Two Seed Baptist Ideology (III)

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 1: 6)

"God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment." (II Peter 2: 4)

"How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isaiah 14: 12 nkjv)

"And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10: 18 nkjv)

The above texts speak of the fall of Satan and some angels "from heaven." There then ought to be no disagreement about it. So, why do the Two Seeders and many Primitive Baptists deny it? In this and the next chapter we will address the Two Seed views on the creation and fall of angels.

John Watson had this to say about the Two Seed views on angels and their falling from heaven in his book we cited from extensively in the previous chapters:

"As the Parkerite denies the creation of angels, we will have to premise a little." (pg. 202)

Sylvester Hassell in his history, from which we cited also in the previous chapters, says:

"Elder Daniel Parker, who had some following in the West and Southwest, denied the creation and fall of the angels..." (pg. 636)

Hassell mentions some other Christian teachers who likewise denied the creation and fall of angels, including Satan, naming these men:

"Origen (born A. D. 185, died 254), who also taught that men are fallen angels, and that all men, and all the wicked angels, even Satan himself, will be finally saved." (pg. 328)

"Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, of Germany (1768-1834), the modern reviver of Clement's or the Greek Theology, and "the typical theologian of the nineteenth century," as he is called, also rejected the fall of the angels, the personality of the Devil, the personality of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity; he was a Pantheist, holding that God dwells in every man forever— like Spinoza, identifying God and the universe." (pg. 590-591)

We should also mention the fact that though the Pharisees believed in angels, the Sadducees did not. (See Acts 23: 8)

In light of the scriptures cited above, how could anyone deny that the scriptures teach a creation and fall of angels? Obviously those who do deny it take their views on angels TO the Bible rather than deriving them FROM the Bible, a case of eisegesis rather than exegesis. Today's Primitive Hardshell Baptists generally reject Parker's view and believe in the creation and fall of angels (though it took decades for them to rid themselves of it), but they still show the remnants of the Two Seed view on angels in other ways, as I began to show in the previous chapter. They still want to deny that the angels that sinned fell from heaven, the third heaven, and generally want to avoid talking about where the Devil came from, still claiming it is a mystery. I have heard some of them say "we have better things to preach than the Devil."

What was it that led Parker and the Two Seeders to deny the fall of the angels? Answer: It is because it contradicted some of their premises. It is because they sought to exonerate God in the creation of evil and because they thought that if angels could fall from heaven so too could redeemed men.

In writing upon the views of the Hardshells on the creation and fall of the angels, we will look first at what Daniel Parker believed (1820s) followed by what Gilbert Beebe believed (1840s) followed by what John Watson believed (1840s-1850s) followed by what Sylvester Hassell believed (end of the 19th century), and finally by what Hardshell Allen Daniels believes (in our time). We will also mention that Elder John Clark of Virginia objected to the views of Beebe and the Two Seeders (1842). 

Wrote Watson:

"We have been thus particular, in order to show the different sources of evil, as they exist in the finite state of all created things, as many of our good brethren have turned Parkerites, because they could not trace evil to any other source than Satan, and then, that they might disconnect the source of evil from God, and His works, have created in their fancy an eternal evil spirit or devil, without a single solitary text of scripture to sustain such a notion." (pg. 206-207)

However, this Parkerite explanation described by Watson is not the way to deal with the problem of evil, being a totally untenable theodicy. Notice how Watson says that in the middle nineteenth century that "many good brethren have turned Parkerites." Today's "Primitive" Hardshell Baptists do not want to admit that many of their forefathers in the church held such heretical views. Even their most highly respected leaders such as Elder Lemuel Potter who confessed in his early days that he was a believer in Two Seedism. In Potter's book "Life And Travels Of A Poor Sinner" (See here) he will find Potter saying this:

"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it...For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it..." (pg. 262)

I cited this in previous writings on Two Seedism. (See my blog on Two Seedism - here)

Watson writes further:

"But, after all, we must forestall the Parkerite here, as he will say that all we have quoted from the word of God, in relation to angels, has reference to Adam and Eve, and their posterity. But this he cannot do, with any kind of consistency, according to another tenet of his - that souls cannot be lost - cannot go to hell. As he is bound to admit that they had souls - Adam, at least, according to his own notion - these scriptures, of course, will not apply to them, as the angels who sinned and were cast down to hell; nor to the elect, as they likewise have souls. And, as he says, that the non-elect never fell in Adam, but have kept their first estate, these scriptures do not embrace them either, as the angels who fell kept not their first estate." (pg. 203)

The Parkerite Two Seeder says that none of the elect or non-elect, men or angels, fell from Heaven and were cast down to Hell because the non-elect have no souls and no elect angel can fall from heaven. The non-elect angels have always been in a fallen condition because they originated in Satan himself, being his seed and have always been evil. Anyone should see the contradiction in the Parkerite view of the fall of angels, the non-elect angels. If the non-elect never fell in Adam, and if angels are but human beings, then it must have been elect angelic humans who fell from heaven, and who kept not their first estate, and were cast down into Hell. What absurdities, reductio ad absurdum. 

Wrote Watson:

"The scriptures assure us that "sin is the transgression of the law," also that the angels sinned." (Ibid)

He also wrote:

"Man fell very soon after his creation, and may we not also infer that Satan did likewise?" (pg. 206)

This is the scriptural orthodox position. Angels are not corporeal beings, but spirit beings, although on some occasions the word angel is used of human messengers, the Greek word for angel meaning such. But, this is a secondary usage, and not the primary usage in scripture. To overthrow the view of the Two Seeders all one has to do is to first show that angels are not humans, though they have the ability to appear in human bodies. Secondly, to show that the third heaven is the proper abode of angels.

Wrote Watson:

"Moreover: May we not recognise (sic) Satan at their head as one who abode not in his first estate, in the truth, as Christ stated; for we have no idea that Satan was created in his present state, but was created an upright, intelligent spirit, in the light of truth of some kind, in which state he, however, abode not. John 8:44. Being lifted up with pride, he sinned, and was cast down and cursed with a change of state. After he sinned, we may safely infer that he involved other angels in the same sin, curse and change of state; for he is said to be a murderer from the beginning of this state, when he ceased to abide in the truth. His involving other angels, and soon afterwards Adam and Eve, in disobedience, sin and death, show his murderous course very plainly." (pg. 202-203)

"The angels who sinned were cast down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness; who like Adam and Eve, KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but were changed into devils. They, however, according to an unresolvable Providence, which however, must, all the while be predicated of infinite wisdom, goodness and power, are permitted by the lengthening of their prison chains, to come into this world; and Satan was suffered to enter the Garden of Eden, and to tempt and seduce our First Parents; Satan as the chief devils, then became the Prince of the power of the air, and the Chief Ruler of the powers of darkness, and often took up his abode with other spirits in the hearts of sinful men, as in a palace, where he was, and is yet kindly entertained with his associate spirits, until ejected from thence by the Lord." (Ibid)

"We have proved that man's state at first admitted of disobedience, and his present fallen state is a sad consequence of his disobedience. May we not then infer, in the light of analogy, that the origin of the Satanic state is the same, or analogous to that man. But we will look at it under a clearer and surer light. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1 Tim. 3:6. Satan was lifted up with pride, and was therefore condemned, and became Satan, devil, etc. Man disobeyed, and was condemned, and became a sinner, etc. However exalted the state of Satan may have been before he fell, there was in it a liability to pride; and if it be asked how this liability to pride was brought into sinful action, we answer, one of the very elements of his state or nature, inferiority to God might originate it, in violation of a precept to the contrary." (pg. 205-206)

Watson has the correct orthodox view on the fall of angels and on the origin and fall of Satan. However, as we will see, he did not want to say that it was from the "third heaven" that he fell. 

Wrote Watson:

"We think we have, in some respects, indicated the origin of the Satanic state satisfactorily; but we freely confess that there are many unresolvable problems connected with it which we shall not presumptuously attempt to explain: our design is rather to direct the candid enquirer in a way which will not lead to hurtful heresies, than to remove all its difficulties. Let us, however, present one more view of it." (pg. 205)

Watson does not tell us what are those "many unresolvable problems" that are connected with believing the scriptures and confessing that God created the angel Lucifer who sinned in heaven and was cast out and became forevermore Satan, the arch enemy of God and his people. He does not tell us the "hurtful heresies" and "difficulties" that some are led into on this subject. They no doubt have to do with the reluctance to believe that any creature in heaven can sin and fall from that blessed place.

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the chief founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive Baptists," and editor of the first periodical of that new sect, "The Signs of the Times," and who was himself a Two Seed Baptist, and its best defender, writes the following in that periodical under the title of "FALLEN ANGELS," January 15, 1840 (Read online here - emphasis mine):

"Our attention has been called to the subject of the “angels which kept not their first estate,” &c., by brother Gaines, of Kentucky, who desires our views on Jude 6, and 2 Peter ii. 4. It is rather a thankless undertaking to set forth our views upon a subject on which we must necessarily come in collision with the long established opinions and deep-rooted traditions of others..."

Beebe acknowledges that the traditional orthodox view affirms the creation and fall of angels from heaven, their original state. His view will be abnormal. So, why did Beebe, following Parker, deny the creation and fall of angels from heaven?

Beebe continued:

"We have not been able to see, with Milton and others, either beauty or scriptural authority for the notion that the angels here spoken of were ever residents of that heaven above, where the saints are ultimately to rest, nor that they had an existence prior to that date in which God created the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them – to believe that they were once associated with those holy angels that sang the joyful anthems to the shepherds in Judea; nor to believe that in their creation they were created for or capacitated to enjoy the immediate presence of their Maker, or that he designed them for any other purpose than that which is and shall be fully accomplished in their case, to us seems to conflict seriously with divine revelation."

No scriptural authority for the creation of angels as incorporeal beings who are superior to humans and who dwell in heaven where God especially dwells? Beebe loses much credibility when he says such things. Though the Two Seeders often said, as we have seen, that the Bible does not tell us when and where Lucifer and the angels, both elect and non-elect, were created, a sentiment Beebe at times would agree with, nevertheless says that he can tell you when they were not created and when they did not fall. The angels that fell were humans? That is astounding and bewildering! The angels who fell from heaven were human beings who fell from some other place called heaven? Again, that is shocking. He says that angels did not exist before the six days of creation. But, that is false. Recall that God asked Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38: 4-7 nkjv)

Laying the foundations of the earth takes one back to the very start of the creation, to day one of the six days of creation. Angels were there to witness God's work from its start. Ergo, they had to have been created before the creation of the earth and heavens. 

