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.
No comments:
Post a Comment