The Christ of the Apocalypse

Recently I wrote a post titled "Did Jesus Say "I Am God"?" (See here) to answer those who deny the Trinity, whether Muslims, Unitarians, Sabellians, Arians, etc., by asking "where did Jesus ever say that he was God?" I cited several statements of the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation where he clearly did claim such, saying that he was "the first and the last," and "the Alpha and Omega," and "the beginning and the ending." We showed how these were titles belonging to God alone. So we read in Isaiah:

“Thus says the Lord (Yahweh), the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord (Yahweh) of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God." (44: 6 nkjv)

“Listen to Me (Yahweh), O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last." (48: 12)

So, Christ is Yahweh. The Father too is Yahweh. The Spirit too is Yahweh. These three are the one Yahweh, for they are three persons and yet one God in substance, essence, and attributes.

As we have pointed out, this title expresses God's eternality, and his Almightiness, and that all created things are his creation and their destinies are determined by him. But, notice this text also from Isaiah:

"Who has performed and done it, Calling the generations from the beginning? ‘I, the LORD (Yahweh), am the first; And with the last I am He.’” (Isa. 41: 4 nkjv)

Notice the slight difference in this verse in relation to the previous ones. This shows that one of the ways that Yahweh (Father, Son, and Spirit) was prior to and in the beginning was in relation to the "generations" of man. He was there when the first man was created and the first generation. He was there "from the beginning" and also will be "with the last" generation. 

The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, was with the Father and Spirit and was co-creator with them. This is why "Elohim" (God) said in the beginning "let US make man in our image, according to OUR likeness" (Gen. 1: 26). In Genesis we see where God is seen as being plural and one all at the same time. Singular verbs are used when speaking of what the plural Elohim did in creation. The word "created" in Genesis 1: 1 is a singular verb.  We see this same grammatical construction in many places in the old testament. Interesting too is the fact that in the Quran Allah also uses plural pronouns in regard to himself, a fact that Muslims struggle to deal with.

We also see in the old testament many scriptures that speak of the Spirit of God as being both distinct from Yahweh and yet being himself Yahweh. We also see where the Son of God often appeared as Yahweh, and yet is distinct from Yahweh the Father. 

Getting back to Revelation chapter one, let us read further. The apostle John wrote:

"Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1: 7-8 nkjv)

Notice that Christ takes divine titles to himself, being the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. In the last chapter of Revelation he also says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." (22: 13 nkjv)

With this introduction let us read the rest of Revelation chapter one and see how John describes the glorified and risen Christ.

Vision of the Son of Man

"10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” 12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. 19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this. 20 The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches."

This description of the Son of God in his divine glory shows that he is God. 

Now, let us compare several texts from the old testament that also give us a picture of Christ in visions to Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah.

Ezekiel's Vision of Christ

"22 The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads. 23 And under the firmament their wings spread out straight, one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and each one had two which covered the other side of the body. 24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking." (Eze. 1: 22-28 nkjv)

Notice that Ezekiel sees a "man." This is no ordinary man, but is Yahweh the Son of God. Notice the similarities between this vision of Christ and the vision of Christ by John in the Apocalypse. Ezekiel's description of the "voice" was that of "many waters" and "like the voice of the Almighty." This is what John said of Christ: "his voice" was "as the sound of many waters." 

Ezekiel also sees a throne, the same that we see described in the Apocalypse (chapter four), and above the throne he sees the "likeness with the appearance of a man high above it." Who is this man that is above the throne of heaven? It is the same man who John sees and it is the Lord Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. His appearance to Ezekiel corresponds to the same appearance in Revelation. There is mention of the rainbow, which though not mentioned in Revelation chapter one, is mentioned in Revelation chapter four in conjunction with the throne of God. Also, Ezekiel's vision says that the "man" was radiating glory, "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." Now notice how Ezekiel sees this same glorious "man" again.

"1 Afterward he brought me to the gate, the gate that faces toward the east. 2 And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3 It was like the appearance of the vision which I saw--like the vision which I saw when I came to destroy the city. The visions were like the vision which I saw by the River Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4 And the glory of the Lord came into the temple by way of the gate which faces toward the east. 5 The Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple. 6 Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. 7 And He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. 8 When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger. 9 Now let them put their harlotry and the carcasses of their kings far away from Me, and I will dwell in their midst forever." (Eze. 43: 1-9 nkjv)

Who is this "man" who stands beside Ezekiel? Clearly he is God. Again his voice is "like the sound of many waters," or the very voice of God. He radiates glory, the glory of Yahweh, the same glory John sees in the risen Christ. Ezekiel says that this "man" is the same man who appeared to him in chapter one, in the previous vision we have noticed. Upon seeing this glorious man Ezekiel, like John, falls down on his face. This "man" says that the throne belongs to him, and is "the place of the soles of my feet." He dwells "in the midst of the children of Israel forever" just like he dwells "in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks" or seven churches. This speaks to the omniscience of God and to his omnipresence. Who else can be fully aware of all things taking place among his people and is presence in them all? Notice also that this glorious man has the "holy name" of Yahweh and is the Lord of the temple, and the one who dwells in the temple, which temple is the "house of Yahweh." 

Daniel's Vision of Christ

Vision of the Ancient of Days 

"9 “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; 10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened." (Daniel 7: 9-10 nkjv)

Notice how this description of the "Ancient of Days" is like the description John gives of the risen and glorified Christ, the one who was dead and yet lives, and who has the keys of death and Hades. Of course, in the above description it is of Yahweh the Father. Yet, as we will see, both the Father and the Son are Yahweh. John sees Christ with hair and garments that are exactly like the Ancient of Days.

One Like The Son of Man

"13“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7: 13-14 nkjv)

In this part of Daniel's Vision, he sees "One like the Son of Man," one who is "coming with the clouds of heaven," the same thing we see said of the Lord Jesus Christ in Revelation chapter one. In the above words we see how "the Son of Man" is distinct from "the Ancient of Days." This shows that the Son of God is distinct from the Father, though both are Yahweh and both are "the Ancient of Days." The description of the Ancient of Days is the same description that we see of Christ. The hair and garments of the Ancient of Days are the same as we see in the risen Christ of the Apocalypse. Also, in the Old Testament it is said that Yahweh's "dominion is an everlasting dominion" and that "His kingdom" too will last forever. So we read in Daniel chapter four:

"And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation." (4: 34 nkjv)

So, what is said of "the Most High" is said of this "Son of Man." 

In all these visions we see the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. We see that those three, though distinct persons, are still one Yahweh. We cannot conclude this writing without mentioning this scene on the mount where Christ appeared in his divine glory to Peter, James, and John.

"Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light." (Matt. 17: 1-2 nkjv)

Those who object to the Trinity think that when the Bible says that God is "one" that it means one person. But, this is false. My wife and I are one but we are not the same person. Notice these words of Jesus:

"I and My Father are one.” (John 10: 30 nkjv)

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." (John 17: 20-23 nkjv)

These verses help to show in what sense God is "one." It does not mean that God is one person, but that he is one in nature, essence, substance, attributes, and purpose. Jesus says that all his people become "one" but this does not mean that they all become one person, but that they will be one in thinking, in nature, and in purpose. They will also become fully "one" with God the Father and God the Son, but this surely does not mean that they become the same person as God.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXII)

Daniel Parker or Wilson Thompson?

In the previous chapter I made an aside comment that said that Wilson Thompson was promoting several of the leading ideas in Two Seedism several years before Parker published his books on Two Seed doctrine. That does not mean, however, that Parker did not come to believe in Two Seedism before Thompson. Based solely on who published fundamental Two Seed ideas first, we must say that Thompson did in his first book "Simple Truth" in 1821, from which we cited previously in chapter XVIII. So who formulated the doctrine known as "Two Seedism" among the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists? Every historian, or semi historian, says it was Elder Daniel Parker, who first gave it prominence in his first book on the subject titled "Views on the Two Seeds." This book is said to have been published in 1826, and was followed by other writings of Parker on the subject. So we have: (1) "Views on the Two Seeds," (2) "A Supplement, Explanation of My Views on the Two Seeds," and (3) "Second Dose of Doctrine of the Two Seeds." He published the "Church Advocate," a newspaper, from 1829 to 1831.

In "Kentucky Baptist History, 1770 - 1922" by William Dudley Nowlin, in the section titled "The Anti-Missionary Controversy of Baptists in Kentucky from 1832 to 1842," we read (See here):

"In 1810, an old brother in Tennessee advocated in a crude form the Two-Seed Doctrine. Parker rebuked him for it, but in 1826 set forth in pamphlet an elaboration of the same views."

If this is correct, then Parker came to believe in Two Seed ideas many years before he published his first work on the doctrine. We don't know, however, when Thompson first came to believe in Two Seed ideas. Obviously Parker did not originate the ideology for the above citation says that Parker learned it from an old brother in Tennessee. Also, in earlier chapters we have seen where a couple of the leading ideas in Two Seedism were promoted by Joseph Hussey at the beginning of the 18th century. I have also stated in previous chapters that I believe that Parker was not smart enough to originate the Two Seed system by himself and so he was simply parroting what he had learned from others. I am sure that the first leading apologists for several leading propositions of Two Seedism, such as Wilson Thompson, Gilbert Beebe, and Samuel Trott, were much more learned than Parker. So, as an historian, I am trying to find the origin of this system. How many of the Calvinistic Baptists prior to the time of Thompson or Parker promoted this system? 

Nowlin wrote further:

"The following quotation is taken from page 11 of a copy of the first minutes of the General Association of Baptists in Kentucky, organized at Louisville, Friday, October 20th, 1837.

"The Anti-missionary spirit owes its origin to the notorious Daniel Parker. He was the first person called Baptist that lent a hand to the Infidel, and Papist in opposing the proclamation of the gospel to every creature, and the translation and circulation of the Scriptures in all languages and among all people. Possessing a strong native intellect, and a bold adventurous imagination - with a mind cast in nature's most capacious mold, but for want of cultivation admirably calculated to be the receptacle of notions, the most crude, extravagant and chimerical, he generated an Utopian scheme of theology, the tendency of which was to subvert all practical religion. The grounds of his opposition to missions were that the devil was an eternal 'self-subsistent being' (to use his own phrase); that though God created all, yet the devil begat a part of mankind; that those begotten of the devil were his bona fide children, and to their father they would and ought to go; and of course sending them the gospel and giving them the Bible were acts of such gross and supreme folly that no Christian should be engaged in them. On the other hand he taught that the remaining portion of the human family were the actual sons of God from eternity, and being allied to Jesus Christ ere 'the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy' by the nearest and dearest ties of consanguinity, being no less than 'particles' of his body - bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, the Redeemer nolens volens, take them to mansions prepared for them in bliss; and hence Mr. Parker very wisely concluded, that if such were the case, the Lord had very little use for the Bible or Missionary Societies. . .But there were many who embraced only half the doctrine of Mr. Parker and though they manifested no great apprehension for the liege subjects of the Prince of Darkness, yet they expressed great alarm lest the missionaries should help the Lord to perform his work, and convert the souls of some in a way God never intended they should be. They were such staunch friends of the Lord's doing all his work, that they set upon and terribly assailed their missionary brethren, for fear they should by some means assist the Lord in the salvation of his elect. In their zeal against these ambitious strides of the missionaries, they have occasioned great disturbance and distress - and destroying the Peace of Zion, the progress of religion has been greatly retarded, and the influence and usefulness of many ministers and churches utterly paralyzed."

There are several observations to be made about some of the statements above, some of which I have put in bold type. First, Parker was not against preaching the gospel to all nor to the church sending out men to be missionaries. Second, the minutes of the General Association says that Parker "generated" his scheme, but I find that not to be clearly established, for we have seen how several of the leading ideas in Two Seedism preceded Parker. Further, Parker was not opposed to the printing and circulating of the Bible, but felt like it should be done by the churches or by the government, and not by societies. Finally, as we will see, Daniel Parker does not seem to have denied that the preaching of the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect, though other Two Seeders would embrace that view and promote it.

It is also to be noted that Daniel Parker did not seem to deny that God uses the means of gospel preaching to save his elect, although many Two Seeders who followed him would come to take that position, as we will see in upcoming chapters. Parker also was not against sending missionaries, but believed that they should be under the control of the local church or association.

We do see from the above that he held to the eternal union of Christ and his elect, and so believed in the preexistence of Christ in his humanity and of the elect. 

About Parker believing that the Devil was eternal and uncreated, we will have more to say shortly.

