Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIV)

In this chapter we will continue to look at what T. P. Dudley wrote in defense of Two Seedism in his pamphlet "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare." We will also give the views of Dudley and the Two Seed Primitive Baptists regarding "the old man" and "the new man" in Paul's epistles. We will begin by citing from some of the things Dudley wrote in that writing. Wrote Dudley:

"It is contended by some, yea, many professors of religion, that the soul is regenerated. We confess we know but little about the soul...If the soul were regenerated, would it not be as wholly devoted to God, subsequently, as it had been to sin, antecedently to the new birth? If it be the soul that exercises volition for the body, and that soul is “born of God,” and consequently “cannot sin,” how are we to account for the wicked actions of David, of Peter, and thousands of other christians, even down to the present day?"

The "soul" is often put for the "spirit," or what Paul calls the "inner man" in contrast to the "outer man," which is the body. (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22–23) How does the inner and outer man relate to the "new man" or the "old man"? The expressions “old man” and “new man” occur in basically four places in Paul’s letters, namely, Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15; 4:22-24; and Colossians 3:9-11. The way Dudley and the Two Seeders interpret these terms is strange. To them, the "new man" is their preexistent self, begotten or made when Christ was begotten or made before the world began. To them the "old man" is the man who was created in Adam and the man born with his depraved fallen nature. Upon this foundation they then say that "regeneration" or being "born again" does not change anything about the "Adam man." The new man is not changed, for it enters into a man and remains as it was from eternity, a holy spiritual being who needs no regeneration. So too the old man is not changed because he remains degenerate. That is why in the above citation Dudley denied that "the soul" is "regenerated." A man when "born again," according to Dudley, experiences no change to his depraved Adam nature, to his natural soul, spirit, or body, and the divine nature he receives is not changed. So, how did the opponents of Two Seedism, such as Watson, Potter, etc., reply to this narrative? Before we answer that question, let us first notice a few more citations from Dudley on this point.

Wrote Dudley:

"But, it is contended, that the same soul, exercises wicked volition for the “old,” and holy volition for the “new man?” If so, is not the soul divided against itself? Others tell us, it is the mind which exercises volition for the body."

Yes, the soul (self, spirit, mind, heart, etc.) is divided. Within a born again believer there is both a depraved human nature and a holy divine nature. That is, there is within his innermost being both natures. Sometimes the one is followed and sometimes the other. But, this implies a third person. I am the one who decides whether to follow the old man or the new man. That makes three men. There is but one soul or spirit and within it there are two natures, principles of law, that are influencers. 

Even in the unregenerate there is a duality for he has within him 1) a conscience (spirit or nature) wherein the law of God is inscribed (See Rom. 2: 14-16) and which convicts him of sin, and restrains him in his immoral conduct, and wherein the Spirit of God "strives" with him (See Gen. 6: 3) and 2) an innate depravity of soul, mind, heart, and spirit which tempts, entices, or lures him to do immoral acts. This is sometimes caricatured by showing a person trying to make a moral decision and having a good angel whisper in one ear and a bad angel whispering in the other. In the life of the Christian these two entities are called "flesh" and "spirit." The flesh, like the term "old man," stands for the depraved nature, for inward carnality and lust, while "spirit" refers to the "spirit of a man" that is now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So Paul wrote:

"For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish." (Gal. 5: 17 nkjv)

By "the spirit" here is not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the believer which is united to the Spirit of God. This inner spirit of the believer has been, and continues to be, renewed, so Paul exhorts believers to be "renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4: 23), which exhortation speaks of "the spirit" of the "mind." The spirit of the mind is not always pure and holy even in the believer and is why continual cleansing and renewal are needed. Sometimes the believer is operating from a "pure mind" (II Peter 3: 1) and sometimes from an impure mind, but in either case it is the same mind (or faculty) that is alternating between states. 

Notice also the three entities in the above text. There is 1) "the flesh" (or old man), and 2) "the spirit" (or new man), and 3) "you." If the flesh and spirit denote persons or selves, then we must say that, according to Two Seedism, a man is composed of three persons or selves. 

Wrote Paul:

"21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom. 7: 21-25 nkjv)

Two men, two minds, two laws controlling thought and behavior, two hearts, etc. Or, is it not a case where the same heart, soul, mind, or spirit is the source of both obedience and disobedience? We read of people who are "double minded" (James 1: 18) but we do not interpret that to mean two brains, or two separate thinking entities, but two ways of thinking by the same faculty. So, likewise, we sometimes read of a person having two hearts: Psalm 12:2: "Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak." Again, that does not mean that there are literally two separate hearts, but one heart that sometimes is divided. 

The "heart" in scripture often carries the idea of what is the core of being, what is the innermost or center of self. In the believer Christ, as well as the Father and Spirit, take up residence in that place. But, within that heart there yet remains sin and lust, its complete eradication not occurring when a person has God within, but occurs gradually.  Paul warned believers, those who had been given a "new heart" and "new spirit" when they were converted, to "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." (Heb. 3: 12) A Christian is not always singular in his heart. Yet, God gives to Christians, according to his promise, "singleness of heart" (Eze. 11: 19; Jer. 32: 39; Acts 2: 46-47). 

Is God making a new man out of the old man? Is God making a new heart out of the old heart? Is God making a new spirit out of the old spirit? Is God making a new nature out of the old nature? Is regeneration a change or an exchange? These are the central questions that Dudley and other Two Seeders frequently asked of their opponents. This is why Dudley and his ilk did not like referring to regeneration as a "reformation," "restoration," or a being "born over" as opposed to being born anew. However, the bible writers did speak of restoration and reformation. Does partaking of the divine nature change the human depraved nature? Dudley would say no. 

Wrote Moore:

"And so they reverse the scriptures, and have the old man, put off the old man, if it is only one man with two natures. On this subject Elder Dudley says: “I find no authority in my Bible for dividing the man. The old man is an entire old man, and the new man is an entire new man.”

The scriptures show that it is the same soul, heart, mind, or spirit, or the same person, that is changed when it experiences conversion, regeneration, or rebirth. The words the apostles used to describe this experience show this to be the case, such as "renewed," "transformed," "conformed," "resurrected," "converted," "repented," etc., all which means that the inner man, the incorporeal self, a person's innermost being, soul and spirit, or his mind or way of thinking, is changed or being changed. This change is drastic at the start, but not completed. Transformation of the inner self continues throughout the life of the born again child of God. 

We would ask the Two Seeders:

1. Is not what is dead in a lost sinner quickened? 

2. Is not what is degenerate in a man the very thing regenerated?

3. Is not what is transformed or renewed in the believer changed?

Wrote Moore:

"But I have a letter before me, written by Elder Dudley, in which he states that, “I [Dudley] have various letters from John Clark, of Virginia, pledged to the belief of the doctrine I maintain, and in one or more of which he [Clark] uses the language, ‘I [Clark] have read the Circular on the Warfare and I see nothing in it, which should disturb the fellowship of brethren.’ ”

I have to question whether John Clark, a first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, believed in Two Seedism. Perhaps he did believe in some portions of it early in his ministry, as did Lemuel Potter, but later turned away from it. Much of what Dudley wrote in his book on the Christian Warfare is biblical. The only part that is not is: 1) the belief that the new man is a preexistent man who enters into the old man, 2) the belief that nothing of the man is changed in regeneration. 

J. Taylor Moore in his biography of Dudley (from which we cited in the previous chapter) also wrote:

"Elder Dudley, in his defense against the very same characters wrote: “How, then, can they contend that some part – for I have not met with one who contends that the entire Adamic man or the old man – is born of God?” And on another occasion, when asked by an aged Baptist minister why he did not tell the people that it was the Adam man that is born of the Spirit, his reply was: “My Bible don’t say so.”

If the unregenerate man is not born of the Spirit, then who or what is born again? Obviously the person who is born again is the same person who was born the first time, i.e. an "Adam man." So Paul wrote: "and you has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2: 1). The "you" that was dead is the you that was brought back to life.

Wrote Moore:

"Their principal charge was that Elder Dudley denied the “new birth.”"

This is a valid objection to the Two Seed idea of the preexistence of the souls of the elect. The Two Seed idea is that being born of God occurred in eternity past when Christ, as a human mediator, was begotten by the Father, and that a person being born again in time is but a manifestation of that previous birth, being the time when the eternal child of God is incarnated (enters into a person). That is certainly foreign to how the new testament describes the new birth.

