(Below is a response from Jerry Gentry to Larry Lasiter's article, "The Two Seeds Heresy," posted elsewhere on this website, in its entirety.)


Response to "The Two Seeds Heresy."

Thank you Larry for coming out and making an effort to tell us all plainly what you believe about race, and specifically what you believe about "Two Seeds," which you labeled "Heresy." Also, thank you for making it clear that you reject the idea of segregation of the races, a doctrine that the whole Christian world embraced as true for nearly two thousand years, until just a few short decades ago. I suggest you read Emmanuel McLittle's article for an educated black man's perspective on segregation before you toss out the idea.

The Bible is pretty clear that there are in fact "two seeds," when it states: "thy seed and her seed" in Gen. 3:15. Every Bible scholar and commentator I have found acknowledge this is true. That is, they acknowledge the existence of two seeds from Gen. 3:15. Where do you stand on that specific point? Do you acknowledge that there exist two specific seeds from this verse? From your article, I still do now know for sure.

All theologians and Bible commentators I know acknowledge that two seeds exist. The controversy arises in determining who those two seeds are. Are they physical? Are they spiritual? Is seed used metaphorically for either or both of the two seeds in this verse? If one seed is physical (culminating in the birth of Christ, as everybody and even you agree) can the other seed be a metaphor or can it be spiritual? What basis in scripture or logic do we have to say one seed is physical and the other seed is metaphorical or spiritual? Are these theological questions too hard for you to address straight on? Is that why you applied the label "heresy" in your article from the start?

I have written that if one seed culminated in a physical birth, then the other seed must also have culminated in a physical birth. I have written that the one seed culminated in the birth of Christ, and that the other seed culminated in the birth of Cain. Both the Bible and logic demand consistency, in the absence of some clear explanation otherwise. To label a belief heresy does not make it wrong, as you surely should know already. Labeling a belief heresy only muddles and dodges the issue.

Your article labels me a "heretic," and a "wolf." By implication, you label all other honest believers in two physical seeds as heretics and wolves. By your label, all Primitive Baptists, who hold "two seeds in the spirit predestination" belief are heretics and wolves. Other Christians who have down through history believed in two physical seeds are then heretics and wolves. Would you also go so far as to say that modern Jews, who follow the teachings of the Talmud that teach Cain was fathered by a devil are also heretics and wolves? Would you label former President Hafez Assad of Syria, who wrote that modern Jews are not who they claim to be, is a heretic and a wolf, even though he was a Moslem? Where would you stop in applying the "heresy" and "wolf" labels, Larry? Can honest men disagree about some things even so serious as this and perhaps neither be an heretic? Can they just agree to disagree and leave it to God to sort out as He sees fit?

Your article relies heavily on lengthy passages copied from the New American Standard Version of the Bible, which you claim to be "the most literal translation in print." This "translation" is copyrighted and you left out the required copyright notice on your quotes. Larry, the NASV may be true to the underlying Nestle's Greek Text. However, Nestle's Greek text departs from the Received Text (Textus Receptus) in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of places. The Nestle's Greek is unreliable, and is in constant flux. It's modern editors are always changing it. Every single one of the Reformers embraced the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and translated from that alone. They rejected all Minority manuscripts (Alexandrianius, Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus, etc.), which are the very manuscripts that Nestle's Greek text is based on. The King James Version is translated from the Received Text exclusively. Nestle's Greek text has been in constant flux, since the beginning. Can God's word change? Can God's Word be copyrighted and sold for a price? The NASV is copyrighted and royalties are paid to the owners for each copy printed and sold. The NASV and it's underlying Nestle's text leave you and others lots of "wiggle room" to interpret the Bible as you see fit. I suggest you check out "New Age Bibles" by Gail Riplinger, for a thorough investigation of both the errors and the antiChristian agenda of the NASV.

Since you have labeled me as both a "heretic" and a "wolf," it will be enlightening to look at these two words for a moment. The very word "heretic" appears only one time in all of scripture, Titus 3:10. It derives from Gr. hairetikos, and is translated a "schismatic." From the word "schism," we understand better that this word is more than just somebody that believes differently than we believe. It is someone who actively works to create "schism," someone who is out to divide brethren. Larry, I submitted my "Two Seeds" article to you privately, in hopes that you might be enlightened, or that you would enlighten me. It was a private affair, until you blew it open into the public realm. What was your motive but to "divide" brethren everywhere against me? Were you trying to create the "schism" that we now have? Have you actually done what you accuse me of doing? Is there a beam here in your eye that you might want to look at?

