Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLVI)

I want to begin this chapter with some things said by Dr. W. P. Throgmorton in his debate with Elder Lemuel Potter (1887) as it relates to Two Seedism. I wrote a series reviewing this famous debate and in one of them I made the following citations. (See here) I then made some observations.

In Dr. Throgmorton's first negative speech, he said:

"Many Hardshells hold that it is the dust man, the man formed of clay, that is the subject of the new birth; and, hence, that the wicked have no immortal souls. Many dispute this, and hold to the orthodox view; but they do not make it a bar to denominational fellowship."

 

I then made this observation:

"In this statement Throgmorton is affirming that as late as 1887 that the Hardshells still had many in their sect that held to "Two Seedism" ideas. He also affirms that the Hardshells still as yet did not make such Two Seed doctrines a "bar to fellowship." His point is to show the utter inconsistency of the Hardshells not fellowshipping Missionary Baptists, for supporting missionaries and preachers, and for teaching children in Sunday Schools, etc. They can fellowship the awful doctrines of the Two Seeders but not the efforts of Mission Baptists to spread the gospel and knowledge of God!"

I will add, however, that some churches did declare non-fellowship for Two Seedism, yet many still had not by 1887, because at that time there were still many churches believing it. 

Throgmorton continued:

"There are many among them who hold that God's children are as eternal as himself; and that the devil is self-existent, and his children as old as himself; that not a single one of Satan's children was represented in Adam when he fell, but were added afterward; that two men may be the children of the same parents and yet one be a child of the devil from eternity and the other be a child of God from eternity. Others do not believe these things. Neither view, however, seems to be a bar to denominational fellowship."

I then made this observation:

As I have shown in other postings, even Elder Sylvester Hassell acknowledged the presence of Two Seed doctrines among the Hardshells late into the 19th century. See "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (here) and "Rebuke the ultraist" (here) and "The Ultraist Response?" (here).

Throgmorton continued:

"Hardshells have many among them who deny the resurrection of the body. These are “two-seeders." Others hold to the orthodox view. Neither view, however, is a bar to denominational fellowship.

I have made all these preliminary statements because I think they may help us to a better understanding of the question; and because they show, as I think, the utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren in taking the position they do relative to fellowshipping missions, Sunday-schools, etc."

I then made this observation:

Yes, the "utter inconsistency of our Hardshell brethren"! They declare against those Baptists who work to teach the gospel to every creature but fellowship all kinds of heretical doctrines.

Throgmorton continued:

"I hold that the Missionary Baptists, as I have described them, are the Primitive Baptists, and that the Hardshells are not. In support of my position I shall argue, first, from Scripture; secondly, from history."

In the last chapter we gave Elder Potter's arguments against those Two Seeders who denied the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the bodies of either the just or unjust. Before we end looking at that issue, I will cite more from Elder John M. Watson on that point. First, however, let me cite the following from Elder Sylvester Hassell: 

In "Interpreting The Scriptures - Eschatology" Hassell (1842-1928), in "The Gospel Messenger," wrote the following for October, 1894:

"Consistent Parkerites, or Two-Seed Baptists, deny the Second Personal Coming of Christ to the world, the Resurrection of the Body, the General Judgment, and the Conflagration and Renovation of the world; and some Primitive Baptists (I think less than a thousand) seem to follow them in one or more of these errors, and-- what is even far more serious--two or three of our writers seem to deny all Bible proof of any Hell after death, and almost all Bible proof of any Heaven after death, applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life, and either flatly denying or ignoring their reference to any thing beyond the grave!!!"

Notice that Hassell does not say that all Parkerites or Two Seed Baptists denied a physical resurrection, but said, like Potter, that all "consistent" Two Seeders denied it. Why? Because it is the logical outcome of their ideology. Further, many sub-groups within the Two Seed sect denied one, some, or all of the various doctrines listed by Hassell above. What he leaves out, however, are beliefs that he himself believed along with many others at the end of the 19th century. He leaves out the Two Seed belief that says that God does not use the means of his written or preached word, or the Gospel, in the eternal salvation of the elect. In previous chapters I have given citations from several "Primitive Baptists" who opposed Two Seedism and who testified that this denial of means originated with the Two Seeders who followed Daniel Parker, such as Wilson Thompson, Gilbert Beebe, et al. Those opposers of Two Seedism who said this were Elder John M. Watson and Elder Hosea Preslar. In Preslar's book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" he said the following about the beliefs of Two Seeders:

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

He goes further (same page), saying:

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."

He also wrote further, giving a list of Two Seed errors, and the sixth states that the denial of means is one of them. It reads as follows:

"Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders."  Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address."

In another posting titled "Hardshells Declare Non Fellowship Against Gospel Preaching" (here) I cited these words from "Cayce's Editorials" for 1905. 