In "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" by 0. Max Lee (1962), his Thesis Paper (See here), a well written and scholarly work on Parker, and who had access to nearly all of Parker's writings, wrote the following, citing from Spencer's history of Kentucky Baptists (all emphasis mine):

"Parker is as well-known for his two-seed views as for his anti-missionism. He published Views on the Two Seeds in 1826. The following year he published the Second Dose of Doctrine of the Two Seeds. Described as a modification of ancient Manichaeism, these two works attempted to prove that the two existing spiritual principles of good and evil were eternal and self-existing." (pg. 11)

Lee writes further:

"While seeking an answer to this question, Parker heard of a strange doctrine called the two seeds. First hearing of the two-seed doctrine from an unnamed brother in Tennessee, Parker vacillated between acceptance and rejection of the doctrine, coming at last to believe that God had revealed it to him for some special purpose. Having come completely to accept the doctrine, he determined "to proclaim on the house top, that which had been revealed to me in secret." (pg. 37-38 - citing from Parker's periodical "The Church Advocate")

So, we see that Parker did not originate the doctrine of the Two Seeds. The question then is, who did? Where did this brother from Tennessee get it? Where did Wilson Thompson get it? We have shown that the idea of the preexistence of souls was not new, nor the idea that Christ in his human nature preexisted his incarnation was not new, and the idea of some kind of eternal union between Christ and his elect was also not new. It is also interesting that it was in eastern Tennessee where Parker learned of this doctrine, and this was an area where Two Seed ideology was widely believed by Predestinarian Baptists, such as in the Powell's Valley Association, about which I have in years past written about, citing from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940). You can read that (here). This is the same association that my father and I were once part of and from which we were excluded over father's belief about the "origin of Satan." Father believed that Satan was a fallen angel, and this was opposed by many in that association, a fact that showed that Two Seed thinking was still prevalent in that association towards the end of the 19th century. I write about all this in my second chapter of my series, or book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." (See here)

Lee writes further, citing from Parker's second book "Second Dose":

"Parker believed that good and evil had two separate sources. There are two causes or sources from whence causes and effects do flow, these two causes are opposite, one to the other, both are mysteries, and we have no knowledge of either, only as they are revealed and made known to us. One is the mystery of Godliness, and the other the mystery of iniquity. And neither can produce any- thing opposite or contrary to its own nature." (pg. 40)

Continuing to cite from "Second Dose" Lee writes:

"Parker emphatically declared that God did not create Satan. Furthermore, he stated that Satan was self-existent: "There is an existing opposite to Jehovah, which never did receive its origin from God, the fountain of perfection. If the Devil were not self-existent, Parker held that God must have made him; if such were true, Parker said that he "would as soon believe that there was no god. To hold that God was responsible for the creation of Satan, Parker surmised, would make God the author of both good and evil." (pgs. 40-41)

So, it is quite obvious that Parker did believe that Satan was uncreated and self-existing. He says that God did not create Satan. Does he mean that God did not make Satan an evil being or that he did make him but he became Satan by sin? Surely Parker believed that God made Adam and yet Adam became evil, so why could he not see that it was the same with Satan and the fallen angels?  

Lee writes further:

"Having proved to his own satisfaction that Satan was self-existent, Parker insisted that Satan, although powerful, was not equal with God." (pg. 42)

Again, citing from "Second Dose" Lee wrote:

"According to Parker, "the nature and certainty of the relationship or union which exists in Christ with his Church" was a crucial issue in his two-seeds doctrine. Parker said that an eternal oneness existed between Christ and His Church." (pg. 55)

This being true, it gives further credence to my contention, stated in the first few chapters, that the idea that Christ existed as a composite being of human and divine natures from some point in time from eternity past was taught by Joseph Hussey and Samuel Stockwell and Isaac Watts, etc., as we saw in chapter VII. This led to the idea that God's elect were also in Christ and joined to him in eternity past. 

Again, citing from "Second Dose," Lee cites these words of Parker:

"I wish to be understood as believing, and now aiming to prove, that Christ and his Church are one; and if they are now, or ever will be one, that, that oneness has existed as long as Christ has existed, as it is as impossible for a head to exist without a body, as for a body to exist without the head." (pg. 55)

"This oneness or union, while existing prior to God's creation, was demonstrated in the creation itself." (pg. 55)

As we have seen, this was the view of Beebe and Trott as promoted in their writings in the "Signs of the Times." It is one of the leading tenets of Two Seedism.

I have written about the Bear Creek Association, here in North Carolina, of which I was once a member, and how it once held strongly to Two Seedism, and even now has an article of faith that is clearly expressive of Two Seedism. (See my posting here) It is titled "Bear Creek Association & Two Seedism." I have also cited from Elder Hosea Preslar, an opponent of Two Seedism and an associate of Elder John Watson, and who was once living in the area of the Bear Creek and testified to its Two Seedism when writing to the periodical "The Primitive Baptist." (See here) That article of faith reads as follows:

"Art. 2. We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity." 

We have seen how the belief that Christ, in his humanity, was created or begotten by God some time in eternity past, was taught by Hussey, et. al. From the above it is also said that God created the cosmos and Adam after the image of this preexistent Christ. This scheme, as I have stated in previous chapters, makes Christ to be the first Adam, rather than the second or last Adam, and makes Adam to be the second Adam rather than the first Adam.

Lee writes further, citing from Parker's book "Views":

"Having come into the world, the Church sinned. Adam, who stood with the Church (the elect) in him, partook of the forbidden fruit, causing him and the Church to deserve God's wrath. But because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin, and redeemed her from the curse of the law. Such a manifestation of love, while having no equal, was a logical outgrowth of the eternal union which existed between Christ and his Church." (pg. 56)

We have seen how Beebe argued at length on this point, affirming that since the church (or the elect) were already the wife of Christ in eternity, Christ as husband was obligated to assume her debts. We have also stated that those who opposed Two Seedism saw this as overthrowing election by grace, or unconditional election, since Christ was obligated to save his wife. In upcoming chapters we will see Lemuel Potter argue this in his rebuttals against Two Seedism.

Next I want to cite from the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for November 21, 1838 and from a letter sent to it by Elder Richard Newport (New Harmony, Indiana; Sept. 25th, 1838 - See here), who was a close associate of Parker and who wrote to correct a previous letter to that periodical that he believed had said erroneous things about Parker. That letter was written by a brother named J.H. Parker. 

Newport writes (emphasis mine):

"I do know, and that is, that Mr. J. H. Parker is a very unguarded writer; and if he is always as unguarded in writing and speaking, he is entirely unworthy of confidence. I allude to his remarks in reference to "a certain Daniel Parker," who Mr. J. H, P. says, was an esteemed Baptist preacher in Kentucky, &c. I answer, D. Parker never lived in Kentucky. He once lived in Sumner county, Tennessee, where his labors were abundantly blessed and his memory is yet fondly cherished by sound Old School Baptists. Mr. J. H. P. says, D. P. "went off in a doctrine of his own," "and published a pamphlet called the First Dose, and immediately another called the Second Dose." D. Parker published a pamphlet in Illinois, entitled, "Views on the two seeds, taken from Genesis, 3 chap. 15 v." And some time after, another, entitled, "The Second Dose of doctrine on the two seeds."

