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)

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LX)

Elder Claudis (Claud) Hopkins Cayce

1871-1945

In this chapter and the next few we will continue examining what Elder C.H. Cayce wrote in his editorials in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical in the first half of the twentieth century concerning battles that were still then occurring over several tenets of Two Seedism. But, before we do that, it might be good to inform the reader as to what issues were dividing the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists at the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century. 

1. Division over the "means question." 

2. Division over "Two Seedism" and its various tenets. 

3. Division over the extent of predestination or the "absolute predestination of all things." 

4. Division over the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 

5. Division over the use of musical instruments and Sunday Schools. 

6. Division over Universalism.

7. Division over minor issues, such as allowing church members to be members of secret orders such as Masonic Lodges, and support of missionaries, protracted or revival meetings, foot washing, etc.

8. Division over the question of whether the Great Commission was binding on the church involving the Kirkland preachers. 

In another editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce titled "TWO-SEED DOCTRINE" for the July 15th, 1920 issue of the Primitive Baptist periodical, published out of Thornton, Arkansas, Cayce wrote:

"Brother W. A. Beggs, Jacksboro, Texas, has asked us to explain the difference between the eternal Two-Seed doctrine and the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists. We hardly deem it necessary to show the contrast and show what the differences really are, as we suppose the brother understands what the teachings of the Primitive Baptists are and have been on the points which we shall mention."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth."

In earlier chapters we showed what was the error with the Two Seed understanding of the doctrine of unconditional election. It is true that some Two Seeders did not believe that "sinners of Adam's race were chosen to be saved in heaven," but not all. All of them believed, however, that the reason why the elect were chosen to salvation is because they were already related to Christ by having been begotten in him from eternity, and so Christ, as a "kinsman redeemer" or husband of the church, was obligated to choose them and save them. That makes the choice to be conditional. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

That is true, but he failed to mention other errors about "regeneration" espoused by the Two Seeders. He does not mention the "no change" view of regeneration. He does not mention the Two Seeder's view that regeneration was the begetting of the children of God and was distinct from the birth of those children. 

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeder claims that the body of the Adam man is no part of the child of God; that the child of God is on the inside of the Adam man; the child of God is a man on the inside of the man you see. They carry this doctrine to its logical conclusion and deny the resurrection of the body, claiming that the body remains in the dust, and will not be raised again."

What Cayce says of the Two Seeders is true with some of them.  

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"The eternal Two-Seeders also hold that God unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will in their nefarious crimes and meanness as much so as is being done by His children rendering gospel service and living a life of righteousness; that the devil does the will of God as much as Jesus Christ did in His perfect life of obedience to the law of God."

Elder Cayce wrote further:

"These are some of the fundamental principles of the teaching of the eternal Two-Seeders. Primitive Baptists do not teach those things, and never have taught them. Those things are not Primitive Baptist doctrine, and never have been.” 

It is interesting to note what Cayce left out in his listing of the beliefs of Two Seeders. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar, two leaders of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the early to mid 19th century and who battled against Two Seedism, and gave their testimony as to what were the leading beliefs of Two Seeders. Why does Cayce not mention the work of Elder John Watson in refuting Two Seedism in his book "The Old Baptist Test"? Why does he not mention the work of Elder George Stipp? Why does he only mention Potter and Grigg Thompson? Is it because these two men denied means in eternal salvation and Watson and Stipp did not? 

Elder Lemuel Potter, who Cayce extolled, did mention Watson in his debates with W. P. Throgmorton and Potter claimed in that debate that Watson was one of their highly esteemed founders. So did Elders Sylvester Hassell and Gilbert Beebe. So why could he refer the readers to the writings of his fellow ministers who wrote against Two Seedism, such as Lemuel Potter and Grigg Thompson, but not refer them to what Elder Watson wrote in the "Old Baptist Test," especially since it was written for the purpose of rebutting Two Seed beliefs? 

