In this chapter we will continue our review of the apology given for Two Seedism by Elder T.P. Dudley of Kentucky in the early to mid nineteenth century. But, before we do this, I want to let the reader know that in my recent readings I have come across the entire review of Dudley's "Christian Warfare" as given by John M. Watson. It can be found in the "Signs of the Times" by editor Gilbert Beebe in Vol. xvii for Feb. 15, 1849. (See here) In that same issue Beebe responds to Watson's Review, from which we have previously cited. We will later perhaps give more citations from Beebe's response in the "Signs of the Times." In 1849 there was a good bit of exchange of views and discussion over the leading propositions of Two Seedism. We will give a good bit of this debate beginning in this chapter.
Since writing the previous chapter I have also noticed that Elder Wilson Thompson wrote an article for the Signs which shows that he did in fact believe in Two Seedism, the preexistence of the persons of the elect, the preexistence of the humanity of Christ, and the no change view of regeneration. I will post these citations in upcoming chapters, along with other citations from him that I have previously cited in years past in articles in the Old Baptist Test blog. So, Grigg Thompson, Wilson's oldest son, did not tell the truth when he said (as I remember reading somewhere) that his father did not hold Two Seed ideas. I will hunt for that citation where Grigg said this. It may be from the debates Grigg had with Elder Mark Bennett, who once was editor of the "Primitive Baptist" published in North Carolina, but who later left the Hardshells and joined the Missionaries, and then had a couple debates with Grigg Thompson. Or, it could be from a writing he sent to "The Primitive Baptist" periodical published in North Carolina. I have cited from these Thompson debates with Bennett previously in this blog.
So far we have identified several of the leaders of Two Seedism among the "Old School" Baptists: Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, T. P. Dudley, and Wilson Thompson. We have also seen who were the first leaders of the opposition to Two Seedism among the Old Schoolers, "Primitive Baptists," or "Hardshells," such as John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, and John Clark. In upcoming chapters we will add to this number, from Elders George Y. Stipp, Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, Grigg Thompson, etc.
We have been citing from J. Taylor Moore's biography of Dudley, wherein he gives citations from Dudley and where he himself defends Dudley and Two Seed ideology. See Moore's writing (here). We will begin by reviewing an article that appeared in Beebe's "Signs of the Times" periodical, the first periodical for the Old School cause after the Black Rock Address in 1832 (that officially brought about the separation of anti mission Baptists from the general Baptist family), and written by Dudley and addressed to Beebe. Beebe, on more than one occasion, endorsed the views of Dudley and promoted the same Two Seed views in various writings, as we have seen in previous chapters. In that article Dudley seems to think that Beebe has backtracked on his Two Seed views. That article is titled "THE SOUL OF MAN" and written from Lexington, Ky., Aug.15, 1849. However, that article is not in the August 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (as you can see by reading that issue here). It does appear in the October 1st issue (1849). In that article, as given by Moore, Dudley begins as follows:
"MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE:
From the moment I read your response to Elder Williams’ queries in No.12 of the SIGNS, I have had it in contemplation to write to you, and drop some suggestions for your consideration – knowing Elder Williams, and being satisfied that I know the motive which prompted him in propounding the queries to you, I was prepared for his exultation at your admitting that the soul is regenerated. That brother Beebe, has committed himself in his reply to Elder Williams, I think will be manifest upon his re-examining the following positions taken in his reply. “If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian is a new creature, but what was actually in Christ.” A little lower down on the same page you say, “And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature.”
In upcoming chapters we may perhaps give the back and forth conversation or debate from Elder Samuel Williams of Lebanon, Ohio and Elder Gilbert Beebe on Two Seedism and published in the "Signs of the Times." It is in Beebe's reply to Williams that Dudley thinks Beebe has contradicted himself and upheld a view that is against Two Seedism, wherein Williams affirms that "the soul is regenerated" and the "soul is made alive and becomes a new creature." I think Dudley is right, that Beebe does contradict his previous writings in promoting the Two Seed idea about regeneration not changing a person's soul or making him a new creature. Later we will see not only Beebe's reply to Williams but his reply to Dudley also. Further, Elder Samuel Trott, from whom we have already cited, jumped into the debate and addressed remarks to Williams on the leading points of Two Seedism.
Wrote Dudley:
"Now, I ask brother Beebe, was the soul actually in Christ? If not, and I think on reflection, brother Beebe will admit it was not, are you not found in conflict with yourself? “And so it is written the first man Adam, was made a living soul.” “And he called their name Adam.” “The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” “As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.”