"Mr. J. H. P. says, that Daniel Parker taught through those pamphlets and in his preaching, that the "devil was from everlasting a self existing being, equal to God in power, wisdom and glory." D. P. never wrote, published, nor preached such a doctrine. He has given it as his opinion, that God is not directly nor indirectly the author of sin and corruption, consequently that corruption exists in itself, the fountain from whence all evil flows; but that the devil is equal with God he positively denies; neither has he given utterance to one sentence, from which any candid man, possessed of common sense could infer such an idea."

Obviously Newport wants to defend his friend Daniel Parker. He does not deny that Parker taught that the Devil was not originally created by God, and never, "directly or indirectly," was the cause of his existence and his being evil. However, this belief of Parker does make Satan equal with God as far as being uncreated. It is true that Parker never said that Satan was equal with God in power. Newport tries to soften the views of Parker by saying that this was merely Parker's "opinion," as if Parker did not push his views on others. 

Newport writes further:

"Mr. J. H. Parker says, "he then moved to the State of Indiana," &c. D. P. never moved to the State of Indiana. He did move from Tennessee to Crawford county, Illinois; where he lived many years before he published those pamphlets, which, according to J. H. Parker he published in Kentucky. Daniel Parker did publish a monthly periodical, entitled, "The Church Advocate," two years, in which he vindicated the doctrine of the Old School Baptists, and boldly and successfully opposed the missionary legerdemain, and particularly that of lying and misrepresentation, before there was another periodical of the kind in the United States."

As I have written in time past in my blog "The Old Baptist Test" Elder Newport was himself a Two Seeder. I wrote this back in 2011 in my series on "Hardshells & Predestiation" saying - "Elder Newport was part of the "Two Seed" faction and aligned with Elder Daniel Parker, one of the first founders of the Hardshell denomination." (See here) Though he denied the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things" that Beebe believed, he did believe in the foundational ideas of Two Seedism. What is interesting in this letter to the "Primitive Baptist" is Newport's testimony that says that Parker, in promoting his Two Seed views was stating what was "the doctrine of the Old School Baptists." So, again, we ask - "when did Two Seedism begin among the Baptists?" Was it believed in the 17th or 18th century? We know that one element of it was taught by Hussey. But, what of the other tenets?

Newport continued:

"Mr. J. H. Parker says, "he then moved to Mexico, and the last I heard of him the Spaniards killed him on account of his doctrine." D. Parker moved from Illinois to the province of Texas, where he now lives, (or did some six weeks ago,) beloved by his acquaintances as a valuable and useful citizen, and admired by the sound Baptists as a plain, consistent and faithful gospel preacher. Several Old School Baptist churches are the fruit of his successful labors in that country."

When Parker moved to Texas, it was not a state nor part of the United States, but was a part of Mexico. So, in this respect, J.H. Parker was not wrong. Notice again that Newport says that Parker was a sound Baptist who was admired by all such.

In Lamote, Illinois, on July 26, 1833, elders Richard M. Newport and Thomas Young, and deacons Richard M. Highsmith, William Grigg, Joseph Neal, Jesse Page, John Wood, and Fredrick Markley organized the Pilgrim Predestinarian Regular Baptist Church. (See here and here for source) It was this church that in whole followed Parker to Texas and became the first church in Texas. Mexico forbade the organization of Christian churches and to get around that decree the church was organized in Illinois before moving to Texas.

Newport continued:

"Having lived a neighbor to Elder Daniel Parker fourteen years in Illinois, I think I know him. His memory is fondly cherished by thousands of sound Old School Baptists in this country, but hated and traduced by Arminians and modern missionaries."

Elder Newport was a leader in the Wabash Association of Illinois which Parker was also a part of. The Primitive Baptist Library of Carthage, Illinois, writes the following under the title "History of the Wabash District Baptist Association" (See here) and the subtitle The "Two-Seed" Doctrine Was NOT the Issue": 

"After careful study, we find no indication that the "two-seed doctrine" had been raised as an issue in the division of the Wabash Association in 1823. No mention of the doctrine of two-seeds is found in the Association minutes, nor in Parker's early writings, viz., A Public Address (1820), Plain Truth (1823), or The Author's Defence (1824). Parker's Views on the Two Seeds was published three years later, in 1826, followed in 1827 by his Second Dose of Doctrine on the Two Seeds, and A Short Hint, which was his reply to Thomas Kennedy's "Explication of Proceedings at Lamotte Church." Without proof to the contrary, we must assume that pro-missionary historians and writers who attribute the division to Parker's views on "two-seeds," are merely using propaganda to advance their cause."

If it is true that Parker did not believe or preach his view on the Two Seeds prior to 1826, then clearly Wilson Thompson believed and taught several of the leading tenets of Two Seedism years prior to Parker. One wonders whether there was collusion between Parker and Thompson after Thompson wrote his first book in 1821 promoting eternal vital union, preexistence of the souls of the elect, and preexistence of the humanity of Christ. Though Newport is right about Parker not living in Indiana, yet the place where Parker lived in Illinois is on the border with Indiana. Thompson, though laboring in Ohio (and also in Missouri for a while), was heavily involved in preaching in Indiana and influential in the Whitewater Association in that state. The Primitive Baptist Library writes about this. (See here) Thompson led the anti mission part of that association when it split and elder John Sparks the Mission side. They held a debate on the question of means in regeneration in the mid 1840s and a court trial was held about the church property, the court siding with the Missionary side. 

Newport wrote further:

"But when Mr. J. H. P. has appeared in the Primitive Baptist, a paper I love and admire for the truth's sake, I felt bound to take notice of him, and to admonish him, before he writes again to be sure he knows what he is writing about, and to write the truth. Brother Bennett, I am in haste. Yours in the best of bonds."

As I have stated in previous chapters, it seems that the "Signs of the Times" periodical was the leading voice for the Two Seed wing of the newly formed "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist denomination, but the periodical "The Primitive Baptist" represented the opponents of Two Seedism. However, men on both sides often wrote to each periodical. As we will see in future chapters, Elder Joshua Lawrence, the leader in the Kehukee Association and leading writer of "The Primitive Baptist" was against Two Seedism along with its first editor Mark Bennett, who would later leave the Hardshells and joined the Mission Baptists.

How Stupid Are You? Or Am I?

I considered how to title this short article. I thought about using the word "foolish" instead of "stupid," but opted out of the former for the latter. I thought it would be more enticing for those who read it and want to read the whole writing. Journalists spend a lot of time thinking of the right headline for their articles so that they grab the attention of the reader. After that in importance is the first sentence and paragraph. If that is not good the average reader will tend to not read the rest. I also thought of the simple saying "are you," and then "am I," and then finally concluded to go with the one above because I didn't want to exclude myself, even though the question is designed to provoke the reader to answer the question as respects himself or herself.

