce is right. Being made better does not strictly imply a previous state of being good; it only implies an improvement relative to a previous condition, which could have been neutral or even bad.

After Cayce published his reply to Thompson, and his promise to say no more about the matter, he gets a letter from Thompson which Cayce published as follows (emphasis mine):

"In reply to this letter Brother Thompson wrote us as follows: Tipton, Ind., 3-18-16 

ELDER C. H. CAYCE: Martin, Tenn.- 

In as much as you impertinently charge me with insincerity, with making a false statement, and misrepresent me, I do not consider it proper that I address you as I would otherwise have done." 

Meaning he cannot address Cayce as "Brother" or "Elder." This attitude is quite prevalent in the many wars that have occurred among the Hardshells. Thompson continued:

"In language good is positive, better is Comparative, and best is superlative. Bad is positive, worse is comparative, and worst is superlative. An alien sinner is a bad man in soul. Regeneration makes him good or righteous in soul, but it does not make him better in soul. He would have to be good in soul before regeneration for regeneration to make him better in soul. If you understand grammatical comparison of adjectives you know I am right in this. You surprise me in your opposing note. You can exercise your pleasure concerning any further say. I am confident I am correct, and am willing to submit the question to any unprejudiced scholar. If you see your error and scripturally confess it will correct your unjust offense. J. M.Thompson."

So, why is Thompson denying that regeneration makes a sinner better? Is he not picking a fight? Nitpicking? A saved man is better in his conduct, in his morality or ethics, in the way he treats others. Thompson then attaches this postscript:

"P. S. If a thing that is black can be made whiter (which is impossible) then it might reasonably be said that a bad man morally can be made a better man morally. A thing has to be white before it can be made whiter, even so a man has to be a good man morally before he can be made a better man morally. When a thing is black it may be made to be white, but not whiter, even so a bad man morally may be made to be a good man morally, but not to be a better man morally." 

I believe this war over the "whole man" doctrine and the experience of regeneration, though it had a doctrinal basis, yet it often included rivalries about who will have the preeminence among the cult, arising over preacher jealousy. 

Cayce wrote an editorial after this titled "QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS COPIED" and wrote:

"In or about the first part of the year 1913 Elder J. L. Collings, of Glen Rose, Texas, sent out a list of questions, which we suppose was sent to quite a number of brethren. A copy of them was sent to Elder John M. Thompson, and he replied under date of May 21, 1913. We have before us a copy of the questions and a copy of his reply. We give the questions and his answers as follows:

Q. Do you believe that regeneration makes a man better morally? 

A. I do not believe that regeneration makes a man better morally. I believe it causes a man to think, desire and do better morally. It makes him better in soul morally but not in act. It enables him to do better morally. "Makes" is too strong here as pertains to his actions morally. 

Q. What according to the Scriptures is the child of God? 

A. The inner man in regeneration is the child of God; God is the Father of spirits.- Paul. 

Q. To whom are the Scriptures addressed--to the inner man or the child of God as a complex being? 

A. The Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul,--not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment. 

Q. Do the righteous acts of men make them better at heart, or are the righteous acts fruits of the righteous heart? 

A. Righteous works are fruits of the righteous heart. They do not make men better at heart. 

Q. Does a Christian obey because he is better in heart, or does he obey to become better in heart and soul by God's grace? 

A. A Christian obeys because he is better in heart. God's grace makes them better in heart. 

Q. Does grace in the heart make men better or worse, or does it change him at all? 

A. Grace in the heart makes men better in heart. The change is in the inner man. Grace does not force obedience: "Let us come boldly unto a throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."-- {(Hebrews 4:16)} not to force. 

Q. I believe the sinner is passive in regeneration but active in obedience. Do you? 

A. I do believe the sinner is passive in regeneration. 

Q. Do you believe that Paul persecuted the church of God after regeneration, either in whole or part? 

A. I do not believe Paul persecuted the church after regeneration, if regenerated on his way to Damascus. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine to say that regeneration makes an immoral man better morally? 

