Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxxii)

In our study of the eternal state, we must first talk about an important eschatological question, and that is, what is the meaning of the Greek noun "aion," a word of most frequent occurrence in the Greek New Testament and variously translated (from which also comes the Gnostic idea of the "eon" or "aeons"). It is also used as an adjective, being then spelled "aionios" or "aionion," depending on the case. 

That it properly signifies an "age" is universally acknowledged, but it can also carry the idea of "ageless" or "eternal" (or its synonyms, forever, ever, forever and ever, etc.), much depending upon the context or how used. It does not in itself mean "endlessness" for many aions or eons have come and gone. This is clear as we will see from many scriptures. Oftentimes it does denote a very long period of time, but always with a beginning and end. Strictly speaking, eternity to come is not one unending age, but a chain of ages never ending. 

The bible uses many words to denote periods of time, such as "the time" or "that time," "times," "ages," "worlds," "dispensations," "seasons," "day," etc., in much the same as we do. "Aion" was used to denote an "age" in the same way we do when we speak of the "iron age" or "bronze age" or "age of dinosaurs" or "antediluvian age" or "age of...(fill in the blank)."

The chart above shows several ages of which the scriptures speak. But, there are ages prior to the church age of course, as we will see. There is the age we call the Millennium, where Christ reigns with his saints a thousand years. 

Ages Past

When the bible speaks of aions (ages or worlds) past, it shows that the word "aion" does not denote endlessness, for how can eternity end? Or be followed by another eternity? Many others have made this same all important point. Thus, in itself, it does not denote eternity or infinity, though it may have that implied idea in it in certain contexts. If one supplied the word "eternal" to all the places where either the noun or adjective was used in the new testament, then it would make no sense, being illogical. It would force one to speak of words such as "end of the aion (age or world)" as meaning "end of eternity" or "end of forever." That is nonsensical and illogical. 

The writer of the Book of Hebrews says: "but now once in the end of the ages (aionon - plural) he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb. 9: 26)

There are aions that are past, having "run their course," so to speak. But, if "aion" means "eternal," then there can be no such thing as an "aion" that is "past." But, the scriptures speak of "past ages," ergo, aion does not necessarily primarily and basically mean "forever," or "eternal," or "everlasting," etc. 

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (See here) says of aion (or eon):

"...it is noteworthy that in the Gospels and Acts, where it occurs 34 times, it is only once used in the plural (Luke 1:33). In the rest of the NT the use of the plural predominates (54 out of 86 instances). In Rev. the word occurs with great frequency (26 times). In every case it is used in the plural, and, except in two places, in the intensive formula εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων-a form which is never found in the Gospels or Acts. αἰών is variously translated as ‘age,’ ‘for ever,’ ‘world,’ ‘course,’ ‘eternal.’ It expresses a time-concept, and under all uses of the word that concept remains in a more or less definite degree."

Those facts are quite revealing. So, how can "aion" ever be plural if it means "eternal"? Does it mean "eternals" or "infinities" or "forevers"? To add to all the confusion, just look at all the ways the Authorized Version (KJV) translates the word.

The same source also says:

"The phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα or τοὺς αἰῶνας is frequently found in the NT as a time-concept for a period or ‘age’ of indefinite futurity, and may be translated ‘for ever.’ Strictly speaking, in accordance with the root idea of αἰών the phrase indicates futurity or continuance as long as the ‘age’ lasts to which the matter referred to belongs. The use of the intensive form εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων (Galatians 1:5, Ephesians 3:21, Hebrews 13:21, and Rev. passim) indicates the effort of Christian faith to give expression to its larger conception of the ‘ages’ as extending to the limits of human thought, by duplicating arid reduplicating the original word. The larger vision gave the larger meaning; but it cannot he said that the fundamental idea of ‘age,’ as an epoch or dispensation with an end, is lost. In the Fourth Gospel the phrase is sometimes employed as a synonym for ‘eternal life’ (John 6:51; John 6:58)."

The same source also says:

"The plural αἰῶνες expresses the time-idea as consisting of or embracing many ages-aeons, periods of vast extent-‘from all ages’ (Revised Version, Ephesians 3:9), ‘the ages to come’ (Ephesians 2:7, etc.). Some of these ‘ages’ are regarded as having come to an end - ‘but now once in the end of the world (‘at the end of the ages’ Revised Version) hath he appeared to put away sin’ (Hebrews 9:26). The idea of one age succeeding another as under ordered rule is provided for in the suggestive title ‘the king eternal’ (English Version ‘the king of the ages’) (1 Timothy 1:17; cf. אַל עוֹלָם, Genesis 21:33). In Hebrews 1:2 ‘through whom also he made the worlds’ (ages), and Hebrews 11:3 ‘the worlds (ages) were made by the word of God,’ we have the striking conception of the ‘ages’ as ‘including all that is manifested in and through them’ (Westcott, Com. in loc.)."

This is the way the scriptures describe life in eternity. It will be an unending series of ages, and each age will be the production of God and Christ. It shows that some things will change from age to age in eternity while other things remain the same. But more on that as we proceed.

Another good source for those who seek advanced study on the meaning of the word "aion" should see this man's (Luke Kessler) research (See here).

The author says (emphasis mine):

"The descriptions used to complement this word aion ought to concern us. It seems to indicate something far more intricate and detailed than “forever.” The fact that it refers to ages past, ages to come, and the end or consummation of various ages definitely indicates a temporary state, not an endless one. On top of this the fact that aion is used in both the singular and plural form, gives serious discredit to it meaning forever. For how can forever be plural?"

Good points. However, this does not mean that aion or aionios may sometimes denote eternity. 

Said the author again:

"Aion is also translated as “time,” although it would be just as easily understood if it was translated as “the age” in the following examples. “Since the beginning of time (aion)…” (John 9:32) The word ‘beginning’ is not in the Greek, it should say, “since the age.” “spoken of from ancient time (aion).” (Acts 3:21) The word ancient is also not in the Greek, it simply says, “spoken of from the age.” “makes these things known from long ago (aion).” (Luke 1:70; Acts 15:18) It literally says, “makes these things known from the age.” But notice also that these all seem to refer to previous times that are long past. This would contradict a “forever” definition."

Again, good points, and ones that cannot be successfully denied.

Said the author again:

"And lastly Aion is translated as “course,” as in a race course. It conveys the idea of a beginning and end. “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course (aion) of this world (cosmos), according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2) This world has a set age in which it exists, this world began and it will come to an end – that is the sense that the Greek word aion conveys. The word ‘course’ is a perfect picture of an age; it is not endless, but rather, once an age has run its course, it gives way to the next one."

