Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIV)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Brush letter continues:

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

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

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

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

Brush continued:

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

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

Brush continued:

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

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

Brush continued:

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

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

Brush continued:

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

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

Brush continued:

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to Elder Brush Elder Cayce wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Brush continued further in is letter to Sarrels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brush continued further in his letter to Sarrels:

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

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

Brush continued further in addressing Sarrels:

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

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

Brush continued further:

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

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

Brush continued further:

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

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

Cayce replied to Brush as follows:

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

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

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIII)

Elder John M. Thompson

1844 - 1940

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

"Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

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

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

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

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE:- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thompson continued:

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

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

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

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

ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: 

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

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

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

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

ELDER C. H. CAYCE: Martin, Tenn.- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cayce then writes this commentary on Thompson's answers:

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

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

Cayce continued:

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cayce wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXII)

In this chapter we will continue to examine what Elder C.H. Cayce wrote in the first quarter of the twentieth century about one of the controversies about a Two Seed tenet known as "the whole man" doctrine. Some Two Seeders, however, rejected the idea that any part of a man was born of God, favoring a view that came to be called the "hollow log" doctrine, which we wrote about in previous chapters. In that view nothing about the "Adam man" was changed. 

In the previous chapter we began to review a series of editorials by Cayce titled "Curtain Raised" in regard to the "unholy war" that was occurring within the ranks of the Hardshell sect of "Primitive Baptists" about "the whole man doctrine" and the fact that Cayce says he has been constantly accused of believing the whole man doctrine. Cayce, as we saw in the previous chapter, addressed the action of a young minister at that time named R.V. Sarrels, who is the author of the book seen in the picture above and published in 1978 and I suppose I got my copy about that time. I have several posts where I critique several of the things Sarrels advanced in that book. 

After publishing his first editorial Cayce followed up with his second, titled "Curtain Raised Again," for October 3, 1916. In it Cayce wrote:

"Since our issue of Sept. 5, in which appeared our article under the heading, "The Curtain Raised," we have received the following letter from Elder R. V Sarrels, of Texas, whose name was signed to the declaration of non-fellowship as moderator of the church which passed the said declaration: 

DEAR BRO. CAYCE: Today I read your article, "The Curtain Raised," and I was simply shocked to know that you would publish that Resolution as now being on record as a permanent expression of the faith of my church and me. I wrote you Oct. 12-14 and renounced that 2nd statement of the resolution and told you that my church was going to do the same thing the next meeting. At the very next meeting she officially revoked the 2nd part of that resolution. I am not simple enough to try to score you, but unless you have a letter at Temple promising positively to clear up that false impression that you have made I am going to expose you in the debate and in every Primitive Baptist periodical that will permit me the use of their columns. And also I aim to make it known to each of your Associate Editors." 

Cayce responds to the letter of Sarrels as follows:

"As the above letter refers to a letter which Elder Sarrels wrote us dated Oct. 12, 1914, we give that letter below, just as it was written: Anson, Texas, Oct. 12, 1914. 

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE: 

When Elder Downing began to claim what he does in regard to the work of God in Regeneration he was not very clear in making us see just what he believed and as a result we were thrown in a cramp in stating the matter just as it ought to be stated. But there was one thing that we all realized about the matter and that was that he was contending that Regeneration does something for a man in his entirety. This my brethren did not believe, and they were forced to take some kind of a stand against it. You saw what we had to say in regard to the matter. Now since that time we have been able to get him to say just what he does believe on this subject and we are going to change what we have done in that particular complaint and put it just as he has said it. He made use of the following statement when he was being questioned about the matter: "I believe that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God through and through, soul, spirit, and body, just like the Holiness believe that a man is sanctified all over." This I do not believe and neither do my brethren believe this and they are not going to live with it in the church. This very idea is what we were making our complaint against and I want to say now that if you believe this they surely declared against you." 

In the previous chapter I explained where the error was in this debate. I showed that being a "child of God" included the idea that the physical bodies belonged to the Lord as a result of having been purchased by Christ, and were "set apart" or made holy, but that being thus made holy did not mean that there was any change to the physics of the body. So wrote the apostle Paul: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (I Cor. 6: 20 kjv) The body is not God's possession because it has been regenerated but because he has purchased it and made it his special possession. Further, saints are to "glorify" God in their bodies. 