Beebe, in defending Two Seedism in previous writings, has upheld the view that being born again or regenerated made no change in the "Adam man." The "new creature" was "created in Christ Jesus" in past eternity, according to Beebe, and not when a man is converted. Being "born again" in time is simply the time when the previously begotten spirit of the children of God enters into the Adam man, according to Two Seedism. When it does enter the man, this eternal child of God is not changed, for he remains a pure holy spirit, nor does this entrance change the Adam man in either body, soul, or spirit. This is why this Two Seed idea of no change in regeneration came to be called the "hollow log" doctrine. It is a metaphor for the Two Seed idea of the new birth. Like as a rabbit enters into a hollow log and its entrance and presence therein does not change the log at all, so too does the preexistent child of God's entering into a human being in the new birth not change the man. Being "born again" to Beebe was simply a time when the entrance of the child of God into the Adam man "manifests" that he is now a God's child.
So, let us give some citations from the editorial that Beebe wrote as an answer to the questions of Elder Williams and to which Dudley felt the need to correct Beebe. It can be read (here) in the June 15th, 1849 issue of the "Signs of the Times" (Vol. XVII, No. 12) It is an editorial titled "Reply To The Queries Stated by Brother S. Williams, In His Letter of the 91 page".
Wrote Beebe:
"If brother Williams will admit that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that we are sons, which, of his own will he hath begotten; then he must also admit that we were begotten in him, as Mediatorial Head of the church. And if he denies this position, we challenge him or any other being to prove that we are or can be children of God in any other than a nominal sense.--Nor will it avail to say that we are vitally related to God by regeneration: for in regeneration that life which was and is in Christ only, is communicated to us. Regeneration does no more originate spiritual life, than generation does natural life. It does not originate, but it communicates to us that life and immortality which Christ only hath, and which cannot exist in us until Christ is formed in us the hope of glory. It will be found much easier to deny and denounce this doctrine than to overthrow it. In this we have not only a nominal union, but a union of existence--of Head and body."
So, being "born again" only makes a person a child of God in "a nominal sense"? The word "nominal" means "in name only." This is a novel, weird, and heterodox view of the Christian teaching about what it means to be "born again." The apostle John had a different idea about it however. He wrote:
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)
Beebe also denies that "regeneration" is the time when a sinner becomes vitally united to Christ. His view is that the children of God have existed from eternity and had a vital (life) union with Christ. According to John believers were not children of God before they believed and received Christ.
When Beebe says that "regeneration" does not "originate spiritual life" he is again denying what is clearly taught in scripture. Of course spiritual life has always existed, for God is Spirit and Life, but affirming that does not in any way infer that those who are given eternal life in time when they believe already had it from eternity! When he says that being born again "communicates" that "life and immortality" that Christ has always had, he thinks that this means that God "communicates" to an Adam or natural man this eternal child of God. Ridiculous, and yet many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed it. It is highly ironic that Beebe would claim to be "primitive" or "old school" when he has such a new and novel view of what happens when a sinner is born again.
Beebe also says that his Two Seed view is not easy to refute or overthrow! How deluded was he and other Two Seed Primitive Baptists!
Wrote Beebe:
"Query 3. (As asked by Williams) "Were those quickened spirits (referred to in brother Trott's quotations from brother Dudley's paper) in the first Adam when he sinned? If not, were they ever dead in sins?" Answer: The souls of all God's people which are quickened and made alive by regeneration or by the communication of spiritual life to them--were all in Adam, did all sin in Adam--did all die in Adam--and were all left, so far as their existence was identified with Adam under the same wrath and condemnation that Adam was under; but that life of God which is communicated to them in regeneration, by which they that were dead are quickened and made alive, was not in Adam, did not sin in him, and never was dead in trespasses and sins."
Again, the error of Beebe is clearly seen in the above answer given to the questions asked of Williams. He makes a gigantic inferential leap that is completely without warrant. It is against reason and scripture. He thinks that the affirmation that the "life of God," or "spiritual life," being from eternity necessitates believing that the children of God existed from eternity! He falsely equates "life of God" with "children of God." This is clearly a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2), "corrupting the word of God," (II Cor. 2: 17) and "twisting" or "perverting" the scriptures. (II Peter 3: 16) As we will see, Williams affirms these very things in his attempts to "overthrow" the Two Seed view of Beebe.
Wrote Beebe:
"Query 4. (As asked by Williams) "Does the apostle mean that the man is a new creature, or that a new creature has come into the man?"
"If what we have thus far written on this query be correct, then nothing in the christian "is a new creature" but what is actually in Christ."
"The. foregoing remarks are in answer to the first part of the query; the other branch of it remains to be answered, viz. "Or that a new creature has come into the man?" "We understand that the soul, not the natural body of the saint, is quickened in being born again. And this quickening is the communication of new life to the soul, which was dead, by the which that soul is made alive, and becomes a new creature. The life which is thus communicated, was not in that soul before he was born again; and this life is from Christ, who only hath immortality, and it is Christ; and consequently is the new, and not the old creation. And farther we believe that the same change substantially, which is effected in the soul by the new birth will also be effected in the bodies of all the saints, when that new and spiritual life which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, shall be communicated to them at their first resurrection; so that they shall not be raised up out of their graves in their old Adamic natures, but as particles of the new creature, "which after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness."