Said the author again:

"To move on to the adjective aionios; it is almost always translated as “eternal,” but should more correctly be translated as “age-long.” This word also has its peculiarities because aionios has a plural form!?! How can eternity be plural? Several times it is translated as “eternal ages past,” or “eternities past.” For instance, the NASB translates them as follows. “[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” (2 Timothy 1:9) That phrase “from all eternity” in Greek is ‘pro aionios chronos.’ Pro means ‘before,’ aionios is in a plural form as is chronos, which means ‘time.’ It literally means ‘the times of previous ages.’ “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past.” (Romans 16:25) The phrase “long ages past” in Greek is ‘aionios chronos.’ Again, both aionios and chronos are in a plural form, so it literally reads, “the times of the (previous) ages.” Or “the previous age-long times.”

These are arguments that cannot be resisted or refuted. They can only be stubbornly resisted by those who will not submit to the truth.

That aion or aionios does not necessarily denote endlessness is seen from many texts as we have seen. But, notice another proof.

"As the weeds are collected and burned in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age." (Matt. 13:40)

So, how can aion mean eternal in the above? Aion has an end. An age has an end. Eternity has no end. Also, the verse our author (cited above) referred to (Heb. 9: 26) shows the same thing, having these words: "but now once in the end of the world (‘at the end of the ages’ Revised Version ) hath he appeared to put away sin’." 

How can it mean "end of the eternities"? The plural of aion is used in the text (aionon), though the KJV translates it as "world" (singular). 

The Greek word for "end" is synteleia, the root being the well known Greek word "telos." It denotes a completion, or a finishing, so that something ends, having served its purpose. Notice also how Christ uses this word to speak of himself. He is "the telos." Notice these texts in the Book of Revelation:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" (Rev. 1: 8) 

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (telos), the first and the last." (22: 13)

"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." (21: 6)

The Hebrews text like the others mentioned show that the ages (aeons) have their destined ends, have their purposes, and each has a purpose in regard to Christ. So says Hebrews in its opening words "through whom also he made the ages." The eons of time were all made by the sovereign Lord for the purposes he has ordained. On that point we will elaborate in the next posting. For now, let us consider some other texts dealing with the ages or eons (aion). The ages over which Christ rules have their ends in him and are directed by his providence. The ages represent the march of history over which the Lord governs for his wise ends.

Other Texts To Consider

εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος in II Peter 3: 18 means "unto the day which is eternity." So we speak of the "eternal day." So too we may speak of the eternal age (singular), although we see that age containing smaller ages within that singular age or eternal day. 

εἰς τούς αἰῶνας, unto the ages (Luke 1: 33) - Greek scholar Thayer translates and comments, saying: "as long as time shall be (the plural denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity)."

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."  (Eph. 2: 4-7)

Here is another proof that aion does not mean eternal in itself. We cannot speak of "the eternities to come."

"But we speak in a mystery, the wisdom of God having been hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory." (I Cor 2:7)

Combining these two verses we see how there is a beginning to the ages. They do not go into the past eternally without beginning, though they go successively into eternity future without end. Further, from our standpoint in the line of time, there are aeons that have come and gone, and there are an infinite number of ages to come. 

"Now all these things happened to them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are coming." (I Cor. 10: 11)

In this text the word for "ends" is the plural of "telos" and "ages" is the plural of aion. By "ends" we are to think of "purposes," as when we ask "what is your end purpose"? What do you want accomplished in the time period? Also, the verb "are" is a futuristic present tense. The ends of the ages "are coming" in the future. 

"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Gal. 1: 4-5)

The age in which we now occupy is styled "this present evil age." God has a purpose to accomplish in it just as he has in the ages preceding and in the ages to follow. 

"That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2: 7)

Notice the plural of aion used once again and how it is the predominant way it is spoken of in the new testament, excluding the four gospels. 

"...to him is the glory and the power to the ages of the ages!"  (Rev. 1: 6) 

In Greek the words in bold are εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Both forms of aion (aionas, accusative) and aionon (genitive) are plural. If we substitute the word "eternal" or "forever" the translation would read "unto the eternities of the eternities" and would not make sense. It could be a way of expressing the superlative, as when we say "the king of kings" or "the lord of lords." But, in those instances we do not have two plurals for the words "king" and "lord." The fact that the text literally says "the ages of the ages" shows that the writer views eternity made up of ages, each of which have their purpose, along with a beginning and ending. It is the same Greek words we see in Galatians 1: 5, where Paul says "To Him be the glory to the Ages of the Ages! Amen." (Galatians 1: 5)

"...upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages." (II Tim. 1: 9)

So, here is another text that shows that the ages do not extend into eternity past. 

So, what was the first age? Now, that is an interesting question. From the standpoint of the physical world, or of humans and other earthly creatures, the first age would of course be the time in Eden wherein the parents of the race dwelled when first created. As we know from the biblical record, that was a short age indeed, for they were soon expelled from Eden by their transgression. From the standpoint of the angels and other heavenly creatures, surely the first age would begin at the time of their creation. Whether since the creation of man the ages have been the same with both angel and human is not easy to determine. 

In the next couple postings we will continue our look at how eternity to come is made up of generations and ages without end. We will also discuss the reason for the ages. But, let me close with a couple additional observations. 

Some are hesitant to admit that "aion" (noun or adjective) does not always denote eternity. That it carries that connotation in certain texts is without doubt. But, that it does not in most texts is also quite evident. This hesitancy is because that word is used to refer to both "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" (as in Matt. 25: 46). They fear that aion may denote an age with a beginning and an end in regard to the "life"; But that is not a valid inference. It means a long long time with no foreseeable end, and no expected end. 

Some who don't want to believe in eternal punishment, and want to believe that at some point the damned in Hell will have paid for their crimes, will be inclined to see the word "aion" giving hope that it will not be forever, but will have a beginning and an end. 

In answer to this we simply say that context helps us to discern which usages of aion denote an age with a beginning and ending, and one which denotes agelessness. Further, we have many texts that use the word "never" in regard to the state of both the righteous and unrighteous in the ages to come ad infinitum. Jesus said those who believe in him would "never hunger" and "never thirst" (John 6: 35). He said they would "never see death" (John 8: 51-52; 11: 26), and "never perish" (10: 28). On the other hand, Jesus used the word "never" in regard to the fate of the condemned.

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." (Mark 3: 29)

Here we know that "aiona" carries the idea of endlessness by the word "never" (which is the meaning of "οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (literally "not have forgiveness to the age").

Finally, some may wonder what all this talk about aion, ages, eternity, etc., has to do with the afterlife, but most should see the importance of the subject and one that should be addressed ahead of more intimate looks into life in eternity, especially for the redeemed family of God. That and similar questions we will try to address in the next chapter or two. The fact that eternity will involve ages tells us that life will not be static or one leading to boredom, but will be dynamic and filled with anticipation for future ages.