A. The whole man doctrine as I understand its advocates, is, that the body as well as the inner man, is born of the spirit, - born again; and not to say that regeneration makes a man better morally. Both statements are wrong. Regeneration causes men to do better morally, but does not make him do better, does not force him to do better. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine that in regeneration the man, in body, soul, and spirit, is make spiritual, sinless, and pure? 

A. It may be, and it may not be the whole man doctrine that in regeneration man is made spiritual, sinless and pure; some may teach that way, and others to the contrary. The contention in Texas is wrong. "Make" is too strong in the use some make of it. 

Cayce then writes this commentary on Thompson's answers:

"The above answers were signed by Elder John M. Thompson. From these answers it appears that, according to Elder Thompson, regeneration made a man better in soul in 1913; but from his letters it appears that regeneration does not make a man better in soul now."

I think Cayce, the champion debater, showed that Thompson spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, with one caveat however. Thompson says that when he denied that regeneration "makes" a man better, he is denying that regeneration forces or unconditionally causes a regenerated person to live a more moral life.

Cayce continued:

"Since he boasts of his scholarship (so it appears to us; we do not mean this as an insinuation), we wonder what institution of learning he has graduated from during the past three years. Any how, his answers to those questions and his letters show a change. We wonder whether that change was wrought in the "inner man"-that is, in his soul or spirit-or was it in his material body of flesh? Evidently there has been a change with him. We wonder if that change was wrought by the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit of God upon the inner man. Perhaps it was just the inner man that has been changed, and not Elder Thompson at all. If that is the way of it, we humbly beg Elder Thompson's pardon for even thinking such a thing as that he has changed; and we humbly beg the pardon of that inner man in him for charging what he had done to Elder Thompson. Of course, if the inner man is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and the inner man in Elder Thompson has been regenerated, then the inner man in Elder Thompson never does wrong or makes a mistake. - And if that inner man never does wrong nor makes a mistake, and if that inner man wrote those answers, - then they were correct when written. And if that be true, then in 1913 regeneration did make men better in soul, but it does not make them better now. So, according to this, regeneration did something for men then that it does not do now. We wonder why it does not do as much for them now as it did then. Perhaps that infallible inner man can tell us. If he can, we would be glad for him to do so. But perhaps that inner man did not write both, the answers and the letters. If not, we wonder which or what part of the writing Elder Thompson did himself. It is really Elder Thompson we would like to reply to. We do not know how to preach or write to spirits." 

Here Cayce shows his debate skills, and his Sophistry. He makes fun of Thompson's views and his change of positions, and him being so uncompromising on an issue where there was basic agreement.

Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson does not wish to call us brother. Very well. Our letter to him was intended to have been written in the very best of feeling, and we told the truth when we said we had no ill feeling toward him. The reader can judge for himself as to whether we misrepresented him or not. Now, this was not Elder Thompson that does not wish to call us brother. It was Elder Thompson's regenerated spirit saying this to our flesh; and as his regenerated spirit is the child of God, and as our flesh or 'body is no part of a child of God,' of course we are not brothers. He was not saying this to our spirit, of course. Perhaps Elder Thompson would admit that our spirit is a child of God, and perhaps he would not."

I had this same problem when I first began to debate with Hardshell Jason Brown back in 2011 (see archives for that year). When he first began to address me he would not call me "brother." I found that odd since Hardshells have become quasi-Universalists and make nearly all religious people children of God. He did start calling me brother. As I have shown in postings in the past, the first Hardshells considered most of the religious world to be unsaved, part of the system of Antichrist and Mystery Babylon. See this post (here) where I write about this. What a change!

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson says that the "spirit of man" in (I Corinthians 2:11) signifies that the spirit of man is a man. This is another new thing to us. We never knew before that the spirit of man was a man. According to this, there is a man in a man, and the man in the man is regenerated. The man who has the man in him is not regenerated. It is the Adam sinner, then, who has the regenerated man in him, and the Adam sinner is left out of the matter entirely, only as he is tormented and worried and crossed with and by the child of God that is in him- for awhile. This is evidently Elder Thompson's view of the matter, for he says that the regenerated man departs from the body. As the regenerated man departs from the body, then the body is no part of the regenerated man. This simply leaves Adam sinners out, and they are not regenerated at all. So far as we are concerned, if it is not us, it makes no difference to us if it should be a mule. But in (Philippians 1:21-26) the apostle is teaching no such thing as that the regenerated man departs from the unregenerated man; but he is teaching that there is a better life for him beyond this vale of tears, and that he had a desire to depart this mode of existence, and to be present with the Lord. - There is nothing in the apostle's language that even intimates that the body is no part of the child of God, or that there was a child of God dwelling in him, and that he was not a child of God."