In the above words of Beebe he gives the impression that though he believes the fallen angels were never in the heaven of God's presence he believes that the holy elect angels were there. Yet, as we will shortly see, Beebe not only said that the non-elect angels were human beings, but he will also say that "the elect angels" were likewise human beings. 

Beebe continued:

"Can we rationally suppose that the place originally provided for one description of beings shall ultimately be occupied by another so essentially different, without relinquishing the doctrine of the immutability of God. Or, if the saints are finally to occupy a place originally designed for the devil and his angels, how can it be said in truth that the heavenly kingdom was prepared for the saints before the foundation of the world, when, according to Milton, it was not known that the place would be vacated until the world was founded, and the decree of bringing his Only Begotten into the world, and that all the angels should worship him?" 

It is ironic that Beebe would use the words "rationally suppose" for there is nothing rational or reasonable about what he says in the above words. How does Beebe deduce that a belief in the fall of angels from his presence in heaven denies the immutability of God? That is a non-sequitur. How does the traditional orthodox view lead to a belief that heaven was therefore designed for the Devil and his angels? God cast Lucifer and the fallen angels out of Heaven the very moment they sinned. Besides, when we say that the angels and Satan fell from heaven, we mean that they lost heaven as their proper dwelling place. Their sin might have occurred somewhere outside of the immediate presence of God but their sin now kept them from ever occupying heaven, their proper abode, once again. But, we will say more on these things in the next chapter. 

Beebe continued:

"Again, would not the saints feel sad in prospect of being placed where angels could not stay? If a higher order of beings, holy, happy, and in a place where temptation and sin could not enter, and such beings as could have no predisposition to sin, did fall from that estate, and were cast over the battlements of glory, would not the poor lambs of Jesus, who have all their lifetime been tormented with temptation and struggling against inbred corruptions, have great cause to fear that they also might fall from the height of glory and sink at last among the damned? But lest we be tedious, we will leave the negative part of our subject, and give our opinion of the angels." (Editorials of Elder Gilbert Beebe – Volume 1, page 311)

This has been the reasoning of Hardshells throughout their history. Though some, like Watson and Hassell, believe that angels are not human beings, and that they fell from their sinless state, and from some heaven, they all would not, with few exceptions, say that they fell from "the third heaven," for they surmise that no one can fall from heaven, it being an impossibility. The two propositions highlighted above in red were not either induced or deduced from scripture, but were obtained outside of scripture and taken to the scriptures. If we prove that the angels that sinned did in fact fall from the third heaven, this will nullify those propositions. But, again we will have more to say on this later. 

Beebe continued:

"By the angels that kept not their first estate, we understand the children of the devil. Satan is called an angel, and sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light; and as far as we have been able to discover from revelation all the names by which he is known in the scriptures are applicable to his seed. Hence Satan is called “The old serpent, which is the devil and Satan,” (Rev. xx. 2;) his children are also called “a generation of vipers,” – Matt. iii. 7; also xxii. 33. So also is Satan called an angel, and in Rev. xii. 7, his children are also thus denominated: “There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels.”

Notice the theory of Beebe. The angels that sinned, the non-elect angels, are human beings who are "children of the devil." Every lost sinner of Adam's race is a fallen angel! Incredible! Is Satan then a human being? He is after all a fallen angel, as Jesus said. But, shortly we will see how Beebe takes an even more incredible position on the kind of being is Satan. He will also say that "Michael" in the text is Jesus, and "his angels" are redeemed children of God of Adam's race. 

Beebe continued:

"The term angel also signifies messenger, and hence every emissary of Satan employed to disseminate heresy, to oppose the gospel of Christ; to afflict and persecute the children of God, are properly denominated his angels. It can be by no means difficult to perceive that the dragon and his angels, mentioned in Rev. xii., are designed to show the powers of darkness in array against the cause and church of Christ. Michael, the only archangel spoken of in the bible, is none other than Christ; his angels are those who are denominated “The remnant of her (the church’s) seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” – Rev. xii. 17. Admitting then, as we are compelled to do, that the disciples of Christ, in this case, are his angels, it is perfectly plain that the opposite angels are those unto whom Christ said, “Ye are of your father, the devil.” – John viii. 44. These two descriptions of angels, in our opinion, include the whole human family; the chosen generation, or that seed which Jesus saw when he poured out his soul unto death; a seed that should serve him, and that should be counted to him for a generation; these constitute the one family, and are all in time born of a spiritual birth, by the Holy Ghost, and when discipled in the ranks of the followers of the Lamb, are known as his angels, keeping the commandments of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ."

So, Jesus, being Michael, is an archangel? I guess Beebe would be forced to say this of the humanity of Christ and not of his divinity. Every human false teacher is a fallen angel? Every human being is an angel? What absurdities are these! Today's Hardshell Baptists have Two Seeders as their ancestors and must accept what they said about angels or denounce their views.

Apparently not all agreed with Beebe when he published his views on angels in the Signs of the Times, for Elder John Clark (who I have cited much form in my blog writings) wrote to the Signs on April 1, 1842 about the matter which provoked Beebe to write the folowing (See here) under the title "REPLY TO BROTHER J. CLARK."

We will take up Clark's reply in the next chapter and also continue to look at what other Hardshells have said on the creation and fall of angels.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (II)

As stated in the first chapter of this series, Two Seedism borrowed several of its leading ideas from other sources, one of them being Manichaeism (Dualism or Zoroastrianism). This is because the Two Seeders believed in an eternal Devil, that God never created the being who became Satan. Their idea was that God could never create anything or anyone that was evil (orthodox view says God did not make the angel Lucifer evil but became such by his rebellion). Like the Dualists of old, they believed that the Devil was uncreated and therefore eternal like God, though they would perhaps confess that the Devil was not as powerful as God. This seems to be their answer to the age old "problem of evil." Often, when Two Seeders were cornered by those who rejected their teachings about the eternity of the Devil, they would often simply state their main reasons for their belief but would often say it is all a mystery and ought not to be investigated. 

This attitude on the question - "where did the Devil come from" is one which I have written about before. The reason this question is taboo among the Hardshells is due to the remnants of Two Seedism still present among them. Valdosta State professor and a Primitive Baptist John G. Crowley, says one may still find Two Seed doctrines preached by Primitive Baptists “if one knows where to go and what to listen for.” (Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South: 1815 to Present, Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1998) This is especially true on the origin of Satan and the fall of the angels. But, we will have more to say on this later in this series.

My father, a primitive Baptist minister for over fifty years, and a leader among the Hardshells (having several debates with Arminians in defense of Hardshell doctrine, and being a contributing editor of "The Christian Baptist" periodical for many years, and being in demand to "fill appointments" in churches) wrote an article on "The Origin of Satan" in that periodical (1972 or 1973). From that time on he was declared in disorder by many Hardshell churches. Father believed as do most bible scholars that Satan is a fallen angel, having fallen from heaven (Luke 10: 18). This was strongly rejected by many Hardshells. Many, however, though not agreeing with father, nevertheless did not think such a disagreement should be made a "test of fellowship." A few ministers agreed with Father on the doctrine but were not declared in disorder, such as Elder S. T. Tolley, founder and editor of "The Christian Baptist" periodical, which in its day was the leading Hardshell periodical and had other leading ministers on the editorial staff besides father, although he and Tolley were the chief writers. As a young Hardshell minister I also wrote some articles for it. I also spent time in Tolley's home in Atwood, Tennessee. I wrote about my father's ministry and the controversy over his views on the origin of Satan in chapter two of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here).

So, what is Manichaeism? According to Britannica we have this short statement (emphasis mine):

"Teachings similar to Manichaeism resurfaced during the Middle Ages in Europe in the so-called neo-Manichaean sects. Groups such as the Paulicians (Armenia, 7th century), the Bogomilists (Bulgaria, 10th century), and the Cathari or Albigensians (southern France, 12th century) bore strong resemblances to Manichaeism and probably were influenced by it. However, their direct historical links to the religion of Mani are difficult to establish." (See here)

In the early centuries there also was some incorporation of the views of Manichaeism into some Christian sects. So, it is nothing new for Parker and his followers to do the same in the 19th century. It is similar to Zoroastrianism, though many say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic whereas Manichaeism is dualistic. But, that is not completely true. AI Overview says "Zoroastrianism is often perceived as having two main divine entities, but it is more accurately described as a monotheistic religion with a dualistic framework. While Ahura Mazda is the supreme, uncreated God and creator, the faith also acknowledges the existence of Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman), a destructive spirit who embodies evil. This framework creates a cosmic battle between good and evil." Zoroastrianism is older than Manichaeism and the latter borrowed several ideas from the former. Both began in ancient Persia or modern day Iran.

"Mani sought to found a truly ecumenical and universal religion that would integrate into itself all the partial truths of previous revelations, especially those of Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. However, beyond mere syncretism, it sought the proclamation of a truth that could be translated into diverse forms in accordance with the different cultures into which it spread. Thus, Manichaeism, depending on the context, resembles Iranian and Indian religions, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism." (Ibid; Britannica)

Not only did Mani syncretize elements of other religions, but so does the Two Seed religious philosophy of Parker and the Two Seeders. In the previous chapter we listed those other sources for Two Seedism's main ideas.

"At its core, Manichaeism was a type of gnosticism—a dualistic religion that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truths. Like all forms of gnosticism, Manichaeism taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil. In Manichaeism inner illumination reveals that the soul, which shares in the nature of God, has fallen into the evil world of matter and must be saved by means of the spirit or intelligence (nous)." (Ibid)

As we said in the previous chapter, Two Seedism borrows from both Manichaeism and Gnosticism and much of what is said above applies to Two Seed ideology.