A good source that shows all the times the Greek word "aion" and its cognates are used in the new testament is (here). 

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxxi)

How would you describe a Utopian society? Is paradise a wishful myth? Is it a possibility? 

Of course, what Utopia would be for one person would not be so for another. Is it not commonly believed that it is a society in which everyone's needs are met and society's ills have been eliminated? As mentioned in a previous chapter, an example of a Utopian society is the futuristic world depicted in the Star Trek series and movies. The world of Star Trek still has conflict, but everyone's needs are met by society. Many define it, on the other hand, by the kind of government or culture that characterizes societal life. Others describe Utopia by the kind of people who populate it and how they treat one another in it. Others define it by the people in such a state, being perfectly happy and free from all unhappiness. What are the most common ideas of men about what constitutes a human utopia, a perfect society? To Karl Marx, the perfect society was one alluded to in the motto of Socialism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Many movies dealing with science fiction and life in the future attempt to give a portrait of life in the perfect social system. The Star Trek movies and their ilk attempt to show the human race as a near perfect world where disease, poverty and crime are eliminated. These secular views of Utopia are the result of believing in a quasi "social Darwinism" philosophy. Man, or mankind, is evolving upward, and perfection must be the end of that evolutionary process. When man has evolved fully, he will live in a perfect world with little or no death, no sickness, no poverty, no problems. Said one source (here): "...political Darwinism was present in the intellectual origins of American administrative theory...The application of Darwinian evolutionary biology to politics was a vital element of Wilson’s reconceptualization of the state as a living organism."

So, not only is the single human race evolving, but so is the bureaucracy or administrative state of governments (which the extreme liberal Woodrow Wilson promulgated and is now the position of the liberals in the Democrat party). We could therefore say that the bureaucracy of the body politic, or social system, like a living organism, is evolving and becoming superior so that the bureaucracy we have today in government is superior to what existed a century ago. It is more efficient (thanks also to evolution in technology and scientific knowledge) and streamlined. 

(However, this looks at the bureaucratic state positively and ignores the evils which also comes with this evolution, such as "red tape," and gives the word "bureaucracy" a negative connotation. Also many see the administrative state today as "the swamp," as does President Trump and his supporters) 

All tyrannies also are governed by the theory of Social Darwinism and use it to argue for genocide and murder, as did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. If the rulers of state, or the tyrants, want to get rid of a person permanently, they could kill you in the name of saving the body politic. If you are judged a subversive, or unproductive, they can kill you because you are judged to be a parasite in the body politic. It is one of the steps towards a perfect society to get rid of the bad gene pool, the handicapped, those who oppose the state.

The bible declares that there will never be a Utopian paradise on earth without the presence and rule of Christ Jesus the Lord. All previous attempts by man to establish his own universal rule or empire have been unsuccessful in bringing Utopia, as was Nimrod's attempt, and as was Lucifer's vain attempt. Each of the empires in the vision of Daniel expected to become a Utopia that would last a thousand years (the empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome). Hitler expected his "Reich" to last a thousand years. Of course, the kind of Utopia that these desired did not involve the equal well being of all, but one where they ruled as tyrants over the rest who served the tyrant and his government. 

Christ has promised to come to earth a second time and to put an end to the world as it now is, and to bring on first a thousand years of Edenic conditions and a new age of peace, safety, and prosperity. It will be a government of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, and his saints will have the reins of power under him and will administer affairs of state with him. Followed by that thousand years there will be a short time of new apostasy of some of the nations and peoples as a result of Satan being let loose for a short season from the place he was imprisoned at the start of the Millennium. Following the final overthrow of Satan after the little season of rebellion and apostasy, the Lord will "make all things new." There will be a baptism of fire for the earth and all the things of man's creation and doing will be destroyed by the general conflagration. This will be followed by the creation of new heavens and a new earth and the establishment of the holy city of God, New Jerusalem, and the Temple of God, and the constitution of a new human race. 

Many of the questions about life in eternity, as glorious immortal human beings, that were stated in the previous chapter, will be addressed in the course of these closing chapters. In organizing the material for these closing chapters, I think it best to begin with the last three chapters of Revelation, and which we alluded to in the previous paragraph. 

In chapter nineteen we see the coming of Lord Jesus Christ and the destruction of the wicked in the battle of Armageddon, of all who supported Antichrist. In chapter twenty we see the beginning of the thousand year reign of Christ and his people. In chapters twenty one and two we see a description of life in the new heavens and earth. Those chapters will be the framework for our investigation into life in eternity, and we will adorn that framework with references and discussions of other texts dealing with the same, such as what Paul taught in Romans 8 about the redemption of the whole creation, of what Peter said about the present earth being "dissolved" by "fervent heat" (or as Jesus said, "cast into the oven") in II Peter chapter three, and what Paul taught about the resurrection bodies in I Corinthians chapter fifteen. It will be in our detailed look at those chapters that we will answer many of the questions we have raised in the previous chapter. 

Eternal Vital Union

The belief in what is called "eternal vital union" was a key integral belief by those known as "Two Seed" Baptists, the forerunners of today's "Primitive Baptist" or "Hardshell" church, along with those known as either "Two Seed in the Flesh" or "Two Seed in the Spirit," "Predestinarian Baptists." Following the previous entries on union with Christ, I thought it would be good to have information on this heresy of those known as "Two Seed" Baptists, which was a large faction of those who began to go by the name of "Primitive Baptist." 

For my previous writings on Two Seedism's belief in "eternal vital union" see (here) and (here). I also have numerous articles showing how "Two Seedism" was a leading view of many of Parker's followers among the anti mission Baptists, who called themselves "Primitive" or "Old School," or sometimes simply "Regular." 

It was Parker who was the first and foremost to expound his view of "two seeds," but a great many others took up its defense and much debate and strife concerning it occurred between the time of Parker's first promotion of it via his books on the subject, until near the close of the nineteenth century, over the leading ideas in that system of belief. Elder Daniel Parker promulgated that system at the time of the debates and divisions over mission societies, theological schools, Sunday Schools, revival methods, church autonomy, etc. Many historians see him as the one who may be well considered the head of the anti mission movement, though men like Alexander Campbell, John Taylor, etc., were leaders in that movement (that gave birth to two twins, the Hardshells and the Campbellites, and contributed to the birth of other cults or schisms). Parker wrote two books of which we will speak shortly. 

In 1845, shortly after Parker's death, the Two Seed Primitive Baptists cult experienced its first major schism. Central Kentucky's Elder Thomas P. Dudley, a member of a church of the Licking Creek Association (Bryan's Station, oldest in the state), produced a work on "Two Souls" to supplement Parker's on the two seeds. But, it was also promoted by others, Gilbert Beebe, editor of "The Signs of the Times" periodical, defended that doctrine's main idea of "eternal vital union." 