Sarrels wrote further in his letter to Cayce:

"Now brother Cayce, Elder Downing wrote to you and you immediately made a reply favorably to his position. I wrote to you and you did not answer me. I wrote to you again and you have not noticed me. I wrote to several other of the Eastern brethren at the same time and they have all answered me, and have done so favorably to what I have been contending for. I have often wondered why you did not answer me! Are you afraid to take a stand on the matter? If not, I should certainly be pleased to know why you have remained silent on the matter. You certainly would have done me a favor by writing to me and telling me what you thought about the matter. 

Next Sarrels gives to Cayce these propositions that he proposes to debate with Elder J.S. Newman:

1st: The Scriptures teach that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God in soul, or spirit, only. 

R. V SARRELS Affirms. J. S. NEWMAN Denies. 

2nd: The Scriptures teach that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God in soul, spirit and body. 

R. V SARRELS Denies. J. S. NEWMAN Affirms."

Sarrels then continues:

"I have never meant to claim that the body is no part of a child of God. I Believe that man is made a real child of God: but the body is part of the man, therefore the body is part of the child of God. I have ever preached that man is the subject of God's salvation, and that it is man who is made a child of God by Regeneration. But I notice in your letter to elder Redford that you believe that "The Scriptures abundantly teach that a man is a being composed of soul, body, and spirit; and the Saviour says: 'Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' The man who is composed of soul, body, and spirit must be born again and the one who is born is a child of God." Now, is a man born again in soul, spirit, and body? If not, and if it takes Regeneration to make one a child of God, will you please explain just how this man is a real child of God to a greater extent than he is born of God? Now, brother Cayce, you or no other man on this globe can show this matter up in any sense. I have been grossly misrepresented in regard to what has been advocated here on the subject of Regeneration." 

Again, there is a sense in which people are children of God by God having chosen them to salvation from before the world began, and both Cayce and Sarrels would agree with that. It is also true that those chosen have been purchased by the price of the blood of Christ, the Son of God, and therefore belong to the Lord even before they are born or born again. In being born again, born of God, or regenerated, those chosen and purchased actually become the children of God for they are born of divine incorruptible seed and partake of the divine nature, and bear their Father's image and likeness. This begetting takes place in the heart or spirit and not in the body. The bodies of the elect will not be transformed and glorified until the resurrection. 

Sarrels continued:

"I am sending you one of my pamphlets on Regeneration, and when you have read it I do really want you to tell me what you think about it. I want you to notice that I stress the point that it is man who is the subject of salvation, and that something that is foreign to man is not that that is saved. I want you to notice that I claim that man is saved or born again in soul, or spirit, and that since it takes Regeneration to make a real child of God, this man is by Regeneration a child of God just like he is regenerated. Will you deny this? It is not given to me to say what part of Paul was a child of God, for I verily believe that this idea that the spirit is the child of God is wrong, but we do certainly have a right to tell just how Paul was a child of God. I believe that man is born again now in his spirit, or soul, and it is very easy for me to see that this man is a real child of God just like he is born again. Man is now born again in part; man is now a real child of God in part." 

Again, from these words it is easy to see where all the confusion exists. Regeneration does not have to include the body for the person or his body to be a child of God. Sarrels says "the real issue" is "what God does for a man in the work of Regeneration."

Cayce wrote in response:

"We received a letter from Elder Sarrels before we received the above, and it may not be amiss to let our readers have the benefit of that letter also. Here it is, dated April 25, 1914: Anson, Texas, April 25, 1914." 

"DEAR BRO: 

From some remarks found in a letter from several of the brethren I am sure that some of you have been asked whether it is incorrect to say that the body is no part of the child of God; I am sorry that things have been said that have forced a strict analysis of this thing, but we are driven to state the matter in a way that will, stand a rigorous test. I do not deny, but grant, that man as a complex being is scripturally addressed as a child of God; I do not deny, but believe, that the body is an essential constituent of the being that is now born of God in spirit; But I give verbatim a statement that is causing us trouble: "I believe that in Regeneration a man, is made a child of God through and through, soul, body, and spirit." Do you believe this statement?"