I am  fairly sure it is because he knew that Watson, Preslar, and Stipp stated that the anti-means view was a Two Seed belief, and Cayce shared that view, but he did not want to affirm that his anti-means view was a Two Seed view. We have not yet presented the work of Elder George Stipp against Two Seedism, but we plan to do so in upcoming chapters. However, in this post (here) I gave citations from Stipp's work where he plainly says that only those who hear the word of God and the Savior's voice, and who become believers in Jesus, are regenerated.

Cayce shared several other Two Seed ideas and had some of their quirks. He certainly agreed with the Two Seed idea that nothing a person did or didn't do determined whether he went to heaven. He also shared their penchant for spiritualizing or allegorizing of scripture. He took their view of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, denying that it taught what happens to saved and unsaved people when they die. He also shared their view that Adam did not die a spiritual death, and that Paul's "natural man" was man as originally created, rather than fallen man. 

Cayce says nothing about the question of the origin of Satan, a chief question in the Two Seed debates. He also says nothing about union with Christ, which was the crux of the debate. Two Seeders believed in an eternal vital union between Christ and the church, and denied that union with Christ occurred in regeneration or by faith. He also said nothing about another key idea that led to the formation of Two Seedism, which was the idea that Christ, as a mediator with a human soul, was begotten before the world began, a teaching that Joseph Hussey and others taught at the beginning of the 18th century, and a view shared by Isaac Watts and Menno Simons. We wrote about this in earlier chapters. He also did not mention how many Two Seeders denied the Trinity or denied that Christ being the Son of God pertained to his divinity. 

It is strange that Cayce says that Two Seeders taught that God "unalterably fixed and decreed all the wickedness that men do, and that wicked men and devils are doing God’s will," which was what was asserted by those who opposed those "Primitive Baptists" like Gilbert Beebe who affirmed the absolute predestination of all things. But, more on that shortly.  However, as we saw in chapter twenty two of this series, Daniel Parker believed in the self-existence of the Devil because he did not want to believe that God was the cause of evil, directly or indirectly. Other Two Seeders shared this concern. Therefore, it seems Cayce is off base in charging Two Seeders with believing that God was the reason for men being wicked. In that chapter I cited from O. Max Lee who said about Parker: "To hold that God was responsible for the creation of Satan, Parker surmised, would make God the author of both good and evil." 

In my post titled "Elder Preslar on Two Seedism" (See here) I cited from Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" where he wrote:

"Now if there is any system to their doctrine (Two Seeders), or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Neither has he told us when or how the devil was made or created, but He has let us know there is a devil, and He has let us know he is a murderer, a liar, and the father of lies, and that he sinned from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; John 8: 44. This much God has been pleased to let us know about the devil.  He does not tell us he never was in possession of the truth, but that he abode not in the truth...Then away with the doctrine of an eternal, self-existent devil."  (pg. 183-84)

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."  (pg. 187)

Preslar mentions nothing about the absolute predestination of all things as being an error held to by only the Two Seed Primitive Baptists, as Cayce says. The fact is, many "Primitive Baptists" who were not Two Seeders believed in this doctrine. Cayce may be saying this because Elder Gilbert Beebe held to Two Seed views and also was a leading advocate of the absolute predestination of all things. Further, this is the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which Cayce endorsed in 1900 when he attended, with his father, the Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists, wherein the fifty one leading elders assembled endorsed the 1689 confession, although they put footnotes to the articles on predestination to "clarify" those articles. It is also ironic that Cayce would say that the absolute predestinarian view was a Two Seed view, if he is basing that opinion upon Gilbert Beebe embracing both Two Seedism and absolute predestination of all things because Beebe was one of the first ones to teach against means, saying that it is the voice of Christ himself spoken to sinners internally that regenerates them. 

In Bob L. Ross's book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," chapter six, he wrote (emphasis mine):

"Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), editor of the Signs of the Times magazine, the foremost Anti-mission periodical following the 1832 split, was perhaps the first one -- at least, one of the first -- to propagate this new theory of "direct speaking" regeneration. He says:

"The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." [Compilation of Editorial Articles, Vol. IV, pages 21, 22].