Elder William Conrad of Kentucky,  fought against the Two Seed views of Dudley. I will cite from him shortly. Anyone studying the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists from the 1830s till the 1880s will find out how big a civil war there was over that issue, and other important issues which it generated. The following are some citations from the Hardshells themselves taken from my previous writings.

Testifies Elder Lemuel Potter

I am at a loss to understand why Potter would name his paper after the leader of Two Seedism while supposedly opposing it. Well, if one reads Potter's book "Life And Travels Of A Poor Sinner" (here) he will find Potter saying this:

"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it. It was nothing uncommon to hear a minister speak out in favor of that doctrine in his sermons. It seemed that in our immediate connection, it had the ascendency (sic). Some of the Associations in our correspondence passed resolutions that the belief or disbelief of that doctrine should not be a bar to fellowship. For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it, enough to accept it at least, and without any investigation of the matter, I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally. I finally began to study the matter for myself, and I soon became satisfied that if it was the Baptist doctrine I did not believe it. After trying to discourage the agitation of it for a few years, I studied the matter so much that I finally concluded to write on that subject, which I did, and put out a small work, giving my objections to it, in the year 1880." (pg. 262) (See here)

In the debate that Potter had with W.P. Throgmorton, Dr. Throgmorton said (See here )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testifies Elder and Historian Sylvester Hassell

"...the heathenish perversions of Scriptural truth set forth by Eld. Daniel Parker, of Tennessee, about 1835, in his pamphlet called "My Views on the Two Seeds," have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined." (See here)

Testifies Elder (Dr.) J. M. Watson

"In expressing our tenet of the eternal union between God and the Church, we proved that this expression should only be used in a qualified sense, as we then pointed out; but our opponents (Two Seeders - SG) use it in its most unqualified signification, and affirm that the souls of the elect existed eternally with God, and were infused into Adam at the time of his formation, and have always under all circumstances, whether "dead in trespasses and sins" or not, whether defiled with sin or not, before or after the new birth, have been in actual union with God! Moreover: we showed that all the human family, elect and non-elect, were by the fall involved in one common actual union with Satan, and that union only began actually at the fall, and exists on the part of all until "born again," as we fully explained; but they say that there is a different union between Satan and the non-elect; that they did not fall in Adam; that they, contrary to the elect, have a Satanic seed inborn, with which Satan has been eternally and actually united, just as God has been with the souls of the elect." ("Old Baptist Test" page 232 - here)

Testifies Elder Grigg Thompson

From "The Measuring Rod" by Elder Grigg Thompson, who was one of the leading founders, along with his father Wilson, of the "Primitive Baptist" church, we have these important words (published 1860 - see here):

"But there is, at this time, three large and distinct organizations claiming to be Baptists, and also claiming to be the apostolic church, to wit: the Missionary (or more correctly the machinery) Baptists, which is the largest division, and the Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, which in numbers, perhaps, stand next, and the Primitive Baptists, which are, perhaps, in the United States numerically the weakest of the three."  (pg. 20-21) (See here)

Testifies Elder Hosea Preslar

"From that time forth I was persecuted by some of those people, but I thought, perhaps that Divine Providence had sent me to Tennessee to defend the truths of the gospel, with others of like calling; and that we should suffer together for His sake.  To speak of all the distress this doctrine caused, within my knowledge, would be too tedious.  But for the satisfaction of those that are not acquainted with it, I will endeavor to give the reader a short, but plain sketch of their doctrine, though they, among themselves, seem at times to have it almost every way, any way, and as it were, no way at last.  Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders."  Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

First:  they hold that the foreknowledge of God amounts to a decree, because (say they) it could not be any other way, and therefore denounce the idea that Adam was able to stand, but liable to fall. 

Secondly:  They hold that the Church of God was in eternal union with Him, (not in purpose, but actually so); and that the church is composed of a family of eternal children, that was in eternal union with God. 

Thirdly: That when Adam transgressed the law of his Creator, and fell under its curse, that those eternal children fell in him; but not in the same like sense that the children of the devil fell. 

Fourthly: That the devil is a self-existent devil, or wicked spirit, and that, after Adam had transgressed the law of his Creator, the devil and his children, through Eve, began to make their appearance; and from them came another set of children that they call the children of the devil, or the seed of the serpent.  And that those wicked children are a wicked spiritual family that dwell in mortal bodies; and are therefore called children of the flesh, and that this wicked generation of children constitute the non-elect; and that those eternal children that were in eternal union with God, constitute the elect of God or the church. 

Fifthly: And as they had fallen under the law in Adam, that Christ came and redeemed them back again, and that the Holy Ghost makes manifest this to them in time, and that they are now renewed in the spirit of their mind, that is in the enjoyment of that eternal union they had with God; for (say they), there is nothing the soul receives in time, but a manifestation of what did before exist, not in purpose, for purpose (say they) amounts to nothing, but actually so.

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

Seventhly: That everything must return back again to its origin, and hence, these mortal bodies of ours must return to the dust, and never will be resurrected any more.  They contend for (what they call) a spiritual resurrection, and a spiritual body, that was eternally prepared of God for them; and that this was the kind of body that Jesus ascended into heaven with, and not in the one that was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified upon the Roman cross, and laid in the sepulcher; adding that it is none of our business what became of that body.

Eighthly, and lastly: They say that all other doctrine outside, or differing from this, is unsound, is Arminianism, etc.

"The above is a correct and concise account of the items or tenets of doctrine, I understand them to hold forth.  And as I consider their system to be heresy, and having suffered much, as well as many others on account of it, I here give my reasons in a brief way, hoping that Divine Providence may make it a blessing to His church and people hereafter, for of all the systems of heresy that ever I have encountered with yet, I abhor it the most."  (pages 179-80) (See here)

Testifies Elder William Conrad

"Now, the different sentiments on this point may be classed thus, and we stand on one or the other:

1st. There is a vital, actual eternal union; not virtual, treasured, or purposed in Christ before the world began, but a real, actual eternal union, and of course those who are thus united are in actual eternal existence, and are as old as eternity, and a transplantation is substituted in the state of regeneration, and that-the infusion of a new eternal creature does not change the person in soul or spirit; does not illuminate, make rejoice, make hope, make believe in Christ to the saving of the soul; does not produce faith, hope, nor charity, but its production is a war between itself and the old man, soul and spirit; and that Jesus Christ died and arose again for the purpose of resurrecting this body and soul, which has never been renewed in the spirit of the mind nor tasted of the grace of God, a vital or actual eternal union, and a new eternal creature are collateral or equal terms; they both stand or fall together. This position is outside of the bible, and therefore cannot be admitted." (from my second article mentioned above)

"Now, to us it is made manifest from what we, ourselves know that the recent or late heresy in its original shape, as first published in 1849, by Elder Thomas P. Dudley, in his circular on the origin, nature, and effects of the Christian Warfare, will not again appear. When it was first published, Elder Dudley sent me three or four copies of his circular. I soon parted with all the copies but one, wishing all to read and see for themselves; that the worst of all heresies to me it was plain."