"At death the soul of the righteous person returns to Paradise. The soul of the person who persisted in things of the flesh—fornication, procreation, possessions, cultivation, harvesting, eating of meat, drinking of wine—is condemned to rebirth in a succession of bodies." (Ibid)

Notice the word "returns." Manichaeism taught that the human soul is essentially a pre-existing spark of divine light much like Two Seedism. Likewise Zoroastrianism posits that a component of the human being, the fravashi, has a pre-existent spiritual form. The belief in the preexistence of souls is also a central tenet of Gnosticism. In Hinduism, the concept of the soul (Atman) says that it is eternal and has pre-existed before birth into its current body. Further, as we will see, some Christian teachers in the Hyper Calvinistic tradition taught that the human soul of Christ was begotten before the world began, before his body was begotten in time via the virgin Mary. Some of them even suggested that the souls of the elect were also created in Christ at the time Christ's soul was begotten. So, this part of Two Seedism is not a new idea. Daniel Parker said he learned of the doctrine from some brother in east Tennessee, but really it goes back farther than that. 

I will begin now to cite sources who were the first opponents of Two Seedism and Daniel Parker when he first began to teach Two Seedism. First we will cite from Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson of middle Tennessee who was a Hardshell leader who was on the front lines of battle with the Two Seeders. We referred to his book, "The Old Baptist Test," in the previous chapter. This book is available to read online for free. I have cited from it much, along with brother Fralick, in several articles in this blog and in the Baptist Gadfly blog, mostly in regard to his defense of the gospel means view, and his attack on those Two Seeder Hardshells who began to deny that one must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved. This blog chose the name "Old Baptist Test" mostly as a way to speak to present day Hardshells and to show them that they are really not "primitive" Baptists at all, it now being a misnomer, for they are really new school and not old school as they claim. 

In Elder Watson's "Old Baptist Test" we will cite from the book section titled - "A REFUTATION OF THE MANICHEO PARKERITE HERESY THE IMPERFECTION OF ALL CREATED THINGS THE SOURCE OF EVIL." (pg. 190 See here) dealing with Two Seedism's belief in an uncreated Devil, what he calls "the Parkerite heresy." (pg. 191) Watson writes (all emphasis mine):

"As the Parkerite does not deduce the least proof from the Word of God, in confirmation of his untenable notion of the existence of an eternal evil spirit, we cannot meet him on scripture ground, in the discussion of that point, but will reason the case a little with him, and a few words must suffice." (pg. 195)

I remember father and the members of our church in Ohio going to Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a church council of the churches of the Powell's Valley Association to discuss father's view on the origin and fall of Satan and I remember one Hardshell pointed to father and said, "I'll tell where the Devil came from, he's over there." I also recall father the year before (1973) debating with Elder John Robbins at the association in Middlesboro, Kentucky (where I was baptized the year before) in the cafeteria of the High School wherein the association was held. It began after the morning service on Friday when John said to father - "come on in here and lets talk about this 'devil doctrine' of yours." I recall that father could not get John and those siding with him to deny that the Devil was eternal. John focused on the fact that Satan could not have fallen from the third heaven, that if he did fall, it must have been from the first or second heaven. He said that he believed in a "pure heaven" and that it was impossible for anyone to fall from the third heaven. I say all this simply to show that this is evidence of how Two Seedism was once in full swing in that association and that the remnants of it still remained. I wrote about this fact in a post titled "Powell's Valley Originally Espoused Gospel Means" (See here). In that posting I cited from the "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by an historian of the Powell Valley Association, Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee, Knoxville. In that book he had a section (chapter V) titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," where 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)

Notice how Two Seed ideology was denounced by the side who rejected Two Seedism, calling it "heresy." Notice too how they associated that heresy with the belief of those who believe the non-elect were condemned before they existed in time and the elect were justified from sin in eternity past. They also say, in agreement with Elder Hosea Preslar, that Two Seedism denies that gospel preaching is a means of salvation and that salvation ought not to be offered to lost sinners. Notice also that Edwards says that the history of the Powell Valley Primitive Baptist "seems to feed on division and dissension," a phenomenon that is also true of most Hardshell Baptist churches. That was shown to be true in 1973 in the Oak Ridge council and in the wrangling of Elder John Robbins and his followers. The issue of the origin of Satan is a bugaboo to these descendants of the first Two Seeders and has become taboo to speak about it. Perhaps we should call it a theological hot potato.

Wrote Watson further:

"...our course will be to discuss such things as are producing distress and divorcement among us; for it is both well known and painfully felt by the Baptists of this Association, and the Old Order generally, that many hurtful and untenable notions, unsustained by the word of God, with nothing for their support, but mere Parkerite perversions, have been, for a long time, gaining strength and consideration among us, against which we now protest plainly, yet charitably." (pg. 191-192)

Watson's first edition of "The Old Baptist Test" was published about 1858, so when he says "for a long time" he means since Daniel Parker first began to promulgate his Two Seed heresy. He says the same thing that other later elders testified to about how much harm Two Seed doctrine has done to the Hardshells, especially in the 19th century, such as what Elders Sylvester Hassell, Hosea Preslar, Lemuel Potter, and other Hardshells have said. (See our earlier writings on this in this blog and in the blog titled "Two Seed Baptists"; see link on this Old Baptist Test blog)

Wrote Watson further:

"Let us see: for instance, all that we shall write on the origin of evil, will go to show the great truism of ONE GOD, THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE of all things. Then will follow the truth of the fall of all the human family in Adam; sin, a consequence of disobedience; a Scriptural account of the union between Christ and His people; the relation of Satan to the wicked; and the resurrection of our bodies." (pg. 192)

These are some of the issues Watson addressed in his denunciation and refutation of the foundational premises of Two Seedism. He denies that Satan is uncreated, affirming the orthodox scriptural view that Satan was first created as a holy angel and sinned through pride and became the Devil and Satan. He also mentions the Two Seed idea of how the elect existed in Christ before the world began, and the kind of union that existed between the elect and the eternal Son of God before the world began, and of how actual vital union does not occur until a soul is united to Christ in time by faith.

Wrote Watson further:

"As we have to shape our address according to the subjects of controversy among us, we will proceed according to the following order: to show, 

1. That the imperfection of all created things is the source or origin of evil, and not an eternal principle of evil, or an eternal Devil. 

2. Prove that all the human family, elect and non-elect, fell in Adam, in opposition to the Parkerite notion, that only the elect, or Church, fell in him! and give an exposition of the two texts of Scripture which they quote in confirmation of that error. 

3. Set forth the Scriptural account of the different kinds of Union between Christ and His people, contradistinct to the Parkerite view of the subject. 

4. Offer an exposition of the revealed doctrine of the change and resurrection of our natural or mortal bodies, in opposition to the fallacy of the non-resurrectionists. 

5. Conclusion. We will now consider our first proposition-that the imperfection of all created things is the source or origin of evil, and not an eternal principle of evil, or an eternal Devil!" (pg. 192-193)

Dr. Watson spent much time refuting these erroneous opinions of the Two Seed "Parkerites." 

Wrote Watson further:

"...the Parkerite Pagan Philosophy lead to a Minotaur of heresy, more to be dreaded than the Cretan monster of old-likewise indicate the true source of evil, and in the light of analogy, show the origin of Satan himself..." (pg. 193)

Watson shows that the origin of Satan was no mystery, and that he was not uncreated. He rejected this Manichean idea because the scriptures are clearly opposed to it.

Wrote Watson further:

"As the Parkerite does not deduce the least proof from the Word of God, in confirmation of his untenable notion of the existence of an eternal evil spirit, we cannot meet him on scripture ground, in the discussion of that point, but will reason the case a little with him, and a few words must suffice." (pg. 195)

It is strange indeed that a bible believer or bible teacher should affirm that the Devil is uncreated. Parker thought it was a way to explain the origin of evil and thus exonerate God for evil's presence. But, he created more theological problems with his view than the ones he sought to solve. 

Wrote Watson further:

"We will offer a few additional suggestions on the origin of Satan, as Satan, or as a Devil, and bring this subject to a close." (pg. 203)

In the ten years or so I was with the Hardshell Baptists, I never heard a sermon on the origin of Satan or fall of the angels except by father in our home church and in the article he wrote in the The Christian Baptist periodical. I also listened to thousands of sermons by cassette tapes. This was a subject that preachers wanted to avoid, especially if they wanted not to be shunned or rebuked.

Wrote Watson further:

"We have just seen that creation necessarily involved finite creatureship, which contained in itself an innate source of evil; but, in order to indicate the origin of Satan as Satan, it will be proper to set forth the fact that this finite condition of all creatures, whether of human beings or angels, involved the necessity of a law being given by the Creator to the creature, in a state, which admitted of a violation of such a law, or rule of conduct." (pg. 204)

Watson upholds the orthodox view that sin entered into the angelic and human worlds because God made them mutable, with a free will, and with a liability to sin and death. 

In Hassell's History, a "Primitive Baptist" history (1885), Sylvester writes the following on page 636 (See here - emphasis mine):

"Elder Daniel Parker, who had some following in the West and Southwest, denied the creation and fall of the angels, and the resurrection of the body; and he affirmed the actual existence from eternity to eternity of Satan, and of all the wicked as his seed in him, and of the righteous as the seed of Christ in Him. This doctrine is known as Two-Seedism, or Dualism; and it is an attempt to incorporate into Christianity the essence of Parsism, the ancient Pagan religion of Persia, which affirmed that there were two eternal Beings, Ormuzd, the God of light, the cause of everything good, and Ahriman, the God of darkness, the cause of all evil. It was a characteristic of Gnosticism and Manichseism, and has more or less troubled the church in all countries and ages. In utter demolition of this doctrine, the Bible declares that there is but one Eternal Being, Jehovah, and that He is the Creator of all things. The most thoughtful minds admit that sin is not a creature of God, but originated in the abuse of the free-will that God first gave to His responsible creatures."

It is true that mixing Dualism with Christian truth was not newly invented by Parker. It is doubtful that Parker could invent anything philosophically, for he was not very literate. Hassell in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was still, like his brethren, battling the errors of Two Seedism.

In a footnote on page 32 of Hassell's History Sylvester puts the following in a footnote to what his father C.B Hassell had written:

"The word "heaven" in Luke 10: 18 and Revelation 12: 7, is believed by the best scholars not to the glorified state, but to the church militant." 

