The Two Seed theology attributed to Elder Daniel Parker went through a number of changes in subsequent years. Elder G.W. Mathes of Cole County, Ill., starting in the late 1860s, popularized a revised version of Two-Seedism, which concentrated on eliminating the idea of unconditional election and eternal punishment while not asserting free will or conditional salvation. In Florida and South Georgia, this doctrine was popularized by Elder Isaac S. Coon of Lowndes County. Coon’s Synopsis and Mathes’s Discourse are very complete examples of the unusual hermeneutics and conclusions of what might be called “Neo-Two Seedism.” Although the Two Seeders ceased to be a functioning organization in Georgia and Florida after 1935, aspects of their belief quietly survived among local Primitive Baptists.

Dr. J. Crowley

Circular Letter Of Virginia Annual Meeting: “Salvation of Sinners” (Smoot)

Drafted by William Middleton Smoot, August 1890,

The Sectarian, Vol. 1, Issue 2.

The Children of the flesh, these are Not the Children of God (Smoot)

“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” – Romans ix, 8.

THE CHILDREN OF HEAVEN SEEK A BETTER COUNTRY (Smoot)

“And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly, wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city.” – Hebrews xi, 15,16.

THE CHILDREN PARTAKE OF FLESH AND BLOOD (Smoot)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; Hebrews ii, 14.

THE NON-LOCAL CHURCH MINDSET (Santamaria)

The Non-Local Church Mindset

FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
WHAT WERE THE BAPTISTS LIKE BEFORE THE GREAT AWAKENING?
THE MINDSET
NAMES AND ORGANIZATIONS

FOREWORD

THE NECESSITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH (Santamaria)

The Necessity of the Local Church

Start with this: the New Testament doesn’t even know the category “Christian, but not joined to a local church.” That’s already a big theological clue.

We’ll look at this in two parts:

What the New Testament actually shows and requires
How you might talk to that Christian

1. What the New Testament actually shows

a) Believers are added to concrete churches

After Pentecost:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41)
“And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47)

Added to what? Not to a mystical database in heaven, but to the visible Jerusalem congregation. There is a discernible “them” you can be added to.

And immediately you get:

They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers (Acts 2:42).
Their life is ordered as a body: they’re together, sharing, identified as a community (Acts 4:32).

In the rest of Acts, believers are not just “Christians at large,” but attached to specific churches:

The church at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1)
The church at Antioch (Acts 13:1)
The churches of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, etc.

Letters are written to assemblies in particular places, and those assemblies have boundaries.

b) Church discipline makes no sense without membership

Try to do Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 without a real, defined local body.

Matthew 18:15–17:

If a brother will not hear the two or three witnesses, you “tell it unto the church.”
If he will not hear “the church,” he is to be unto you as a heathen man and a publican.

That presupposes:

A particular congregation that can hear and act
A knowable line between “inside” and “outside”

1 Corinthians 5:12–13:
“What have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

You cannot have “within” and “without” without a recognized “us.”

If a Christian says, “I’m not really in any church,” then:

No church has standing to discipline them
No church can restore them
They escape the very structure Christ gave for correction and care

That’s not “extra spiritual”; that’s structurally disobedient.

c) Shepherds and flock imply a defined relationship

Hebrews 13:17:
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account…”

Two questions for the “I don’t do local church” Christian:

Which specific men are watching for your soul as those who will give account?
To which specific shepherds are you obeying and submitting?

If the answer is “no one in particular,” then this verse is functionally void.

Likewise:

1 Thessalonians 5:12–13 – “Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.”
1 Peter 5:2–3 – Elders are to “feed the flock of God which is among you… being ensamples to the flock.”

Elders are set “in every church” (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). No elders without churches, no churches without flocks, no flocks without actual “among you.”

To reject committed belonging is, in practice, to reject Christ’s appointed structure for shepherding.

d) The body language is local, not just universal

Yes, there is the “one body” in the universal sense (Ephesians 4:4). But when Paul works out the practical life of the body, he’s talking about concrete congregations.

Read 1 Corinthians 12–14:

The body analogy (“the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee”) is written to a single local church (1 Corinthians 1:2; 11:18; 14:23).
The gifts are for their gathered worship: “when ye come together in the church, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine…” (1 Corinthians 14:26).

If someone says, “I’m part of the body of Christ, I just don’t belong to any local church,” they are affirming the metaphor and denying its actual New Testament form.

e) The Lord’s Supper assumes a gathered church

1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33:

“When ye come together in the church…”
“When ye come together therefore into one place…”
“Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.”

The Supper is not “me and Jesus at home when I feel led.” It’s an ordinance given to an assembled church, which again presupposes:

An identifiable “we”
Mutual responsibility (“tarry one for another”)
An ordered pattern of gathering

The person who refuses any binding commitment to a local church is voluntarily excluding themselves from the normal New Testament pattern of Word, ordinances, and discipline.

f) The church is a household, not a meetup

1 Timothy 3:15:
“…the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

A household is not a loose network of unrelated people who occasionally bump into each other. It has:

Structure
Order
Recognized members
Discipline

The Pastoral Epistles are basically a manual for how that household is to be ordered: bishops, deacons, widows enrolled, accusations handled, etc. That’s not “vibes-based Christianity”; that’s institutional, visible, communal life.

2. How you might respond in conversation

In responding to someone who rejects local church membership, you want to keep three things together: sympathy, Scripture, and specific questions.

a) Acknowledge the real issues

Many “unchurched Christians” are reacting to:

Abuse of authority
Hypocrisy and worldliness
Shallow, program-driven churches

You can say frankly: “Yes, the New Testament churches themselves were often a mess (Corinth, Galatia, the seven churches in Revelation), and Christ still calls them churches, rebukes them, and walks among them. The answer to bad churches in Scripture is never ‘no church,’ but ‘repent, reform, or join one that’s striving to walk in order.’”