In Chapter IV Moore wrote:

"Elder Dudley soon learned that there would be no lack of an attempt to overthrow the faith that he maintained, for correspondents now began to write to him from almost every state in the Union, and from Canada; some desiring further explanation on certain points contained in the Circular, others urging him to visit their section, others assuming to teach him the way more perfectly, while some others aspiring to greater and public notoriety, began an attack on garbled extracts from the Circular, through the different religious periodicals, to the greater number of which he replied in the most humble and Christian-like spirit."

The debate over "Two Seedism" was very intense in the first decades after the formation of the Hardshell Baptist sect. It continued to be a hotly debated and divisive issue with them through the entire nineteenth century, as Elder Sylvester Hassell stated at the end of that century.

Wrote Moore:

"I have frequently heard him speak of a visit to the Red River Association where he had been most outrageously misrepresented by a Dr. Fain, one of the editors of the Baptist Watchman. When Dudley was put upon the stand to preach he had been speaking but a little while when some man in the congregation cried out “If that man is a heretic so am I.” He had proceeded but a little while when the same expression was used, and immediately it was taken up throughout the congregation. When the excitement had quieted, one of the preachers in the stand behind him, said, “Yes, we are all heretics.” On Sunday Dr. Fain followed him in a very excited manner, and had progressed but a short while when he said, in a very excited way, “Yes, yes, a few years ago, you pronounced what you have just heard, the worst kind of heresy, and now you swallow it down greedily, greedily, greedily,” reminding us very forcibly of what we have heard Elder Dudley say, about a Baptist coming to him in a certain section, where he had been libelously reported, and saying to him, “Brother Dudley, when I hear others tell what you believe, and preach I don’t believe a word of your preaching, but when I hear you preach, I believe every word of it.”

R.W. Fain was an associate with John Watson, and they were not only fellow "Primitive Baptists" but fellow physicians, and lived in the same area around Nashville. When Watson died in 1866, Fain, along with others, such as Elder (Dr.) J. B. Stephens, began a weekly periodical titled "The Baptist Watchman." I have cited from this periodical several times and have shown how Fain, Stephens, et.al, published articles supporting the view that God saves his people through the means of the gospel. That paper was also intended to carry on the work and teachings of Watson, being the publishers and promoters of Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test." Fain, like Watson, was a fervent opponent of Two Seedism. 

Wrote Moore:

"He (Dudley) says in his writings, that one of the first objections he heard urged against the Circular on the Warfare was, that it taught that man had two souls. Then one Elder White, of Missouri, concluded that he taught in his writings that man had not even one soul; and one charge became proverbial among his antagonists; namely, “that he taught that in the atonement of Christ, there was nothing done for the sinner,” another, “that he denied the resurrection of the dead,” and still another, “that God had a family of spiritual children in heaven before time began, fully developed, who from time to time come down to earth, take up their abode in the Adamic man, engage in mortal combat, carry on the unequal strife, til man dies, and then returns to heaven without accomplishing anything else than opposition to man.” All of these charges with a multitude of others he met and refuted with that Christian-like spirit that characterized his whole public life." 

Well, Dudley did not refute all these charges. He did in fact believe in the "Eternal Children" doctrine. 

Wrote Moore:

"To the honest reader, I wish to say, that this is but a brief extract from Elder Dudley’s writings, and I have many of a like nature, and for which many withdrew their correspondence, fellowship, and Christian intercourse, from him, his churches and the Licking Association. This was in reply to a man who claimed that the soul is “born again,” “or a part of the Adamic man.” This turn was taken in order to avoid the idea, that the man is born over again. Elder Dudley reputed the idea that the Adamic man, or sinner in whole or in part, in order to constitute the child of God, is born of the Spirit. For he says, “I have ever conceived that the corn of wheat, which falls into the ground and dies, contains within its germ everything, and nothing more than will spring up and grow out of it. Now I ask, was anything born of that incorruptible seed which was not in the germ? Was the natural seed deposited in Christ? I think brethren will answer each of these questions in the negative. How then can they contend that it is some part [for I have not met with one who contends that the entire Adamic man or the old man] is born of God.” In view of such clear expressions, such a positive position, what must be thought by every honest, intelligent Christian of such men as Elder S.H. Durand, of Pennsylvania, and others, who claimed such harmony with Elder Dudley while living, to come among us after he is gone claiming that it is the sinner, that is born again, but in vain pretending they don’t mean “born over;” don’t mean that the Adamic man is changed. Who is the sinner? Is he not the Adamic man?" 

So, Dudley did believe that the man who is born into the world and of the lineage of Adam was not the man who was saved, or born again. This is why Two Seeders were accused of believing in the "no change view" of regeneration or "hollow log" doctrine (of which I have spoken about in other articles). 

Wrote Moore:

"I have a private letter written by Elder Dudley in which he says, in speaking of the doctrinal sentiments of the Circular on the warfare, that he believed the time would come when that sentiment would be made a test of fellowship." 

Dudley's prophecy was true, although it took the "Primitive Baptist" church nearly a century to rid themselves of it, although as we have said, citing Crowley, that if one knows what to listen for, he can still hear remnants of Two Seed thinking among today's Hardshells.

Wrote Moore:

"Not only did Elder Dudley have Elder John Clark of Virginia, committed in writing of his hearty endorsement of the faith he maintained of the vital oneness of Christ and his people, but many others, among whom was Elder Wilson Thompson and his son, John A. Thompson, who said publicly on the stand at the Conn’s Creek Association in following Elder Dudley [who preached the introductory on that occasion at the request of Elder McQuary,] I [J.A.T.] have heard Brother Dudley once before, and then said, “If I ever heard the gospel preached Brother Dudley preached it,” and Elder Dudley writes: “He [Thompson] then endorsed most fully and feelingly on that occasion.” Elder D. says of the occasion: “When we went on the stand I determined within myself, ‘If I can find language plain enough to make myself understood, a future misrepresentation should be willful.’ I had been so often and so grossly misrepresented.” While discussing the question a brother in the congregation cried out aloud, “If that man is a heretic so am I.” He was responded to by another, and it was Elder Wilson Thompson, who proclaimed aloud from the stand, “Yes, brethren, if that is heresy, we are all heretics.” 

I do believe that Wilson Thompson, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist Church," did believe in Two Seed ideas. I have read where he considered himself a friend of Daniel Parker, and never wrote anything in opposition to Parker. According to Moore, Wilson Thompson wrote letters to Dudley endorsing his views. However, I have also read in the past where Wilson's eldest son, Grigg, who also was a first generation leader of the newly formed denomination, denied that his father believed in Two Seedism. I think, however, that Grigg was not telling the truth. I am sorry that I cannot recall where I read this about Grigg defending his father relative to whether he was a Two Seeder.

The fact is, a large portion, possibly the majority, of those who became part of the anti mission movement and of the sect that called itself "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptist, were Two Seeders. It was not till we got towards the end of the nineteenth century that the Two Seeders began to decrease dramatically. 

Wrote Moore:

"And the idea of having the old man, the Adamic man, and sin and lust or corruption, making three men, then boiling these three down into one sinner man, then throwing a little essence of spirit in, and by its operation, making all into one spiritual man, did not originate with one P.G. Lester, who a few years ago came amongst us, backed by an eastern syndicate, sizzling like a trembling crater, ready for an eruption for a number of years, for Elder Dudley had the same heretical notion to meet in a controversy with Elder John A. Thompson, of Lebanon, Ohio. In that controversy with Thompson, Elder Dudley says: “If I were as entirely confident of interest in the atoning blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, as I am that the earthly, fallen and depraved Adam, is the old man, I do not think I should entertain a doubt of reaching the heavenly glory."

So, is any part of a man changed in being born of God? The Two Seeder would say no. Those who oppose them would say yes. So, what does the Bible say? The word "repent" means either to "turn" or to "change your mind." It is from the Greek word metanoia, meta meaning change, and noia meaning mind. So, the mind of the Adam man is changed. This involves a change in a person's psychology, and "psuche" is the new testament Greek word meaning psyche. To change a soul is to change a personality, including a change in attitude, beliefs, etc.  The word "convert" also means to change, the thing being changed is the way of thinking, or the things believed. In other words, the soul of man is changed. So the Psalmist said:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa. 19: 7)

The Psalmist David also prayed:

"Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." (Psa. 51: 10)

The word "renew" means to make new again, and is similar to the word "regeneration." It is not something foreign to an Adam man that is made new, but what was part of the man. 