Sarrels also wrote:

"Before Regeneration no part of the man is a real child of God. In regeneration the spirit of the man is made a spiritually existing, holy subject of the eternal kingdom of God. But this is just what the body is not made. Whatever the new birth does for the spirit, this is just what is not yet done for the body."

Cayce responds by saying:

"He says they all realized that Elder Downing was contending that regeneration does something for a man in his "intirety." We suppose he meant entirety. If we grant that this was what they meant to declare non-fellowship for, then we must conclude that they do not believe a single thing is done for the body in regeneration. If they do not believe that, then they believe that not a single thing is done for the body in regeneration. If they believe that, and if they believe the truth, then the man does not receive a single thing in regeneration that wields a better influence over the body. Again, he says: "I believe that the sinful body is not in Christ." If the body is not in Christ, in any sense, then in death the body is not asleep in Christ. If the soul or spirit does not sleep in Jesus, then nothing sleeps in Him, if the body is not in Him."

Cayce is confused. He is altering or conflating the points at issue. He says regeneration of a man "wields a better influence over the body." However, that is not the same as saying that the body is regenerated. The regeneration of the heart or spirit does impart power to the believer to control the body's lust and sinful cravings. God promises to give believing sinners a "new heart" and a "new spirit" (Eze. 11: 19; 36: 26), the old heart and spirit characterized by the adjective phrase "hard of stone" which refers to a sinner's stubborn opposition to God and divine truth, and its pride, while the new heart and spirit refers to a heart that is now soft, pliable, humble, contrite, receptive to God, honest, and good. This new heart and spirit will indeed be the means whereby the body and its urgings may be controlled. 

Cayce also seems to put the body "in Christ" as a result of regeneration, and if so, then it is no wonder that he was constantly being accused of believing the "whole man" doctrine. It would have been better for Cayce to have averred that the body belongs to the Lord as a result of having been purchased by him and to say that the rebirth of the heart and spirit leads to Lordship over the body. The apostle Paul wrote:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 kjv)

By being "sanctified wholly" Paul does not mean regeneration. If it did then we must say that the soul, spirit, and body are regenerated. As I have stated, the sanctification of the body is not a result of a regeneration of the body but is a result of the governance of the body by the renewed mind and spirit. So the believer presents his body a living sacrifice, holy or set apart, for use in service to God. In checking the leading commentaries to see what they thought was meant by preserving the body blameless I found that very few addressed that point. They all addressed the question as to whether man is a tripartite being and whether the soul and spirit are the same. In what way is the body of a believer "blameless"?

The Greek word for "blameless" means to be without censure or blame, that the body be used only for doing good. So Paul wrote: "Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." (I Cor. 6: 13 nkjv) So, to have the body kept blameless is to have it always "for the Lord." The Lord is "for the body." But, that does not mean that he regenerates or transforms the body as he regenerates and transforms the spirit. 

Because the body of the believer "belongs to" the Lord he is to "glorify God in his body." (I Cor. 6: 20) He is to use every bodily member or faculty in service to God, as Paul exhorted:

"...do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts...And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God...I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 12-13, 19 nkjv)

I think "flesh" in these words includes the "mortal body" which often controls people by its lusts. Paul is addressing believers, their renewed minds and spirits, and exhorts them to "not let sin reign in" their "mortal bodies," and to rather "present" their bodily "members" to God as "instruments of righteousness," to use their minds, feet, hands, tongues, etc., in the service of God. This is how we preserve the body "blameless" until Christ returns and transforms the body. By "blameless" he means that the body is to be preserved and guarded so that it is not used for immoral or criminal activities. 

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"It is the MAN that is in Christ after regeneration, or else inspiration is a lie, for the apostle said, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." As it is the MAN that is in Christ, and the body is a part of the man, then the body is a part of the MAN that is in Christ. The body, then, is the mortal part of the child of God, and sleeps in Jesus. So far as we are able to see, Elder Sarrels and those who are with him had as well deny the resurrection and be done with it."