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

In chapter thirty five I cited these words from historian O. Max Lee and his book "DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" where he wrote:

"In seeking to refute the two-seed views, Watson understood the doctrine to include (1) the denial of the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust, (2) the absence of souls in the non-elect, and (3) the rejection by God of the use of any kind of means to bring about salvation. Parker had explicitly taught the opposite in his two-seed views." (pg. 63)

You can find these citations in these articles that I wrote years ago (here, here). I have numerous citations in my "Old Baptist Test" blog that show that Watson did affirm that the no means view was a Two Seed "innovation" and "ultraism." 

Recall that I cited from Lawrence Edward's history of Tennessee Baptists who wrote this about the Two Seed division in the Powell Valley Association:

"At the 1879 meeting of the Powell Valley association the tenth item of business said: Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."

Watson wrote the following in his book "The Old Baptist Test" about the beliefs of the Two Seeders:

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pages 399-400)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them." (pages 327-28)

 

It is a fact that many of the Two Seed errors listed by Hassell can still be found among today's "Primitive Baptists" in spite of the fact that they will want to deny it.

In the above citation of Hassell he mentions how some "Primitive Baptists," even at the end of the 19th century, denied eternal punishment. That is why we have a faction today known as "Primitive Baptist Universalist." He says that Two Seeders are guilty of "applying such Scriptures as Psalms ix. 17, Mal. iv. 1, Matt. x. 28, xxv. 41, 46, Mark ix. 42-48, Luke xvi. 22, 23, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and John xiv 2, 3, xvii, 24, 2 Cor. v. 1, Rev. xxi., xxii., to the experience of the people of God in the present life." Notice also that he mentions the Two Seed view on Luke 16: 22-23 which deals with the story of the rich man and Lazarus and what happened to each upon their deaths. 

Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" want to declare it heresy to believe that Lazarus went to paradise when he died and that the rich man went to Hell (Hades), and so spiritualize the story so as to make it mean something other than what it plainly teaches. I write about this in my writings under the label "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Yet, Hassell did not agree with this Two Seed handling of that passage. On the other hand, Elder C.H. Cayce, who also was a leader of the Hardshells at the time of Hassell, and an opponent of Two Seedism, nevertheless gave a Two Seed interpretation of that story. Cayce wrote the following under the editorial title "RICH MAN AND LAZARUS" for June 8, 1909 in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" (not to be confused with the older paper called by the same name and published out of North Carolina):

"The Scripture referred to is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We think the parable primarily refers to the Jews and Gentiles. The rich man represented the Jews and Lazarus represented the Gentiles. The Jews were scattered, and are yet in a scattered condition. They are now being tormented. They had their good things under the law dispensation. But now, under the gospel dispensation, the Jews are being tormented and the Gentiles are enjoying the privileges of the gospel."

According to Hassell, Cayce was giving the Two Seed view of that passage. It is spiritualizing or allegorizing the literal truth of that story, which Cayce often did with other passages, and which became a common practice by many in Cayce's day. It is also the kind of interpretation that Hassell warned about.

Elder Wiley Sammons in "Identity Of The True Baptist Church" Vol. Two (Cayce Publishing Company, 1979) wrote an article titled "The Rich Man And Lazarus" (beginning on page 147) and wrote (emphasis mine):

"In the 22nd verse of this chapter, it speaks of both the rich man and Lazarus dying. This does not have reference to the physical death because Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom (meaning the New Testament church kingdom) and this is why he was not buried...Therefore the rich man lifted up his eyes being in torments. I don't think that this is teaching eternal hell, but it means confusion, darkness, and a terrible state of suffering called hell. Later in this article, I will give Bible proof as to why I understand the word hell as it is used here does not mean eternal hell...The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments, and this depicting the Jews today as a nation...The above lesson about the rich man and Lazarus does not teach eternal damnation though the word hell is used, nor does it have reference to eternal heaven as the theologians and others would have you to believe. Though the Bible in some places refers to eternal damnation or eternal hell: also there is an eternal heaven, which the Bible teaches." 

This view Hassell identifies as a Two Seed view. He also did not agree with it, believing that it showed that those who took that view were guilty of violating basic rules of Bible interpretation. Elder Hassell wrote about this in 1893 in an article titled  "The Literal Interpretation of Scripture" in the "Gospel Messenger" for February 1893 (which I wrote about in this post here), citing with approval the words of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon:

Luther says: "Mystical and allegorical interpretations are trifling and foolish fables, with which the Scriptures are rent into so many and diverse senses that silly, poor consciences can receive no certain doctrine of anything. When I was a monk, I allegorized everything; but now I have given up allegorizing, and my first and best art is to explain the Scriptures according to the simple sense; for it is in the literal sense that power, doctrine, and art reside." Calvin says: "The true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning, by which we ought resolutely to abide; the licentious system of the allegorists is undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage." And Melanchthon says: "The one and certain and simple sense of the Scriptures is everywhere to be sought according to the precepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric."

