Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LII)

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) is the namesake of "Keach's Catechism" (also known as The Baptist Catechism), a 17th-century Particular Baptist catechism, though it was likely compiled by William Collins (d. 1702) following a 1693 General Assembly commission. Keach did write a separate, earlier catechism in the 1660s called Instructions for Children (or The Child's Instructor), for which he was pilloried. The catechism was officially authorized by the British Particular Baptists in 1693. "A very interesting "advertisement" was appended to the fifth edition of the Confession (1720)" said James M. Renihan (See here) which states: 

 

"This Confession of our Faith, together with the brief Instructions of the Principles of Christian Religion, or the Catechisms, both with the proofs in the margin, and also that with the words of the scriptures at length; with this Confession, put forth by the ministers, elders, and brethren of above one hundred congregations of Christians, baptized on profession of their faith in England and Wales, denying Arminiainism, owning the doctrine of personal election and final perseverance: having sold the property, right and title of the printing thereof, to John Marshall, bookseller, at the Bible in Gracechurch Street, by us, William Collins and Benjamin Keach, it is desired that all persons desirous to promote such useful books, do apply themselves to him".

If one reads this catechism he will see even more clearly what the signatories of the 1689 London Confession believed about salvation and will see that the footnotes that the "Primitive Baptist" ministers who attended the 1900 A.D. "Fulton Convention" attached to certain sections of the 1689 confession are indeed a gross perversion of what those 1689 English Baptists really believed. Keep in mind that the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (Baptist), ratified in 1742, was a copy of the 1689 with two additional articles added concerning the singing of psalms and the laying on of hands. 

In my article "From Keach's Catechism"* I wrote (See here):

"Benjamin Keach was a signer of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and a leader of Particular Baptists in England and America. He was also a prolific writer and defender of the faith. He wrote "Keach's Catechism"* which was often attached to the London and Philadelphia Confessions, the confession that all the oldest Hardshell churches endorsed." 

*"Joseph Ivimey asserts "it is probable that the Baptist Catechism was complied by Mr. Collins, though it has by some means or other been called Keach's Catechism"."

I also wrote:

"The Hardshells who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, met to restate their continued acceptance and endorsement of the old London/Philadelphia confession. One wonders how they could do this since the confession clearly teaches that God saves his people through faith, through the preaching of the gospel."

I have numerous articles in "The Old Baptist Test" blog giving citations from the signers of the 1689 confession from their voluminous works which show what they believed and it is these beliefs that they wrote into the 1689 confession. I cite from men like John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules and William Collins, Benjamin Keach, and others. Surely many of the fifty one ministers at the Fulton convention knew this, and yet tried to convince their followers that they were Hardshell in beliefs. Now let me cite from Keach's catechism, which was attached to the old confession.

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

Q. 35. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.

(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)

Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.

(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)

Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.

(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)

Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.

(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

Thus, the Fulton "footnotes" are lies, perversions of the words of the Old Baptists, and are unworthy of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."

What the Baptists who wrote and signed their names to the 1689 confession believed is the same belief they wrote in the above catechism. The fifty one elders at the Fulton assembly were saying that the ministers and churches that authorized the 1689 confession believed as they on predestination and salvation and yet many of them surely knew that this was not true. This was a deceitful act and by this they have no credibility.

The Baptist catechism of the Charleston association, which was organized in 1751, and put forth in 1813, says the same things about salvation as did Keach's catechism. Notice these questions and answers:

Q. How may we know there is a God? 

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God (Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Acts 17:24); but his word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners (1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:15,16). 

Q. What is the word of God? 

A. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only certain rule of faith and obedience (2 Tim. 3:16; Eph. 2:20). 

Q. May all men make use of the holy scriptures? 

A. All men are not only permitted, but commanded and exhorted to read, hear, and understand the holy scriptures (John 5:38; Rev. 17:18, 19; 1:3; Acts 8:30).

Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (John 1:11,12) by his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5,6). 

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9). 

Q. What is effectual calling? 

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14), whereby convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 2:18), and renewing our wills (Ez. 36:26, 27), he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel (John 6:44, 45; Phil. 2:13). 

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ? 

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39), whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel (Jn. 1:12; Is. 26:3, 4; Ph. 3:9; Gal. 2:16). 

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption? 

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47). 

Q. How is the word made effectual to salvation? 

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation (Neh. 8:8; Acts 26:18; Ps. 19:8; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1: 15, 16, 10: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 15:4; 1 Cor. 14:24, 25; 1 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; ). 

Q. How is the word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation? 

A. That the word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence (Pr. 8:34), preparation (1 Pet. 2:1, 2), and prayer (Ps. 119:18); receive it with faith and love (Heb. 4:2; 2 Thes. 2:10), lay it up in our hearts (Ps. 119:18), and practice it in our lives (Luke 8:15; James 1:25).