The body becomes a temple when God, Father, Son, and Spirit take up their abode in the heart. (I Cor. 6: 19) It is such even though it has not been changed by a regeneration. "The inward man" is being "renewed day by day" in a believer but the "outer man" (the body) is "perishing." (II Cor. 4: 16) If the body was regenerated as the soul or spirit, then the body likewise would be renewed day by day.

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"Again, he says, of the body, that it "is not in the strict sense of the term a child of God." Then, we suppose the body is a child of wrath, and the regenerated spirit in the body is a child of God. According to this notion the child of God dwells in the child of wrath until the child of wrath dies, and then the child of God goes to heaven, and the child of wrath goes to the grave. This denies any resurrection from the grave, for a child of God, for it is not a child of God, but a child of wrath, that is in the grave. If there is any resurrection of the body at all, according to this notion, it is a universal resurrection to condemnation, for the child of wrath will be resurrected to condemnation."

Of course the body of a child of God is God's child, but not because it has been regenerated. All men are God's "offspring" (Acts 17: 28). Therefore it is not necessary for the body to be "born again" in order to be God's child, or for the body of the believer to be God's special possession. However, what is born again is man's core being, his heart or spirit, his mind. To speak of the body being born again and a child of God is ridiculous. Are my fingernails born again? 

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"Poor Sarrels! This young "smart Alex" is wise above what is written. That is what is the matter with the Old Baptists--they have some young preachers who are too smart. They have learned more than is written, and more than our fathers knew. And they have some preachers who have not been made better by regeneration, and who claim that they love sin as well as they ever did."

I find this statement intriguing. The problem with the "Old Baptists" in 1916 was that they had some young preachers who are too smart and who think they knew more than their forefathers? What about Cayce himself? Is he not guilty of what he condemns? Did he not think he was smarter than the preachers who wrote the 1689 London Baptist Confession? 

He says these young preachers think that sinners are "not made better by regeneration." Is this idea not a remnant of Two Seedism? Cayce says he believes that regeneration makes a person better by being regenerated. How better? He certainly does not believe that regeneration delivers a person from idolatry or makes him a believer in Jesus or the gospel. Cayce even taught that the Athenian idolaters in Acts chapter seventeen were regenerated even while they were polytheists and knew nothing about Jesus. In his editorial titled "The Spirituality Of The Gospel" (Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99), Cayce wrote:

"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." (Ibid)

So, how did regeneration make these Greek polytheists better? They were regenerated but still worshiped many gods and knew not Jesus. It seems regeneration did not make them better.

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

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

Elder John M. Thompson was a grandson of Elder Wilson Thompson. In previous chapters we have mentioned Elder Wilson Thompson and his eldest son Elder Matthew Grigg Thompson. There was also another man who was of this lineage and who also was a "Primitive Baptist" preacher, and that was Elder R.W. Thompson. In the next several chapters we will observe the heated debate that took place between John Thompson and C.H. Cayce.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXI)

The following citations from the editorials of Elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" were titled by him as "The Curtain Raised" which was so titled in order to uncover what was transpiring in the first quarter of the twentieth century among "The Primitive Baptists." We will begin with what he wrote under this title for September 5, 1916. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

"Our readers are well aware of the fact that a war has been waged in some sections for some time. In Texas the war has been on for quite awhile. One side has been charging the other side with believing what they term the whole man doctrine. Elder J. S. Newman and those who are in line with him, or who affiliate with him, have been charged with believing that doctrine, although he and others have repeatedly denied believing it. For some time there have been some who have been charging the same thing upon us. In our issue of November 16, 1915, we gave our views on the question of regeneration, and hoped that would satisfy those who had been thus charging us; but it seems that it failed to satisfy some. For a good while those who are in line with Elders Webb, Redford & Co., of Texas, would not say whether they endorsed our editorial or not. Finally two of these preachers came out in an article in the Trumpet in reply to our article. We have continued to remain silent and to take no part in this unholy war, trusting or hoping that it might cease, and that these brethren who seem determined to have strife and confusion would tire of their unholy course and stop their unbrotherly thrusts and unholy warfare. But it seems that they are determined not to even hush, and are determined to make us engage in war with them. Some have been saying that we had been working in a secret way; and it has been told to some of the members of our home church that we had something hid, behind the curtain, etc. Now, it seems to be our imperative duty to remain silent no longer."