One of the errors of Primitive Baptists is in thinking that in regeneration, rebirth, renewal, etc., there is a change to the essence or substance of the soul and spirit, a physical change, rather than being a moral, spiritual, psychological, change. They not only believe this is true in regeneration, but also in being generated in physical birth, for they will contend that the doctrine of "total depravity" means that a degenerate sinner lacks the physical faculties to do anything pleasing to God. The great theologian, Jonathan Edwards, however, taught that in becoming degenerated by sin did not remove any faculties of body or soul, there being no physical inability in the lost sinners to believe, repent, etc. He does not have moral or spiritual ability is what Edwards taught and many Baptists agreed. In my early writings against Hardshell Baptist teachings I cited from Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote a "Systematic Theology" from a Hardshell point of view. In his section on regeneration he advocated that there was a change is the soul's essence when it was regenerated. 

Also, the word "restore" is used to describe the change that occurs when a sinner believes and is renewed. David said "He restores my soul" (Psa. 23: 3). The Two Seeders, however, opposed using such words to describe the change that occurs when a person is born of the Spirit. They opposed the word "reformed" also for the same reasons, although the word "repent" carries with it the idea of being reformed. 

Wrote Moore:

"One man now living made an insidious attack on his views of “quickened spirits,” in the Baptist Watchman, a paper published in the South that never was regarded as sound in the old Baptist faith, and this man at the same time was professing great love, fellowship and “perfect harmony of sentiment,” but since the death of Elder Dudley the turpitude of the spirit by which he was acting then has been so clearly demonstrated, that we wonder how any can respect him for such baseness of character." 

This is a biased statement made by a Two Seeder who is writing in defense of Dudley. We have already seen where Moore referred to the opposition coming from Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain who was one of the editors of "The Baptist Watchman." Dr. Fain was far more sound in the faith than other Two Seed or Primitive Baptists. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XIII)

Elder Thomas P. Dudley

1792 - 1886

The above elder was, along with Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, one of the chief defenders of Two Seedism. He was a frequent writer to the "Signs of the Times" periodical edited by Beebe. Dudley wrote much on Two Seed ideas and we will begin in this chapter a look at those writings. Following this we will study what the leading opposers of Two Seedism wrote in their attacks upon Two Seedism. We have already mentioned Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson of middle Tennessee and will look at what Elder Grigg Thompson, son of Elder Wilson Thompson, wrote in his opposition to Two Seedism, and also at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against it, and of the dialogue the latter carried on with Beebe. 

From the "Baptist History Homepage" we learn the following about Thomas Dudley, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist Church" (emphasis mine), citing William Cathcart, editor of the The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881; reprint, 1988, pp. 345-6:

"Rev. Thomas Parker Dudley, son of Rev. Ambrose Dudley, is the most distinguished preacher among the Baptists of Kentucky. He was born in Fayette Co., Ky., May 31, 1792. In 1812 he entered the army, was made commissary of the Northwestern troops, participating in the battles of Frenchtown and the River Raisin; in the latter was wounded in the shoulder; taken prisoner by the Indians and carried to Detroit. In the fall of 1814 he was made quartermaster of a detachment which reinforced Gen. Jackson at the battle of New Orleans, and the same year was appointed quartermaster-general of Kentucky. From 1816 until 1824 he was a cashier of a branch of the old Bank of Kentucky, located at Winchester, and for several years afterwards was engaged in settling up the business of these branch banks. He succeeded his father in the pastorate of Bryant's church in 1825. Of this church he has now (1880) been pastor fifty-five years, and of the three other churches almost as long, and he has also been moderator of Licking Association forty-seven years. He resides in Lexington." (See here)

I have read tidbits of history about both Ambrose Dudley and his son Thomas. The father was more sound in doctrine than the son, for the former was no hyper Calvinist nor a Two Seeder, while his son was all this and more, including being antinomian, and a denial of means in regeneration and eternal salvation. During the time of Thomas Dudley he did much to bring division to the churches in the Elkhorn and Licking associations over his Two Seed ideas, including his "Two Souls" view and his book called "The Christian Warfare." 

In "Twin Creek Baptist Association" in "A History of Kentucky Baptists," Baptist historian John H. Spencer (1885) wrote the following about this Baptist Association (See here):

"This small community of Antimissionary Baptists originated from a division of Licking Association, caused by a circular letter, written by Elder Thomas P. Dudley, in 1846. This letter was not presented to the Association, as was originally intended; but some of the members were permitted to read it, and, in 1847, it was read before the body. The style of the writing was obscure, and it was not clearly understood by the members. However, it caused considerable dissatisfaction and disputation. To avoid being further misrepresented, as he averred, Mr. Dudley, in 1848, caused 1,000 copies of the letter to be printed and circulated. A deliberate reading of the document increased the discontent. With the hope of restoring harmony, James Dudley, a brother of the author of the letter, sent a circular to all the churches of the Association, requesting them to send messengers to Bryants Station, in Fayette county, on the last Wednesday in March, 1850. In this meeting, about half the churches were represented, and the writer of the letter was acquitted of heresy. This further increased the discontent of the churches which dissented from the decision of the conference. Stony Point and Friendship churches issued a "Joint Manifesto" in which it was averred that Mr. Dudley taught the "Eternal Creation System." It was also claimed that he denied the doctrine of the "Regeneration of the soul."

In upcoming chapters we will look at some peculiar things taught by Dudley in the document referred to, and which later became a booklet called "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare." In this writing Dudley defended the leading ideas of Two Seedism, namely the belief that the souls of the elect were brought into existence when Christ, as the God-Man mediator, was begotten sometime in eternity past. He vehemently defended the doctrine of "eternal vital union." We must also remember that T.P. Dudley became one of the most important figures in the history of Kentucky Baptists, especially of those who were known as "Primitive," "Regular," or "Old School" Baptists, or as Hardshell or anti mission Baptists. In the above citation Spencer gives the name of Dudley's home church as "Bryant" but others say it is "Bryan." It is one of the oldest Baptist churches in Kentucky.

Said Spencer in his description of the Two Seed views of Dudley:

"The "Eternal Creation System" taught that God, in the Eternal Past, created two distinct families: one in Adam, and the other in Jesus Christ; that all the members of each of these families were created simultaneously, and, that, of course, they [p. 605] are, in fact, of the same age. According to this teaching, the child born today is, in reality, as old as Adam: The recent birth is only a development of an "eternal creation." So of the spiritual family, "created in, and simultaneously with Jesus Christ." Abel, the first Christian, is no older than the last one that shall be "born from above." The descendant of Adam is the natural man, a simple being wholly corrupt, and unchangeable in the present life. A descendant from Jesus Christ, whether born (developed) in the days of Abel, or in the present age, is wholly pure and incorruptible." (Ibid)

It is stretching things beyond measure to say that I existed as a person in Adam just because I have come from his seed. To use a pun, that is "going to seed" on what it means to be the seed of another person. My person, my "self," my soul or spirit, did not exist in Adam but was brought into existence when I was formed in the womb of my mother and from the seed of my father. The kind of union that human beings have with Adam and Eve is twofold, seminally and representatively. The scriptures emphasize the latter, however, and not the former. It is because of my connection with Adam that I am born with a human nature, with a human soul. It is because of my connection with Christ, the second Adam, that I am born with a divine nature. (II Peter 1: 4) There is no vital union with Christ until Christ is received by faith. 

Just because the divine nature or divine seed ("incorruptible seed" - I Peter 1: 23) has eternally existed does not mean that the one who partakes of the divine nature when converted to Christ has eternally existed with a divine nature. It is not deducible to affirm that since all the children of God are "begotten" of God that they therefore eternally existed in God. 

The Two Seed view expressed above by Dudley is ridiculous. If what he says is true, then my father and I are the same age. The scriptures however do not speak this way, but often speak of one person being either younger or older than another. If what he says is true, then when Paul says that Andronicus and Junia "were in Christ before me" (Rom. 16: 7) is incorrect. 