I don't see how the learned Sylvester Hassell could say "the best scholars" deny that the heaven of Luke 10: 18 is the heaven where God dwells. He says that often when defending his view on certain doctrines. I suppose that "the best scholars" are those who agree with him. Satan fell from a position in the militant church? Absurd. 

In published questions submitted to Sylvester Hassell and answered by him or his fellow minister and publisher, R. H. Pitman (See here) we have this question and answer by Hassell (emphasis mine):

"Q. Revelation chapter 12:7,8,9 - does this mean that the Devil or Satan, was up in God's heaven and was cast down from there?

A. Not in the third heaven, the habitation of God. There is no discord or fighting there, but peace, love and joy. The church here on this earth is sometimes called heaven. Paul, speaking of the Ephesians, says, "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Chapter 2, v. 6. I think the war between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels was in this world, and that the Devil was cast out of heaven, or heavenly places, into the earth."

I believe that Hassell took this view out of fear of being persecuted by the Two Seeders among the Hardshells. He attacks their rejection of the fall of the angels and their belief in an eternal Devil, yet he did not want to say that Satan fell from the third heaven. Several years ago Elder Sonny Pyles was at a church where they had a session for members to ask Pyles Bible questions. A young boy asked him - "where did the Devil come from?" Sonny at first reacted by basically saying "woo hoo." Further, he danced all around the question and basically would not say that Satan fell from heaven, i.e. from the third heaven but wanted to say that he fell from the Garden of Eden. I don't think he wanted to take the standard view for it would hurt him and his being so popular among the Hardshells in holding appointments all over the country. Again, I say all these things to let the reader know the truth of what Crowley said when he testified that one could hear remnants of Two Seedism if he knew what to listen for. This attitude towards the question of where the Devil came from is a remnant of the battle with the Two Seeders.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (I)

In preceding years I have written several articles on what is called "Two Seedism," reflecting the views of those who came to be called "Two Seed Primitive Baptists" and then distinguished between those who were "Two Seed in the Spirit" or "Two Seed in the Flesh." I have had a desire to complete those previous writings. I have read much literature through the years written by Two Seeders themselves, and I wish I had kept notes on those readings so I could incorporate citations from those writings into the articles I now write to elaborate more fully on this sect. I now have a blog that will have all my articles on the Two Seeders (see link on this blog or here). 

The first thing to do is to describe the belief system of Two Seedism. The next thing will be to trace the causes that gave birth to this system and to observe the history of its advocates and that sect. 

Maxims & Premises of Two Seeders

There are some maxims of the Two Seeders that give in a nutshell their views. Here are two of them:

1. "If the head of the body existed before the world began, then so too did his body (the elect), for it would be absurd to think the head existed without a body."

2. "Nothing goes up to heaven but what first came down from heaven."

Some of the leading premises or propositions of Two Seeders are these:

1. The man Christ Jesus had a human existence before the world began, being created a man with a human soul when he was "begotten" by the Father, his being begotten having to do with his humanity and not with his divinity.

2. When the man Christ was begotten or created before the world was created, the souls of the elect were also then created in Christ, so that both the human Christ and the elect preexisted the creation of the world.

3. The elect had thus a vital living and actual union with the man Christ Jesus before the world began.

4. Regeneration or Rebirth is simply a coming down from heaven of the souls of the elect in order to enter into their human bodies when conceived in the womb. 

5. Regeneration thus does not change a man. The preexistent soul is not changed from sin's impurity for it was already pure by being in Christ from before creation, nor is the sinful body changed when it becomes possessed by the eternal spirit of the elect. The holy nature of the descended spirit was not changed and the depraved nature of the flesh was not changed when possessed. It is like when a rabbit runs into a hollow log. The log is not changed as a result. Hence we have the "hollow log" doctrine or no change in regeneration. 

6. All the non-elect were united to their father the Devil also before the world began. Thus the "two seeds," one of God and the other of Satan. 

7. God did not create the Devil. Thus, both God and the Devil are uncreated beings. The Devil never was in heaven as a pure angel, thus he never fell from heaven. Nor has any angel fallen from heaven.

8. The non elect never fell in Adam.

9. The Christian warfare of flesh (body) with the inner renewed spirit is the result or evidence of the preexistent spirit entering the depraved body.

10. There is no need for a resurrected body, for a return to being a pure spirit is preferred.

11. The seed of the Devil cannot be saved and they should not be preached unto and offered salvation.

12. Being "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1: 4) and "given grace in Christ Jesus before the world began" (II Tim. 1: 9) necessarily imply that the elect actually existed before the world began, and not merely existed in God's mind.

13. In the beginning God had appointed that Eve should bring forth only a certain number of offspring; the same provision applied to each of her daughters. But when the particles of evil essence had been diffused by Satan, the conception of Eve and her daughters was increased. They were now required to bear the original number, who were styled the seed of God; and an additional number who were called the seed of the serpent. (See B.H. Carroll's "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism")

14. The elect were justified from sin from eternity. T. P. Simmons, author of a good systematic theology, said the following about Two Seedism's embrace of the doctrine of eternal justification: "As commonly used, this is a logical corollary of the two-seed doctrine." He also said: "We utterly reject this doctrine. It is wholly anti-scriptural, and is the absurdest nonsense. It is aptly described as "a curious revival, with some modifications, of the ancient speculative philosophy of Manichaeus" and "a very disgusting form of Gnostic heresy." ("Two-Seed Doctrine and Eternal Justification" by T. P. Simmons, 1931; See here)

15. The non elect have no souls.

We could also possibly add the doctrine known as "the absolute predestination of all things," but it seems that Daniel Parker may not have believed this doctrine, though some later advocates of Two Seedism did.

Two Seedism borrows, as we will see, elements of its system from the following religious systems:

1. Manichaeism (Dualism or Zoroastrianism)

2. Gnosticism or Mysticism

3. Arianism or Semi Arianism

4. Hyper Calvinism

We could possibly add Mormonism, but really it seems that Mormonism borrowed from Two Seedism rather than the other way around.

Elder Hosea Preslar was a Primitive Baptist minister who lived in both North Carolina and Tennessee in the early to mid 19th century and I cited him in an article (See here) where he listed eight beliefs of the Two Seeders that he battled in those states, especially in middle Tennessee. He was an associate of Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson who likewise contended against the Two Seeders and wrote a book called "The Old Baptist Test" wherein the first half of the book attacks the heretical ideas of the Two Seed Baptists. We will refer to both these men in upcoming chapters. Preslar wrote a book titled "Thoughts on Divine Providence," a book I have in my library from which I cited several times. 

He lists many of the items in the list I have above, but adds that it was the Two Seeders who began to teach that God does not use his word in the regeneration of sinners. He said:

"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."

That citation was taken from his book, mentioned above, and from page 87 (See my other post here)

In a previous article I cited the following words from Hardshell leader and historian, Elder Sylvester Hassell, about Two Seedism:

"...the heathenish perversions of Scriptural truth set forth by Eld. Daniel Parker, of Tennessee, about 1835, in his pamphlet called "My Views on the Two Seeds," have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined." (The Two Seed Heresy The Gospel Messenger--March 1894) 

Other Hardshell Baptists have said the same. See all my previous articles on this, especially what Elders Grigg Thompson and Hosea Preslar (who lived during the time of Parker) have testified to the same fact Elder Hassell states. 

On pages 179-180 of Preslar's book he writes (emphasis mine):

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

In writing on the "Two Seed" Baptists, of which Elder Daniel Parker was the first leader and promulgator of "Two Seedism," one must first define it. What are the leading ideas inherent in that system? Simply put, it is the belief that there are two seeds in scripture, the seed of Satan and the seed of the Lord. The seed of Satan stands for the "children of the Devil" that Jesus spoke about. The seed of the Lord stands for the "children of God." That basic proposition finds little opposition from the Christian world. What does find opposition, however, is what Parker and others following him taught relative to these two seeds. 

Parker and the first promoters of Two Seedism believed in the preexistence of the souls of both seed groups. The seed of the Devil existed in the Devil before the world began. The seed of the Lord likewise existed in the Lord Jesus Christ before the world began. These views arose out of several ancient heretical ideas. One is Manichaeism, also known as Dualism or Zoroastrianism. Another one of these ideas is the belief in the preexistence of souls. Another is the heresy known as Arianism. Another idea inherent in Two Seedism is borrowed from some aspects of Gnosticism. Finally, another heretical idea involved is the idea that Christ in his human nature existed in some form before the world began. Two Seedism is the result of blending these ideas together.

We should also mention what is called "eternal vital union" which says that the elect had a literal existence in Christ the Son of God before the world began. Just as Eve was in Adam before she was made from his rib, so the elect, as the bride of Christ, existed in him before they were born into the physical world. This idea denied that "vital union" with Christ is begun in time when the sinner unites himself with Christ by faith. 

Following Parker there were those who took the lead in promoting Two Seed ideology. Elder Gilbert Beebe took that lead along with Elder Samuel Trott and other leading writers of the periodical "Signs of the Times." Immediately after helping to write "The Black Rock Address" in 1832 (a document where the Hardshells declared non-fellowship with all other Baptists who did not agree with them) he began to publish the first Hardshell periodical called "The Signs of the Times." 

Eternal Children Doctrine II

The following is from the book "Life and Travels of William Conrad," and was written in the year 1875. It has much information about the "eternal children doctrine," and which is of great value in knowing the history of this heresy among the Hardshells. It was written later in his life and recorded the errors in Eld. Thos. P. Dudley's "Circular on the Christian Warfare" wherein Dudley sought to defend the view of "eternal vital union." Elder Conrad was a Hardshell. He preached for old Ray's Fork church in Kentucky, a church I myself visited more than once and where I also preached. One of my old fathers in the ministry, Elder Rice Bolender, pastored this church in the 70's.

First, let me begin with this statement of Conrad's relative to unity in Baptist doctrine in ages past.