By "Redford" Cayce means S.N. Redford (1872-1950) and by "Webb" he means J. G. Webb (1849-1927), who was the father of another Hardshell preacher named T.L. Webb Sr. and grandfather of Elder T.L. Webb Jr., also a "Primitive Baptist" minister, and who I met in my younger days. Newman, Redford, and Webb were three leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the state of Texas. Texas is the place where Elder Daniel Parker moved to along with the church he had established and was the first Baptist church in that state, and Texas Hardshell churches had been infected with Two Seedism very early on. In my early days as a young Hardshell minister I was a close friend of Elder Sonny Pyles of Texas and he often spoke of his interactions with the remaining remnants of those old Two Seed Primitive Baptists. He spoke of how he was introduced to the subject of the Devil's origin and the controversy surrounding that question by the Two Seeders he conversed with in Texas. 

It is interesting to note how one of the debatable questions in the Two Seed controversy over regeneration was still a dividing issue among many "Primitive Baptists" well into the twentieth century. Cayce speaks of a "war," an "unholy war," that had been raging on the nature and definition of regeneration. Actually, however, the entire history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church is one of "strife and confusion" and "unholy war," with numerous schisms, factions, and declarations of non-fellowship. In the previous chapter I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee with Particular Attention to the Primitive Baptists of East Tennessee," by Lawrence Edwards (1941). In CHAPTER V, titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION" Edwards spoke of this divisiveness among them, writing as follows:

"But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder. This time secret orders caused the trouble. This controversy, however, was not so localized as the one which caused the division in 1889. It swept all Primitive Baptist groups in the South and Midwest and even today calls forth editorials now and then from controversial writers."

What was true of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists was a microcosm of the whole denomination. I was a witness of such divisiveness in the years I was with them. I wrote about this in a post back in 2012. (See here) In another article I cited from Elder Joe Hildreth (a minister I met when I was a young Hardshell elder and who used to pastor the "Primitive Baptist" church in Chattanooga) wherein Hildreth talked about how the "Primitive Baptist" church had declined so dramatically. I cited these words of Hildreth which gives one of the reasons for this decline:

"(6) Frequent splits and divisions in the early part of the 20th Century were traumatic and dishonoring to the Cause of Christ...These splits and controversies had traumatic effects upon our people. Especially was the absoluter division devastating."

The early 20th century is the time period we are examining now. However, the "splits and divsions" also characterized the 19th century. In chapter two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I also addressed how divisions have characterized the Hardshell sect from their very beginning. (See here)

Cayce wrote further:

"We are also conscious of the fact that when a person goes to an extreme and another person begins to contend against that extreme, it is a very easy matter for him to go to an extreme also, but in the opposite direction." 

I find it highly ironic that Cayce fails to see how he and his Hardshell Baptist brethren did the very thing Cayce is warning against! They went to an extreme themselves in fighting what they thought was an extreme.

Cayce wrote further, citing what Elder R.V. Sarrels and the church he pastored declared non-fellowship for those who he thought held to the "whole man" doctrine. He said:

"Whereas, Elder J. B. Downing has, in our own stand and from the pulpit of his own church, affirmed, contrary to (Galatians 5:17), that it is not the flesh or physical being of man, but the sinful principle in man, that is opposed to God and holiness; and Whereas, He holds that the flesh (which we know to be natural, vile, sinful, unholy, and corrupt) is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God; and Whereas, There are some among us who hold that there is some kind of change of quality or condition produced on the flesh in regeneration; We, Harmony Church of Christ, believing the above-named things to be heresy, do therefore solemnly declare that we have no fellowship for said heresy; and hence, have no fellowship for its advocates, and will not affiliate with them. Done by order of the church while in conference February 28, 1914." 