Said the same source:

"A Christian, according to this theory, is not a child of Adam, regenerated, nor yet a descendant of Christ, born from above, but a coalescence of both, and consequently, a "compound being." As both of the component parts are unchangeable, and are antagonistic in their nature, there must be a perpetual strife between them until the stronger destroys the weaker. This Mr. Dudley denominates the "Christian Warfare." While the subject was agitated, the theory was sometimes called the "Two Souls doctrine." The denial of the regeneration of the human soul was a necessary sequence of this theory." (Ibid)

One can see how this idea of the preexistence of souls, either in Adam or in the pre-incarnate Son of God, has far reaching effects on the doctrine of regeneration or birth of the Spirit and of the resurrection of the dead. In the Two Seed view of being regenerated or born again, an eternal divine child of God who is spirit enters into the physical body of a person (much like a demon spirit). That child of God is not essentially changed in regeneration nor is the "Adam man." The entrance of that eternal spirit into the human merely causes a warfare. 

Dudley's treatise "The Origin, Nature, and Effects of the Christian Warfare" was at first the title to the circular letter. Spencer in his "A History of Kentucky Baptists," writes (See here):

"In 1845 [1844], Thomas P. Dudley was appointed to write the circular letter for the ensuing year. He wrote on the subject of the "Christian Warfare, including the Eternal Spiritual Oneness of Christ and the church." Showing the paper to some of the brethren, it was privately discussed, before the Association was organized. Learning that some objection would be made to the letter, Mr. Dudley declined presenting it, and it was not published, for the time. But its contents were discussed among the brethren, and, as Mr. Dudley averred, its teachings were misrepresented. In order to correct the erroneous impressions, made on the public mind, Mr. Dudley, in 1849, printed and circulated a thousand copies of the letter, in pamphlet form. The style of the treatise is labored and obscure, but the substance of the doctrine contained in it was understood to be as follows:

1. God created two distinct families of men. The first was created in Adam, and was denominated the natural man. As the great oak, with its innumerable branches, leaves and acorns, was contained in the acorn from whence it sprang: so the whole human family, comprising the countless millions of all its generations, was contained in Adam, at his creation.

2. The other family was created in, and simultaneously with Jesus Christ, and was called the spiritual man. As every soul of the natural family was comprised in Adam: so every member of the spiritual family was embraced in Jesus Christ, at his creation. 

3. What men call a multiplication of these families, is only a development, or manifestation, to human perception, of what God created instantaneously, in the beginning.

4. The nature of each of these families, is uniform and unchangeable. That of the natural man is wholly corrupt, and remains so perpetually, in every member of that family: That of the spiritual man is wholly pure, and can never be, in any degree, corrupted or tarnished.

5. A christian is a compound being, composed of one natural man and one spiritual man, mysteriously combined by the power of the Holy Spirit, while the original nature of each remains unchanged, and unchangeable.

6. The christian's warfare consists in a life-long struggle between the two men of which he is composed, often called, in the sacred Scriptures, the "old man" and the "new man." In the end, the spiritual man triumphs over, and utterly destroys his antagonist, and then returns to God, who sent him to be developed in this warfare.

As we have pointed out previously, this is similar to Mormon belief. As we will see later, one of the arguments that Dudley and the Two Seeders used to prove their thesis was Paul's "new man" and "old man" teaching. The "new man" is the eternally begotten child of God and the "old man" is the begotten child of Adam.

Wrote Spencer further:

"This teaching was popularly called the "Two-Souls doctrine," and was regarded heretical by some of the churches and all the correspondents of Licking Association. Such was the influence of Mr. Dudley, however, that a majority of the churches acquiesced in his interpretation of his pamphlet. But much disturbance followed its publication. Salem Association of Predestinarian Baptists withheld correspondence from Licking, in 1850. Foreseeing the storm that was gathering, James Dudley, a brother to the author of the "Christian Warfare," sent a circular to all the churches in Licking Association, inviting them to send messengers to meet at Bryants, in March, 1850, for the purpose of endeavoring to allay the confusion. Most of the churches responded to the call. But Friendship and Stony Point issued a joint manifesto, denouncing the teaching of Mr. Dudley's pamphlet, and declaring non-fellowship for three churches which had received it, and for all who believed as they did. This resulted in a speedy division of the Association. Friendship, Stony Point, Twin Creek, Williamsburg, Rays Fork, and Fork Lick churches withdrew, and constituted a new fraternity, under the style of "Twin Creek Old Regular Baptist Association." This occurred, in 1850. The next year, all the Associations in Kentucky withheld correspondence from Licking. The body still exchanged minutes with two or three distant fraternities, but, in 1853, even this shadow of a correspondence was dropped. But Mr. Dudley, who has been the leading spirit of the Association, for more than fifty years, was a man of great energy and excellent address, and, by visiting the various Associations, preaching among them, and conciliating them, wisely and prudently, he succeeded in re-establishing correspondence with most of those fraternities from which his Association had become alienated. - Volume II, 1881, pp. 245-246."

I have tried to find that "joint manifesto" against Dudley and his Two Seed (or Two Souls) view that was issued by Friendship and Stony Point churches. Now let us look at some of the things Dudley wrote in that pamphlet. He begins by saying (emphasis mine): "To the Churches composing the Licking Association of Particular Baptist; their Messengers wish grace, mercy and peace multiplied." (See here) The following citations are from chapter four of the biography of T.P. Dudley, as written to Elder Smoot by J. Taylor Moore. 

Dudley writes:

"DEARLY BELOVED; It occurs to us that we could not select a more appropriate subject, because none possesses more intrinsic merit, for our present annual address, that the ORIGIN, NATURE, and EFFECTS of that warfare which so painfully disturbs the peace and quiet of the Children of the Regeneration."

Wrote Dudley:

"That the warfare, invariably follows being “born again,” is not, we believe, controverted by any experimental Christian. But whilst some of us maintain, that the warfare results from a conflict of elements within; others, and perhaps the larger number contend, that in the new birth, the man is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness."

Notice that Dudley affirms that being born again does not change a man from the love of sin to the love of holiness. Such an affirmation caused many Old School or Primitive Baptists to react with fervent censure. There was intense debate among the Hardshells over this very question. What change, if any, occurs in a sinner when he is regenerated and converted? The Two Seed view came to be called "the no change view of regeneration" or "hollow log" doctrine. But, more on that later. 

Wrote Dudley:

"Now we ask, if indeed, in the new birth, the man is changed from the love of sin to the love of holiness, and this change is perfect, does it not necessarily follow, that he will be as wholly and entirely devoted to holiness subsequently, as he had been to sin antecedently to the new birth? If, as is contended by many, the enmity of the heart is slain in regeneration, whence arises opposition to the dispensations of God’s providence? Irreconciliation to his will? And whence the exclamation, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Rom.7:24. That the Christian is a compound being, is a truth so fully taught in his history; as given in the holy Scriptures, that we wonder it should be controverted by any who have tasted that “the LORD is gracious.”

There again we see Dudley denying that a man is changed in being born of God. The "new man" does not need to be changed, for it was perfect when first begotten in eternity past, and the "old man" is not changed at all when the "new man" takes possession of the "old man." The only change is in the activities of either, each beginning a war with the other. 

Notice also in the citations above that Dudley admits that his view was a minority view, admitting that it is the view of the majority that the new birth slew the natural enmity of the heart against the Lord. About the Christian being "a compound being" we will have more to say later perhaps. In some sense we can agree with this affirmation, but not in the sense given by Dudley and Two Seed Baptists. 

Wrote Dudley:

"Whence these various distinctions between the old and new man, if indeed there are not two men? If man is only changed in the new birth? If the language that “man is changed” were appropriate, there would be but one man; his feelings and affections having been changed; there would be no conflict and hence no warfare! We presume that none will contend that the old is the new man, or the new is the old man. This would be to confound language and make it unintelligible." 

The terms "new man" and "old man" as used by Paul are not to be taken literally but figuratively. It is used by Paul in the same way people use it in common speech, as when they say "he is not the same man as he once was." This is said in instances where a person has changed dramatically in either physical appearance or psychological ways, as in a change of beliefs, values, behavior, attitude, etc. The "old man" is a metaphor for the kind of person a believer was before he was converted and the "new man" is a metaphor for the man after conversion. Some bible commentaries say that the "old man" represents the old depraved nature that a person receives from Adam when he is born into the world, and the "new man" represents the new divine nature that a person receives from Christ, the second Adam, when born of the Spirit. 