You also labeled me a "wolf." We all know wolves, if we have ever watched them in the wilds or on documentaries. You wrote: "Wolves -Do you find them charming?" A few things are clear about wolves. One clear thing about wolves is that they are not known for "charm," as you suggest. Wolves do not charm. That quality is not in their nature. Serpents charm. Wolves hunt in packs, attack and devour. Serpents charm and deceive, with subtilty, just as the Serpent charmed and deceived Eve. Jesus taught "be wise as serpents." Who are the serpents he referred to? You said I was "charming." How is my charm like a wolf?

Were you trying to "charm" readers into taking sides against me, without your having to build a solid case and answer my specific questions to you which remain yet unanswered?

When you search the earth for a fulfillment of the covenant of Gen 49:10 (The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Christ] come), look no further than the British (Brit = Heb. covenant; ish = Heb. man) crown. Further, King George, Queen Elizabeth's ancestor, was a full blood German who spoke German, not English, when he crossed the English channel to receive the crown of the British Empire. Have you seen the genealogy chart available from Buckingham Palace, which traces the Queen's lineage back to King David? Could it be that the modern Jews hate Germany because the Germans are true descendants from the tribe of Judah and modern Jews are imposters? And for the record, I've never liked Hitler.

You mentioned that the ancient Romans were gentiles, implying some unknown race. I agree the Romans were gentiles. History proves this to be true. God never lost these "gentiles" who fulfilled the various the covenants of the Bible.. When Rome fell to the barbarians in the 4th-6th centuries AD, the nobility and other leaders fled north to found Moscow (the Third Rome, Constaninople having been the second Rome), and establish the Romanov (New Roman) dynasty. Later the last of that dynasty, Nicholas and Alexandra, and their family, were brutally murdered in 1918 under the Bolsheviks (Khazar Jews) Lenin and Trotsky. Have you seen pictures of the Romanov family? If not, take a look and another look.The Romanovs were distinctly Caucasian which means they were just as much true Israelites as Queen Elizabeth II is an Israelite today. And remember the Romanov dynasty were descendants from the very same ancient Romans (gentiles) the apostle Paul preached to.

You said that "In Acts Chapter 2, we read the sermon which the Apostle Peter delivered to Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. . . As a result of this strong preaching, three thousand of those Jews repented of their sins and received Jesus as their Savior that very day." You say "Jews," but this crowd is identified by the Bible differently.

Larry, my Bible identifies this crowd in Acts chapter 2 who were gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost as "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians. . ." This is a mostly non Jewish crowd, NOT all Jews, as you claim. In verse 22, Peter addressed this entire multi national multi lingual crowd of mostly non Jews as: "Ye men of Israel." These were mostly members of the "lost 10 tribes" of Israel. Why would you label this crowd who spoke many different languages from many different countries as "Jews?" Do you have some hidden agenda in misquoting scripture here? Would you misquote scripture to deceive and cover up what you really know to be true?

Larry your article diverges into many off point topics, such as heretic, wolf, Jews, genealogies, being born again, spiritual abortion, lake of fire, etc. You fail to pull your ideas together into consistent, coherent arguments. Is this approach intended to overwhelm the reader with many words, much like Jerome's writings against Vigilantus (5th century)? Your article fails to keep to the point of the question about "Two Seeds." Your article depends heavily on denial, innuendo and "buzz words" such as "endless genealogies," "hate," "apostacy," "compassion," etc., which are not arguments but mere labels. Your article is built on the corrupt NASV, which fails the test of the pure Word of God. Your article fails the test of logic. It fails the tests of history and science and common sense. For the discerning reader, your article does much to make the case in favor of two physical seeds, rather than against two physical seeds. It makes the case for two physical seeds because it mostly ignores and skirts around the evidence and questions presented to you in my article on "Two Seeds," and in my emails to you later.

Finally, I am still waiting to read your public apology for your previous slander of a great American patriot, Col. Bo Gritz.

email home
Copyright © 1999, 2006 Church in the Wilderness | 230 PR 3471 | Big Sandy, TX 75755
Phone: 903-714-7767
This Site Maintained and Hosted by CWS