ELDER R. V. SARRELS, Mod. H. H. WARREN, Church Clerk

I have cited from Elder Sarrels in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" because he wrote the only "Systematic Theology" written by a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist. In his section on "regeneration" he absolutely teaches some heretical notions about it, affirming that a heathen's worship of false deities is evidence of regeneration! I cite in this chapter (here) where he said:

"God has not explained just what he does to the soul of man to fit it for the heavenly state, and it is probable that if he had explained it, we still could not understand it."  (pg. 339)

In this chapter (here) I cited from Sarrels again, where he wrote:

"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion--repentance, faith, and justification--may be present only embryonically, an analysis of these elements brings us to a fuller appreciation of the conversion experience." (ibid)

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY INGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (Ibid)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434)

This is enough to show that Sarrels knows nothing about what the Bible says about being saved, born again, or regenerated. 

In reply to the action of Sarrels and the church he pastored in declaring non-fellowship for the "whole man" doctrine, Cayce wrote:

"The above resolution shows for itself what has been advocated by some who are charging that others are advocating what they call the whole man doctrine. In the first place, this resolution denies that it is the sinful principle in man that is opposed to God and holiness, and sets forth the idea that it is the material body, the body of flesh in the abstract sense, that is opposed to God and holiness."

Sarrels's view shows elements of Gnosticism and Two Seedism. In earlier chapters we addressed this. The Gnostics believed that the material or physical world was evil, the source of all man's woe. Salvation involved being freed from this world. Two Seedism, as we saw, borrowed much from Gnosticism. 

Also, the debate over whether the physical body of a believer is a child of God needs some light from the scriptures. It seems that the error in the reasoning of those who held to the "whole man" doctrine was in their belief that for the body to belong to Christ and be part of what it means to be a "child of God" it had to undergo a regeneration or rebirth just as the soul or spirit. I find that strange because both sides of this debate believed that people are styled "children of God" before they are born again by virtue of their having been elected to become children of God. So when the angel says to Joseph "you shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1: 21) they all agreed that this was a reference to the elect. The same is true with this text:

"Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." (John 11: 51-52 nkjv)

So, it was not necessary for the advocates of the whole man doctrine to think that the body needed to experience regeneration in order to become children of God in the sense of election or in the sense of belonging to God. 

The other aspect of the debate, as we see from the above citations, is on whether the "sinful nature" or "principle" or "flesh" includes the physical body. Cayce denies that the physical body is involved in this sinful nature and is therefore "opposed to God and holiness." Both sides, in my view, were wrong in some of their conclusions.

Though the body is decaying and dying as a result of God's curse, this does not mean that it does not belong to the Lord and is a part of the child of God. Second, salvation involves saving the body, which salvation does not occur in this life, but in the coming resurrection of the just. Third, the body, as well as the other parts of man, were purchased by Christ when he redeemed man. I wrote about this in this article (here). 

"Jesus," said the apostle Peter, in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, "has God made both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2: 36) Lordship involves ownership. Christ is "Lord of all" (Acts 10: 36) and by his redemptive work he purchased all men and all things. Christ is Lord and owner of even those who are not his by a new birth. That is why they will confess that Christ is their Lord in the day of judgment. (Phil. 2: 11) However, believers are Christ's "special possession" (I Peter 2: 9; etc.) by purchase. Recall that in the parable of the treasure hidden in a field that the person seeking to obtain the treasure bought the whole field. (Matt. 13: 44) In the parable of the wheat and tares the "field" was said to be the "world." (Matt. 13: 38) The apostle Peter says that Christ "bought" even those who deny him. (II Peter 2: 1) 

So, just because the body is owned by the Lord, or is his special possession, does not mean that the body is changed when the soul or spirit is regenerated. It belongs to the Lord though its change into an immortal spiritual body will not occur until the resurrection of the righteous. Further, the body of the believer is holy or sanctified. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1 kjv)

He also not only spoke of the body as being "holy" but also of Christians having "holy hands."