This led to a debate on whether any part of the "Adam man," or "the natural man," is changed in regeneration. The Orthodox view said that it is the soul or spirit of a man that is what is changed. 

Wrote Dudley:

"The Bible furnishes the following history of the natural family. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen.1:27. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen.2:7. “Man and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen.5:2. Hence we learn that all “living souls,” were created in, and simultaneously with their natural progenitor." 

Here Dudley begs the question when he says that every living soul was created in Adam. He then makes a giant inferential leap when he affirms that likewise all the souls or spirits of God's children were created in Christ before the world began. 

Wrote Dudley:

"They all descend from him by ordinary or natural generation. They necessarily partake of his nature, and subsist upon the same elements upon which he subsisted. The breath of life communicated to man, whence he became a “living soul,” constituted him a rational, intelligent, responsible being, the subject of law and of earthly enjoyments, capable of subsisting upon the products of the earth; but incapable of other and higher enjoyments." 

Dudley argues as do other Two Seeders that Adam, even before his fall, was not in any sense a "spiritual" being, but was wholly a "natural man" (I Cor. 2: 14). Being natural meant that he could not have anything spiritual about him, no communion with God as such. Of course, that is not true. Adam walked with God in the Garden and conversed with God. There was nothing in the original constitution of man that hindered him from enjoying anything spiritual. After Adam's fall he became morally and spiritually unable to please God and to enjoy him, not a physical inability. 

Wrote Dudley:

"The characteristics of this family are strikingly marked in the Scriptures – “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and called his name Seth.” Gen.5:3. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Ps.51:5. “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Ps.58:3. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Rom.5:12." 

This family of man, however, contrary to the views of many Two Seeders, had both elect and non elect, wheat and tares, children of God and children of the Devil. Many Two Seeders denied that the seed of the Devil fell in Adam.

Wrote Dudley:

"From the preceding verses and arguments it is manifest that the family of the “first Adam” is not capable of rendering acceptable service to God, but the antagonist nature and principle of the two families [the natural and the spiritual,] out of which grows the warfare, are made still more manifest by the contrast introduced by an Apostle. And so it is written: “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” I Cor.15:45-50"

When Paul speaks of "the natural man" in First Corinthians (2: 14) he is not referring to how man was created originally by God. Rather, he is referring to a "soulish" man, the Greek word psychikos denoting such. Such a natural man who follows his own ideas and rejects divine revelation. When Adam was first made he did not have an "antagonistic nature" towards God. He was created holy, righteous, spiritual, godly, etc. This is because he was created in the image of God. It was not till he sinned that he lost that original state and likeness. 

When in the above words of Paul he says that Adam was natural, earthly, and not spiritual, he is speaking of his human body, not of his soul or spirit. First Corinthians chapter fifteenth is talking about the resurrection of the body. The flesh and blood of Adam, before his sin, was not spiritual.

Wrote Dudley:

"Is it not evident then, that all “living souls” were created in and simultaneously with the “first man Adam,” that they all, being born of him, necessarily partake of his nature, “and he called their name Adam?” And that all “quickened spirits” were created in and simultaneously with the “last Adam” – that they all, being born of him, “born of God,” as necessarily partake of his nature? That all living souls no more necessarily descend from the first Adam than all quickened spirits necessarily descend from the last Adam; that the seed of the “first Adam” disclose his nature, and the seed of the “last Adam” make manifest his nature."

No, it is not evident that all the souls of the elect were "created in and simultaneously with" Christ the last Adam. Being "in Christ" and being created or born anew occurs when the soul is joined to Christ by faith in the work of conversion, and not in eternity past. The Son of God has always existed as such but the man Christ Jesus, composed of human soul and spirit, was created and begotten in time, when he was conceived by the Spirit in the womb of Mary his mother. 

In the above citation Dudley admits that it is when a man is born that he then partakes of the fallen nature of his father Adam. This would deny that the elect or non-elect partake of either the divine or human nature in past eternity. If a person becomes a "partaker of the divine nature" when he is born again, then he did not have a divine or spiritual nature before, and thus Two Seedism is overthrown.

Wrote Dudley:

"The children of the “first Adam” are born of the flesh and are earthly in all their feelings and affections; the children of the “last Adam” are born of the Spirit and are necessarily heavenly or spiritual in their feelings and affections. The children of the first are born for earth; of the last Adam, are born for heaven. Those of the “first” are born of corruptible; those of the “last Adam” are of incorruptible seed. The first necessarily partake of human; the last, of the divine nature. The antagonistic principles attached to the two men necessarily result in the warfare. If all living souls were not vitally united to the first Adam, how could they be so directly and fatally effected by the first transgression? How could the original act of transgression be considered their act? “And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” Rom.3:10."

Much of what Dudley here says is orthodox. The question however is - "when and how does a person partake of either Adam's fallen nature or the divine nature?" If Two Seedism is correct, he cannot say that the divine nature is given to people when they are born again of the Spirit, for they were eternally begotten as such. Dudley has already affirmed that all the souls of Adam's seed were in Adam and so partook of his corrupt nature all at once when he sinned. If that is so, then it is wrong to say that an individual of the race obtains his fallen nature when he is humanly conceived. Likewise, if all of the souls of the Lord's seed were in Christ since eternity, and all received his nature at the same time, then it is wrong to say that an individual of the race obtains the divine nature when born anew.

In the next chapter we will continue giving the Two Seed views of Dudley from his book on the Christian Warfare and other writings. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XII)

In the opening chapters of this new series on Two Seedism or Parkerism I said that this false doctrine borrowed its leading ideas from several sources, such as Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Platonism, Hyper Calvinism, Arianism, etc. In this chapter I want to show how it borrowed from Gnosticism the idea of divine "emanations." I want to also show how it borrowed from what is called the "serpent seed" doctrine. 

Emanations or "Particles"

"Emanations of deity are beings, principles, or the material world that are seen as "flowing" or "pouring forth" from a single, supreme, and undiminished source, rather than being created from nothing. This cosmological concept, often contrasted with creation ex nihilo, is found in various philosophical and religious traditions, most notably Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, where it describes a hierarchy of reality that descends from a perfect, unitary source through stages of progressively less perfect forms." (Google AI)

Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and the other apologists for Two Seedism believed that those who are the "seed of the serpent" (or the Devil) were a kind of emanation from the Devil or Satan and so too are those who are the "seed of the woman" (the church or the elect), or the seed of the Lord, emanations of the Deity. Wrote one source:

"In various pamphlets (1826-29) Parker made public some very peculiar theories he held concerning the introduction and perpetuation of evil in the human race. According to these beliefs, God, when He created Adam and Eve, infused into them particles of Himself, thus making them altogether good; the devil corrupted them by infusing into them particles of himelf. Eve, by predestination, brought forth a certain number of good and a certain number of bad offsprings; and all her daughters after her were predestined to do likewise." ("The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Baptists, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit" (See here)

That is Gnostic language. In "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" by 0. Max Lee (June 1962) we see Parker using this very terminology. Lee cites from Parker who wrote (emphasis mine):

"If the Devil, or body of corruption, be the product of the power and perfections of God, then of course all the progress and power of sin, (for sin is certainly a power) from the fall of man until now, has flowed from the same perfections of God. Now how will the glory of God appear in destroying the works of the Devil, it being but a power of his own production." (See here; page 41)

William Dudley Nowlin in "The Anti-Missionary Controversy of Baptists in Kentucky from 1832 to 1842" (See here at the Baptist History Homepage) also cites Daniel Parker who wrote (emphasis mine):

"The essence of God is good; the essence of evil is the Devil. Good angels are emanations from or particles of God; evil angels are particles of the Devil. When God created Adam and Eve, they were endowed with an emanation from himself or particles of God were included in their constitution. They were wholly good. Satan, however, diffused into them particles of his essence by which they were corrupted. In the beginning God had appointed that Eve should bring forth only a certain number of offsprings [sic]; the same provision applied to each of her daughters. But when the particles of evil essence had been infuse by Satan, the conception of Eve and her daughter 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."

Again, to say that certain souls are eternal emanations or particles of the Deity is in keeping with Gnosticism, Platonism, and other heresies.

Nowling wrote further concerning Parker's Two Seedism:

"This Two-Seed doctrine is a curious revival, with some modifications of the ancient speculative philosophy of Manichaeus. Doctor Newman calls it a 'very disgusting form of Gnostic heresy.' It is easy to see how such a heresy would cause opposition to missions; for the progeny of one of the seed would constitute the body of Christ, whose salvation is provided."