"Now, in the present age of the church it is like as in ages past, that a great diversity of opinion exists in regard to doctrine;" (How can Hardshells, out of one side of their mouths, say that the Baptists were all one in doctrine in the 1700's (and early 1800's) and then make such statements out of the other side of their mouths?) "and among other items the doctrine of union has become a source of strife and sometimes of angry contentions, and it is mostly because brethren do not give words their proper bearing and take into consideration that with which it stands associated." (we might put this statement into a future chapter on "Hardshell Hermenuetics") "When it is rightly explained it will readily appear there is no sufficient ground to become alienated, especially in church relations. It is certainly a matter of great imbecility for brethren to create dissentions in the church about the application of a mere term;" (Amen to that! The Hardshells are infamous for this! They give to terms, relative to the new birth, strange and unsound definitions!) "for it is contended that the term actual must always be associated with eternal union.

Much confusion has and always will arise about unqualified assertions in reference to actual eternal union; we must therefore absolutely explain what we mean by the term, for the words are not set down in the Bible in an abstract form; and to use the term in an unqualified sense is to confound the eternal infinite existence of God with finite and created beings. It is certainly a sober and acknowledged truth that nothing existed before it was created unless there was something co-evil and co-eternal with God, and if that; something did so exist, we have no evidence in the Bible of its actual union with God; but yet, if it did so exist, then it embodies some of the highest and brightest traits of the divine Jehovah, and of course there would be more than one eternal being. This assumption may do heathens and deists, but a child of God will never acknowledge it," (I seriously doubt that modern Hardshells will say that all who believe in this are lost, for they have many idol worshiping heathens born again, by their heresy, who worship a false God and believe false teachings about him) "for the apostle says: "To us there is but one God-he the only wise God, and God our Saviour." (But, this verse cannot be used to talk about what is true of all the "born again," by Hardshell definition of what constitutes the experience of "regeneration," for they learn no doctrine in it!) "This item has been a matter of faith in every age, from the days of Enoch with the holy seers of Israel, the Church in the Jewish dispensation in the apostolic age-even up to the year 1850 they have never deviated nor can they falter in this all-important point. Men, angels, nor demons can not show from the Revelations any other actual eternal being; two seedism or any other extraism" (as "Hyper-Calvinism"?) "to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, in the investigation of truth we must always keep this point in our minds that the great Jehovah is the only actual self-existent being, and that other beings in heaven, earth, or hell, are created and of course derivative, and therefore not actual eternal beings. It seems superfluous to labor this topic, for surely no Christian can for a moment indulge the thought that there is any other actual eternal being; but should a contrary position be assumed, then its advocates would have to prove that-first, there is more than one actual eternal being; and, second, that these actual eternal beings were united...You may very easily see how God could give them grace, etc., on the principle of a surety, and not on the principle of an actual eternal union."

"Now, to make this matter more plain we will introduce a scriptural example: Andronicus, Junia, and Paul were all elected in Christ at one and the same time; were all chosen in Christ before the world began, and there was no space of time between the gift of these by the Father to the son, and yet in the reception and actual enjoyment of them there was a difference of time; and hence, Paul says: "Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before me; were actually born of God before me.""

"We will venture to remark that there is not a Christian in all the universe but was shown by the spirit of grace in due time that he was in league with Satan, and that his soul and body was sunk under the destruction of sin, and so far from being actually united to Christ. He saw under the light of grace that he was condemned by the very law he expected justification by, and therefore, in great anguish of heart with a deep-felt sensibility cries: "O Lord undertake thou for me." The spirit of life awakened this person from the sleep of death, he sees his danger, bewails his case as a sinner united to destruction and no hope of a union according to law. When he fully realizes his entire helplessness, this same spirit of grace which brought him to see himself thus justly condemned shows him that Jesus bore his sins in his own body on the tree of the cross, and infuses in him a faith and hope that Jesus died for his sins, and under the light of this grace he can understand how his sins was imputed or placed to the account of Christ, and for which Christ died. On the other hand he can, with the same light see how he can be justified and actually united and eternally saved by the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto him; he now understands but never before how Christ bore him and carried him all the days of old; and on this point every Christian in the world stands and rejoices in hope of the glory of God."

The last paragraph above cries out for some observations to be made. First, the writer is arguing against the idea that we were actually children of God before we were "born again" and argues that in being "born again" one is taught (in conviction) that he is not a child of God, not saved, not born again, and the argument is that the Holy Spirit could not witness these things to them in the new birth if they were not true. Wonderful! Recall then my argument earlier in this book where I asked the question whether the Holy Spirit, when convicting a sinner that he is condemned, was telling a truth. In other words, if by Hardshell views, this person being convicted is already born again, then the Holy Spirit would be telling them they are lost when they are really saved! I showed how Elder Sarrels saw this difficulty and stated that the Holy Spirit is not convicting of actual sin, but hypothetical sin!

Second, the way Elder Conrad described the "new birth" experience makes it foreign to modern Hardshell views which do not allow for the "regenerated" soul to "learn" anything, all "learning" coming after "regeneration"! To them the "new birth" experience is all on the "sub-conscious level"!

Elder Conrad continues:

"The foregoing sentiments entirely harmonize with our circular of 1847, which says: "Our broad principles are salvation from first to last through Christ alone, which necessarily embraces election, effectual calling, final perseverance," etc.; this covers the entire ground. And God viewed the sinner justified in Christ virtually but not actually. Union we consider eternally virtual but not actual; in the second place actual union arises from the sufferings and death of Christ; then there is a vital or actual union between Christ and these souls and a declarative and actual justification; but so far as time is concerned it requires all this in time, etc. we pass. The actual existence of anything excludes the idea of predestination...God can give them grace in Christ before they had an actual being, union, or existence, and thus bear them and carry them all the days of old."

This is of course the Baptist view relative to this new innovation in doctrine.

Elder Conrad continues:

"David, the prophet of God, in reviewing and discanting on the works of creation at large, as bespeaking the power of God, had also a prophetic view of the Church of God in Jesus, and says: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect, and in thy book were all my members written, which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them...figurative language designed to show the ultimate formation or visibility of the Church of Christ as forever existing in the eternal mind when as yet there was none of them."

Again he continues:

"We think no Christian will dispute this point, but if they should, then the next step is to enter the wild chimerical field of the ancient heathen philosophers who maintained, 4,000 years ago, that there was two self-existent eternal spirits-one said to be good, and the other said to be evil, and that each governs its own dominions and subject. Two-seedism rightly explained approximates this...But, if there be eternal souls there may exist an actual eternal union, but unless there be souls in actual eternal existence, there can not be an actual or vital eternal union; for to say that a thing is actually united when it does not exist is talking at random and outside of the Bible, and to say that a soul or sinner is actually united when that soul or sinner does not exist is preposterous to an extreme. There must be an actual existence of the person before there can be an actual union between them.

Again, if there is (sic) actual beings in eternal existence, a capital vein of divine revelation is destroyed, which vein is that God is the only eternal self-existent being, for the former system multiplies eternal beings, ad infinitum.

And further, it destroys those Scriptures that speaks of being created in Christ, begotten, born, etc." (Amen to that! The new birth becomes a bunch of nothing in Parker's, Beebe's and Dudley's novel idea of eternal children). Creation hath a beginning, whether the thing be one year or twenty millions old, otherwise it is uncreated and eternal. There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence; but there is eternal decreed, purposed or treasured in Christ before it is given, and in due time we are said to receive it according to the election of grace; and therefore we are said to be the Temple of God, which is holy, which temple ye are."

I must pause and observe here that though Elder Conrad objects to the views of Parker, Beebe, Dudley, and others, relative to the "eternal seed," he does share the view of Beebe wherein he breaks down the new birth into separate aspects, the initial begetting (conception, when the sperm and egg unite), and gestation (the period between begetting and being delivered from the womb), and the final birth (deliverance) of the begotten child from the womb. I have addressed this idea before but only note how it was a common view among the first and second generation of Hardshells.

Elder Conrad continues:

"We have yet to learn where the topic of vital or actual eternal union was ever an item of faith set down in the confession of the Church of Christ. We have looked through every century from John the Baptist until the beginning of the present one, and we can not see any traces of it anywhere...Now, our commentators and ecclesiastic historians have been much at fault if the point of vital or actual eternal union was ever an item of faith for not setting it down. But the whole tenor of the ecclesiasticals and commentators go to demonstrate and make plain the position we assume. Indeed we do but follow in the old beaten paths of our fathers for near 1800 years."

Yes, that may be true relative to the novel idea of eternal vital union, but can he say the same relative to the Hardshell views on the new birth, what it is, how it is connected with conversion and discipleship, and how it involves coming to know the truth of the gospel?

He continues:

"There have been, however, of late, a few writers in England and America who have played off their talents and bent all their energies on this point. But, although 1800 years have rolled by, and every point of doctrine has been contested, disputed, and strongly controverted, yet this point seems not to have been thought of until recently."

He then writes:

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

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

The above should be enough to show the reader how the strange views of the Hardshells relative to the new birth, eventually ended up evolving into a belief that the "new birth" or "regeneration" did not produce any change in a person, nor any knowledge of truth, nor any faith in God or his Son Jesus Christ. It does not, as he said, produce any hope or love, in the Christian sense, in the Hardshell "regenerated" soul!

"3rd and lastly. That union is one of the graces of spirit, one of the covenanted blessings treasured Christ before the world began, according to foreseen persons, which foreknowledge and election gave us a representative existence, which existence was in the eternal mind and purpose of Jehovah; but just as complete as though all these things had an actual eternal existence in us, for God speaks of and calleth those things which be not as though they were. And the course of these blessings result in their being conferred, given, made known to the heirs of grace, and they, the elect, are said to receive them, and of course they could not be said to be forever in actual possession of them.

Union then is only one of the links in the great chain of doctrine fastened to the throne of God by eternal love, and all the graces of salvation have their existence in the eternal Lord, and are revealed to the elect upon earth."

Again, please note how the farther back one goes in reading the view of Hardshells on the "new birth," the more they describe the experience under terms of "conversion." The later you get away from the Hardshell founding fathers the less "regeneration" connects with the elements of "conversion."

He continues:

"That part of my history which relates to doctrines and heresies that are and have been troubling God's dear circumcised children in these last days-these days of darkness and gloom that hath overtaken the Zion of our God near the close of this nineteenth century, with the great departures in life and in practice from the old landmarks, of which we have made mention in the above; that which did not come under our own personal observation as eye witnesses. We have given and have in our possession the printed documents to which we referred, as well as those documents, of which we have copied a part of what we have written."