"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 kjv)

Many Two Seeders wrongly thought, however, that since the body and hands of believers are holy that they must have therefore been changed by regeneration as well as the soul or spirit. However, being holy does not mean that there is necessarily a change in the substance or physics of the body. Many utensils in the old testament service were holy, but there was no change in the physics of the utensils. A holy spoon is simply a spoon that had been set aside for use only in the service of the temple and not used for common purposes. There was no change in the spoons. So we read:

"And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy." (Exo. 40: 9 kjv)

So the body of the believer is sinful in its nature but holy because it is set apart by the renewed spirit and controlled by the Christian. So too are a believer's hands, feet, tongue, etc. holy in this way. So Paul wrote:

"For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 19b nkjv)

By "members" is meant the members of the body, such as hands and feet. These bodily members were once used for doing what is wrong and immoral but are now to be used for doing righteous deeds and for holiness. 

Cayce continued:

"We know that Old Baptists have always contended that it is the sinful life or nature which man possesses that is opposed to God and holiness, and that this is the teaching of the apostle in (Galatians 5:17). In that text the apostle says, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The apostle could not have meant in this that the material body, the mere lump of flesh, "lusteth against the Spirit." There could not possibly be any such thing as lust in the flesh, the material body, in the absence of life. Hence, he must have meant that the natural life, which the man possesses, lusts against the Spirit. Or, in other words, he meant that the old, sinful, depraved nature we possess lusts against the Spirit."

I agree that often the word "flesh" in scripture denotes not a person's skin, nor his physical body, but often denotes man's depraved nature. So, when the apostle Paul said "I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7: 18) he alludes to his sinful nature. In Romans 8: 3 Paul speaks of Christ being made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," which however does not seem to denote a sinful nature but a sinful physical body. How could Christ be made in the likeness of sinful nature? Though "flesh" often denotes the sinful nature, yet that does not mean that sinful inclinations don't arise from man's body or physical being or is excluded from that nature. 

In Romans 6: 6 he speaks of "the body of sin" and to me this refers to man's physical body. In verse twelve we read: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts." Here "mortal body" clearly refers to the human physical body. "Sin" is in it and actually "reigns" over the body in most people. "Lusts" also originate in the physical body. Christians are exhorted to not let sin "reign" in their bodies, to not let bodily urges control them, but for them to rather control their bodily desires. The body is the physical vessel through which the inclinations of the depraved mind and will are carried out in the physical world. But, sinful urges may also originate from the physical body, for the brain is part of the physical body. Paul wrote:

"For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8: 13 nkjv)

Here we have the words "flesh" and "body." By "body" does the apostle mean "flesh" or does he mean physical body? Some say "body" and "flesh" are the same in this text, and that may well be the case. People who are controlled by their bodily cravings are acting like animals. In Romans 7: 24 Paul queries: "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" In that instance I think Paul alludes to an ancient form of punishment where a murderer had a dead body tied to his back so that he had to carry around that rotting corpse. Though "flesh" (Grk. "sarx") may mean "sinful nature," yet "body" (Grk. "soma") in the above text is not a synonym for "sinful nature" but does indicate that the physical body has a sinful nature also.

Some say the body is morally neutral, including some Calvinists. Is that true? If that is true, then does it not show that depravity is not "total"? If, however, depravity be total, infecting every aspect of man's nature and being, then of course his body would be depraved. Though "flesh" often refers to the sinful nature, and not to the human body, yet the sinful nature encompasses the body. 

Further, the same apostle spoke of the "carnal mind" and the sinful mind. We know that the "heart" is said to be the place where thoughts originate, even evil thoughts. (Matt. 15: 19; Prov. 23: 7) Paul also spoke of how it is the "spirit" within a person that thinks and knows. (I Cor. 2: 11) So, does "mind" exclude the physical brain?