This is the true "primitive" or "original" Baptist belief. The so-called Primitive Baptists who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 are not, though they claim to be. They cannot find Baptists before the 19th century who believed as they do. They are therefore a new sect of Baptists. Since "Primitive Baptists" are Landmarkers they believe that for any church to be a true and legitimate church it must be a descendant of other legitimate churches in a chain of churches going back to the first churches established by the apostles. Since they cannot show such a succession through the English or American Particular, Regular, or Separate Baptists, they have tried, since the failure of the Fulton convention to find it through the English Particular Baptists who authored the 1689 confession, to find another succession. 

This is what Hardshell Michael N. Ivey attempted to do in his work titled "A Welsh Succession Of Primitive Baptist Faith And Practice." However, he miserably failed in this effort as I showed back in 2011 when I wrote a series of articles proving this, and showing how the Welsh Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries in Wales did not believe as do the Hardshells, and that Ivey did to the old confessions and writings of the Welsh Particular Baptists what the Fulton Hardshells did to the 1689 confession. You can see these articles in the Old Baptist Test blog for the year 2011. The first in that series can be read (here). 

Now, let us look at the APPENDIX TO FULTON CONVENTION, which gives what a prior convention of "Primitive Baptist" ministers put forth just two months prior to the convention in Fulton. This appendix was attached to the Fulton convention's publishing of their remarks on the 1689 London confession. That appendix says (emphasis mine):

"We, the undersigned elders and brethren, pursuant to a request made by brethren of Patoka Association of Primitive Baptists, now convened at Oakland City Church, in Oakland City, Indiana, on the 27th day of September, 1900."

One wonders why the "Primitive Baptists" at the start of the twentieth century felt the need to come together and state their beliefs in relation to the 1689 confession and to what their forefathers believed. In the introduction to the Fulton confession the fifty one ministers speak of how the "Primitive Baptist Church" (which they call "Zion") is torn apart by numerous factions. By their convention they hoped to unite all these factions, but they did not succeed, for it is in the nature of the Hardshells to be schismatic.

In the appendix, the elders who first assembled in Indiana wrote (emphasis mine):

"We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God."

There is no mention of this so-called "time salvation" in the 1689 confession nor in any other Baptist confession prior to its invention by the Hardshells. You do not see it in any of their church articles of faith in the early 19th century either. When the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists began to deny that God uses his written word and the message of the Gospel in the eternal salvation of sinners they were forced to explain how this denial could be true seeing there are so many texts in the Bible that clearly show otherwise. So, what they did was to invent this idea of a "time salvation," which said that it was a salvation that was conditioned upon faith, repentance, evangelical conversion, and perseverance in the faith, but that it was not necessary for eternal salvation. In one of my many articles on this novelty in bible interpretation (See here) I cited from two elders who stated what they mean by "time salvation." 

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world."

This new innovation in bible doctrine was invented in order to uphold their man-made thesis, one first given by the Two Seeders, which said "nothing a person does in life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell" and the one which said that "the gospel is only for the temporal benefit of those who are already children of God from eternity." 

 

Next the Indiana gathering wrote:

"Section 5, Chapter III.: “God hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as condition or cause moving Him thereto.” Although the two-seed doctrine was not thought of at the time this Confession was written, yet this article clearly condemns the two-seed doctrine in all its phases."

By "this confession" they mean the 1689 London Confession. Notice that they mention one of the tenets of Two Seedism dealing with the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election," which we in previous chapters (beginning with chapter 27) had much to say, especially when reviewing what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote about it in his 1860 work "The Measuring Rod." We have already seen where the Fulton convention of elders likewise mentioned Two Seed views in their footnotes to their version of the 1689 London confession. 

I find it interesting that these brethren who assembled in Oakland City, Indiana stated that "the two-seed doctrine was not thought of at the time" that the 1689 "confession was written" because the same thing could be said about their novel doctrine of "time salvation"! It is stunning that these brethren apparently failed to see this gross incongruity. 

Next the Indiana convocation said:

"...so we oppose the two-seed doctrine because it seeks to find some quality in man that stands as the cause of his election to glory, while Paul speaks of God’s people, “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”.

The assembled elders in Oakland City and in Fulton may have opposed certain Two Seed tenets, such as the doctrine of eternal children, yet they still held to other Two Seed tenets, such as we have just named. Also, by their divorcing conversion from regeneration, and by their saying that nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven, they too believe in a "no change" view of regeneration. Those who followed the Fulton Convention's dictates would continue to move towards the "hollow log" view by affirming that becoming a regenerated or born again person does not make him that person a believer in the true God, nor in Jesus Christ, not in the Gospel, and does not guarantee that the one regenerated will persevere. 

Some who read this series on Two Seedism might wonder why we have written a few chapters on the Fulton Convention. It is because of several reasons. First, because in both the Oakland City and Fulton assemblies there is mention of Two Seed views. Second, because the footnotes attached to the 1689 confession show them advocating several of the leading tenets of Two Seedism. 

In the next chapter we will return to reviewing some additional things that Elder Potter wrote in his rebuttal of Two Seedism. Following that we will have a chapter on what Elder George Stipp wrote against Two Seedism. Following that we will observe what Elder C.H. Cayce and others have said on the subject. We will then have some closing thoughts on what we have previously written and bring to a close, for the time being, our writings on the history and heresies of Two Seedism.