And again:

"And lastly, that I am now among the oldest in profession that claims to be an Old School Baptist in our part of Kentucky, and feeling deeply impressed in mind from what I have seen and observed for over twenty years of the various and repeated efforts being made to introduce false doctrines or heresies among the Zion of our God during that long period of time."

And again:

"And, as above, having lived near fifty-five years an unworthy member among them, that these, these considerations connected with my own personal knowledge, while thus to mingle and commingle among the people with whom we have been so long identified."

"These things have led us to use great plainness of speech in writing the above biography or short history; for while I have narrowly watched the approach of the innovations in their approach and introductions among the dear people of God and the windings and various coils of those and their adherents who were and are still using their remaining powers to spread as well as make fast those already within their coils, and to strive in the mean time in a covert course of procedure to hesitate to speak out in words as they teach and preach in that plain manner in which they have written out their new doctrines, or what we call heresies, as they well know that what they have written in pamphlet form or otherwise will, in this day of novelty, if read at all are soon cast aside, and no more noticed, and so die out of the minds of the reader. While, if they should preach everywhere they went, both at their regular meetings or otherwise in the same plain manner in which they have written out those new doctrines, as a matter of course, those heretical sentiments would be up before the people afresh from time to time, as often as those preachers preached, whether to great or small congregations (if they preached the same things wherever they went), which the faithful minister of God does as he knows that the Gospel of God is one."

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

"The holding those circulars fast by the members of Licking Association, and not letting them out to those outside their connection, I am led to judge, tells to me plain that there is an object for withholding them, and it is now over twenty-five years since the circular on the warfare was published. Hence, we feel as above, that it will no more appear in its original shape as first published, unless copied and published by some one else besides its original writer. That we have and can see in subsequent documents and minutes of Licking the same sentiments in different shape or expressed by different words, and as before hinted, I am quite confident I know more about the introduction of above heresy as embraced in the circular on the warfare-so often named in this history, than any other now living except its author. And, besides my own personal knowledge I have in possession the printed minutes, circulars, and other printed documents, mostly from 1808, before Licking was organized."

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

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

As we are nearing the last quarter of the present century it would, as we think, be best to copy off and print with this, the circular on the warfare as first published.

Touching the heresy above alluded to, we can say in truth of it as Paul said of Alexander, the coppersmith, that the heresy done us, the Old Baptists in Kentucky and elsewhere, much evil. The Lord reward its author according to his works, of whom be thou aware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words."

WM CONRAD.

Near Williamstown, Grant Co. Ky.,

October 23, 1875.

http://www.upbuild.org/article97/page2.html

It is quite obvious that Elder Conrad was one of the best witnesses to call forth in a discussion of some of the novel ideas making their way into the ranks of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church" and how the views of the founders of Hardshellism, men like Parker and Beebe, led to the view that "regeneration" produced no change in the person "regenerated," a view that came to be known in other circles, while the controversy raged, as the Hollow Log view of this new birth experience, a view in stark contrast to the idea that the "whole man" was "born again" and "regenerated." In the next two chapters I will be discussing this further.

 

Eternal Children Doctrine I

The following is from chapter 37 of my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here)

Eternal Children Doctrine or Eternal Vital Union Doctrine

Error begats error. One departure in fundamental doctrine leads to further departures from the truth, an example of theological "slippery slope." Once the Hardshells abandoned the truth, as expressed in the Old Confessions, especially on the new birth and conversion, and began to take extreme and heretical views on essential doctrine, they found the obtaining of unity among them very difficult, especially with such divergent views emerging on the subject of the new birth. One of those new ideas came to be known as the Eternal Children Doctrine or Eternal Vital Union Doctrine. Elder Beebe became a leading spokesman for this novel idea, together with Elder T. P Dudley and others.


Elder Gilbert Beebe wrote:

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

And further he writes:

"As aliens and strangers we are brought nigh by the blood of Christ, together with the impartation to us of the spirit of adoption, while our vital relation to God is far more ancient and eternal, based upon a life given us in Christ which was never alien to God, but forever hid with Christ in him, and this sonship is developed by a spiritual birth."

(Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume 6 pgs 46-63 June 15, 1864)

The idea that the Lord's elect people had a real or actual existence before the world began was clearly believed and advocated by Elder Beebe. It seems to have been one of the leading ideas associated with Daniel Parker's famed "Two Seed" doctrine. The elect, or chosen "seed," were actually "in Christ" before the foundation of the world. Parker did not go into the later errors of soul sleep or non-resurrection, as Elder Potter made clear (as will be seen). But, he did believe in the pre-existance of the elect.

As one can imagine, there soon developed several absurd consequences to this new and novel idea. One of those is mentioned in the above writing by Beebe. He refers to some objections by Elder Pence (to be referred to later), such as, “Was the spiritual family of God ever corrupted in sin?” Further, what is the "new birth," and how could the elect have been born "children of wrath" IF they were already, from eternity, the children of God?

Wrote neo-Hardshell, James Poole, in defending Beebe's view -- "Well,” they say, “you don’t need to be born again if you were already in Christ.”

(http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/ejp/eternal.html)

This topic was hotly debated by the first generation or two of Hardshells. It was very nasty at times. Beebe continued to have difficulties uniting his Hardshell brothers under one umbrella with this odd view (and others) that the bulk of the Hardshells could not accept.

Though Elder Daniel Parker was the father of the "Two-Seed Doctrine," he nevertheless did not become the leading spokesman for one of its main ideas, that of the eternal existance of the children of God as an uncreated "seed." The reason why Elder Parker did not continue to be the leading spokesman for the anti mission cause as well as the idea of "eternal vital union," was due I firmly believe, to the views he took relative to the Devil's origin and things relative to his "seed." Were it not for those "hard to swallow" views of Parker, about the origin of Satan, I believe Parker would have continued to be a leader among the first Hardshells, rather than retiring to Texas in relative obscurity, and why the Hardshells disassociated themselves from him.

I also believe that Parker's heretical views on the origin of Satan created a "stigma" around any preaching or doctrinal discussions respecting the origin of Satan, an issue I have referred to earlier in this work, and concerning which I will yet have more to say.

Historically speaking, the first generation or two of Hardshells were still "staking out positions" on doctrine. Once they had abandoned the teaching of the Bible and the Baptist confessions relative to the new birth and conversion, it was inevitable that such an error would lead to other errors in related doctrine. Some of the men who wrote exhaustively against the "eternal children" doctrine were leading Hardshells like Elder Grigg Thompson, Elder J.H. Oliphant, Elder John Clark, and Elder Lemuel Potter. I will also be citing from Hardshell WM CONRAD who wrote much on this subject, both historically and Biblically, and referring to how both Elder Beebe and Elder T.P. Dudley (of the famous old church Bryan's Station) rode this topic as a "hobby horse," and causing division among the newly formed Hardshell denomination. But, before I give their rebuttals to Beebe and other advocates of this idea of Parker's, let me cite other references to this doctrine by Beebe.

Elder Gilbert Beebe - "INCARNATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD"

"...the participation of the children of God of flesh and blood, and the incarnation of the Son of God, are placed on the same ground, and based upon the same principle, by the inspired apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." [2:14] To our mind, this text is a key to the subject..."

And again Beebe writes:

"It being established that Christ did exist, not only as God, but also as the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, and as the first-born, and before all things, and at the appointed time, when the fulness of that time had come, he was sent forth, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; so the doctrine of the incarnation of his children, together with that of their previous existence in him, is exemplified. They were created in him, chosen in him, preserved in him, saved and called, according to the purpose and grace which was given them in him before the world began. And all spiritual blessings [past, present, or to come, that the saints ever have, or ever will or can enjoy] were given them according as God hath chosen them in him before the foundation of the world. Eph.1:3,4. Their spiritual, eternal life was given them in Christ before the world began, as their earthly, fleshly life was given them in the earthly Adam, in time. John says, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I John 5:11,12."

And further:

"These children in Christ were, in the matchless wisdom of God, destined to partake of the life of the natural Adam."

"So, after this example, that life by which God’s people were identified in Christ before all time, is implanted in those persons, by which God’s chosen people were identified in the earthly Adam. The Holy Ghost comes upon them, and the power of the Highest overshadows them. The incorruptible seed, not by the agency of man, but by the word of the Lord, which liveth and abideth forever, implants in them that spiritual, eternal life which was and is hid with Christ in God, by which is given to them "power to become [manifestly] the sons of God;" and they are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13."

(From Signs of the Times- September 15, 1856 Vol.24)

This is all quite fantastic of course. It is pure "gnosticism" in Baptist clothing. It is something out of Christian fiction, or something one might expect from those who believe that there are "aliens among us," people with "star seed"! Beebe's and Parker's novel ideas about what constitutes "regeneration" and the "new birth" helped alleviate them from belief that gospel preaching was God's instrument in birthing his people and from their duty to support missions.

Now let us hear Elder Grigg Thompson, who wrote the following with rebuttals against the view of Beebe and Parker, and ironically, even his father, Elder Wilson Thompson." (but more on that later):

"Election is personal, and positive, made in Christ before the world began. "According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love;" Eph., i, 4. I have heard some quote this text in a way of triumph, and say, "How could they be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, if they did not exist in him before the foundation of the world? "And this existence, they say, "is both in essence and substance." So that I can not understand them, unless they mean that the elect existed in him before the foundation of the world as wheat exists in a sack, or a pig in a pen. They who use such expressions, must be careless readers of their Bibles, or ignorant of their own language; for there is no such an idea contained in the text. A bitter fountain can not send forth sweet water: a sinful seed can not exist in a holy parent. If the elect existed in Christ before the foundation of the world in substance or seed, it was a holy substance or seed, and could not be chosen that it "should be holy; "for it was already holy, and could be nothing else but holy while it existed in Christ unless he became corrupted and unholy; the seed would then inherit the corrupt nature of the parent, and all would be sinners together. God the Father chose his people before the foundation of the world, and he made that choice in Christ, and in Christ he blessed them with all spiritual blessings or things. While God in Christ made this choice, he chose them out of the world, out of all nations, and from among men. The choice was made in Christ, and not in Adam; but they were chosen out of Adam's fallen race." ("The Primitive Preacher," section on "Forgiveness of Sins")

Other Hardshells also began to distance themselves from the view that the children of God pre-existed before their natural births.