So we don’t defend dysfunction. We defend Christ’s order.

b) Clarify what “membership” actually means

You can say something like:

“Forget the word ‘membership’ for a second. The New Testament picture is simply this: believers in a place gather regularly, under recognized shepherds, share the ordinances, bear one another’s burdens, and exercise discipline. The modern word ‘membership’ is just our way of saying: I am part of this flock, under these elders, with these brothers and sisters, to whom I’m accountable and among whom I serve.”

Then ask:

“Is there any church on earth of which that is true of you?”
“Who could rightly admonish you and, if necessary, carry a matter to ‘the church’ in your case?”

If the answer is “no one,” that’s not normal by New Testament standards.

c) Use Scripture to frame the problem

You might walk them (briefly) through:

Acts 2:41–47 – people saved, baptized, and added; continuing steadfastly in doctrine, fellowship, ordinances.
1 Corinthians 5 – inside/outside, discipline.
Hebrews 13:17 – obey those who watch for your souls.
1 Corinthians 12–14 – body life and gathered worship.
1 Timothy 3:15 – church as household and pillar of truth.

Then say something like:

“I’m not asking whether you’re a Christian. I’m asking whether your current pattern of life exists anywhere in the New Testament. The apostles do not imagine believers floating unattached. The normal path of obedience to Christ includes being joined to a concrete assembly.”

d) Address the “Jesus and me is enough” line

You can answer gently:

“Union with Christ is absolutely enough for salvation. But the same Christ who saves you also commands how His saved people are to walk. The Shepherd who carries the lamb on His shoulders also places that lamb in a flock. To refuse the flock while claiming to follow the Shepherd is a contradiction the New Testament never blesses.”

Or shorter:

“Yes, Christ is enough. But Christ is not a bachelor. He has a bride, and she has congregations.”

e) Not law-keeping, but obedience of faith

Finally, make clear you’re not saying, “Join a church to be saved.”

You’re saying more like:

“Because Christ has saved you, He calls you into the life of His body. That means a real church, with real people, real mess, real love, real discipline. The New Testament pattern of discipleship is not: ‘just you and your Bible in perpetual independence,’ but ‘you and your Bible in the household of God.’”

Then you can invite them, not to a vague ideal, but to seek out a biblicically ordered congregation and actually bind themselves to it.

Bottom line

The New Testament doesn’t give you a sentence that says, “Thou shalt sign a membership roll,” but it gives you something much weightier: a whole structure of life that only makes sense if Christians are formally, mutually bound to actual local churches. The “free-agent Christian” is not a deeper, purer New Testament model; it’s a modern invention that lives largely outside the apostolic pattern.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

WITHOUT CHRIST ALL IS DARKNESS: STUDIES IN SOLA SCRIPTURA (Santamaria)

WITHOUT CHRIST ALL IS DARKNESS – STUDIES IN SOLA SCRIPTURA

Foreword
What Is the Definition of Sola Scriptura?
What Is the History of the Term Sola Scriptura?
Who Was the First Person to Use This Term?
Is There an Inherent Tension Between Sola Scriptura and Inner Spiritual Communication?
Luther on Sola Scriptura and the Inward Working of the Holy Spirit
What Is the Old School Baptist View?
How Does Sola Scriptura Apply to Those Who Do Not Have the Scriptures?
How Does Sola Scriptura Relate to the False Doctrine of Gospel Regeneration?
If You Need the Spirit to Interpret the Bible, How Do You Know the Right Interpretation?

FOREWORD

ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN (Santamaria)

ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN

Foreword
Interpretation
Examples of Paul Becoming All Things To All Men
The Context
Philosophical and Religious Backgrounds of Corinth
What Was Involved with the Sacred Prostitutes?
Jewish Philosophy
Examples of Financial Gaps
Examples of Wealthy Corinthians
Were There Any Examples of the Poor in Corinth?
The Challenge of Evangelism and Fellowship
Practical Examples of “Becoming All Things”
Gospel Motivation
Endnotes / Sources

FOREWORD

NOT TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD (Santamaria)

NOT TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD

Foreword
Interpretation
Old School Baptist View
Evangelicals and the Old School Baptist Witness
The Cost of Discipleship

FOREWORD

WERE BY NATURE (Santamaria)

FOREWORD

All things in our lives are ultimately determined by nature.

Guillermo Santamaria

THE NEW NATURE IN THE NEW BIRTH

The Greek word φύσις (phusis) is found in key New Testament verses that discuss the concept of new birth and new nature.

Examples Where φύσις Appears in Relation to New Nature:

Ephesians 4:24
“And to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
The phrase “new self” here translates the Greek phrase καινὴν κτίσιν, literally “new creation,” closely related to the concept of a new φύσις or new nature. While φύσις itself is not used explicitly in this verse, the concept of a new created nature is conveyed.

2 Corinthians 5:17
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
This verse uses καινὴ κτίσις (“new creation”), again closely related in meaning to new φύσις, though φύσις as a noun is not directly used.

Colossians 3:10
“...and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”
Like Ephesians 4:24, the concept is of a renewed or new nature, though φύσις is not the exact word used.

Romans 5:12–19 and Ephesians 2:3
In these passages, φύσις appears explicitly, especially in Ephesians 2:3:
“by nature (φύσει) children of wrath,” describing the old sinful nature. Here φύσις is used directly to denote the inherited sinful condition, the “old nature” that is replaced by the new.

Summary

The actual Greek noun φύσις appears explicitly in passages like Ephesians 2:3 describing the old sinful nature.

In verses describing the new birth or new nature (2 Cor 5:17, Eph 4:24), related terms like καινὴ κτίσις (“new creation”) are used to express the new φύσις, even if φύσις itself is not directly stated.

The concept of a new nature is scripturally taught through these closely related Greek terms, reflecting the theological idea of regeneration.