It is these statements by Beebe that provoked Dudley to write to the "Signs of the Times" and to make the comments he did as cited above. He thinks Beebe has contradicted himself by those comments, and indeed he does. Perhaps it shows that at this date (1849) that Beebe, like some other Two Seeders, were beginning to doubt the truthfulness of their views on the new birth. Later we will see where Williams later writes to the Signs to tell Beebe how glad he was to hear Beebe affirm that the soul of man was made spiritually alive when he was regenerated or born again. He does still emphasize that the eternal life that the sinner receives in his soul in being born of God in time existed from eternity, and that this is equated with children of God existing from eternity.
In response to Beebe's editorial reply to the questions of Williams, we have the following written to Beebe and the "Signs of the Times" by "the Brethren About The Fort Mountain." I will give some of the leading parts of that communication.
"Dear Brother Beebe: In Number Ten, of the present volume of the Signs of the Times, we notice a communication from Brother Barton, on the subject of love being the bond of union."
"And passing over several remarks from Brother Trott, which we, the brethren, do not think exactly accord with our views, we, Brother Barton and the Ketocton brethren, are asked, "to point out any definite period in time where Christ was made (or created) a quickening Spirit, and then first stood as the Head of spiritual life in believers."
By "Brother Barton" Beebe intends Elder Thomas Barton (1787-1870), a close friend of Beebe and yet reluctant to accept all of the Two Seed views of Beebe and Trott. He was present at the "Black Rock Convention" in 1832 when several Hyper Calvinistic churches declared non fellowship with other Baptists who supported missions, theological education, etc.
From the above letter from the "Fort Mountain" brethren it appears that Barton believed what the Fort Mountain brethren believed, which was a denial of two of the leading ideas of Two Seedism, the preexistence of the children of God, and the no change view of regeneration.
They continued:
"We, the brethren about the Fort Mountain, by our experience and the word of Truth, never were taught to believe in any other quickening power than the Holy Ghost: neither do we believe that the Holy Ghost by his renewing us in the spirit of our minds (souls) created little independent gods in us; or that our Adamic nature is pure, in whole, or in part. Neither do we believe that the Head of the church is a creature, and that we are the creatures of that creature, this, we consider would be degrading the Head...but the spirit giveth life" (or quickeneth) and that spirit of life, or life giving spirit, is a self existent principle of life, and can, and does impart new life, spiritual life to sinners dead in trespasses and sins, and this new life is planted in the soul of the sinner, and is the new man, and eternal life."
This is a denial of the Two Seed idea that the dead sinner is not changed, does not go from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive.
They continued:
"Brother Trott has quoted two texts as proof of the creatureship of Christ, we do not understand them as he does; but we assure our brother, we desire to give the fairest construction that we can to the Tenor of Truth.--The first is Rev. 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the Creation of God." Great stress is laid on these words "the beginning of the Creation of God." Let us compare it with the 8th verse of the 1st chapter, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." How the beginning? The first creature that God ever created? no, for it is written, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." And he calls himself the Almighty in Rev. 1:8. He is the beginning of Creation, none ever created before him. He is the author of Creation, as will clearly appear from the second text quoted, Col. 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of every Creature."
In earlier chapters we showed how the Two Seeders were semi-Arian in their views about Christ not being the Son of God by eternal generation, but denoting his being begotten or created as a Mediator, which involved him having three natures rather than two. We have also addressed how they are very similar to the way Arians interpret Rev. 3: 14 and Col. 1: 15. We made the same remarks that the above brethren did in response to this Arianism.
They continue:
"He is not born first, if it has reference to his humanity, for he was not born for four thousand years after the Creation. What can the first born mean? If you will read the 16, 17, 18, and 19th verses after the one quoted, it will appear very clearly; that he is before all Creatures, that he is the Creator of all creatures."
Christ being the "firstborn" is true in several respects in scripture. As respects his divinity, he is not begotten in the same sense that humans are begotten, nor in the same way he was begotten of God in his humanity when conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. As the eternal Son of God he is the "only" or "unique" Son of God, which is intended simply to convey the idea that he and the Father are one, or equal. The term "firstborn" in this respect denotes Christ's rank over all creatures.
Interesting is the fact that in this same issue of the Signs Elder Grigg Thompson writes a short piece and says nothing about the things being discussed relative to Two Seedism. Why was this? Why did so many Hardshells write often to the Signs of the Times at first without denouncing Two Seed ideas? Especially in light of the fact that many of them later decided to publicly and intensely oppose it? Albert Barnes in his commentary wrote:
"He does not say that, in all respects, he resembled the first-born in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created being himself.
He that "created all things that are in heaven and that are in earth," was not himself created. That the apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature, is also manifest from the reason which he assigns why he is called the first-born. "He is the image of God, and the first-born of every creature, for - ὅτι hoti - by him were all things created." That is, he sustains the elevated rank of the first-born, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all things were created in heaven and in earth."
In the next chapter we will continue to cite from the debate that was carried on in the Signs of the Times in 1849.
No comments:
Post a Comment