Claud H. Cayce, editor of The Primitive Baptist in the first part of the 20th century, would represent the view of the "conditionalist" faction of Primitives, or "Old Schoolers," when he says:

"Sinners receive eternal life, are regenerated, just one way. The Lord SPEAKS to them as He did to Saul of Tarsus when he was on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and when He SPEAKS to the dead sinner he IMPARTS LIFE. He regenerates the sinner. 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' says the Redeemer." [Selected Editorials From The Primitive Baptist, Vol. I, page 194].

So, Cayce is taking a view of regeneration that was first finely defined by Two Seeder Gilbert Beebe. If he thinks that Two Seedism embraces the absolute predestination (or God's decree of) all things because Two Seeder Beebe held to it, then by the same logic he has to agree that his anti-means view is also a Two Seed view. Recall that previously I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee - Knoxville (see here), from Chapter IV, titled "ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS OCCUPIED BY DOCTRINAL DISPUTES" and from chapter V, "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," wherein Lawrence wrote:

"The Two-Seed doctrine, which was beginning to occupy the attention of the churches in the early 1870's, continued to plague the Primitive Baptists, especially those of the Powell Valley association, until 1889, when a split occurred in the association. The Nolachucky association, too, felt the impact of this conflict, but no complete rift, such as the Powell Valley experienced, occurred in any of the other East Tennessee associations.

At the 1879 meeting of the Powell Valley association the tenth item of business said: Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church.

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."  (pg. 89)

This is interesting because it was written in 1879 which was several years before Cayce wrote the above editorial. Second, the association does connect the anti-means doctrine with Two Seedism and does hint at the doctrine of absolute predestination in that it seems to allude to supralapsarianism, as also connected with Two Seedism. It does allude to the Two Seed tenet that said that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. So, though Cayce may reject absolute predestination of all things and say that it is a tenet of Two Seedism, yet he himself held to the Two Seed anti-means view, the view that it is useless to preach to the unregenerate, and the view that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven. 

Consider also that many "Primitive Baptists" who say they reject Two Seedism nevertheless believe in what is called "eternal justification," a view that John Gill advocated in the 18th century. Elder David Pyles, a leading minister in today's "Primitive Baptist Church," denies means and also holds to the doctrine of eternal justification.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIX)

Elder S. F. Cayce

1850-1905

The above is a picture of Elder S. F. Cayce, father of Elder C. H. Cayce, which I probably should have put in the last chapter since C.H. (Claud) cited from his father on Two Seedism. In this chapter we will begin with an editorial titled "Regeneration" by Elder C.H. Cayce (November 16, 1915). In it Cayce wrote:

"The Saviour says, in (John 3:3), "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man is translated from a word which means anyone. Hence, "Except anyone be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word again is translated from a word which means from above. Hence, "Except anyone be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word man, or the word anyone, simply refers to the race-except anyone of the race of Adam be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. One must be born from above in order to that end. It is the sinner of Adam's race that is the subject of the new birth."

Why, in the year 1915, does Cayce find it necessary to stress the idea that it is the man who has descended from Adam who is born again? Is it not because he is fighting against the Two Seed idea that says it is not the "Adam man" who is born again? Obviously then, the "Primitive Baptists" are still having trouble over the doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, a topic that has troubled that denomination from their start.

By his saying that "born again" means "born from above" he is saying what some Two Seeders were often heard emphasizing. They rejected the translation that says "born again" and said it meant "born from above," and with them it was an important distinction. However, Nicodemus understood Jesus to mean "born again" for he said "can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Further, Peter spoke of being "born again." (I Peter 1: 23) "Born again" in that text is from a singular Greek word, anagegennēmenoi (ἀναγεγεννημένοι) where the prefix "ana" means "again." 