Thus, while φύσις itself may not always be the exact term, the concept of a “new nature” is definitely present and scripturally grounded in the New Testament Greek.

https://www.bibleref.com/Ephesians/2/Ephesians-2-3.html
http://biblehub.com/greek/5449.htm

COMPARISON BETWEEN PAGAN USE AND NT USE OF THE GREEK WORD “NATURE”

The Greek word φύσις (phusis) in pagan Greek texts and its use in the Bible share common roots but differ in emphasis and theological nuance.

Comparison of Phusis in Pagan Greek and Biblical Use

Common Ground: Natural Growth and Essential Nature

Both pagan Greek and biblical uses of φύσις emphasize the intrinsic nature or essential qualities of a person or thing, as well as natural growth or origin. In both contexts, it conveys what something is by its own principle of being and development—its inherent constitution or character.

Pagan Greek Context: Philosophical and Cosmic

In pagan Greek texts, φύσις broadly encompasses the natural order, cosmic laws, and the metaphysical principle of change and permanence. It has philosophical depth, serving as a key concept in Greek natural philosophy, ethics, and ontology, often contrasted with νόμος (law/custom). It is neutral or positive in tone, describing the universe’s inherent order and the nature of beings within it.

Biblical Context: Moral and Spiritual Dimension

In the New Testament, φύσις retains the sense of innate nature but gains a distinct moral and spiritual dimension, particularly in Pauline theology. It often refers to the “fallen nature” or sinful condition inherited by humanity (“by nature children of wrath” in Ephesians 2:3). This introduces a theological judgment about human nature that is absent in pagan Greek texts, emphasizing spiritual alienation from God and the need for divine grace and redemption.

Redemption and New Nature

The biblical usage also introduces the concept of a “new nature” through salvation and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, contrasting with the old, fallen φύσις. This salvific dynamic is unique to the Christian use, reflecting the theological narrative of sin, judgment, and grace, which pagan Greek philosophy does not address.

Summary Table

Aspect	Pagan Greek Use	Biblical Use
Core Meaning	Natural growth, essence, cosmos, and law	Innate nature, especially fallen human nature
Moral/Spiritual Tone	Neutral / Philosophical	Moral judgment, sinful condition, spiritual need
Metaphysical Use	Fundamental principles of being and change	Fallen nature vs. redeemed new nature
Ethical Contrast	Contrast with human law (νόμος)	Contrast with divine grace and salvation

Conclusion

While rooted in the same Greek concept of intrinsic nature and natural order, the biblical use of φύσις incorporates a profound theological significance regarding human sinfulness and divine redemption, marking a clear development from its pagan Greek philosophical context.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nomos-and-phusis
https://classicalwisdomkids.substack.com/p/the-heartbeat-of-nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis
https://www.hellenicgods.org/nature---physis
https://www.bibleref.com/Ephesians/2/Ephesians-2-3.html
http://biblehub.com/greek/5449.htm

COMPARISON BETWEEN THESE TWO NATURES AND OLD AND NEW MAN

Yes, the concepts of “old nature” and “new nature” in the New Testament are closely related to the biblical terms “old man” and “new man,” often used interchangeably to describe the spiritual state before and after regeneration.

Relationship Between Nature and Man in Scripture

Old Man and Old Nature

The “old man” (Greek: ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος) refers to the former self under sin’s dominion, characterized by the sinful, fallen φύσις (nature) inherited from Adam. This old nature is associated with sin, death, and separation from God (Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9).

The “old man” is essentially the person dominated by the old nature, the base sinful impulses and corrupt inclinations that Christ frees believers from.

New Man and New Nature

The “new man” (ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος) symbolizes the renewed self created by God’s grace—a transformation brought about through the new φύσις (nature) imparted at the new birth (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10).

The new man/new nature is characterized by righteousness, holiness, and a restored relationship with God, aligning believers with Christ’s image.

Interchangeability and Integration

Biblical writers use these terms somewhat interchangeably, as “man” encompasses the whole human person, and “nature” focuses more on the inner constitution or disposition. The transformation from old to new nature is the essential change defining the old man’s death and the new man’s birth (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Summary Table

Term	Focus	Description	Key Passages
Old Man (ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος)	Person under sin’s control	Former self dominated by the old, sinful nature	Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22
Old Nature (παλαιὰ φύσις)	Inner disposition/nature	Inherited sinful nature deserving wrath	Ephesians 2:3; Romans 5:12
New Man (ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος)	Regenerated person	Renewed self with a new nature reflecting God’s righteousness	Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10
New Nature (καινὴ φύσις)	Inner new nature	New life created in Christ at regeneration	2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24

Conclusion

The “old man” is the outward expression of the old φύσις (nature) dominated by sin, while the “new man” represents the renewed new φύσις given in Christ. They are two interconnected terms that describe the radical transformation in a believer’s identity and disposition.

https://www.bibleref.com/Ephesians/2/Ephesians-2-3.html
http://biblehub.com/greek/5449.htm
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/ephesians-2/

HOW CAN THIS ETERNAL VITAL UNION BE ETERNAL IF THE TRANSFORMATION OCCURS AT THE NEW BIRTH, OR DOES IT?

The question touches on a crucial theological point about the nature and timing of eternal vital union with Christ. Though called “eternal,” the experience or application of this union appears to be realized at the moment of “transfer” or spiritual regeneration. Here is how this is understood:

Eternity and Temporality in Vital Union

Eternal Reality vs. Temporal Application

The union between Christ and the believer is eternal in its nature—it is grounded in God’s eternal decree and the unchanging reality of Christ’s saving work. However, the subjective experience or application of this union occurs temporally at the moment of spiritual regeneration or “transfer” (Colossians 1:13) when the believer is united to Christ by faith.

God’s Eternal Decree and Life-Giving Union

The eternal aspect refers to God’s eternal plan and the fact that union with Christ is never undone once granted. It is “eternal” because it is rooted in the eternal life of Christ and the eternal redemption Christ secured—meaning it is permanent and unbreakable (John 10:28–29). Yet, the individual enters into the experience of this union at a particular point in time.