"...I am quite confident I know more about the introduction of above heresy as embraced in the circular on the warfare-so often named in this history, than any other now living except its author. And, besides my own personal knowledge I have in possession the printed minutes, circulars, and other printed documents, mostly from 1808, before Licking was organized."

"While as yet not separated from Elkhorn Association, and feeling a conviction that unless I made some record-history of said heresy as above named, it might not be known, certainly fifty years hence, how introduced and by whom.

And hence, the historians that may be writing up church history and showing of the strange doctrines and heresies that troubled the Zion of our God near the middle of the nineteenth century, (as Brother Ross and myself?) and still continues to be a matter or subject preached and taught in some of the many forms hitherto presented to the hearers."

"We will venture to remark that there is not a Christian in all the universe but was shown by the spirit of grace in due time that he was in league with Satan, and that his soul and body was sunk under the destruction of sin, and so far from being actually united to Christ... the people of God are not only united to him as their representative from eternity but to him as their shepherd, husband, prophet, priest, king, redeemer, Emanuel, everlasting father and Jehovah, our righteousness; on this stand and plead your union not only by decree or purpose, but vitally or actually by the grace of faith in his name and for the merit and worth of thy divine surety." (See here)

Testifies Elder Gilbert Beebe

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

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? (See here)

A library source citing Albert W. Wardin Jr. (professor emeritus of Belmont University, Nashville, Tenn., where he taught history from 1967 to 1993) says this (see here):

"Parker was known for his opposition to innovations, which put him in the camp with other Primitive Baptists, and for his distinctive doctrine of the Two Seeds. In 1826, he began to propound this view in a pamphlet, Views on the Two Seeds, which was soon followed in the same year by A Supplement or Explanation of My Views on the Two Seeds and The Second Dose of Doctrine on the Two Seeds. He claimed that the elect were born with the good seed, implanted by God in Adam and Eve, and the nonelect were born of the evil seed which came from Satan. He felt such a view absolved God from predestinating the non elect to hell since at birth one's destiny was already determined. He claimed that he gained this view from an old fellow Baptist in Tennessee around 1811 and that at first he had rejected it as heresy."

"Missionary Baptists, of course, rejected this doctrine as well as most Primitive Baptists. Two-Seedism evolved into a gnostic sect, taking even more extreme positions never advocated by Parker himself. It started opposing all means in salvation, denying the non elect had souls, and rejecting a bodily resurrection and a literal hell, spiritualizing both. In 1847, John M. Watson, a leading Primitive Baptist in Tennessee, wrote a pamphlet condemning Parkerism. Later in his book, The Old Baptist Test, which appeared in 1855, Watson included a section, "A Refutation of the Manichaeo Parkerite Heresy."

So, it is a fact that I have pointed out (as have other historians such as Crowley), and as the above testimonials confess, that there were several issues involved in the theological system known as "Two Seedism." The Hyper Calvinism of the Two Seed Baptists, with its rejection of the means of the gospel for the eternal salvation of the elect, is still evident in many of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," though they have cast off the idea of "eternal vital union" and some other tenets of that system. 

Elder Gilbert Beebe wrote: 

 

"We now speak of his spiritual or mystical body. If it be admitted that they are one with Christ, even as is Christ one with God the Father, we can no more deny the eternal vital union of Christ and his members than we can deny the eternal identity of the Father and the Son in the Godhead." (As cited by me previously here)

Some of the names of men who espoused the doctrine of "eternal vital union," or the preexistence of the souls or spirits of the elect, or children of God, are Gilbert Beebe, and his son William Beebe, Thomas P. Dudley, Samuel Trott, and many others. In our day, we see that teaching continued in a book titled "Eternal Vital Union Of Christ and His Body: the Church" by Stanley C. Phillips (2012), recently deceased, and those few remaining believers in it. Wrote Phillips and his brethren at their web page (See here) as an introduction to a sermon by Gilbert Beebe on the subject from 1858:

[The union of Christ with His people is a theme which covers the whole of the New Testament, yet it is neglected almost entirely today among modern Christians — even including our own people. This union is effectual and essential in regeneration, sanctification, justification, pardon, and the resurrection from the dead. It joins together in one both Christ and all His members— the general assembly and church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven. All of our eternal and timely blessings, in one way or another, are related to this blessed union. We offer this selection from the new reprint of the Editorials of Gilbert Beebe Volume 4, page 149 in hope that it will give each of our readers many pleasant thoughts to contemplate through the days to come. — Ed.]

"ROMANS 8: 38.39 Eternal Vital Union and Its Blessings" By Gilbert Beebe (emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

Beebe believed that "Christ" was eternally begotten by the Father (and this is not to say that he is God by this begetting), or produced (created) in the manner believed by the Arians. The term "Son of God" does not denote Christ's divinity, but his composite nature, as part divine, part human, and a third part, a hybrid mixture of the two (thus three natures). Many held to the belief that this created Christ involved the preexistence of the human soul and body of Christ, and that all the elect were created in Christ when he was created before the world began. So, not only did Christ preexist before his incarnation (being made flesh) but so too did the elect preexist in Christ, and had a vital or seminal union with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is interesting about the view of Watts. It shows that others, non Hardshells, believed some of the leading ideas involved in Two Seedism. Many held to this view because Christ said that he came down from heaven, and they apply this to his human soul or spirit, or perhaps even to his flesh and blood. 

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

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

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

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

Further, there is much misunderstanding of what is involved in being "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." Several inferences by the Two Seeders and those who believe in eternal vital union are not warranted.

1) the choice was made in eternity from those who existed in eternity in Christ

2) the existence of the elect was not merely virtual or in the mind of God

3) the choice was of those who were already in Christ, and not to bring them into Christ

I believe that Paul's use of the prepositional phrase "in Christ" in the words "chosen you in Christ" carries the same meaning as in the words "in love having predestinated." Christ was foreknown by the Father (I Peter 1: 20). His existence as a man, in his incarnation, began with his conception in the womb of the virgin mother. Christ, as God foresaw him, was the context for God's choice and predestination. In fact, we may say that "all things" are "by him" and "for him." (Col. 1: 16)

Beebe's idea that each of the elect come down from heaven in an incarnation, as the Son of God, is ridiculous and is why it has been rejected by all except a very small cult. 