I was lying in my bed watching a basketball game when the above text came to mind (I hope by the Holy Spirit who brings things to our minds; See John 14: 26). I have often thought of it in regard to my own efforts to win souls for Christ. I have said to myself - "you have not been very smart" or "you have been foolish and stupid to a large degree when it comes to winning souls." I also thought about some other fellow Christians and wondered about how many of them win very few souls or some none at all. I also thought about how the text reads in the King James version which reads as follows:

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

I judged myself on this matter. I pondered whether I had labored as hard as I should have in trying to win souls to the truth and to Christ. I thought that since I had won only a few souls, compared to others like Charles Spurgeon or Billy Graham, that I must not be very wise. That produced sorrow, repentance, and confession to the Lord, and caused me to seek his forgiveness. I also thought about how the text could be read as the translation at the head of this article. In other words, we could say:

1) he who wins souls is wise,

2) he who is wise wins souls,

which is fascinatingly interesting.

The wise saying of the wisest man up to the time of Christ, king Solomon, and author of the proverbs, does not mean to restrict the words "winning souls" to winning souls to the Lord, but would include winning souls to the truth, whether it be religious truth, philosophical truth, moral truth, etc. Charlie Kirk, recent martyr for the Lord and for the truth, was a good winner of souls to the truth, including truth in politics, moral and ethical truth, such as in the abortion or "trans" debate, and who certainly won many to Christ.

A good soul winner is a good persuader and debater and not through Sophist ways and means, or tactics, but through rational argument, by the logos, rather than by pathos or ethos, having the noble purpose of the well being of people, knowing that ignorance is destructive, as the prophet said:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4: 6 nkjv)

So, my brothers and sisters, how wise or foolish are you?

Let us pray together.

"Lord, forgive us for our not being more wise in winning souls. We confess our ignorance and wrong in this. Help us Lord to do better. We know that the destiny of lost souls is at stake. Open doors of opportunity to witness to the truth. Teach us how to win souls."

"Those who are wise shall shine

Like the brightness of the firmament,

And those who turn many to righteousness

Like the stars forever and ever." 

(Dan. 12: 3 nkjv)

The Anti Beatitudes

The above image gives us what are called the "Beatitudes." They give us the several blessings Christ pronounces upon those he describes. But, people often don't realize that there are what we might call the "Anti Beatitudes." These begin with "woe are" instead of "blessed are." They are given in the following passage.

“But woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, For you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, For you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6: 24-26 nkjv)

The Beatitudes and the Anti Beatitudes remind us of the blessings and the curses of the Law where God says:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28: "See, today I am setting before you a blessing and a curse—the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God..."

Deuteronomy 30:19: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curses; choose life, so that you and your descendants will live."

Some translations of Isaiah 45: 7 say: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe" which in the KJV is "I make peace and create evil."

There is a "sevenfold woe against the scribes and Pharisees" in Matthew chapter twenty three.

The biblical concept of weal entails both material and spiritual good or the blessings that come from a faithful relationship with God. Throughout Scripture, weal is seen as the result of obedience to God and a trust in God's promises. The word "commonwealth" has "weal" as its root. It means the "common good" or well being of a state.

God has promised weal to his obedient people. That is not to say that obedient servants never suffer woe, for there is none perfect, and God often ordains sufferings, or woes, even to his obedient servants in order to try them and to purify them, as he did to his servant Job, who realized this when he said:

"But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold." (Job 23: 10 nkjv)

Still, a child of God will receive greater weal, and less woe, when he lives a life of obedience to the Lord. That is what the Beatitudes and the Anti-Beatitudes tell us. Notice these words:

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

Those who choose to follow Christ will "receive many times more in this present time and eternal life in the age to come."

So many sinners are often found saying "woe is me." Let them know that God promises weal to those who obey him and woe to them who disobey him. I love the lyrics to the song "Trust and Obey." The first couple of verses with the chorus reads as follows:

When we walk with the Lord in the light of His Word

What a glory He sheds on our way!

While we do His good will, He abides with us still

And with all who will trust and obey

Trust and obey, for there's no other way

To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey

Not a shadow can rise, not a cloud in the skies

But His smile quickly drives it away

Not a doubt or a fear, not a sigh or a tear

Can abide while we trust and obey

Remember the words of Christ Jesus our Lord who said:

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6: 46 nkjv)

So Sad For Our Country

Psalm 9: 17

I gave some time thinking about a title for what I want to say in this short article. This is finally what I settled upon. I am indeed so sad for our country.

After yesterday's election results I am sickened in my stomach and fearful of what lies ahead. A socialist who hates the Jews and who wants to see a global intifada was elected mayor of New York city. A man who said that he wanted to kill his political opponent and his wife and children and then piss on their graves was elected attorney general of Virginia. These blue states, in my view, have lost their minds. The campaign slogan for nearly all Democrats is "vote for me if you hate Trump," and forget about everything else. The last Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, when asked if she could define "woman" said she could not, even though she is a woman. Good Lord, what has our country come to? When Biden was in the White House we had partially naked trans people on the White House lawn. We also have numerous protest marches where people walk naked or ride bicycles naked. That is sad and disgusting and what is sadder is the fact that they are never arrested. We have many states that allow men who say they are women to be in women's rest rooms and locker rooms naked.

The Democratic Party today is nothing like the Party that existed under FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. Those men would turn over in their graves if they could see what their party has become. The great statesmen from the state of Virginia, such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe would be ashamed to see how their state today has a majority of people who are for murdering infants in the womb, for homosexual marriages, and such immoral things. If you are a sexual pervert, criminal, Marxist, Communist, and such like, you are no doubt in the Democratic Party. If you hate our country and for what she has stood for the last 250 years, you are no doubt a Democrat.

I cannot vote for a Democrat. If I did so, I would be guilty of murder and of the other immoral things promoted by that Party. John said "For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 1: 11 kjv) When you vote for people who support such immorality you are partaker of their evil deeds.

I pray for our country regularly, and for our representatives in government. However, I see what is happening in our country, which is also occurring in many other countries of the world, as a sign of the coming day of God's wrath and judgment. The text at the head of this article warns of the judgment that God will bring upon those nations that turn away from God and righteousness.

I have hopes that the revival that we have seen in certain areas and since the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk will expand, but I fear that the godly will never be a majority. When the righteous are few, we will see all kinds of perils. Notice these texts:

"Therefore the law is powerless, And justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; Therefore perverse judgment proceeds." (Hab. 1: 4 nkjv)

"When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increases; But the righteous will see their fall." (Prov. 29: 16 nkjv)

Today we see those in the Democrat Party calling for violence against their political opponents which makes me think of the Bolsheviks and of those who adhere to Mao's little red book. They are the ones behind the censorship, cancel culture, and the taking away of free speech rights.