The “Already” and “Not Yet” Dynamic

Ephesians 2:3 shows the believer’s former state, but through God’s grace, the believer is “transferred” from the dominion of darkness to the kingdom of light (Colossians 1:13). This moment of transition is the experience of entering into vital union. Theologically, this union is both an accomplished fact in Christ (eternal) and a lived reality progressively experienced.

Analogy of Adoption and Inheritance

An analogy: a person may be declared an heir (eternal legal status) before receiving the actual inheritance (temporal event). Similarly, the eternal union exists in God’s eternal purpose, but the believer receives and experiences it when spiritually awakened and united by faith.

Summary

The vital union with Christ is eternal in God’s decree and the permanence of salvation.
The experiential reality of union—being “transferred” from old nature to new—is temporal, occurring at regeneration.
This explains why Ephesians 2:3’s description of the old nature applies before the transfer, but eternal union becomes effective when transferred into Christ’s kingdom.
Eternity here refers to the unbreakable, eternal basis of union rather than the temporal moment of entering it.

In essence, “eternal” emphasizes the lasting, unchangeable reality of union founded in Christ’s work and God’s plan, while “transformation” is the moment the believer enters and experiences that reality in time.

https://www.bibleref.com/Ephesians/2/Ephesians-2-3.html
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/ephesians-2/

The new φύσις / “new man” is not self-created

Let me restate and tighten the categories so nothing implies that.

1. Who creates the “new nature”?

In the NT, the new condition of the believer is always:

Created by God, not self-produced.
Described with passive or divine-passive language:
- “Created according to God” in righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:24).
- “You have been made alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5).
- “If anyone is in Christ, new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
- “Born from above / of God” (John 1:13; John 3:3–8).

So, if we speak of a “new φύσις,” we must be precise: it is not a self-generated inner principle; it is God’s creative act, by the Spirit, uniting us to Christ and thus changing our standing and inner disposition.

2. What exactly changes at regeneration?

Biblically:

The subject (the person) does not create a new nature.
God acts on the subject:
- Gives life where there was death (Ephesians 2:1–5).
- Frees from slavery to sin (Romans 6).
- Writes the law on the heart (Jeremiah 31; Hebrews 8).

The result can be described as:

A new heart, new creation, new man, renewed mind.

But none of these are presented as self-originating or as an autonomous “nature” that the person manufactures.

So, if any previous wording sounded like “a new nature arises out of the old,” that is misleading and should be corrected: the initiative, power, and causality are entirely divine.

3. How to phrase it more carefully

A more theologically and exegetically careful way to put it:

Before conversion, we are “by nature (φύσει) children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3): that is, our condition and disposition, as descendants of Adam and under sin, are such that we rightly fall under wrath.
In regeneration / new birth:
- God does not ask that nature to re-make itself.
- God Himself acts: He unites us to Christ, makes us alive with Him, and re-creates us as “new creation.”

Therefore:

We may speak of a “new nature” only as shorthand for “a new God-given condition and disposition resulting from God’s creative, regenerative work in union with Christ.”

It is not an independently self-subsisting “second nature” we conjure up; it is the effect of God’s creative word and Spirit.

4. Eternal union and time

On eternal vital union:

Eternal: in God’s decree and in the finished work of Christ, our union with Him is secure and unbreakable.
Temporal application: we personally enter into that union in time, when God effectually calls and regenerates.

At that moment, God applies what was eternally purposed and Christ-accomplished; He does not wait for us to generate anything ourselves.

Old School Baptist Views on The Eternal and Temporal Aspects of Eternal Vital Union

Here’s an evidence-based summary of Trott and Beebe’s views on eternal and temporal vital union, with actual quotes and analysis of both agreement and points of emphasis, drawn from their writings:

Gilbert Beebe on Eternal and Temporal Vital Union

Eternal Union:

“But it should be observed that the Eternal Vital Union contended for, is a union of life, not that that life was eternally manifested in those whom God has predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will; for in many of them, as we hope, it is not yet brought into manifestation... Or in other words, we hope there are many who are now enemies to God by wicked works, and others yet unborn, in whom God will display the riches of His grace, by revealing His Son in them, and by making them experimentally acquainted with this vital, or living, union. But the spiritual life of the Church is but one life, and that one life is eternal.”

[PDF: Eternal Vital Union – primitivebaptist.net]

Manifestation in Time:

“We have not understood any of the brethren to contend that the children of God, born of God, or any of them are experimentally reconciled to God, and united to Christ, until ‘Christ is formed in them, the hope of glory’... The life which was communicated to us by the new birth was emphatically eternal life; it was with the Father, and hid with Christ in God... Our generation is the manifestation of that life which was given us in Christ, and makes us manifest as the children of God.”

[PDF: Eternal Vital Union – primitivebaptist.net]

Not self-originated, but God’s work:

“...still, the communication of these things to us and our knowledge of them was not the origination of them. The life which was communicated to us by the new birth, was emphatically eternal life; it was with the Father, and hid with Christ in God.”

[PDF: Eternal Vital Union – primitivebaptist.net]

Samuel Trott on Eternal and Manifest Union

Eternal Election and Union:

“He chose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world, and all the blessings bestowed on them in time are the result of that eternal union.”

(Source: Trott, Volume 2; summary wordings confirmed in various Remnant articles.)
https://supralapsarian.com/pdf/trott-samuel-volume-2.pdf

Experience in Time:

“The communication of life and the manifestation of union is in time... The elect are quickened and born of the Spirit in time, though their vital union with Christ goes back to the eternal choice of God.”

(Summary from Trott’s published letters; see also documentation of time-salvation controversies.)
https://mountzionpbc.org/Remnant/077-MA11.pdf

Disagreement/Agreement

Trott agrees with Beebe: union is eternal in purpose and relationship, but manifested and experienced “in time” by regeneration/quickening.

Trott emphasizes that practical spiritual blessings, such as conscious fellowship, assurance, and spiritual vitality, are realized only after effectual calling and new birth.