So, in conclusion I say that though there is a union between Christ and the church in eternity past, it is not an actual union of persons then existing but an ordained union to be effected in time. It is a representative union and not a vital union. Vital union with Christ occurs by being joined to Christ by faith and being born again.

On The Priority Of Union With Christ

There is much debate between Arminians and Calvinists over the arrangement of the "ordo salutis" and I have chimed in on this debate many times over the years. The debate focuses on whether faith precedes the new birth or follows it. Let me say here at the outset that I get very agitated when men on both sides say - "Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith." Many times I have had to say to both Arminians and Calvinists that such is not true. That some Calvinists or "Reformed" theologians put regeneration before faith is not doubted. But to put all Calvinists into that category is a gross falsehood. In my writings I have cited many Calvinists, such as Calvin and Booth, who did not aver that regeneration precedes faith. I am Calvinist but I do not put regeneration or the new birth before faith and conversion.

Let me also say that the older Calvinist writers did not make conversion something different from regeneration, seeing rather that evangelical conversion is regeneration. A man was not viewed as regenerate or born again before be believed in Christ.

In all the writings of those on this issue, over the past several hundred years, I have noticed a gross inconsistency by those who affirm that regeneration precedes faith. How so? Because even those who espouse such will often affirm that 1) union with Christ is the first requirement, preceding all other graces and aspects of salvation, and that 2) "vital union" is "by faith." Now, if these two propositions are true (and they are), then regeneration, rebirth, justification, forgiveness, sanctification, etc., must all follow this union; And, faith must be before these things, for it is what unites the soul to Christ. Therefore, union with Christ by faith must precede regeneration, justification, etc. Don't you see?

So, with that in mind, we cannot but hold to this order:

1. Faith
2. Union with Christ
3. Justification
4. Regeneration
5. Sanctification

Now let me cite from some Calvinists on the priority of union with Christ by faith.

The following citations can be found (here) and all emphasis is mine:

On this subject Dr. John Gill wrote:

"In a word, union to Christ is the first thing, the first blessing of grace flowing from love and effected by it; hence, [it] is the application of all others. “Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus”—first loved and united to Christ—and then it follows, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1Co 1:30). So Dr. Goodwin observes that “union with Christ is the first fundamental thing of justification and sanctification and all. Christ first takes us, and then sends His Spirit; He apprehends us first; it is not my being regenerate that puts me into a right of all these privileges; but it is Christ takes me, and then gives me His Spirit, faith, holiness.”"

In "FAITH UNITES US TO CHRIST," William Cunningham (1805-1861) wrote:

"LET us now…shortly consider the effect of faith as uniting us to Christ, and thus saving the soul. There is a great deal spoken of in Scripture on the subject of faith—of its great importance and of its indispensable necessity to salvation. We read, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mar 16:16). It is faith that makes a man a Christian, that produces all those things that accompany salvation, that salvation which is the turning point of a man’s existence, that salvation which delivers him from the authority of the devil and translates him into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.

Faith occupies this important place in our salvation because it unites us to Christ. We are expressly told this by the Apostle in Ephesians 3:17, where it is written, “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” This union of believers to Christ, effected by faith, is indeed frequently spoken of in the New Testament. The nature of it is set before us by every mode of expression and description fitted to convey the strongest impression of its closeness and its importance.

Now when a man believes in Christ, he is, according to God’s appointment, united to Him. There is a union formed between them. God regards him as if he were Christ and treats him as if he had suffered the punishment for his sins that Christ endured in his room—as if he had in his own person performed that full and perfect obedience to the Divine Law that our Savior's conduct exhibited. It is this imputation of Christ’s sufferings and of His righteousness, or, as it is often called, His active and passive obedience—it is this communion of suffering and of merit in which the union of believers with Christ mainly consists. This union and communion with Him is the foundation of their salvation in all its parts and in all its aspects. When they believe Him, God regards them as one with Him—as if they had offered what He has suffered, as if they had done what He has done, as if they had paid the penalty for their sins and had gained a title to His favor.

Viewing them thus as united to Christ—as one with Him—God bestows upon them the blessings that Christ purchased for all who should believe on His name. They obtain through faith the forgiveness of their sins, acceptance with God as righteous persons, the renovation and sanctification of their natures, and, finally, an inheritance among them that are sanctified. Christ is the great Head of influence: all spiritual blessings are the fruits of His purchase. It is only by abiding in Him that we are enabled to bring forth fruits unto eternal life; as it is written, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit” (Joh 15:5).

You see now the great importance of faith in the salvation of sinners. It is the instrument by means of which we receive everything necessary to our peace. None can be saved without it, and everyone who has it will assuredly be saved. It is connected in the statements of God’s Word with almost every blessing that is mentioned as important and valuable, as the origin from which they are all derived, the instrument by which they are all received. It is the Holy Spirit that forms the union between Christ and believers, and faith wrought in their hearts by His almighty power is the tie that connects them together and forms the bond of union.

While salvation is thus through faith, it is, at the same time, “by grace” (Eph 2:5, 8). It is to be traced wholly to God’s free and unmerited favor. There is nothing whatever in faith as a grace or virtue, as an act of ours, to merit anything at God’s hands [or] to deserve anything for us…Faith, viewed as a work or act of ours, could not itself procure for us the pardon of sin any more than repentance, if that too were in our power. Far less—[even if] we could believe by our own strength—could it ever merit for us any reward at God’s hands.

It is not indeed, then, as a work or a grace that faith saves: it is merely the instrument of uniting us to Christ. His work is the sole ground of our salvation and of all that is connected with it. We owe it all to Him. He purchased it for us by His own sufferings and obedience, and He bestows it upon us by His Spirit. Therefore, we must beware, friends, of giving to our own faith, in the work of salvation, the place that belongs only to Christ. When salvation is ascribed to faith, this is so far from attaching merit to faith that it is just expressly renouncing it. We are saved indeed by faith, but it is faith in Christ Jesus. Our faith is that which carries us out of ourselves to Christ, transferring our whole dependence, as it were, from our own doing to what He has done and suffered for us. And it is a constant act of trust, a confidence in Him for everything pertaining to another world. It bears at all times upon it a declaration of our utter inability to do anything for ourselves. Hence, not only is salvation by faith quite consistent with being by grace, but further, as the Apostle tells us, it is of faith that it might be by grace. Not only are they consistent with each other, but the one affords the most striking illustration of the other. Nothing could have more fully established or more clearly illustrated the free grace of the Gospel than making our salvation depend upon faith; for faith, besides being originally God’s gift, is a constant appeal to His agency: it is both in form and in substance a casting [of] ourselves entirely and unreservedly upon His mercy through Christ and resting upon Him alone. We believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved."