Two Seedism borrowed as much from Gnosticism as it did from Manichaeism. 

Nowlin wrote further, citing Parker:

"On the other hand he taught that the remaining portion of the human family were the actual sons of God from eternity, and being allied to Jesus Christ ere 'the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy' by the nearest and dearest ties of consanguinity, being no less than 'particles' of his body - bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh..."

Again, we see Gnostic language. Also, it seems in this statement that Parker did believe in 1) that not only the human soul of Christ existed from eternity, but so too his human body, and 2) a Two Seed in the Flesh view, which in other places he does not. Notice too his thesis - "actual sons of God from eternity."

Nowlin also wrote:

"But there were many who embraced only half the doctrine of Mr. Parker and though they manifested no great apprehension for the liege subjects of the Prince of Darkness, yet they expressed great alarm lest the missionaries should help the Lord to perform his work, and convert the souls of some in a way God never intended they should be. They were such staunch friends of the Lord's doing all his work, that they set upon and terribly assailed their missionary brethren, for fear they should by some means assist the Lord in the salvation of his elect."

We have already observed more than once, citing others, how Two Seedism has appeared in several forms, some sub groups of Two Seeders accepting some propositions of the Two Seeders but not others. The one they all seem to have kept however is the belief that all the righteous have existed from eternity, or what is called the doctrine of "eternal children." 

What Nowlin says about Two Seeders being alarmed lest they should "help the Lord to perform his work" is still true today with the Hardshell Baptists, being another instance where the remnants of Two Seed thinking is still evident among them, even though they have mainly now mostly freed themselves from believing in an eternal Devil and in eternal children, etc. We have also shown where Two Seedism gave rise to the notion that God saves people apart from the means of the word of God or the gospel, one of the principles of Two Seedism that is still adhered to by the Hardshells. 

In "Interpretation of the Scriptures II" Sylvester Hassell, in The Gospel Messenger for March, 1894 (See here), wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"It is said that, in all other respects, Elder Parker was orthodox, but what is known as his system of "Two Seeds" is a somewhat refined, but still very crude, mystic, and unintelligible and inconsistent modification of Manichaeism--that all the descendants of Adam and Eve are elect and will be saved (being a part of God); that their individual spirits had an eternal pre-existence in Christ, and an eternal vital union with Him, before the world began (somewhat like the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls maintained by the heathen philosophers, Pythagorus and Plato, and by the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Gnostics, and the Caballists, and the Universalist professor, Orgin) (Origen - SG); that these souls were infused into Adam, and pass, by ordinary generation, into the persons of the elect, and at death ascend to glory in mystic bodies, leaving the material body in the grave; while this monstrous, incomprehensible and inexplicable theory imagines that there were born, "as an extra production" (whatever that means) of Adam and Eve, "through the Serpent" (however that was) "by reason of sin," other human bodies, without souls, but recipients of a Satanic seed, or spirits, uncreated and eternal (perpetuated after the flood by the wife of Ham), who are the non-elect and will be all damned and will finally return to Satan (whence they came) not in material, but in mystic bodies. I see no more reason in Scripture in these obscure and obscene speculations." (pg. 98)

"Serpent Seed" Etymology

The Serpent Seed doctrine, also known as the "two-seedline" doctrine, is a fringe belief, primarily in some Abrahamic religious movements, that posits the Serpent in the Garden of Eden had sexual intercourse with Eve, and their offspring was Cain. This belief asserts that humanity is divided into two races: the wicked, serpent-descended line destined for damnation, and the righteous, Adam-descended line chosen for eternal life. This point is what divides the two historical groups of Two Seeders, one called "Two Seed in the Flesh" and the other "Two Seed in the Spirit." The former hold to the view that Satan had sex with Eve. The latter say that Satan's "seed" was sown into the mind of Eve and not into her physical body via coitus. Satan's seed is equated with "sin." This was the view of Daniel Parker. 

Otis Stone in a Facebook article cited from the late Dr. R.E. Pound, historian of the primitive Baptist sect, a man I have cited many times before, who is said to have said the following things about how the seed of the serpent came to be (See here emphasis mine):

"In the main body of the document, Parker says, “Some may think I believe the Serpent cohabited with the woman. Certainly he did, so far as to beget the wicked, sinful principle and nature in her, which, was the cause of the sentence being passed against her by her Maker: – but not to beget children by her, in no other way but through or by the man, which, as her husband had received the forbidden fruit, and partook of the same principle and nature of Satan.”

This is why we say that Parker was a "two seed in the spirit" and not "two seed in the flesh." Parker believed the evil "seed" were words the Devil "planted" in her mind.

Wrote another source (See here):

"Irenaeus (c. 180), an Early Church Father, condemned the notion of original sin as adultery between Eve and the serpent in his book Against Heresies as a "Gnostic" heresy espoused by Valentinus (100–160). It also appeared in medieval Jewish literature, including the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan."

Wrote the same source, citing other sources:

"During the 19th century, the serpent seed doctrine was revived by American religious leaders who wanted to promote white supremacy. The modern versions of the serpent seed doctrine were developed within the teachings of British Israelism by C. A. L. Totten (1851–1908) and Russel Kelso Carter (1849–1928). Daniel Parker (1781–1844) was also responsible for reviving and promoting the doctrine among Primitive Baptists.[1] Teachers of Christian Identity theology, which branched off from British Israelism, preached the doctrine during the early twentieth century and promoted it within the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, the American Nazi Party and other white supremacist organizations. The belief's adherents commonly use it to justify antisemitism and racism by claiming that Jews or members of non-white races are the descendants of Cain and the Serpent, who they variably interpret to be Satan or an intelligent non-human creature which lived before Adam and Eve.[2][3]"

Wrote the same source:

"The serpent seed teaching comes in several different forms. William M. Branham (1909–1965), Arnold Murray (1929–2014), Wesley A. Swift (1913–1970), and Sun Myung Moon (1920–2012) played important roles in spreading different versions of the doctrine among members of their respective groups throughout the 20th century. Around the world, there are millions of adherents of the serpent seed doctrine within Branhamism and the Unification Church."

All this proves a point I have previously made about the rise of Two Seedism via Daniel Parker. The leading ideas in Two Seed ideology did not originate with Parker nor the nineteenth century. The dualism of Two Seedism did not begin with Parker. The serpent seed doctrine did not begin with Parker. The idea of preexisting souls was not new to Parker. The idea that certain humans do not have souls is not unique to Two Seedism, nor its denial of a physical resurrection. Two Seedism is a mishmash of all these unbiblical ideas. The various forms of Two Seedism that historians such as Sylvester Hassell have mentioned are the result of some Two Seeders accepting some of the ideas but not all of them. 

Seed "Planting"

"Seed" is from the Greek "sperma." The word "planting" is used inordinately by many Two Seeders and by Hardshell Baptists. It is also true with other words that one hears frequently in sermons and writings by Two Seed Hardshells, such as "manifestation," as we have seen. In the new birth, for instance, a new life is not begotten or created, but is only manifested. Regeneration merely manifests who are the elect, or who eternally existed as a spiritual person (who had been begotten in eternity past). Another instance is seen in their saying that a man is not justified by faith when he believes, but rather that faith only manifests that he had been justified from eternity. Another instance is seen in their contention that conversion or regeneration only gives evidence to a person that he is elect, born of God from eternity, having been begotten when Christ the Son of God was begotten. 

When I was with the Hardshells I would hear them use this word "manifestation" frequently when interpreting certain passages of scripture. In interpreting the words "and as many as received him to them he gave the power to become the sons of God" (John 1: 12) they would add the word "manifestly" so that it read "power to become manifestly the sons of God." In interpreting the words "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26) they would add the word "manifestly" to the text and make it say "we are all manifestly the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." 

Two Seedism proffers that the life that is given in regeneration or spiritual conception is but the implanting of an eternal living child of God, they being the "seed" of the "God-Man," being the third nature of Christ, his being made a Mediator back in eternity by the decree of God. This is why many of them objected to the idea of being born "again." If a person was begotten of God before the world began, then why does he need to be born again? That is why they would say that "born again" in John 3: 3-5 should rather be translated as "born from above" meaning that the eternal child that had been spiritually begotten before the world began would come down and take possession of a person who is of the elect. I cannot give the source for this information at this time, but I have lots of information about Two Seed beliefs, gathered through years of reading their history, that I did not keep notes. 