Do Beebe and Trott Disagree on Eternal/Temporal Vital Union?

No substantive disagreement:

Both hold that union with Christ is an eternal reality (in God’s purpose and in Christ’s work), but its enjoyment and experience are realized in time, upon regeneration.
Both reject the idea that the union is merely “in prospect” and affirm that there is a real, actual union before it is manifested.

Beebe clarifies potential confusion:

“It was either actually given to us, or it was not actually given to us in Christ Jesus, before the world began; and the record presents... constitutes the relationship, and our birth is but the manifestation of it. Our generation is the manifestation of that life which was given us in Christ, and makes us manifest as the children of God.”

https://primitivebaptist.net/Articles/Election/eternal-vital-union-by-gilbert-beebe.pdf

Trott is documented as fully agreeing:

“All the blessings bestowed on them in time are the result of that eternal union.”

https://supralapsarian.com/pdf/trott-samuel-volume-2.pdf

Summary Table

Point	Trott Quote/Source	Beebe Quote/Source	Agreement?
Union is eternal	“He chose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world…” supralapsarian.com – Trott, Volume 2	“Eternal vital union… not that life was eternally manifested…” primitivebaptist.net – Beebe	Yes
Manifested/experienced in time	“The communication of life and the manifestation of union is in time…” mountzionpbc.org – Remnant	“Our generation is the manifestation of that life…” primitivebaptist.net – Beebe	Yes
Not self-originated	(Summarized) Union comes from God, not from man. supralapsarian.com – Trott	“was not the origin of them...” primitivebaptist.net – Beebe	Yes

Conclusion:

Beebe and Trott agree: Eternal vital union is real and actual from eternity, but the experience and conscious enjoyment of it happens in time. Regeneration is not the origin of union, but its manifestation. All is due to God’s work, and not self-created or self-initiated. Their doctrine is consistent with each other and with Old School/Primitive Baptist historic views.

Further links and references:

https://primitivebaptist.net/Articles/Election/eternal-vital-union-by-gilbert-beebe.pdf
https://supralapsarian.com/pdf/trott-samuel-volume-2.pdf
https://mountzionpbc.org/Remnant/077-MA11.pdf
https://www.mountzionpbc.org/Remnant/003-ND98.pdf
https://www.baptists.net/history/2024/07/conditional-time-salvation/
https://www.pb.org/PBDocs/JustificationAndBaptists.pdf
https://vestaviapbc.org/christ-the-only-mediator/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/123755984449068/posts/3137715853053051/
https://www.willofthelord.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Apostolic-Way-1922-NEW.pdf
https://primitivebaptist.net/Articles/gilbert-bebe/beebe-editorials-volume-7.pdf
https://mountzionpbc.org/Predestinarian/the_predestinarian_volume_4_issue_47.pdf
https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-duty-to-believe.26645/
http://www.pbpage.org/gods_operations_of_grace_j_hussey.pdf
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/01/chapter-37-eternal-children-doctrine_07.html
https://sovereignredeemerbooks.com/assets/pdf/gilbert-beebe/beebe-editorials-volume-3.pdf

Friday, November 28, 2025

The Old-line and Progressive Primitive Baptist Debate

By Elder Jamey Tucker

Foreword

This article surveys the early-20th-century controversy between so-called “Old-line” and “Progressive” Primitive Baptists, especially in Georgia, focusing on the organ and other “new measures” in worship. It has been prepared here in dark-theme format with clickable endnotes giving brief biographical and source notes on key figures.

MODERN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS 1875 (Dudley)

Lexington, Ky., Feb.7, 1875.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - I have reflected much, and more recently, on the ancient, compared with the modern systems of religion. In the days of Christ and his apostles, “the wisdom of this world is [declared to be] foolishness with God;” that “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

I am thoroughly convinced, from experience and observation, that all the schools, from that of one “Tyrannus,” the “Alexandrian,” and all subsequent schools gotten up for the avowed purpose of teaching the religion of Christ, have grown out of ignorance of the true nature of Bible religion, and the pride of the human heart. It seems the lessons taught by Christ and his apostles have been entirely lost on modern divines, who teach the necessity of human science in order to explain and unfold the divine mystery. Christ said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” And Paul taught, “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us who are saved, it is the power of God.” How does this agree with the teaching of modern professors, in theological schools, who tell us it is as easy to believe as to turn your hand over? The Savior said to the Jews, “Why do ye not believe my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.” “They have eyes, and see not, ears, and hear not; a heart, and understand not.” How ridiculously absurd the idea of bringing the blind, the deaf, aye, the dead, into their divinity schools, to be taught, and to teach others, the religion of Christ! Are they not emphatically blind leaders of the blind? And should we wonder that both fall into the ditch? I had, a short time since, a pretty fair specimen of school divinity, in a graduate of a theological school, who is called to the pastorate of a Missionary Baptist Church. He asked me if I did not believe the design in preaching the gospel was to save unregenerate sinners. Not a bit of it, said I. He then quoted, “It pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.” I replied, Do you not understand plain language better than that? The apostle says, “to save them that believe,” not unbelievers. He looked astonished, and quoted, “It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes.” I asked, Does the apostle say unbelievers? He looked more astonished, and asked. How does the gospel save believers? I replied, saves them, when they listen and heed its teaching, from the errors, delusions and false ways you teach. I wanted to know of him whether he supposed the preaching of poor, finite and imperfect mortals is to have more influence on the carnal mind, enmity against God, than the preaching of the Savior, when he was upon earth? I further remarked that it is declared to be “the gospel of the kingdom.” It is given to a spiritual kingdom, composed of spiritual subjects, and they only understand its mysteries as the Spirit unfolds them. He wished to know if I did not believe that sinners are condemned for not believing it. I replied, Neither in whole or in part. They were condemned before the gospel was preached on earth; that sin is the transgression of the law; that where no law is, there is no transgression. And I have found no precept in the law requiring men to believe the gospel. It is “good tidings of great joy; for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” Those born of God.