Here again we see two extremes. We see Cayce accusing Thompson of not believing that the physical body is a part of a child of God, because it is not regenerated, and Cayce seemingly taking the view that the whole man, including the body, is a child of God by regeneration, even though Cayce denies this to be his view. As I stated in previous chapters, the body belongs to Lord because he purchased it by this death on the cross, and not because it is regenerated like the heart or spirit. The body is "part of the regenerated man" but it is not regenerated but purchased or owned by the Lord. Cayce is wrong to say that it is not true that "the regenerated man departs from the unregenerate man" however. The regenerated spirit (or part of the man) does depart from the unregenerated body (or other part of the man). 

Cayce wrote further:

"It is true, and the Scriptures abundantly so teach, that the spirit or soul does not die when the body dies. When the body dies the spirit goes to God. The body dies because it is mortal, and on account of sin; but it is the mortal part of the child of God." 

This being so, why does Cayce fault saying that the inner or regenerated man departs from the outer or unregenerated man? Is it because the word "man" is used for one part of a man? Does not Paul however refer to an inner and an outer "man"? Cayce was often insisting that the man is regenerated and seemed to suggest that this meant the whole man. Notice what he says next:

"The Saviour said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." - (John 3:3). To Nicodemus He said, "Ye must be born again." - (John 3:7). He was not talking to a spirit when He said this, but He was talking to a MAN. In this new birth the Spirit of God operates on the spirit of man, and that operation of the Spirit makes the MAN a child of God." 

Here is the problem in what Cayce says, and which I have addressed in previous chapters. Cayce clearly affirms that the body becomes a child of God by the man being born again. Is he affirming that the birth of the man's spirit makes the body a child of God? Is he saying that the body becomes a child of God by it, like the inner spirit, also having been born of the Spirit? 

Cayce wrote further:

"It does not make the body of the man spiritual; but it does make the man a child of God, and that child of God has a mortal body. We know that the Scriptures teach this, no matter what we may think about it, and no matter how mysterious it may appear to us. There are mysteries about this thing that no man on earth can explain, and all this effort to explain an inexplainable thing only serves to mystify the matter all the more. And that is what causes the trouble among the Old Baptists, too." 

So, spiritual birth does not make the body spiritual or holy but it does make the man, including his body, a child of God? This idea forces one to say that the body of a believer is a child of God because it has been born of God. Cayce does not distinguish, as he should, between being God's possession or ownership of a believer's body versus it being regenerated or transformed (as it will be in the resurrection). 

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson claims now that regeneration makes a bad man a good man in soul, but does not make him a better man in soul, and he also claims that in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul pure and sinless, we do not see how it could be made any better, unless it can be made better than pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul or spirit good, and it cannot be made better than pure and sinless, then we do not see how the soul or spirit of the child of God could be made any better. So it seems that, according to Elder Thompson's contention, the soul or spirit is not simply made good in regeneration, but it is made as good as the best! If the soul or spirit is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and is made good, as Elder Thompson claims, and can then be made better, as he says, then God can be made better, too." 

Thompson, when he affirms that "in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless," is expressing the view of Elder Lemuel Potter of Illinois. This view Cayce rightly rejects. In chapter forty eight of this series I cited from Potter's book "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In chapter nineteen of that work Potter wrote:

"During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District Association. I visited their Association once or twice, and visited a number of their churches, and found that among them and some of their correspondents, the question was being agitated as to what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration. Some of the preachers of that, and some other Associations, differed so widely about it that they were accused of taking positions that were very extreme. One man was accused of claiming that the body was no part of the child of God. Another denied any distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man that was born again, to use their own language, was, the man that ate bacon and cabbage. 