These are my sentiments exactly.

In "JUSTIFIED IN CHRIST" Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) said:

"This relation or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ (whatever it be) is the ground of their right to His benefits. This needs no proof: the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is exceeding evident also by Scripture: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1Jo 5:12). “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us…righteousness” (1Co 1:30). First, we must be in Him, and then He will be made righteousness or justification to us. “He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:6). Our being in Him is the ground of our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the Holy Ghost has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the head is the ground of their partaking of the life of the head. It is the union of the branches to the stock that is the ground of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock. It is the relation of the wife to the husband that is the ground of her joint interest in his estate.

As there is nobody [who will not agree] that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and His true disciples by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be one, so I suppose there is nobody [who will not agree] that there may be something that the true Christian does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union…Now faith I suppose to be this act.

I do not now pretend to define justifying faith or to determine precisely how much is contained in it. [I will] only determine thus much concerning it: [justifying faith] is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to Him. [The soul] ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation and comes into that forementioned union or relation to Him. Or, to use the Scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ and receives Him. This is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith.

God does not give union with or an interest in the Savior to those that believe as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. [Faith] is itself the very act of unition on their part. God sees it fit that in order to a union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both that each should receive [the] other as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to a union with Christ as one of His people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice.

It is [in this way] that faith justifies or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits and a right to the benefits procured thereby, that is, as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life because it is by faith that we have the Son of God by whom life is. The Apostle John in these words, “He that hath the Son, hath life,” (1Jo 5:12) seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ of which he gives an account in his Gospel: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Joh 3:36). And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with Christ as the ground of an interest in His benefits. To as many as received Him, “to them gave he power” to become the sons of God. Ye will not come unto me “that ye might have life.”

Can I get an amen?

(The above is a reprint from my blog "The Baptist Gadfly" - see here; I post it here so it will be closely connected with the previous recent posts on Union With Christ By Faith)

Is Faith The Effect Of Union?

The answer to that question is not either yes or no, but both, depending upon how we define the terms of discussion. In my previous two postings on Union With Christ By Faith I held to the proposition that the scriptures teach that vital union is by faith in Christ and all aspects of salvation follow that created union. But, I also acknowledged that there was another kind of union, a representative or covenantal union, and acknowledged that it preceded actual vital union. We are joined to Adam in two ways. 

First, by representative union (See Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15). Second, by vital union. All are the physical descendants of Adam, of his seed through Eve, "the mother of all living." (I will not go into the question as to whether all the souls of men were created in Adam or individually at the time of conception) In either case, whether Traducian, or Creationist, all have at least a physical and soulish connection with Adam. 

Believers are joined to Christ in two ways, one representative and one vital. Even unbelievers are in some sense represented by Christ, and have that connection with him, though they have not a vital saving connection or union with him. 

For purposes of this writing, I will not get off topic on the question of who are the elect and why were they elected to salvation. We will simply say that the elect are they who are believers. 

Said one source, citing others (See here, emphasis mine):

"Augustus H. Strong positively describes the nature of the believer's union with Christ with five adjectives.[27] This union is: 

 

An organic union – in which believers become members of Christ and enjoy a mutual, reciprocal dependence on Christ for life and He on them for expression (Eph. 5:29–30). 

A vital union – in which Christ operates within believers as their life and becomes the dominating principle within them (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3–4). 

A spiritual union – that is, a union originating from and sustained by the Holy Spirit in their spirit (Rom. 8:9-10; Eph 3:16–17). 

An indissoluble union – that is, a union which, by virtue of Christ's eternal, divine, and incorruptible power and grace, can never be dissolved (Matt. 28:20; Rom. 8:39; Heb. 7:16). 

An inscrutable union – that is, a divine and mystical union of knowledge-surpassing intimacy and value (Eph. 3:19; 5:32; Col. 1:27)." 

Now, that is probably too many categories for we can say of vital union that it is spiritual, indissoluble, and inscrutable. For the purposes of this short posting, I only speak of two kinds of union, one representative and the other vital (or the joining together of two hearts, souls, or spirits). However, Strong did say they were all "adjectives" of union rather than different kinds of union. If that is so, then we could add other adjectives to describe the nature of the union. 

Said the same source (citing others):

"According to the narrower sense of the phrase, used in Christian theology, union with Christ is a step in the ordo salutis ("order of salvation"), and the basis of the believer's justification.[5] In this sense, union with Christ follows faith and precedes adoption (Galatians 3:26-27). Augustus Strong describes it in this way: "union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified."[6]"

This is what I believe and have contended for, that "union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification." And that "union with Christ follows faith." 

Said the same source again:

"Sinclair Ferguson distinguishes six categories of union with Christ. Union with Christ is federal or covenantal in the sense that Christ's obedience is accounted to believers. It is carnal or fleshly in the sense that Christ became incarnate and thus became one with humanity. Union with Christ is also a faith union in which by faith Christians depend on Christ for nourishment. It is a spiritual union because Christians are united to Christ by the agency of the Holy Spirit. It is an extensive union in that Christians are united with Christ in everything he has done, including his life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session. It is finally a union of life because Christ lives in Christians and he is visible in their lives.[11]" 

Vital union, or union that brings life, spiritual and eternal, is by faith, or by possessing Christ and the Holy Spirit, and both Christ and the Spirit are received by faith.  

Said the same source again:

"As a step in the order of salvation, union with Christ was seen by John Calvin to be the basis for both justification and sanctification. Alister McGrath notes that while Martin Bucer suggested that justification causes (moral) regeneration, Calvin argued that "both justification and regeneration are the results of the believer's union with Christ through faith."[12]"

Again, this is my position, and it is the true Calvinist or Reformed position, being what was believed by Luther, Calvin, and the first generation following them. Those "Reformed" Calvinists today, among Baptists and Presbyterians and their ilk, do not believe that both regeneration and justification are by faith. 

Said the same source again:

"Some Evangelicals see union with Christ as a discrete stage in the "order of salvation."[13] The evangelical theologian William Shedd comments "The impartation of Christ's righteousness presupposes a union with him."[14] Robert Dabney, while avoiding deification, said that the bond of the union is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.[15]"

Not only can we say, however, that the impartation of Christ's righteousness (imputation or justification) presupposes union, but also say that union presupposes faith. Shedd believes that faith follows regeneration (about which I recently have written) and yet in the above he says that union with Christ precedes imputation or justification. This is inconsistent. He obviously, like others, such as the Hardshell Baptists, say that union with Christ is not by faith, but rather is before and without faith. He would deny the proposition that vital union with Christ is by faith. 