"Born from above" fit better with Two Seed theology, for they say that the divine seed, which contained the people of God as Adam's seed contained all the race, came down from heaven and was deposited in human beings. They said "born again" carries the connotation of "born over." They thought "born from above" indicated that it was not the earthly man that had been born again. Keep in mind also that they made a clear distinction between being conceived (or begotten) and being born (delivered) as we do in physical birth. Two Seeders rejected the idea that the same person who was of Adam's seed was born again, for that would mean "born over," or another birth of the flesh. 

Elder Gilbert Beebe in an editorial in the "Signs of the Times" for April 1st, 1868 (you can read here) said (emphasis mine):

"The saints are spoken of in the Scriptures as having an existence in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), and as having an existence in Adam as early as the creation of man: Consequently, they did exist and were identified in some sense, before they were born, either of the flesh or of the Spirit. A birth gives no existence; it is the bringing into manifestation that which before existed...Our conviction is that the man who is born again was created and chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world; was in time born first of the flesh, and subsequently born again, of the Spirit."

Both the Two Seed Primitive or Old School Baptists and the Non-Two Seeders saw regeneration (or begetting) as distinct from the birth from above. The former believed that the conception or begetting of the children of God occurred in conjunction with the begetting of the Son of God sometime in eternity past, and believed that the birth took place in time when a sinner was saved or quickened unto spiritual life. The latter believed that the begetting and the birth both took place in time, the begetting being regeneration proper, the time when the divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) was deposited within a sinner and germinated, producing a child of God, and the birth coming later after the child has been formed in the womb and brought forth (or manifested). Gilbert Beebe argued in favor of both views, ironically. In this post (here) I cited Beebe's views on James 1: 18 where he wrote the following in 1846:

10. “Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth.” – James i. 18. Instead of honored instrumentalities, the whole power of producing the conception and consequent birth of the children of God is in this test accredited to “His own will” alone, that is, to the sovereign, immutable will of God, which proves the position we have taken in the preceding item of our reply."

Notice the words "conception and consequent birth." So, when does each occur?

In chapter thirty two of this series I cited from Beebe's editorial of March 1st 1880 in his paper "The Signs of the Times," where he responded to queries by Elder W. M. Mitchell and wrote the following in reply (highlighting mine):

"We have usually spoken of the implantation of the spirit, in which Christ is formed in us, as a new birth, and so we now understand it, as taught, John i. 13. and 1 Peter 1. 23. 24. And this work is performed in the sinner of Adam's race, who, as a natural man, is spoken of in the scriptures as possessing a soul, body and spirit, which is depraved and, sinful, to qualify him to see the kingdom of God. But we have labored to the extent of our limited ability to keep in view that a birth is the bringing forth into manifestation something that was begotten and which exist antecendently to its development by birth."

Again, notice that he says the birth is distinct from being begotten. In chapter forty three I cited from Beebe's editorial response to Elder Potter's critique in the "Signs of the Times" for June 1880 (See here under "Number 6" of his editorials)

"If we have read correctly the record which God has given of his Son, as the Head of the body, the church, he, as the Head of the church and Savior of the body, is not only the begotten, but the only begotten of the Father; and we infer that the begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body, and all the members of the body of which he is the Head."

So here again we see where Beebe says the children of God were "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten of the Father. However, he also believed that the begetting corresponded to the time when a sinner is "regenerated" and that the "birth" corresponded to the time when the regenerated or begotten sinner was converted to faith in Christ. In chapter fifty two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I cited from Beebe's editorial in the "Signs" titled "Regeneration and the New Birth" for September 1st, 1857, taken from Vol. 4 of his editorials. (emphasis mine)

"In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed, as was demonstrated in the case of Hagar and Ishmael; it is the immediate work of God himself. "Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth." - James i. 18...When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance...Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."

In that chapter I give further citations from Beebe where he taught this paradigm. It was the paradigm most generally believed by the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the early 19th century. So, Beebe believes that the elect were "begotten" twice, once in past eternity, and once in time and which was distinct from the birth.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial mentioned above (1915):

"It is not some kind of spirit, or eternal child, that comes down and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in him until the Adam man dies and then goes back to heaven where it came from, thus leaving the Adam man out of the benefits of salvation."

