“Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew v. 3.
x
The subscription price is $15.00 per year. It comes out monthly. We encourage all to subscribe!
Here is the address:
By Guillermo Santamaria
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
“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.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; Hebrews ii, 14.
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:
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:
In the rest of Acts, believers are not just “Christians at large,” but attached to specific churches:
Letters are written to assemblies in particular places, and those assemblies have boundaries.
Try to do Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 without a real, defined local body.
Matthew 18:15–17:
That presupposes:
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:
That’s not “extra spiritual”; that’s structurally disobedient.
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:
If the answer is “no one in particular,” then this verse is functionally void.
Likewise:
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.
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:
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.
1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33:
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:
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.
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:
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.
In responding to someone who rejects local church membership, you want to keep three things together: sympathy, Scripture, and specific questions.
Many “unchurched Christians” are reacting to:
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.
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:
If the answer is “no one,” that’s not normal by New Testament standards.
You might walk them (briefly) through:
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.”
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.”
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.
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.