The doctrine of missionaries and arminians generally, if I understand them, and I believe I do, is that, God requires evangelical faith and evangelical repentance of mankind universally, and damns them where they are not found. In this assumption, they slander the Righteous Judge. Let us see. “By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Hence we learn that “faith is the gift of God.” Now with regard to repentance. “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance unto Israel and the forgiveness of sins.” How does the matter stand? Let us see. According to their theory, God withholds faith, and Jesus withholds repentance; and Jesus, as Judge, pronounces the sentence against them! Christian, is this the just God and Savior, through whom you hope to inherit eternal blessedness? No, say you, they would dishonor my Lord, and impeach his justice. I well recollect hearing the late Elder Jonathan Going, one of the early apostles of Missionism, sent to the west, some forty or more years since, in preaching to a large assembly, at an association, say in substance, that the best time to convert and bring into the church the fallen sons and daughters of Adam, is from eight to twelve years, and that it was certain that more Sunday School scholars were the subjects of salvation than others. I suppose he entertained the same opinion with an author professing to believe in the sovereignty of God, “When men become old and hardened in sin, it is almost impossible for the Lord to convert them.” Such is the extravagance, wickedness and folly of those who “desire to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” And here I am reminded of another preacher, and author, who, after hearing me preach, asked, What objection have you to our missionary operations? I replied, You have asked me a question, and I shall of course, answer candidly. In the first place, I find no authority in my Bible for your missionary operations. In the second place, I have to say, I have never heard one of your missionary preachers, whom I could lay my hand on my heart and say, I believed, is called of God to the work of the gospel ministry. This brought the exclamation from another preacher of the same stripe. “O, brother Dudley! Brother Dudley! That is too uncharitable.” I replied, I have answered candidly. Another objection I have is, that they have the condemnation of sinners to result from the disbelief of the gospel, when you acknowledge they cannot believe it without the direct operation of the Spirit of God. They then said, The disbelief enhances their condemnation. I replied, That is about as bad. If they, or either, be living, they will remember this. Another of their preachers asked me, some five and forty years since, “Brother Tommy, where did you get the idea that natural duties pertain to natural men, and spiritual duties to spiritual men?” and added, “I have read a great deal, and heard many of the ablest preachers, in this country, and have never heard the sentiment only from you.” I replied, When God formed man of the dust of the ground, did he say, Come man, I formed you, now animate your body? You will say, No. I continued, Did he require action of him until he had breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul – a living, intelligent, conscious being? Nor does he require of sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, living spiritual action. It just occurs that some have objected to my remark, that “natural duties pertain to natural men,” and to sustain their objection, quote the apostle Paul, “Wherefore the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.” But will they remember that every law, whether human or divine, has its spirit, or meaning, as well as its letter. The letter looks to the act, the spirit to the intention. For example, A determines to take the life of B, and adopts the most certain means of accomplishing his aim; but the providence of God intervenes to defeat his intention. A is a murderer in his heart, although he has failed to commit the murder, according to the spirit of the law. Another example: An idiot, or demented person, takes the life of a dozen sane men. Why is he not adjudged guilty of a crime, and subject to the penalty? Because malice afore thought, or previous intention to commit the act, cannot be predicated of him. He is not conscious of the crime. But, says the objector, man has a spirit. I reply, The horse has a spirit too. Suppose the horse shall kick to death a man, is he amenable to the law? Why not? Because of the lack of intelligence.

But to the contrast between then and now. The Savior called and sent forth twelve apostles, only one of whom, so far as the Bible informs us, was learned in the sciences of this world, being “brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law.” What is the testimony he bears? “And I brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God; for I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Where do you find this example followed, outside of the Particular, Primitive, or real Old School Baptists? Again, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit, and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that cometh to naught; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery; even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him; but God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.” I again ask, Where do you find this example imitated, but by our people? Where do the workmongers of our day find authority for the machinery put in operation for evangelizing the world? If truth be said, it originated in the disordered brains of their priests, who would make merchandize of the gospel; and brought these measures into being, in their conventions, general associations, missionary boards, &c. And yet they have the effrontery to claim to be Primitive, and Old School Baptists!!! In my judgment, they are ignorantly offering a direct insult to the Author of our holy religion, and virtually saying, the “means he has devised, that his banished be not expelled from him,” are inadequate, and we will supply the deficiency with our moneyed inventions.

That they have bewitched many of the Lord’s children, by their sorceries, or something quite as deleterious to spiritual health, I believe; and regarding the divine caution, “If I speak evil concerning Israel, and thou warn them not, they shall die, but their blood will I require at thy hand; but if thou warn them, they shall die, but thou shalt save thy soul.” God grant that his bewitched children may take warning.

Let us examine the contrast between then and now, further. While all the denominations, outside of the church of God, so far as I am advised, must have learned preachers, vainly supposing that the sciences of this world, which are based on natural principles, will enable them to unfold the mystery of godliness, and several of them profess to believe in the call of God to the work, they seem to have overlooked the fact that “the husbandman that labors must first be partaker of the fruits.” They are evidently not willing to entrust their education in the school of Christ; that school will not allow the inventions of graceless men a place in quickening the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, and raising up the bowed down, but attributes this indispensable work alone to him who has said, “I will work, and who shall let it?” “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

I wonder whether these theological preachers have ever thought of what the Lord says, by the prophet, “Behold I am against the prophet that steals my word, every man from his neighbor!” Again, “They are the prophets of the deceit of their own hearts, prophesying lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; but he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully; what is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord.”