Also, if the body were not sinful then it would not die. In fact, in I Corinthians chapter fifteen, where Paul is speaking of the resurrection from death of physical bodies, he wrote: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (vs. 56 nkjv) The body dies because the body is sinful. Notice these words of the same apostle:

"13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!--18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 13-15; 18-20 nkjv)

Clearly "body" in these words means the physical body. In these words we see that the body may engage in "sexual immorality" or in sinful deeds. In Romans 6: 12 we have already seen where the apostle speaks of the "lusts" of the "mortal body." Yet, though the bodies of believers remain sinful after they have been initially regenerated in their hearts, minds, or spirits, they nevertheless "belong" to the Lord, so Paul says "your bodies are members of Christ." How members of Christ? Not by regeneration, but by having been purchased by Christ to become his special possession or treasure. So Paul says your body and soul belong to the Lord for this reason -- "for you were bought with a price," and not "for your bodies have been regenerated as has your soul or spirit." 

What does Paul mean when he says "every sin that a man does is outside the body"? Commentators are all over the place in interpreting that expression. Many translations will add the word "other" to the text and translate it as "every other sin." However, some of them will italicize the word "other" to let the reader know that it is not in the Greek text. Is Paul saying that the only sin in which the body participates is sexual sin? What about gluttony? Or those people whose "god is their belly"? (Phil. 3: 19) Are there not numerous texts that speak of the bodily members as sinful or engaged in sin, such as the tongue. (James 3: 2-12) James calls the tongue "a world of iniquity" (vs. 6), "an unruly evil" (vs. 8), that "defiles" the "whole body." (vs. 7) He says the tongue, as well as the whole body, needs to be "tamed." He also says that "a perfect man" is one who is "able also to bridle the whole body" so as to make it obey us. 

I could add many more texts which show that the physical body is sinful, that it has its own lusts. Further, it does not have to be changed in this life for it to belong to the Lord. It will be changed in the resurrection of the just.

Wrote Cayce further:

"...the term flesh in verse 17 does not have reference to the material body but to the sinful life or nature which we possess. The child of God has two natures. So this text teaches. Old Baptists have always said that this text teaches that the child of God has two natures--one sinful and corrupt, and the other holy and divine. The sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth, and the divine nature is received in the new birth, or in regeneration. In regeneration it is the man, the sinner of Adam's race, that receives the divine nature. That divine nature is implanted in the soul or spirit of the man by the direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, and the man then possesses two natures--the sinful nature and the divine nature. These two natures are opposite to each other. They spring from opposite sources. They are contrary to each other." 

So, is Cayce denying that the material body has a sinful nature? He says "the sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth." Would the body be excluded from this corrupt nature? David said that he "was shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Shapen and conceived seem to include the body. Was his body not conceived in sin? 

If the new divine nature is "implanted in the soul or spirit" and "cannot sin" (as Cayce believes), then where does the sinful nature reside? If Cayce does not believe that the sinful nature or principle no longer resides in the regenerated spirit, but is still present in the regenerated person, then where does it reside?

Wrote Cayce further:

"According to that declaration, it is down-right heresy to say that the body "is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God." There you are! If the body is no part of the now real child of God, then real children of God are spirits only, and the bodies are children of wrath, or children of the devil, as you may be pleased to term it. Then if the spirit only is the child of God, and the body is no part of the child of God, then the child of God lives in the Adam man, or in the child of wrath, until the Adam man dies; and the Adam man dies and goes to the grave a child of wrath. If he is raised in the last day, he will be raised a child of wrath, or else he will be changed some time between death and the resurrection."

The error Cayce is attacking is one that says that since the body is a "part of the child of God" it must therefore have been born again or regenerated along with the soul or spirit.

Wrote Cayce further:

"A denial that the body is a part of the child of God is eternal Two-Seedism. That is precisely what the eternal Two-Seeders would say. If we have to say that the body is no part of the child of God in order to be an Old Baptist, we have never been one. But we do not have to say that in order to be an Old Baptist, for the Old Baptists have never believed any such heresy."

The body is a part of the child of God, but it is not because it has been reborn of the Spirit but because it has been purchased by the Lord to be his special possession. It is true that those who are children of God by election from the foundation of the world do not actually become children of God until they have been begotten of God. It is also true that though the bodies of the saints belong to the Lord they will not experience redemption until the resurrection, what Paul called "the redemption of the body." (Rom. 8: 23)