The question as to what part of a person experiences regeneration was still a question being fought over in Cayce's battle with Thompson, and also the question as to whether the part of a person that is regenerated is able to sin. In chapter fifty four I cited from Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":

"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."

"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil." 

Cayce always spoke highly of Potter. How could he not, seeing Potter was highly venerated at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the twentieth. Cayce could hardly speak against Potter and expect it not to hurt his efforts to obtain subscribers to his paper and promote himself. However, in condemning the view of Thompson on the belief that the regenerated part of a man cannot sin he also condemns Potter. As I have shown, being born again or regenerated does not make the soul or spirit incapable of sinning. So, does the "new" or "divine" nature that believers receive commit sin? No, it does not, no more than does Christ who dwells in the believer. But, the heart, soul, spirit, or mind is not completely of one holy divine nature when it experiences initial salvation. The new nature begins to operate and change the heart and spirit but that work is never completed in this life. 

If the old depraved nature is the source of all the sin and the new divine nature is the source of all the holiness and right doing, then do I not have anything to do with which one controls what I do? If so, then are there not three entities at work? Am I a mere bystander in the war between the new and old nature? When I sin, is it because the old nature won and the new nature lost? My beloved father used to say that the two natures of a believer were comparable to a black dog warring with a white dog. So, which one wins? Father said -- "the one to whom I say 'sic em' to." So, that makes three entities. When Paul tells believers to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, who is he addressing? The sinful nature? The new nature? Or the one who stands between the two?

Cayce wrote further:

"Again, according to his contention, a good man in soul is no better than a bad man in soul. If a thing has to be made good before it can be made better, then a good thing is no better than a bad thing. We have always thought that a good thing was better than a bad thing, and we confess that we think so yet. But Elder Thompson says that he is willing to leave it to any unprejudiced scholar. Perhaps he could not find One that is unprejudiced. If a scholar should say he is wrong, of course he would be prejudiced. If Elder Thompson is right in his contention, then a sound apple is no better than a rotten one; sound meat is no better than tainted meat."

Cayce shows his debate skills in this exchange and has Thompson cornered or in a tight spot. Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson says that "the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerated soul not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment." The commandments, admonitions, and exhortations, then, are all given to the soul or spirit in the man, and not to the man himself. And the regenerated soul or spirit is pure and holy and cannot sin, and therefore cannot disobey. And the body is still a child of wrath, still dead in sin, like the unregenerate sinner, and cannot obey, and is not even required to obey. No commandment is given in which it is embraced." 

Cayce is demonstrating the absurdity of the view that says that the body or old nature cannot do good and the renewed spirit or new nature cannot sin. By his reasoning he shows how absurd it is to think of a believer through this paradigm. The fact is, a "regenerated soul or spirit" can indeed sin. So Paul exhorted the believers, saying to them "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) Notice that Paul includes himself. If he believed that the "spirit" of the regenerated believer could not sin, then why this exhortation? Cayce argues the same way when he wrote further:

(6) (James 5:16) says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." We wonder what was the matter with them. Remember that Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul, and the regenerate soul is as pure and sinless as God is; yet they needed a healing of some kind...The regenerated soul, then, could not obey this command; and the body could not obey it, for it has no spiritual discernment, so EIder Thompson says. Others say it is still dead in sin, just like the alien sinner, and cannot obey. Pray, then, who could obey this command? The spirit could not, for it has no faults to confess; and the body could not obey it, for it is still dead in sin like the alien sinner; besides, it is not required to obey it, for Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the spirit."

The Bible with its exhortations, commands, and admonitions are addressed to people, whether they are lost people who only have a fallen nature, or whether they are saved people who have both a fallen nature (called "the flesh") and a renewed nature (called "the divine nature" or  "new man"). Technically the nature in each person is not what is addressed, but the person who has those natures. In our attempt to persuade people we may say to them "I appeal to your better nature in what I say" or "I appeal to your sense of right or wrong or sense of justice" in your judgment of this or that. But, the meaning is that the person is addressed to consider his conscience, or his "good side."