Brother Beebe, it would be an endless job to attempt to follow the errorists of our day in all their windings and twistings, their means and instrumentalities, their assumption of names wholly inconsistent, with the practice of those who legitimately bear them. They remind me of the saying attributed to the late Lorenzo Dow, “You can, and you can’t; you will, and you wont; you’ll be damned if you do, and you’ll be damned if you don’t.” They are very bitter against those they call Campbellites, and the assertion in the “Western Recorder,” over the signature of “Old School,” which charges that “extremes have met, that the Particulars and Campbellites both deny regeneration and the new birth,” reminds me of what the apostle Paul said, “Thou that preach a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” I know of no denomination more inconsistent than those claiming extra benevolence, who conclude the furnishing them the money, for from “twenty-five to fifty cents per head, they can evangelize the world,” thus claiming to do that which our God has given us no warrant to believe he intends shall be done. They have manifested a bitterness and unrelenting spirit of persecution of those who, in the absence of divine authority to sustain their moneyed schemes, oppose them, which, it would seem, ought to open the eyes of those they have duped.

It may be thought by some that I have been too severe in some things I have written. I would invite such to examine the sacred text, the word of the living God, and the injunction of the apostle, “Reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.” “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Has not that time come? Why do their scribblers hide behind some covering when they assail personally those whom they dare not meet in argument in open day? The reason may be found in the text, “He that does evil hates the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds be reproved.” They claim the name Baptist, but have left the practice of real Baptists, both ancient and modern, in bringing the uncircumcised into the congregation of the Lord, then setting at naught the divine command. It is true, they immerse, but I very much doubt whether the administrator or the subject be such as the gospel recognizes. The truth is, brother Beebe, Universalists are more consistent than they. Their frequent change of name – first Regular Baptists, next United Baptists, then Missionary, and lastly Old School – should arouse suspicion.

Our adversaries have charged that we are opposed to education, because we will not consent that the literature and science of this world, however extended it may be, can qualify the men of this world to comprehend the mystery of the kingdom of God. But have they considered that “the world by wisdom knew not God,” or that the “natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned?” We esteem learning highly valuable to the inhabitants of this world, preparing them to understand and appreciate the blessings of civil, social and political rights and immunities. In this latter sense we are, and have been, the decided advocates of learning.

It is more than forty years since we first met and exchanged salutations with, if I am not mistaken, between twenty and thirty ministers, all of whom have passed away, but you and myself. I desire to thank God that the affection and christian fellowship and confidence formed then has remained unbroken on my part. That there may have been a difference of opinion between us on some points, is possible, but never that interrupted the cordial relations between us.

The quotations I have made in the foregoing communications, are from memory; it would tax my eye too heavily to compare them with the word of God, to test their correctness; I feel confident I have given the substance.

Faithfully your brother and companion in tribulation, and defense of the truth,
Thomas P. Dudley.

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Short Bio of Elder William Quint

Elder William Quint was a long-serving Old School / Primitive Baptist minister in Maine, best known as pastor of the North Berwick Church and a kind of spiritual anchor for that region in the mid-19th century. He was born on 3 January 1813 and died on 17 January 1892; his grave is in the Quint-Chick Cemetery at North Berwick, York County, Maine. (Ancestry) Primitive Baptist family tradition notes that he was invited to supply the pulpit of the North Berwick Church in March 1850 and formally took the pastoral charge in October 1851, a relationship he held until his death, so roughly forty years of continuous care for that congregation. (PBLib)

Quint shows up repeatedly as a kind of hub in the Old School Baptist network. The Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers notes that he was “pastor of the church at North Berwick, Maine, for more than forty years,” and also that his sister Mary married Elder William J. Purington, placing him right in the middle of the Purington/Chick line that later dominates Hopewell and the Signs of the Times editorship. (Internet Archive) Elder F. A. Chick recalls hearing his very first gospel sermon from Quint at North Berwick from John 3:3 (“Except a man be born again…”), and being baptized there by Quint – which means Quint was directly involved in forming one of the most important later Old School editors. (Internet Archive)

Locally, he’s also tied to the Oak Woods meeting-house story in North Berwick. A genealogical history of Deacon Samuel Staples recounts how the Baptist work in the Oak Woods area coalesced into a church first under Elder Nathaniel Lord, and then in 1851, “a new pastor, Elder William Quint, was elected to lead the church,” with Staples donating land for a new meeting house in 1852. (Peter Staple Heritage Group (PSHG)) So you’ve got Quint simultaneously as: long-term pastor at North Berwick, leader in the Oak Woods congregation, and a key node linking Maine Primitive Baptists with the Maryland–New Jersey–Signs of the Times line through family and ordination connections.

In terms of theology, everything we know by association points to classic Old School, anti-mission views: he’s treated in the biographical literature and PB family histories as a solid, predestinarian Primitive Baptist whose ministry predates and then overlaps the mature absoluter stream (Purington, Chick, Beebe, etc.). The paper trail you already work with (Purington, Chick, Keene, Signs editors) basically treats “Elder William Quint of North Berwick” as one of the steady, doctrinally safe men in the line that shaped Mid-Atlantic and New England Old School Baptist identity.

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

ELEMENTAL SPIRITS IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES (SANTAMARIA)

ELEMENTAL SPIRITS IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

FOREWORD

This is a passage much spoken about. We add it for the benefit of the brethren.

Guillermo Santamaria

THE FALLING AWAY HAD BEGUN (Santamaria)

THE DEFECTION WAS UNDERWAY

Editorial. Brother S. F. Stone of Mo. requests my view of Absolute Predestination, and eternal vital Union.

FOREWORD

This article represents the slow decline among Old School Baptists:

Yes, in parts of the Old School / Primitive Baptist world there was a slow, uneven decline of explicit, full-throated Absolute Predestination, but it was always a fight, not a clean surrender, and in some streams—especially the absoluter line you care about—it never really budged. In the early Old School period (roughly 1830–1870, with men like Trott, Beebe, Dudley, Lawrence, Parker, and others), you do not see them hedging around predestination at all. The default assumption is that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, which includes not just salvation in the abstract but all events, good and evil, under His holy, wise decree. They use this pastorally to comfort the afflicted, destroy boasting, and strip all “means” systems of power. They will vehemently reject “fatalism” as a caricature, but they do not back away from saying “all things” are predestinated. In this early period among the core Old School men connected with the Signs of the Times crowd and the Black Rock line, there is no decline: absolute predestination is part of what distinguishes them from Missionary / New School Baptists and from softer Calvinists who want more “free will” language.