Cayce takes the view of G.M. Thompson and Lemuel Potter. These represented the side that opposed Two Seedism. However, as I have shown in previous chapters, they nonetheless retained several Two Seed tenets, such as 1) affirming that the word of God is no means in eternal salvation, and 2) that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven, and 3) that there is little to no change in the thinking and belief of sinners when they are regenerated. In chapter forty six I cited from C.H. Cayce's editorials where he applauded the Forked Deer Association for declaring non-fellowship for those who believed in preaching the gospel to sinners. So I wrote:

In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905 (emphasis mine):

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

In that same chapter I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists where they wrote the following under the tenth item of business:

"Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."

Cayce wrote further in that same editorial in 1915:

"Elder G. M. Thompson was considered one among the ablest men of his day. He wrote a book called "The Measuring Rod; or the Principles and Practice of the Primitive Baptists," which was published in 1861. It is a refutation of Two-Seedism. On pages 79, 80, 81, and 82 he says: The Bible represents the new birth or regeneration, as producing a great change in the sinner; but it does not only prove the change, but it proves that the sinner is the subject of that birth or regeneration. It is the sinner's heart that is circumcised to love the Lord; it is the sinner that is purged from an evil conscience to serve the Lord; and it is the dead sinner that is to hear the voice of the Son of God, and live. In the work of regeneration, the stranger is made a citizen, the enemy is made a friend, and those who know not God, are made to know Him and love Him."

We reviewed Thompson's work in earlier chapters of this series. Notice that Cayce sees "birth" as the same as "regeneration." That was not, however, the more common view of "Primitive Baptists" prior to the time when Cayce wrote the above. It was the view of Elder Grigg Thompson but not the view of his father Elder Wilson Thompson.

Cayce wrote further in the same editorial:

"It seems to us that we have been plain enough in the foregoing for anyone to know that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine; but for fear some person might not remember, we will say, most emphatically, that WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE" WHOLE MAN" DOCTRINE. When we say we do not believe a thing, there is no man under heaven who has any right to say that we do, and no honest man who reads this will hereafter do so. Some have accused us of believing that, but every honest man who has thought so will say it no more, and will be willing to correct his statements that we did."

It seems clear from these words that Two Seed ideas were still being discussed in 1915. In fact, as I have shown in previous chapters, Cayce, like nearly all "Primitive Baptists" today, still retain several Two Seed tenets, such as a denial that the gospel is a means in the regeneration of sinners, and in their accepting the premise that says "nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." 

Cayce wrote further in the same long editorial:

"We have been silent for some time, and have written nothing for our columns, hoping that peace might be restored, until we have felt that circumstances and the cause absolutely demanded that we say this much, and give our readers to understand that we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, and that we were not going to allow any quarrel in The Primitive Baptist on the question. While we do not believe the "whole man" doctrine, we wish it also understood that we do not believe what has been called the "hollow log" doctrine. Both are wrong and we will not accept either."

In previous chapters we have said much about both the "hollow log" and "whole man" doctrines of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists. Notice that Cayce speaks of "peace" in the churches "might be restored," which shows that Two Seedism was still dividing churches in 1915.

In another editorial titled "The TWO SEED Doctrine" Cayce wrote the following July 15, 1920:

"The eternal Two-Seed doctrine is that God made choice of certain persons from among the human family for His children to dwell in for awhile here in time. Hence, they claim to believe in the doctrine of election; but they do not believe that sinners of Adam’s race were chosen to be saved in heaven. They teach, as stated, that God made choice of persons of Adam’s race for His children to dwell in for awhile here on earth." 

In previous chapters we have seen how the Two Seed view of the doctrine of unconditional election was described and shown to be perverted by the Two Seeders.

Cayce wrote:

"In the work which we call regeneration they teach that there is an eternal spirit or child which comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man and torments him until the Adam man dies; when the Adam man dies, this eternal child goes back to God where it came from and the Adam man goes to the ground where he will always remain."

This is a repetition of what he had earlier said. He feels a need to keep saying this.