When the Hardshell Baptists speak of "regeneration" or being "born again" they use certain words frequently, such as "manifested" as we have seen. Another word is "planted." In regeneration God plants within a person "life," or a "new nature," or Christ himself. All this is good except the Two Seeders would argue that what is "planted" is the life and new nature of a child of God who has existed from eternity. 

We see this idea of "seed" planting in those who believe in infant regeneration, such as those in the traditional Presbyterian church or among the Hardshell Primitive Baptists, and is called "presumptive regeneration." In the former a baby is baptized and in that act a "seed of faith" is sown or planted within the infant which will, perhaps, later germinate into full regeneration or conversion. The Hardshells have taken the idea of "infant regeneration" and made far too much of it. This seed may be planted in a person, baby or adult, and it remains "dormant" in the person until it is later "manifested." It is like a woman being pregnant and not knowing it. She has the seed and its production within her but does not know it till the signs of it appear. 

Yes, God does plant life, spiritual mindedness, faith, etc., in regeneration, but that is a far different thing than saying that God implants an eternal child into the physical bodies of some humans.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XI)

The above picture is of Elder Samuel Trott in his late years and the church building I assume is the old Welsh Tract Baptist Church which was constituted in 1701 in Wales (England) and moved to America and set up church in 1703 in Delaware and became one of the five churches who formed the Philadelphia Association of Baptists, the oldest in America. Trott pastored this church for a while. As we have stated before he was a leading writer for the first Hardshell periodical "The Signs of the Times," and agreed with Beebe on "eternal vital union," though he disagreed with Beebe on the nature and fall of angels and on Beebe's acceptance of the doctrine of "eternal justification," the idea that the elect were justified from sin from eternity. He also agreed with Beebe in saying that Christ had three natures rather than two. With these introductory remarks, I will begin this chapter with what Trott said on the preexistence of the elect in his article titled "Thoughts on Eternal Justification" and published in the Signs of the Times for Nov. 22, 1837 with the ending - Centreville, Fairfax County, Va., July 18, 1849.

Wrote Trott (highlighting mine):

"My first objection to the term "Eternal Justification" as used by my brethren, or to the sentiment that the justification of the elect was an act of God passed in eternity, grows out of that prominent sentiment embraced in our Old School stand, namely: that a "Thus saith the Lord" is requisite to justify us in what we believe as well as in what we practice. I do not mean by this that the doctrine must always be expressed in the Scriptures in so many identical words. The doctrine of the "eternal union" of Christ and His people is not, that I know of, declared in just so many words in the Scriptures, yet I think this doctrine is therein clearly revealed. For instance compare Heb.2:11, "For both He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren," with Rom.8:29, "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the first-born among many brethren," and they show that the oneness or the union is of as old a date as the predestinating decree of God; and that we know that from Eph.1:4 & 5, to have been from before the foundation of the world. Inference is thus plain, because according to Heb.2:11, Christ recognized His people as brethren on the ground of their oneness with Him; and according to Romans 8:29, the predestinating decree of God recognized them as the many brethren among whom Christ was first-born. This doctrine is also taught by the several figures by which the union is illustrated in the Scriptures. For instance, in the figure of the creation of Adam and Eve. As Eve was of Adam's body, of his flesh, and of his bones, so the church is of Christ. (See Eph.5:25-32) Eve was created in Adam in his original creation. Gen.5:1 & 2. That the figure as used by the Apostle may hold good, we must therefore admit that the church was brought forth and set up in Christ, her head, when He was brought forth from everlasting, when there were no depths, &c. Prov.8:23,24. The same is further confirmed by the general doctrine of the gospel such as that they were chosen in Him, &c. Eph.1:4. I would here remark that the doctrine contained in this text is not that they were chosen into Christ; but chosen in Him."

Most of those Two Seed Baptists who believed in the preexistence of the souls of the elect, and in "eternal vital union," also believed in the doctrine known as "eternal justification." Trott, however, is an exception. He does not believe in the latter but does believe in the former.

Trott also admits that there is no scripture that plainly declares Two Seed ideology. He thinks that it is clearly inferred or implied however in the fact that Adam is a figure of Christ and in the supposition that Eve is a figure of the elect (or the church - Christ' mystical body). That is a weak foundation upon which to build such a fantastic ideology. Two things however disprove the inferences of the Two Seeders on this point. First, Paul wrote:

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom. 16: 7 kjv)

If eternal vital union is true, and if the souls of the elect were already "in Christ" from before the world began, and if they were "created in Christ" when Christ was begotten by the Father (in eternity), then all the elect were "in Christ" at the same time. But, Paul avows the very opposite in the above words. The believers Paul names "were in Christ before me," and not at the same time as he was. 

About vital union with God and Christ, the bible shows that this occurs in conjunction with being "begotten" of the Father, with being regenerated or born again, with having faith in Christ. Wrote Paul:

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (I Cor. 6: 15-17 nkjv)

The above text speaks of a believer's union with Christ under the figure of a marital union. This is one of the several figures used to describe the union of a believer with God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Other texts that also speak of the marital union that the elect have with Christ are Romans 7: 1-4 and Ephesians 5: 25-33. In the former passage Paul speaks of believers being "married to" Christ. The latter says that it is in being married to Christ that a believer becomes "one with Christ." Union follows being married to Christ. That union occurs when the believer says "I do" in his vows to the Lord. There can be no marriage union where there is not an agreement between man and woman to be one in marriage. The idea of the Two Seeders and other Hyper Calvinists that the marriage union occurs before faith, before the sinner has agreed to be the spouse of the Lord, yea from even before the foundation of the world, is ludicrous. 

In the above text a person is "joined to" a harlot in fornication by that person's choice. So, likewise, when a person is "joined to" his betrothed wife it is also by his or her choice. That is why many saints, including the Hardshells, sing "Oh happy day that fixed my choice on thee, my Savior and my God," being the day when "he washed my sins away." 

Paul also wrote: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" (Eph. 3: 17 kjv). 

Union with Christ begins when Christ is received and when Christ enters the heart and makes it his temple, and this is "by faith," by agreeing with Christ. Many marriage vows speak of giving "trust" to a spouse, along with vows and promises. In a spouse's vows to her husband, she promises to love, serve, and obey her husband. So too do believers vow when they are converted to Christ. Recall that Paul said the following to the believers in Corinth:

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2 kjv)

How could Paul espouse (betroth, or promise, or help get engaged) them to Christ if they were united to Christ in marriage from before the world began? 

Trott wrote the following under the title "REPLY TO BRETHREN: SONSHIP & UNION" (See here; page 303 and written by him July 18th, 1849):

"In my communication, in the 10th number, present volume of the SIGNS, in replying to brother Barton’s query concerning the churches being created in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, I took the ground, that the expressions “created in Christ Jesus,” naturally involved the idea that his church was created in his creation, as the Head of his church, and of course, as far back as he stood as her Head. I referred to I Cor.15:45, as sustaining the same idea, and also to Rev.3:14 & Col.1:15 as further justifying the application of the idea of creatureship to our Lord in reference to his headship. It used to be that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established; but it seems it is not so now. These brethren in replying to that communication, do not notice the text, Eph.2:10 {“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, &c.,”} although I founded my main arguments on it. The other three scripture passages above named they notice, and how they dispose of them shall now occupy our attention." (pg. 303-304)

What an absurd proposition it is to affirm that believers were "created in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world"! When the scriptures speak of being "created in Christ" it refers to what occurs in the life of persons when they believe and repent, when they are converted, when they are regenerated and born again, and not something that that occurred before the world began or before a person exists. Notice these two leading texts on being newly created in Christ.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (II Cor. 5: 17 nkjv)

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2: 10 nkjv)

This passage is senseless if it refers to an event that happened in past eternity. Two Seeders believe, like Arians, that when Paul speaks of Christ being "the firstborn over all creation" (Col. 1: 15 nkjv) and when John records Christ saying - "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God" (Rev. 3: 14 nkjv) that this refers to Christ being begotten by the Father before the world began, when he was made a mediator and redeemer. When Christ was thus made or begotten so too were all the elect created in him. But, this is certainly not what Paul is referring to by that experience called a "new creation" (Gal. 6: 15). 