You begin to see a slow drift in some places in the later 1800s, especially in certain regional Primitive Baptist circles, where there is pressure and softening. Some want to avoid being labeled “fatalists”; some are influenced by more moderate Calvinistic language about foreknowledge and permission; some are reacting to extremely hard-edged statements from a few absolutists. You start to see men who will readily say that God predestinated His people’s eternal salvation, but who get nervous when you say that He predestinated all things that come to pass. They keep strong language for eternal salvation, but want wiggle room in “time”—human responsibility, time-salvation, contingencies, “if you do this, God will bless you,” and so forth. That is the seedbed for what becomes Conditional Time Salvation. Among the writers you have catalogued as Conditionalists (Cayce, Holder, some of Dalton, and others), you can watch them trying to cordon off predestination: they are strong on election, regeneration, and glorification, but hesitant or hostile toward saying God absolutely decreed every event, including sins and all temporal things.

By the late 19th and early 20th century, this tension becomes explicit as an open absolutist vs. conditionalist split inside the Primitive Baptists. One wing—the people you would identify as your folks—insists that God predestinated all things, that both time and eternity are under the same decree, and that any retreat to mere permission or limited predestination smells Arminian. The other wing (Cayce and company) argues that this sort of universal predestination is “Absolutism,” that it makes God the author of sin, that it destroys “duty faith” and “time salvation” exhortations, and that it must be opposed. This is the context in which you get debates like Oliphant vs. Durand, Dalton vs. Burnett, Cayce vs. Penick, Holder vs. Nichols, pamphlets with titles such as “ABSOLUTISM: What Does It Really Teach?,” and whole associations and regions quietly or loudly tilting one way or the other. From that point on, in the conditionalist regions explicit “all things” predestination language does indeed decline and is replaced with formulas like “God predestinated His people’s salvation, but…” followed by a heavy layer of “if you do this, you’ll be blessed in time,” while in the absoluter regions (the Signs of the Times line, certain northern and western groups, and some deep-south pockets) the old language stays put and, if anything, becomes sharper as a badge of identity.

By the mid- to late-20th century, many people who would still be tagged “Primitive Baptist” in broad overviews are conditionalists of one stripe or another, and in those circles absolutism has declined sharply, sometimes to the point of being caricatured as near-blasphemy. The absoluter lineage, though smaller numerically, has deliberately kept the old Beebe/Trott-style language alive and treats any retreat from it as a betrayal of the original Old School stand. So if you zoom out, numerically, among all who use the PB/OSB label, absolute predestination likely occupies a smaller percentage of the total than it did in 1850. Confessionally, among those who see themselves as the true heirs of Black Rock and Beebe, the doctrine has not declined; it has become a non-negotiable marker of what “Old School” means. The decline, then, is real in the broader Primitive Baptist ecosystem, but inside the hard-line Old School stream you are working in, Absolute Predestination has not merely survived; it has become the line in the sand.

Guillermo Santamaria

Translate

Historic

Historic

Monday, December 15, 2025

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AMONG OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS

Contents

ETERNAL VITAL UNION AMONG OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS

FOREWORD

Sunday, December 14, 2025

Saturday, December 13, 2025

THE TRY-HARD CHRISTIANITY

Contents

FOREWORD

Friday, December 12, 2025

THE FALSE MYSTERY IN THE LORD’S SUPPER OFTEN PRESENTED

FOREWORD

Thursday, December 11, 2025

TUB PREACHERS AND THEIR KIN

FOREWORD

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

RELIGIOUS THEATER: ITS ANCIENT AND MODERN VERSIONS

FOREWORD

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

FOREWORD

Monday, December 8, 2025

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Saturday, December 6, 2025

Friday, December 5, 2025

Thursday, December 4, 2025

The Non-Local Church Mindset

Contents

FOREWORD

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

The Necessity of the Local Church

1. What the New Testament actually shows

a) Believers are added to concrete churches

b) Church discipline makes no sense without membership

c) Shepherds and flock imply a defined relationship

d) The body language is local, not just universal

e) The Lord’s Supper assumes a gathered church

f) The church is a household, not a meetup

2. How you might respond in conversation

a) Acknowledge the real issues

b) Clarify what “membership” actually means

c) Use Scripture to frame the problem

d) Address the “Jesus and me is enough” line

e) Not law-keeping, but obedience of faith

Bottom line

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

WITHOUT CHRIST ALL IS DARKNESS – STUDIES IN SOLA SCRIPTURA

Contents

FOREWORD

Monday, December 1, 2025

ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN

Contents

FOREWORD

Sunday, November 30, 2025

NOT TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD

Contents

FOREWORD

Saturday, November 29, 2025

FOREWORD

THE NEW NATURE IN THE NEW BIRTH

COMPARISON BETWEEN PAGAN USE AND NT USE OF THE GREEK WORD “NATURE”

Comparison of Phusis in Pagan Greek and Biblical Use

Summary Table

COMPARISON BETWEEN THESE TWO NATURES AND OLD AND NEW MAN

Relationship Between Nature and Man in Scripture

Old Man and Old Nature

New Man and New Nature

Interchangeability and Integration

Summary Table

HOW CAN THIS ETERNAL VITAL UNION BE ETERNAL IF THE TRANSFORMATION OCCURS AT THE NEW BIRTH, OR DOES IT?

Eternity and Temporality in Vital Union

Eternal Reality vs. Temporal Application

God’s Eternal Decree and Life-Giving Union

The “Already” and “Not Yet” Dynamic

Analogy of Adoption and Inheritance

The new φύσις / “new man” is not self-created

1. Who creates the “new nature”?