Dabney's statement, "the bond of the union is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit," is true. But, let us remember that the Spirit is received by faith (Gal. 3: 1), as we demonstrated in the two prior postings on "Union With Christ By Faith." Further, Dabney agrees. Another source giving the writings of R.L. Dabney on union with Christ (See here) has Dabney writing the following in proof of this:

"It is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner’s soul...When made one with His Redeeming Head, then all the communicable graces of that Head begin to transfer themselves to him. Thus we find that each kind of benefit which makes up redemption is, in different parts of the Scripture, deduced from this union as their source; Justification, spiritual strength, life, resurrection of the body, good works, prayer and praise, sanctification, perseverance, etc., etc. Eph. 1:4, 6, 11, 13; Col. 1:24; Rom. 6:3–6, 8; Col. 2:10; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:9; John 15:1–5." 

Dabney also wrote:

"The instrumental bond of the union is evidently faith—i. e., when the believer exercises faith, the union begins; and by the exercise of faith it is on his part perpetuated. See Eph. 3:17; John 14:23; Gal. 3:26–28. First God embraces us with His electing and renewing love; and we then embrace Him by the actings of our faith, so that the union is consummated on both sides. One of the results, or, if you please, forms, of the union is justification. Of this, faith is the instrument, "for being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The other form is sanctification. Faith has the instrumental relation to this also; for He "purifieth our hearts by faith;" "faith worketh by love;" and it is the victory which overcometh the world."

Said the previous source again:

"Eastern Orthodox theology emphasizes the incarnation as the starting point for our union with Christ.[16] "In Christ God becomes one with us in order to make us one with him; he stooped to take our nature, in order that we might be restored to become partakers of his nature."[16]"

Of course, the key word in that paragraph is the word "emphasizes." Certainly, as we will see, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in becoming human formed a union with the the race, with all men. The apostle Paul says that Christ is "the head of every man" (I Cor. 11: 3) and also is "the head of the body which is his church." (Eph. 1: 22-23; 5: 23) He has a union with every man by his incarnation, as well as lordship. That is a necessary union for the salvation of any man. However, though that union is necessary for the salvation of any man, it does not signify that all men will be saved merely by the incarnation itself. 

Further, as we will see, there are benefits that come to all men as a result of Christ becoming man and being "the head of every man." We could give lengthy examples of this truth. For one thing, men would be without hope, and the wrath of God against them for their sins would be demonstrated by them instantly being sent to Hell without mercy. 

It is necessary that a sinner join himself to God and to Christ as Savior and Lord to have vital union with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From this attachment to Christ flows all that pertains to salvation and "things which accompany salvation" (Heb. 6: 9). There is no realized salvation in anyone until that one is joined in heart and soul to Christ. Salvation in its beginning, in its continuance and progression, and in its consummation in the eternal ages to come, is all the result of vital union with Christ. Two things are necessary for this union, which are penitent faith and a birth of the Spirit.   

Said the same source again:

"In Christian theology the union of Christ is built on the a priori assumption of Adam's union with humanity (Romans 5:12-21).[17] Also according to the Apostle Paul, Christ's death and resurrection is a prerequisite for believers to be identified with Christ (Romans 6:8-10).[18] In other words, the vicarious death of Jesus is the basis for incorporation into Christ.[19]"

But we must not err in thinking that vital union with Christ is something Christ (or Father or Spirit) merely does to us and for us (objectively), but such union that we are active in creating. Union with Christ is the union of two wills, the effect of two choices, one on the part of Christ and the other on the part of the believing sinner. So, not only does Christ identify with us via his incarnation, but also by his death on the cross, and by his resurrection.

Said the same source again:

"The New Testament teaches that union with Christ is precipitated by faith and baptism, i.e. we believe and are baptized "into" Christ (John 3:16, Romans 6:3). Both the apostle John and Paul employ the Greek preposition eis rather than en in these passages to convey the notion of union with Christ. The ESV Study Bible explains the use of this particular preposition in its note on John 11:25, "The preposition translated “in” (Gk. eis) is striking, for eis ordinarily means “into,” giving the sense that genuine faith in Christ in a sense brings people “into” Christ, so that they rest in and become united with Christ. (This same expression is found in 3:16, 18, 36; 6:35; 7:38; 12:44, 46; 14:12; 1 John 5:10.)"[20]"

I would agree with this but would say that both water baptism and the Lord's supper (communion) are pictures of our union with Christ by faith. Water baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and of our participation in it by faith. It is a picture of the mystical or spiritual incorporation into Christ and his body. It is a picture of our own spiritual resurrection in our conversion. It is a picture also of the total cleansing of the spirit that occurs in the union effected. The Lord's Supper pictures how Christ enters the heart and spirit of a believing and penitent sinner. As the message of Christ is brought to the mind of a sinner and the sinner by the work of the Spirit and the word believes the message and calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is then joined to Christ and receive all the blessings of salvation.

Now, before going further, let me state the problem with the view that says vital union with Christ is by faith (my view). 

The Problem

If all spiritual blessings flow out of vital union with Christ, and such union is by faith, then faith cannot be a blessing produced from union. Does that not show that union precedes faith? Or, to state the same thing another way, doesn't regeneration precede faith? Do not the words "faith is a fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5) say that faith is a fruit of regeneration? A fruit of a vital union? 

My answer is to say:

1) If vital union precedes faith, then it would be wrong to assert that union is by faith. Yet, the scriptures say union is by faith. 

2) The text does not say that faith is a fruit of regeneration, but a fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit produces thoughts and actions in the elect before they are regenerated, such as conviction of sin, belief of certain truths, the Father's "drawing," and "teaching," etc. (John 6: 44-45) These pre regeneration things can be said to be the effect of the Spirit's working. Also, the word for "fruit" is also used to refer to a child in the womb ("fruit of the womb"). And, it is not denied that faith and love are begotten when the sinner is begotten. 

3) The proposition that vital union is by faith does not negate the proposition that it is the fruit of the Spirit. Both the means (faith) and the end (vital union) are "of" the Spirit. Those two propositions are not incongruent. 

4) The faith that is produced by the Spirit in order to effect a person's being "born of God" does spring as a blessing from Christ, as a result of representative union with him. Further, I believe, that Christ in one sense represents all men, yet in another sense, represents only the elect. 

5) Finally, we can best answer the question with a question. Is vital union with Christ a blessing resulting from vital union? The answer of course is "no" because something cannot be the cause of itself nor can it be the effect of itself. 

So, faith is the gift of God and is the result of his effectual working (Eph. 1: 19) and of his drawing and teaching (John 6: 44-45), and comes as a pre regeneration, pre vital union blessing. It is a blessing resulting from God's eternal covenant regarding the elect, from the new covenant, from his gracious promise in the gospel.