Recall the end time prophecy of the apostle Paul:

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (II Tim. 3: 1-4 nkjv)

Is this not what we see today? Will this post get canceled for me saying these things? Will it not prove that what I am saying is true?

"Faith is Fruit" and Hardshell Reasoning

 

It is often argued by Hardshell Baptists that since Paul says that "faith" is a "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5: 22), he means that faith is the result of having been saved, regenerated, or born again. However, that is certainly not what Paul teaches nor intended in saying that faith is a fruit of the Spirit. If that is what he meant, then he contradicts himself, for in other texts he teaches that regeneration or receiving of the Spirit is a result of faith. In the same epistle to the Galatians he says: "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2) The Spirit is received by faith, and so faith being a fruit of the Spirit cannot mean that the Spirit was received before faith or apart from faith. Further, the text does not say that faith is the "fruit of the new birth" but is "the fruit of the Spirit," meaning that the Spirit produced faith.

In a post I wrote years ago titled "Faith = Fruit, Yes, But" (See here) I dealt with some of this erroneous reasoning of the "Primitive Baptists" who believe that faith is no means in eternal salvation. I showed that the word "fruit" carries the idea of being "begotten" as in the expression "fruit of the womb." (See for instance Psalm 127: 3) Faith is begotten and at the same time life is begotten. This is clear from what the apostle John when he wrote: "For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith." (I John 5: 4 nkjv) That verse says that faith overcomes because it is born (or begotten) of God.

Hardshells argue that faith cannot exist prior to the tree from which it comes, that faith being fruit only gives evidence of the kind of tree it is that produces the fruit. This is one of their arguments on the ordo salutis, or order of salvation. However, the flaw in this line of reasoning is the fact that it is also true that the tree is derived from the fruit, for the fruit contains the seeds from which trees come. Every tree is the product of fruit and every fruit is the product of trees. There would be no fruit tree without fruit producing it via its seeds.

Further, theologians speak of what is called "the fruit of faith," faith itself begetting or producing obedience and good works. 

We are also told that "faith works by love" in the same chapter (Gal. 5: 6). But, what kind of love? What is the object of that love? Is it not love to God, Father, Son, and Spirit? 

If the Hardshell argumentation is correct, that "faith being a fruit of the Spirit" means faith is the fruit of regeneration, then how can this view be reconciled with what Paul said in the same Galatian epistle about the Spirit being received by faith? (Gal. 3: 2) This verse puts the hearing of faith before receiving the Spirit, so faith being a fruit of the Spirit cannot contradict that fact statement.

Further, faith is the instrument of union with Christ and the Father and Spirit. That being so, it cannot come after union.

What think ye?

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXI)

My articles on Two Seedism in my "Hardshell Baptist Cult" book (blog) were written many years ago, and in chapters 37-39 (See here, here, and here) one can see many citations on "eternal vital union" and on the no change view of regeneration or "hollow log" doctrine. In those chapters I cited from those who opposed these ideas, from Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder Lemuel Potter. We will elaborate on Thompson's and Potter's attack on Two Seedism in upcoming chapters. We will also cite from others. We could multiply citations from Beebe, Trott, and others to show what their views were on Two Seedism, for they were always writing to promote that heresy. 

We have been looking at the debate that occurred in the "Signs of the Times" for the year 1849 and in this chapter we will continue to do so. We could give numerous citations from the 1830s also that show where Beebe and Trott and others were promoting Two Seedism, which I did in those three chapters mentioned above that are in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" writings. In fact, as I will elaborate on in a future chapter, it seems clear to me as a historian of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect that it was Wilson Thompson who should be credited with first promoting Two Seedism and not Daniel Parker. 

Let us begin with a look at what was written in the "Signs of the Times" for Sept. 1st, 1849 (Vol. XVII, No. 17; See here). In that issue Elder Beebe responds to E.S. Dudley (not the same person as T.P. Dudley) who opposed Two Seedism. I will not cite all that E.S. Dudley wrote and published by Beebe, but will rather begin with Beebe's response, under the title "Reply to Brother E.S. Dudley." Wrote Beebe:

"We profess but little acquaintance with metaphysics, and our style and manner of writing may be too awkward and clumsy to be readily comprehended by brethren of more refined attainments."

I find this remark by Beebe quite ironic, for he and his Two Seed brethren were indeed deeply acquainted with metaphysics and mysticism. In Elder Lemuel Potter's book against the doctrine of the eternal seed, titled "A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH," and under the sub heading "THE NEW BIRTH" (1880), he disagrees with what Beebe said about metaphysics. That book can be read (here) at the Primitive Baptist Library's Web page. In that book Potter wrote: "About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists..." This he said in reference to Two Seedism, which he also confessed to being inclined to believe himself when he was young in the ministry.

Beebe also wrote in his rebuttal to E.S. Dudley:

"Our beloved brother inquires, "If the existence, merely, of the life of the church, in Christ justifies the idea of seminal union, may we not also claim seminal union on account of the natural life; seeing that we derive both from God?"

That is an excellent question, and which shows where Two Seed ideology leads. It leads to the idea that every human being has existed from eternity in God. Wrote Beebe in reply:

"If our dear brother can perceive, from his own experience, from his own reading of the scriptures, and from all that has been said and written on this important subject, no higher relationship than that the children of God exist in their spiritual life only as creatures of the creative power of God, we must despair of being able to enlighten him by anything we can say."

Notice that Beebe does not answer the penetrating question. All he does is repeat his thesis that all the children of God existed in their spiritual life in eternity, although created, which is a contradiction. That is why many who opposed Two Seedism would often mock the Two Seeders for believing in "eternal created beings." But, how can what is created be eternal, without a beginning? But, this is exactly what the Two Seeders taught, especially as it relates to the begetting of Christ the Mediator and Son of God, which they say implies derivation, and a point in time when he was created or begotten, but who would also say that Christ has always been, from eternity, the Mediator or God-Man. 

The argument by Dudley was that Beebe would have to say that the life given to Adam was likewise already seminally in God prior to his being created. In fact, this ideology would force Two Seeders to affirm that every created thing has been "in" God from eternity. 