Elder James H. Oliphant writes:

We think that the doctrine of the two seeds, as taught by Parker, and also the doctrine of eternal vital union, as held by others, are opposed to the doctrine of election as taught by the bible, and that they are equally as objectionable as the doctrine of election as taught by Wesley. Each of these views finds the reasons of one's election in himself. Wesley ascribes our election to our obedience, which is at war with grace. Parker and others find a difference in the origin of men that accounts for the election of some and the reprobation of others, while the bible puts it upon the sovereignty of God. Eld. Lemuel Potter has recently published a pamphlet in which this subject is fully investigated, in which he has shown that all these views are open to the same objections: These pamphlets can yet be had by addressing Eld. Lemuel Potter, Cynthiana, Posey county, Indiana. (This pamphlet is worthy of a general circulation.)

(from the book "Principles and Practices of the Regular Baptists" -- http://www.upbuild.org/article4/page6.html)

Now let us cite from Elder Potter's book against the doctrine of the eternal seed.

A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH, by Elder Lemuel Potter, 1880, 67 pp.


THE NEW BIRTH

"It is not our intention, in this article, to discuss the subject of the "new birth," or to even introduce it for others to discuss, through the ADVOCATE, but simply to let our readers know where we stand. Our reasons for even that much is, that we have recently received two letters, both of which invited controversy on that subject, on the plea that some of our writers had dropped a remark or two that they did not endorse. We claim the right to publish the doctrine of our people on that, or any other subject, without being under any obligations, whatever, to give space to those who may differ, though they be Primitive Baptists, and our personal friends. THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following, on "THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH, AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD."

Note: Did you see the caveat of Elder Potter? "Provide (if) it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession"! Was it his people, the Hardshells, or not? We will address this later when we discuss Elder Potter further along with Elder Pence, Burnam, and others.

And again, Elder Potter writes:

"In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists, against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them. This article is not to controvert the point, but it is intended as a statement of the doctrine of the ADVOCATE, on this subject. It is also intended as an answer to a question, recently, in a letter from Brother J. P. Harris, of Sunfield, Illinois. Prior to this time I had said nothing in the paper on the subject, and yet I knew that our brethren who differed, were preaching on the new birth in almost all their sermons, and that they were trying to intimidate those who opposed them. But I let it all pass, and said nothing for some time afterwards."

There are some very interesting things to observe from the above words of Potter.

1. Potter called into doubt, in the prior quotation, whether the Hardshells were indeed the ones who wrote the Old London Baptist Confession of faith (and just why would he doubt that, except for what it had to say about the new birth and the means used in it?), and yet now says "We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them"!

2. He also affirms that it has been the defense, thus far, of the first generation of Hardshells, in debate with those Baptists who supported missions, and who yet adhered to the Confession on means and the new birth, to not outright deny non-adherance to it, but rather to "twist and distort" what the writers of the old Confession actually said (in much the same way people "twist and distort" the words of holy scripture). This is certainly what was done at the famed "Fulton Convention in 1900 (and of which we will have much more to say later and of which Brother Ross has already addressed in his writings upon this subject).

3. He plainly says that his Hardshells believe the same thing, relative to the new birth, that the Old Baptists believed. This is a total falsehood and one which he was called upon by Elder Pence (and others) to defend in public debate. But, more on that also in later chapters.

Potter went on to say:

"...if we say that in the work of regeneration, the body is born of the Spirit, then we have man in possession of a spiritual body, after regeneration. But Paul still refers to the bodies of the saints as natural, fleshly bodies. If the bodies are not born of the Spirit, in the work of regeneration, in time, then there must, of necessity, be something about man, that really is man, that is not body, that partakes of spirituality, at the time of the new birth, or else no part of man is born of God in time."

This statement partly relates to another controversy swirling about among the first generation of Hardshells. It relates to what part of the man is born again in regeneration? His soul only? Or his body too? What change does this experience bring about in the individual who is born again and regenerated? I will be addressing these issues later.

Potter wrote further:

"I now want my readers to know that the reason I am saying so much on this subject is that there are some who do not believe that man is changed in the new birth, but just a new principle is put into him, and the same old principle that was in him before regeneration, is still in him, and that makes the warfare, and that the whole man, soul, body and spirit, some of them say, is born of God in time, and that the same man, all of him, soul, body and spirit, will die, and remain dead until the resurrection. They make strange of the idea that any part of man goes to heaven at the death of the body. They believe that man is not changed until the resurrection. Then he will be changed. These people, I denominate "No Soulers," and I charge them with believing and preaching heresy. It is not warranted in the Bible, and it antagonizes the Primitive Baptist doctrine. Those who deny the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body have become so intolerant in some localities, that with them a man brother, with whom I am well acquainted, in referring to one of his brethren, who believed as I do, stigmatize him "Doctor of Divinity," with quite a sarcastic air. I think that was a bad spirit."

This all confirms what I said earlier about "error begetting error," about how one departure leads to others and to a "slippery slope," theologically speaking. One can obviously see why the first generation of Hardshells began to "go to seed" on the subject of what constitutes the "new birth." Once you take out conversion and anything connected with knowledge of truth, or cognition, or human choice or activity, you end up with a view of the "new birth" that ends up being a "bunch of nothing"! Hence, you will see how some began to believe in a view of the "new birth" as being one that does not "change" the person, and finally to the view that "regeneration is all on the sub-conscious level" (the view of most modern Hardshells).

Again, Potter writes:

"On account of these facts I have always denied, and do yet deny, that the body is regenerated in time."

And again:

"But I have been often told by good people that the body must be born again, for the Savior said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." They claim that he did not say a part of him, nor he did not say that his soul or spirit must be born again, but he, Nicodemus, must be born again. Let me ask, did he tell Nicodemus that his body must be born again? But "no soulers" claim that the body is born again, for it is the body that weeps and cries and feels badly and condemned."

This all respects what later became known as the "Whole Man Doctrine," the opposite idea of the "no change" view of the "new birth." I will have more to say about that in the next chapters.

Potter continues:

"I do not wish to divide the man up, I do not want to dissect man. I believe I am the man, both soul and body, that is born of God, in the work of regeneration, in time.""

Here Potter seems to believe in the whole man doctrine, but in other places, he states that the body is not regenerated till the resurrection, while the soul in the new birth. Here he seems to put them together "in time"

He writes further:

Is Man Changed in the New Birth?

"We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me, seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to me. Christ is in the man that is born again. Romans 8: 10. He has the mind of Christ. I Corinthians 1: 16. The love of God is shed abroad in his heart. Romans 5: 5. He has been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Colossians 1: 13. Created in Christ Jesus unto with Christ (sic). Ephesians 2: 5. The eyes of their understanding have been enlightened. Ephesians 1: 18. They were sometime darkness, but are now light in the Lord. Ephesians 5: 8. They have passed from death to life. John 5: 24. God dwelleth in them. I John 4:16. All these things are true of the regenerate man, and none of them are true of the unrenewed man. The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again. He has been translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, and if he gets into the kingdom of Christ without being changed, he goes into the kingdom while in a state of enmity against God, for that is the condition he was in before. I claim that in the work of the new birth, the sinner is changed. He was dead, but he now has eternal life. His heart was evil, and it spoke evil things, and Jesus said, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things, for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Luke 6: 45. If man undergoes no change in regeneration, he is just the same in adaptations and in his nature after the new birth that he is before the new birth. Before he is born of God, he is natural, so, if he undergoes no change in the new birth, he is still natural. The apostle says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14. Is it true of the saints that they do not discern the things of the Spirit? Can the saint know the things of the Spirit? We read, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." The very things that the natural man does not know the saint knows. The natural man is made a saint in the work of regeneration, and the saint knows the things of the Spirit of God, but the natural man does not. So, it is inevitably true that the man is changed in the new birth; not merely changed as to his state and surroundings, but he is changed in his nature. He himself is changed. The apostle Peter intimates that he partakes of the divine nature. He was fleshly before regeneration; he is spiritual after regeneration. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6: 1. "Ye that are spiritual." To whom does this important language apply? I hold, and I suppose no one will dispute it, that it applies to the man that has been born of God. Will it apply as truly to the unregenerate? I suppose all will agree with me that it does not. If man was natural before he was born of God, and is spiritual now, since he is born of God, he is certainly changed, is he not? Reader, you say. All these glaring oppositions to the plain teachings of God's word, grow out of the unscriptural idea that all there is of man is body, and we know it is not changed in the new birth; so if we claim that it is born again, we must claim that the sinner is not changed in the..."

In the above, Potter says, "The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us." Yes, and it started with the birth of the Hardshells. Their view of regeneration and the new birth, when looked at fairly and squarely for what it is, is a "no change" view of the subject, in spite of the noble defenses the second generation Hardshells made to the contrary. But, more on all this in later writings.

And again Potter writes:

"But our effort now, is to prove that the very thing we advocate, that, perhaps twenty of our ministers, and a very light sprinkle of brethren in the Mississippi valley, object to, is the very doctrine that Baptists have always believed, and have had in their confession of faith. We shall now call up the late and renowned Elder Daniel Parker, the "Two Seeder." In his Church Advocate , Vol. 2, No. 4, January 1831, page 90, he says: "The soul thus being made immortal by the Spirit of God, is fitted and prepared for the presence of God, and to enjoy him." On the same page he says, "When we turn our attention to the experimental part of the Christian religion, as wrought by the Divine Spirit in the soul, we find it to be the same divine truth, realized by the soul, which is declared in the word of God. The soul is quickened by the Spirit, the dead is made to hear the voice of the Son of God and live." On page 91, he says, "Take away, or deny the work of the Spirit in the internal experimental knowledge of saving grace in or to the soul, and you take away, or deny the truth of the word of God to the soul, the life of the soul, the hope God has wrought in the soul, the comfort of the soul, the love of God in the soul, the divine principle implanted in the soul, the food and clothing of the soul, the warm feeling desires of the soul, the drawing of God's love to the soul, and in fact you take everything that makes religion sweet, the true worship of God delightful, the word of God powerful, the presence of God desirable, and the glory of God as the prime objects of the soul, which stimulates it, in acts of obedience to God from proper and pure motives, for its religion, the life or Spirit of God in the soul, that moves it forward in action, in the service of God at war against sin." We hope the reader will bear in mind that we, in this article, are trying to prove that, upon the subject of what is born again in time, and the state of the dead until the resurrection, we are identical with the Primitive Baptists, not only of the present time, but in all the past.