What "old things" did Paul say have "passed away" for the believer? When did this occur? If it occurred from past eternity, old things passing away becomes an absurdity. How did things become new? Paul says that the good works that believers are to do were "prepared beforehand" but did not say that believers themselves were prepared before they were born into the world. 

Wrote Trott:

"They ask, “Do the Scriptures give any information of anything being created before the beginning?” If they mean by beginning the beginning of the creation of God; I answer no, for Christ is that beginning. But, if they mean by it, the beginning of time, as in Gen.1:1, I say yes; for in that beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but Christ, being the Beginning of the creation of God, and the First born of every creature, must in this sense have been created or brought into existence before these, and therefore before time. As no other reading has been attempted to be given to these texts, Rev.3:14 & Col.1:15, I still think them good authority as they read. But as they do not satisfy these brethren, I will produce other corresponding texts." (pg. 304)

The words highlighted above are based upon a misinterpretation of the two texts referred to and is the same interpretation that the Arians give of them. Those texts do not say that the Son of God was ever created, but that he is the Creator and all was created by him. We do not want to go into detail on these texts because it would require much space and would be drifting too far from our main focus, which is to define the leading tenets of Two Seed ideology. In short, these texts are designed to show the superiority of Christ over all, the thesis being "that in all things Christ must have the preeminence." (Col. 1: 18)

Wrote Trott:

"I next pass to their notice of the two texts, Rev.3:14 & Col.1:15. They say in reference to them, “We desire to give the fairest construction we can, according to the tenor of truth.” Why not according to the reading of the texts?" (pg. 305)

I cannot speak to the strength of the arguments that non Two Seed Hardshells offered to Trott and the Parkerites, but he thinks they do not give "the fairest construction" or plain reading of the texts. However, it is actually the Two Seed Arian interpretation of those texts that perverts their meaning.

Wrote Trott:

"To return to our subject, we will now notice how this tenor of truth works in reference to those texts. First. In reference to Rev. 3:14, “The beginning of the creation of God.” They quote the text, and without attempting to show that there is any mistake in the reading, or that the word beginning does not properly mean beginning, but beginner, they try to show that the text does not mean what it says. Their modus operandi it is not necessary for me to notice. They next come to Col. 1:15, “The First-born of every creature.” By quoting the following verses, in which in connection with the 15th verse, Paul is giving such a representation of the Son of God and Redeemer as to show that in his complex person, He in all things has the pre-eminence. But they would thereby make the impression that he is not the first-born of every creature, and of course that in this particular he has not the preeminence over his brethren, and is not like them, though verse 18 says, “That in all things he might have the pre-eminence,” and Heb.2:17, reads, “In all things it behooved him to be made like his brethren,” in that they are born of God, and he not according to these brethren, for if born of God he has a derived existence, and therein is a creature in distinction from the self-existent Godhead." (pg. 306) 

Again, no Arian could have stated Arian belief any better. They affirm that the two texts above (Rev. 3: 14 & Col. 1: 15) teach that Jesus Christ as the Son of God is not uncreated or without a beginning. However, Trott, Beebe, and one group of Two Seeders do not deny that Christ is God, but simply say that his being the Son of God, or the firstborn, or the beginning of the creation of God, has to do with him becoming a mediator and the life of his chosen people. Some of them said that this involved Christ being given a human soul when he was begotten some time in past eternity. Others even affirmed that his human body also was created when his human soul was created and when he was begotten as a mediator and redeemer.

Christ being the firstborn has several aspects. One of those has to do with his being from eternity the Son of the Father, or second person of the Trinity. Christ' sonship is unique and is why he is called "the only" begotten of the Father, and who is always in the bosom of the Father. It has to do with his rank, and his being begotten is not to be interpreted as being in every way the same as humans are begotten. 

When Revelation says that Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God" he means the same thing when he says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." (Rev. 21: 6; 22: 13) The Son of God says this several times in the Apocalypse.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1: 8 nkjv)

"And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last." (Rev. 1: 17 nkjv)

In Isaiah God says more than once - "I am the first and the last" (Isa. 44: 6-8; 48: 12). Therefore, being "the first," or "the beginning," does not mean being the first thing created. Both the Father and the Son confess that they are "the first and the last" or "the Alpha." Both therefore are God. Further, in Rev. 1: 8 Jesus says that he is "the Almighty." Ergo, being "the beginning" of all things does not mean that he who is such is a created being. 

If Christ being the "beginning of the creation of God" or the Alpha of creation, means that he was, in his divinity, created, then by the same rule we must say that his being "the ending" or "the last" must mean that he ceased to be God and to exist.

Wrote Trott:

"And it is evident that the dispute about these texts, is no longer between me and them, but between them and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost says that Christ, is the beginning of the creation of God, and the Firstborn of every creature, and that his people were created in him, &c.; they, in effect, say it is not so. Hundreds of other texts might be named on which the same dispute would arise; but I will forbear." (pg. 307)

Notice the Two Seedism and the error of the preexistence of the souls of the elect. Though, as we will see in upcoming chapters, Beebe wants to backtrack and say that he has never taught the idea of "eternal children," which is not the case. The view of Trott as stated above is also the view of Beebe as we have seen from the several citations I have given from him on the same theme. "His people were created in him" affirms that the children were created some time in eternity past when Christ was made a mediator and when he was begotten. Further, the two texts in dispute do not say that the children of God were created when Christ was created. That is read into the passage. Also, as we have seen, those two texts do not teach that Christ is a created deity.

Wrote Trott:

"The life with which we believe the soul is quickened is Christ – Christ in you the hope of glory. Col.1:27 & 3:3,4. Christ who is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; begotten or created in the Word, and his people in him, and thus ever existing in personal union with the Godhead, both from eternity, and as he is manifested in the new birth in the believer, as he says, “As thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Again, “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” John 17:21,23. Thus Christ our life existed as the Head and Husband of his church, before the heavens were planted, or the foundations of the earth laid, in the secret place of the Most High, in the shadow of God’s hand, and as one with God, and therefore as God whilst he is the Son of God. Hence when persons are born again, born of the Quickening Spirit, they are manifested as members of Christ’s body, as his seed, and through him – the only begotten of the Father, they are born of God, and are the sons of God." (pg. 308)

Here is another error in interpretation by the Two Seeders. Both Beebe and Trott will argue that "the life" or the "eternal life" is Christ, but that is not what the several texts in the new testament mean when they speak of believers being given eternal life. Yes, Christ is said to be our life, and Christ said that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but being given life ordinarily means simply the opposite of being dead. Notice also the further Two Seed declarations. Notice also how this Christological view of the Arian Two Seeders has led them to believe in the heathen doctrine of the preexistence of souls and to drastically alter what occurs when a person is born of the Spirit. We have already in preceding chapters spoken of some of these alterations. Notice the word "manifested." This is a favorite word with the Two Seeders. Being born again did not make a person a child of the Father but only manifests that he was a child of God, having been such from eternity. Union with Christ is not by faith but only manifests a prior vital union. These are the results of the slippery slope of Two Seedism.

Wrote Trott:

"Another wrong representation of my views, and the views of others, is found in their having throughout their communication, spoken of our views, as though we held that Christ as the Head of his church existed personally distinct from God and therefore distinctly as a creature. Where as we have never admitted that as a person he is a creature, but on the contrary, whilst we say that as man he was a creature, and that as Son, or as the Head of his church, or as Mediator, and Christ he is a creature; that is, that the existence in him which constituted him these, was not self-existent, but was brought into existence of God, yet that he took both of these existences into union with himself as God, the latter in eternity, the former in time, thus existing as God, as the Son of God, and the son of man, in one complex person. He thus exists as a distinct person, having distinct personal qualities from the Father and the Holy Ghost, but one with them in the Godhead, thus constituting him a fit and adequate person to be the one Mediator between the one God, and men." (pg. 309) 

This is why I do not call Beebe's and Trott's views on being created or made "the Son" Arianism but semi Arianism. Arians deny that Christ is in any sense the uncreated God. Two Seeders, however, retained a belief in the divinity of Christ, that as God he is uncreated. But, they do believe that Christ as "the Head of his church, or as Mediator," is "a creature." As stated in previous chapters Beebe and Trott believe that Christ has three natures, a divine, a human, and a mediatorial nature.