Another idiocy of the Two Seeders is that they must affirm that not only were descendants of Adam in Adam but also in every other ancestor of any person. In other words, not only did I exist as a person in Adam, but also in all my ancestors. So, when my father got married, I also got married by being in him. When he sinned, I also sinned in him. Etc. But, all this is ludicrous and incredible. They carry way too far the implications of Paul's words in Hebrews 7: 9-10, where Paul says that Levi was "in Abraham" and therefore Levi paid tithes when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec. They ignore, it seems, Paul's preface to those statements, where he said "so to speak," which simply means that Levi was in some sense in Abraham. But, Two Seeders "went to seed" about this text. (pun intended) The phrase "in the loins of" is a biblical expression that refers to being a descendant or part of an ancestor's lineage. It doesn't mean Levi was biologically present inside of Abraham, but that he was part of the same ancestral line, and therefore Abraham's actions were representative of Levi's future actions.

Every saved person was in the mind and heart of God from eternity. But, that does not mean that every saved person actually existed. We also say that all humans were "in Adam," as Paul affirmed, because God appointed him to be the head and representative of the whole human race. It is also true that, in a manner of speaking, everyone was "in" Adam seminally, because they come from his seed. But, affirming these things does not necessitate that we believe that every human existed in Adam as a person. An oak tree is derived from the acorn, yea even from the first acorn, but that does not mean that an existing tree, as a tree, existed in the acorn. Adam's body came from the dust of the ground. Should we say then that his body preexisted in the dust? Of course not. Yet, the proposition that affirms that saved people have existed from eternity by a "seminal union" with Christ and God the Father leads to the same kind of absurdity. I could build a table from the wood of an oak tree. Likewise, it would be absurd for me to say "that table preexisted in the tree." 

The only union between God or the Son of God with the elect (foreknown believers) before the world was created, or before anything else, i.e. in eternity past, was the one that was envisioned by the Father, Son (or Word), and Spirit. This was not an actual union, or a vital union of life, because the elect did not then exist, but it was a union ordained in God's eternal decrees of what shall in time be. 

The elect were not made "new creatures," or "created in Christ," before they had physical existence, nor before they were converted to faith in Christ and turned from their sins. When Paul says that the elect, or believers, were "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4), and "who 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 given to us in Christ Jesus before time began" (II Tim. 1: 9 nkjv), Two Seeders say that this proves that Christ as a man existed before time began and all the elect also literally existed in Christ before time began. But, this is not what Paul is saying. They forget that God often in scripture "calls those things which do not exist as though they did" (Rom. 4: 17 nkjv). So, what is being described is what is occurring in the divine council between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

It is interesting that John Gill often said things that came very close to affirming Two Seed ideology, as we have previously seen, though he denied the preexistence of the humanity of Christ. Here is his commentary on II Timothy 1: 9:

"...but according to his own purpose and grace; salvation is according to both: it is according to the purpose of God; God resolved upon the salvation of some; in pursuance of this resolution, he set up Christ as the Mediator; and it being necessary that he should be man, this was agreed to, and a body was prepared him...It is a gift, and a free gift, not at all depending upon any conditions in the creature, and entirely proceeding from the sovereign will of God; and it was a gift from eternity; there was not only a purpose of grace in God's heart, and a promise of it so early, but there was a real donation of it in eternity: and though those to whom it was given did not then personally exist, yet Christ did, and he existed as a covenant head and representative of His people; and they were in Him, as members of Him, as represented by Him, being united to Him; and this grace was given to Him for them, and to them in Him; in Whom they were chosen, and in Whom they were blessed with all spiritual blessings."

Here Gill denies that God's people personally existed before time began. He does acknowledge that Christ existed. Surely he means Christ in his divinity as the Son of God existed, and not in his humanity, as we have seen, and shows that he did not follow Hussey in his belief in the eternal humanity of Christ. However, in the above citation he does say that Christ was "set up as a Mediator," and yet says that it was "necessary that he should be man" and that "a body was prepared for him." So, Gill in this instance shows that he was coming very close to affirming Two Seed propositions. So, how and when was this body prepared for Christ? If his humanity was essential for him being the appointed Mediator, and Gill says he was set up as a Mediator before time began, then he is asserting that Christ's human body existed before time began. 

Wrote Beebe:

"But our brother adds, "He bestows one in generation and the other in regeneration." This is true, God is the author of both natural and spiritual life, and the former he gave us in Adam, and it is developed in us personally in generation, and it is also true that he gave us spiritual life in Christ, our second or anti-typical Adam, and that that spiritual life is communicated to the saints by regeneration; but what is generation? And what is regeneration? The former is a manifestation or development of that natural seed, which in the natural creation God created in the natural Adam. Nothing can by generation be produced in that relation to Adam that had no seminal existence, in him. Regeneration is the communication of that spiritual life which God gave us in Christ, and which Christ as the Son of God is to his children. Generation manifests us in the same relation to God that Adam sustained, and regeneration reveals the heirs of glory in the same relation to God which Christ as a Son sustains so far as relationship is concerned, for their sonship is in his sonship, their life in his life, their righteousness is in his righteousness, and their heirship is jointly with his, and they are one with Christ even as Christ is one with the Father."

Beebe admits that the life that was given to Adam and to every man came from God. If that is so, using his Two Seed reasoning, then every man preexisted in God. Beebe argues that the spiritual life that is given to people when they are born again was a life that contained their persons, and from eternity. By the same reasoning we may say that the natural life that is given to human beings also contained their persons. This is the substance of the argument that E.S. Dudley makes in the above letter to Beebe. It is a good argument and Beebe stumbles trying to answer it. 

Wrote Beebe:

"Regeneration therefore, in forming Christ in us the hope of glory, or in other words communicating the life which God gave us in Christ, to us, brings us experimentally and manifestly into a relationship with God, which natural generation does not."

Why the need to form Christ in someone if that was already done in eternity past in that person? If people already had eternal life in Christ before the world began, and before those people came into actual existence, why the need to communicate it to them when they are born again? Notice again the use of the word "manifestly." Even today's "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists use this word much, saying that faith and repentance only "manifests" who is regenerated. 

Wrote Beebe:

"In the conclusion of our brother's letter, he speaks of his ignorance of those "eternal created things." His closing remarks have suggested the following inquiries in our mind; and if it be lawful for us in our turn to ask questions, we will submit them to our brother for a solution."

Beebe then gives Dudley several questions for him to consider and reply to. But, he does not address the absurdity or incongruity of Two Seedism's belief in "eternal created things." Out of one side of the mouth Beebe and the Two Seeders say that God's elect are created, both as physical creatures and as new creatures in Christ, and out of the other side of their mouths say that they were "in Christ" from eternity.

This is Beebe's first question:

"First. Has the church an existence really and vitally in Jesus Christ, or not?"

Yes, but not from eternity. A believer does not have an actual existence until he is created, first as a human being, and second as a child of God through a new creation when converted to Christ. Those "Primitive Baptists" who opposed the Two Seeders denied "eternal vital union," arguing that such a union takes place in time in the life of everyone chosen when he is by faith joined to Christ.