To this end we will continue to quote from Parker. In the same paper, of July 1831, page 234, six queries were propounded to Elder Parker, and the sixth one was as follows: "Did Adam possess a spirit in his created state superior to animal? As I understand the soul and spirit to be different, dear brother, be pleased to answer these queries, as they are matters of considerable moment to me."

On page 240, after stating that "Adam was certainly a natural being, and not a spiritual one, when created," etc., he concludes his answer, as follows: "There is a controversy as to which is the existing part of man, the soul or spirit, and I have no doubt that both terms are used in the word of truth, as expressive of that part of man, which will eternally exist, but I think you will understand me as to that part of man which I have been pointing out, and as to any thing further on this subject, I 8th number." On page 180, of the same paper, we find his answer in number 8, and in it he says, "I do not consider the bare lump of clay, separate from the soul, to be the man, neither the soul separate from the body, but it took both soul and body to complete the Adam which God created."

We also have before us a circular letter, written in 1849, by the late Elder Joel Hume, in which he treats on the regeneration of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and he is very pointed, and stands in line with all the foregoing witnesses, on the subject before us. Our next witness will be the late Elder John M. Watson, in Old Baptist Test, page 551: "It is a matter of surprise that any should have supposed that the soul, after the death of the body, passes into a state of insensibility, which will continue until the morning of the resurrection." On page 550, he says, "As the regenerated soul is endowed with eternal life, its destinies extend far beyond the present world, time, and time things." On Page 551, he says, "The renewed soul at death is in a state to enter heaven." On same page, "The soul can exist without a body, but the body can not exist without the soul. The soul can not die." On page 552, he says, "Christ makes a clear distinction of soul and body in the following words. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Our next witness is the late Elder John Clark, of Virginia, the founder of Zion's Advocat, which is now published by Elder T. S. Dalton. In volume 10, of that paper, Feb. 14, 1871, page 272, he gives his readers a very able article on regeneration, in which he says, "No change takes place in the mental powers of man after regeneration at any time, and the souls of the redeemed go immediately to heaven at death, for which they were fully and effectually prepared in regeneration, as heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people, as some one has justly said, and hence the Redeemer said to the malefactor that hung by his side on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise;" and John saw "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God under the altar." Revelations 6: 9; 20: 4. They were then absent from the body and present with the Lord; and those that had killed their bodies, could do nothing more; they could not kill their souls. Their bodies were, and still are, under the power of the grave, though their ransomed spirits are before the throne." Elder Clark believed that the soul of man was redeemed and renewed in regeneration. He says it in this article. We have now seen that the Waldenses, and the old English Baptists, and the first American Baptists, and our own authors of the present century, as Parker, Hume, Watson, and Clark, have all written that when the body dies the soul goes immediately to heaven or hell.

All these authors believed in the resurrection of the body, and the salvation of the Adam sinner. None of them believed in the doctrine of eternal children. We have others present, but can not quote them in this article, as Elder Jesse Cox, Dr. John Gill, and others who believed as we do. These have been our spiritual fathers; I Corinthians 4: 15, and they have all believed without controversy, that at death the soul left the claims to the name of old Primitive Baptists. We are truly sorry that any of our dear brethren are engaged in opposing this Old Baptist doctrine. Some of them are very near to us, and we do not wish to treat them unkindly, but when they make a fight against the doctrine we, and our church as a denomination, have always believed, it wounds us. Shall we be compelled to be neutral on this point, while others, in almost all their sermons and exhortations, are preaching that the entire man, soul, body, and spirit, dies, and remains dead until the resurrection? We do not believe that doctrine, and we find no comfort in it, and we are sure that wherever it has been advocated, it has caused trouble, and we feel sure that it is neither the doctrine of the Bible, nor of the Baptists. We have been advised by some to let the matter go, and say nothing about it, especially those who teach that all the man dies, say that we are the agitator of the matter. That is just what the Missionary Baptists said about us, that it was our opposition to missionism that caused the division, and not the introduction of missionism. We made no noise about missionism in our churches until it came into our churches; just so, we made no fight on the doctrine that the whole man dies, until it was preached among us."

Note: Potter here claims that Gill is one of their "founding fathers". More on that later.

Potter continues:

" But I wish to call one more witness to this question. Elder G. M. Thompson, in his book called Primitive Preacher, says, on page 144, "It is not that he is a new creature physically; he is the same person he was, his flesh is not changed and immortalized, as it will be in the resurrection, but he is renewed in the spirit of the mind by a gracious principle imparted from above, which changes the affections of the soul, which sways and guides him in another way, and to a different end than he ever acted before."

On page 145, he says, "Our bodies may be said to be new bodies by the change wrought in them, and the endowments bestowed upon them in the resurrection. So the soul is now resurrected from a death in sin, and renewed by imparting new principles to it in the work of regeneration." Again, he says, "This new creation is the first work of the Spirit in the soul of the sinner, preparing it to receive and enjoy the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. Page 170. One more witness to this point is all that I will trouble the reader with to show that I stand, doctrinally, where our people have always stood, and that to elbow me off for advocating the doctrine that the soul lives after the death of the body is to treat me unjustly."

"In the circular letter of the Ketocton Association, of Virginia, in the year 1890, this old time-honored body of Baptists, the fifth association constituted in the United States, said: "The doctrine of regeneration now claims our attention, as this is the pivotal point from which departures are taken when error enters the Baptist fold.

We begin with the statement that we believe in the existence of the human soul, though unable to define it. The words of the Master's warning, "fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell," Matthew 20: 28, are sufficient to justify us in holding this cornerstone of faith.

About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists, and men began to question the existence of the soul; hence, the regeneration of the soul was denied.

Note: I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! It is a characteristic of the Hardshells. In many ways it is pure gnosticism. But, more on this later.

Potter continues:

Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a host of equally fatal heresies, came in a natural course.

Into this error, by the mercy of God, the Ketocton Association did not fall; but through the dark days, when this cloud was most threatening, she declared her belief in the regeneration of the soul, by the Spirit of God; eternal life being the result of begetting by the Holy Ghost, whose presence in the soul is manifested by a change so apparent that even the ungodly take knowledge of the saint that he has been with Jesus." Ever since those new things were introduced among the Baptists there have been little factions here and there whose feelings are so very sensitive on the subject of the regeneration of the soul, or the separate existence of the soul after the death of the body, that the man who still contends for the old doctrine of the church is, to say the least of it, admonished to that subject causes unpleasant feelings in some places."

"...the "no change" doctrine...has caused so much distress among our people in some places..."

This statement ought to be fully weighed. Why has the "no change" view of regeneration been such a prevalent one among the Hardshells? Is it not because they divorced conversion from regeneration? More on this later too.

Potter writes further:

"Those who hold the doctrine of eternal children might tell us, but those who deny that doctrine and who reject the doctrine that any part of the child of God came down from heaven, must have some other idea about it."

http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/regenpotter.htm

Let us pick out, from the above words of Potter, these statements:

"The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again."

But, after all I have shown of the views of the Hardshells on the "new birth," is it not obvious that their view of what it is amounts to a bunch of nothing? Does it not, in the final analysis, amount to the "no change" view? Oh yes, they will speak of the dead sinner being "alive," and so speak of a "great change," but when you look at all the things absent from that "life," then it becomes a bunch of nothing, actually no change at all.

"I claim that in the work of the new birth, the sinner is changed."

Yes, but in Potter's description he had a man being made to love God and Christ Jesus. He cited scripture passages that referred to regeneration as being "enlightened." These are terms that show that the means of applying gospel truth to the mind and heart are part and parcel of regeneration. Yes, he and the majority of Hardshells did claim to believe in the great change affected in regeneration, but the consistent ones, advocated the "no change" doctrine. Again, I repeat, if you take the elements of "conversion" away from "regeneration" then you have nothing left.

"The very things that the natural man does not know the saint knows...the saint knows the things of the Spirit of God..."

But, what are these things that a regenerated soul "knows"? If "regeneration" is all on the "sub-conscious level," then "knowing" anything, truth or otherwise, is not part and parcel of regeneration. Why then does Potter seem to believe otherwise?

"None of them believed in the doctrine of eternal children."

He says this relative to his Hardshell "founding fathers," leaving out, of course, men like Beebe. This is really not that unusual as most Hardshells will pick and choose which of the first and second generation Hardshells they will accept in their "church geneology." But, it is not true that all the first founding fathers of Hardshellism disbelieved this doctrine, for Beebe, Dudley, Parker, and others, believed it. And, there is much reason for believing that Wilson Thompson also did, although his son Grigg Thomspson did not, as the above citations prove. When he says "these have been our spiritual fathers," and includes Gill. But, I have already cited Gill and shown that he did not believe the Hardshell view. I will have more to say on this later.

"About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists."

What a insightful admission! Have all that I have written thus far not evidence of the truth of that statement? They have made the "faith of God's elect," some kind of "metaphysical spiritual goo," as I have afore written.

"Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a host of equally fatal heresies, came in a natural course.

Notice how there is admission here that the "eternal children doctrine" has been popular among the Hardshells. Sometimes they will deny this, wanting to hide the fact, but other times the facts are honestly presented by someone.

"...the "no change" doctrine...has caused so much distress among our people in some places..."

This again proves what I just said. The Hardshells will often speak as if this error never caused much problem, then at other times you get the honest facts of the case, as in the above.

Seeing this is such an important area to look at, relative to the history and heresies of the PB's, I will split this topic into two chapters.

In the next chapter I will conclude this look at the doctrine of "eternal children," and then go on to talk about the "whole man" versus the "hollow log" view of the new birth.