Beebe's next question to Dudley was:

"Second. If she has, is it a created or self-existent existence?"

The existence of a vital connection with Christ has a beginning and it is when one is joined to Christ by faith. Therefore it is not uncreated nor self-existent.

Beebe next asks:

"Third. If the church was created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath foreordained which she shall walk in them, and if Christ has been her dwelling place from everlasting, &c., was she created in Christ before the world began, or did this creation take place subsequently to that event?"

No one is created in Christ Jesus before he exists. It occurs, as we have seen, when one is brought to faith in Christ. We have also refuted the implications and false interpretation of Psalm 90 and verse one. The verse is not saying that God has been a dwelling place for people from eternity, for the text rather says "you have been our dwelling place in all generations." That puts it in time when generations are coming into being. The words "even from everlasting to everlasting you are God" cannot be made to say "from everlasting to everlasting your people have been enjoying your dwelling place." 

Beebe then gives his next question which says:

"Fourth. If as the Scriptures affirm, Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and forever, and the church of God is his body, his flesh and his bones; and if she was created in him, chosen in him, sanctified in him, saved and called according to his own purpose and grace which was given her in him before the world began; did Christ, as the Mediatorial Life and Head of the church ever exist without the church existing in him?"

What a stretch and perversion of scripture to think that Hebrews 13: 8 implies or infers all that Beebe thinks it does. He thinks that the verse implies that Christ has always had a physical body, and in this he denies the incarnation. Christ was once without a body, existing only as the divine Son of God, but he became a man, and Beebe's interpretation of Hebrews 13: 8 would say that this would contradict that Jesus Christ was always the same. Jesus Christ suffered and died. Does that mean he 1) has always been suffering and dying, or 2) that he is not the same? 

Christ never changed in his deity, although his glorified humanity is now joined forever to his divinity. Christ has changed in his humanity, for he was once a baby and became an adult man, and he also died, and was resurrected and glorified in his body. So, what the text means is that Christ in his essential character is the same. It certainly is an affirmation of the immutability of the Son of God, which is an attribute of divinity. So we read in the first chapter of Hebrews: "Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.” (Heb. 1: 12 nkjv) Wrote the great "prince of preachers," Charles Spurgeon:  

"Jesus Christ is the same now as He was in times gone by. He is the same today as He was from old eternity...Jesus is the same today as He was when He was here on earth." (As cited here)  

About the argument that Christ being predestined to be a Mediator and Head proves that he was always a Mediator from eternity I have already addressed and shown it to be invalid and unwarranted from scripture. 

Wrote Beebe:

"If brother Dudley with some others will take the position that the church had no real existence in Christ before the world began, or only prospectively, or in purpose existed in him; we will ask.

Fifth. Does the church now exist in Christ differently from that prospective or pre-ordained sense? and if she does, when did the change take place, and where shall we find the record of such a change? and how shall we reconcile that change with the immutability of Christ, as declared in the above text?"

Of course the church now exists differently from "that prospective or pre-ordained sense." That is because no human being exists from eternity, does not have any actual existence prior to being conceived in the womb. Also, as I have pointed out in previous chapters, Paul says that certain Christian brothers "were in Christ before I was" (Rom. 16: 7). But, if all the children of God were "in Christ" from eternity, then Paul's statement would be false. People are not "in Christ" until they are joined to Christ by faith, or until they are "baptized (placed) into Christ." (Rom. 6: 3-4) Further, a person being "in Christ" is simultaneous with Christ being in a person. Paul speaks of both as occurring when one believes in Christ and turns away from sin and self and to him. At that time the believer enters into Christ and Christ enters into the believer. Beebe's view that this is what has been true from eternity is absurd. Beebe, as we have seen, has referred to Paul's words to the Galatians where he spoke of Christ being "formed in you" (Gal. 4: 19), a verse that upends his Two Seed views, for this forming of Christ in the Galatians was what was occurring in the lives of the Galatians. 

Further, a person entering into Christ and Christ entering into a believer does not change Christ. Beebe asks Dudley "where shall we find the record of such a change," but that is a begging of the question, for he has not shown how a person entering into Christ or Christ entering a person changes Christ. 

Beebe's next question is as follows:

"Sixth. If the church only exists in Christ prospectively, or in purpose now; will she ever exist in him in any other sense?"

There is of course a difference between something existing in God's mind or determinations and it actually being brought into existence. The cosmos was envisioned and determined to be prior to God actually creating it. 

Beebe's final question is this:

"Seventh. Would a prospective or predestinated existence in Christ, constitute any vital relationship between Christ and his people?"

Of course God predetermining to save a person does not constitute a vital relationship, for a vital relationship requires the actual existence of both God and his people. We have already seen where the scriptures say that a vital relationship with God occurs when a sinner believes in Christ and is born again of the Spirit.

Is It Right To Talk or Pray to the Holy Spirit?

Can we, or can we not, pray or speak to the Holy Spirit? 

This is a debated question. Some Christians say yes, while others say no. One good article on this question is given by Gregg Allison (here). He examines the arguments on both sides and takes the position that it is proper to pray to the Spirit. He cites Augustine (354–430) who composed this prayer to the Holy Spirit: 

"Breathe in me O Holy Spirit that my thoughts may all be holy; Act in me O Holy Spirit that my works, too, may be holy; Draw my heart O Holy Spirit that I love but what is holy; Strengthen me O Holy Spirit to defend that is holy; Guard me then O Holy Spirit that I always may be holy."

Many Christian hymns and spiritual songs address the Spirit, such as

"Come, Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove" and 

"Spirit of God, Descend upon My Heart"

"Holy Ghost, with Light Divine"

"Fill me Now Holy Spirit"

In my prayer life I chiefly address the Father, but oftentimes I address the Son. But, at times, I also address the Holy Spirit. 

I realize that we have no example in the scriptures of the Lord's people praying to the Holy Spirit. But, we should not assume that this is proof that it should not be done. Oftentimes arguments from silence are invalid. 

Consider these facts:

1) We are to pray to God, and speak to him, in praise and thanksgiving, and in our meditations. Since God is three persons, a Trinity, to speak to God is to speak to the Father, Son, and Spirit.

2) The Holy Spirit speaks to Christians. This is stated in numerous texts of scripture. It seems to me that if we are hearing the Spirit we should also be able to verbally respond to the Spirit.

3) The scriptures speak of "the communion of the Holy Spirit" (II Cor. 13: 14) and it is hard to visualize communion between persons where there is not two way communication.

4) The scriptures say that the Spirit is our "Comforter" and "Advocate" and "Intercessor," and it is hard to visualize not being able to speak to our attorney.

What think ye?