You have to be such a spiritualizer to interpret passages dealing with the resurrection of the body as did many of the Two Seeders, for those passages are clearly literal. He also said:

"It is especially in what claims to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures that these ultra, wild, chilling, deadening, bewitching, confusing, dividing, and ruinous errors prevail among us...Hyper, or Pseudo-Spiritualism, denying the truth or the importance of the literal meaning of the Scriptures, and thus sapping the very foundation of Christianity, now threatens, above every other danger, to be our ruin...and which are now assailing us." 

He wrote further:

"...in Lu 16:19-31, wherein He tells of the Rich Man and Lazarus...In fact, neither of these passages is a parable, nor anywhere called so in Scripture, though misnamed such by a few uninspired men. The passage in Luke is a literal history," 

Hassell, under "Abuses and Extremes" (The Gospel Messenger--May 1893) wrote:

"I now enter upon the consideration of the ruinous abuses in what falsely professes to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures, as exhibited, for our solemn warning, in the Scriptures themselves, and also in subsequent church history. The present sad condition of the church, which has been brought about by these unwise, unscriptural, and destructive extremes, emphasizes the great importance of this subject, and has been the leading cause of the preparation of this series of articles."

In the next chapter we will conclude our look at the non-resurrection doctrine of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLV)

In earlier chapters I showed a picture of Elder Lemuel Potter when he was a young man. The above picture is of him when he was older. He died a relatively young man. In this chapter we will continue to cite from Potters autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In the previous chapter we were relating what Potter said about a couple Two Seed preachers who were causing trouble in Illinois because of their denial of the resurrection of the body and of their belief in "eternal children." 

Potter continued:

"So, at the close of Elder Tabor's remarks, Elder Trainer arose, and in a short speech, said he heartily endorsed the entire discourse, and seemed to be very enthusiastic in saying so. At the close of his remarks, he was about to dismiss the congregation, when I ventured to give his coat a pull, and told him I would love to speak. I arose, and, as near as I remember, made the following speech. I told my people that we would always do well to watch strangers. If the brother we had heard preach tonight was an honest man it would not hurt him to watch him, and if he was not an honest man, we should watch him, even if it did hurt him. I told them that he was one of those men, that the apostle frequently speaks of, who go about causing divisions and trouble in the churches. It was not my intention to say so positively that he was one of these men, but I intended to say he might be one of them, but in my embarrassment, and perhaps excitement, I said it the other way, and just let it go, believing that it was the truth anyway. I told the people that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, that I could not understand Elder Tabor's position, that it was the sinner who was saved, and at the same time that the sinner saved was not Adam, nor any of his posterity. It seemed to present to my mind a contradiction and an inconsistency. I remarked that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, even if I must be called a Pharisee for saying it. For me to arise in the face of a large audience, and in the presence of two men who were as able as they were, and having so much the advantage of me in age, was one of the hardest trials of my life, as a minister. After I was through, and the meeting was dismissed, quite a number of my brethren and friends came to me and gave me their hand, and congratulated me on my faithfulness. And I felt that I had done no more than was my duty to do, although I was thought by those men to be egotistical. This meeting occurred on Friday night, and on Saturday morning I went down to the Little Wabash church, where those two brethren were going, and when I arrived there and met them on the ground, neither of them would speak to me." 

It is interesting that those Two Seed Baptists called those who believed in a bodily resurrection "Pharisees." But, are the Two Seeders who denied the resurrection not Sadducees? 

Potter speaks of how hard it was for him to stand up and publicly oppose two older well known ministers who had preached their non-resurrection doctrine. Well, I had the same experience when I was a young minister with the "Primitive Baptists." I stood up in a deacon ordination service, being one of the presbyters, and objected to some presbyters asking the two deacon candidates what they believed about the Devil falling from Heaven and about what the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught. The reason why these two questions were asked was because they were desirous to make one's views on these two things a test of fellowship or orthodoxy. On the way to the ordination service, I rode with two elders, my father in law Elder Newell Helms and Elder Charles Smith, both fearing that such questions would be asked, just as I was. We queried -- "what do we do?" I said we should object to such questions as they had no bearing on whether one was qualified to be deacons. They agreed with me that they would object. 

Sure enough, those questions were indeed asked as we had predicted. I waited for Helms and Smith to rise and object. They did not, but looked at me and shook their heads in disapproval of those questions. They did not publicly object. So I stood up and objected and said "what do these questions have to do with whether these men are qualified to be deacons? You are asking these questions because you want to make certain interpretations on these two subjects a test of fellowship." 

I recall what Elder Potter said in his debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence, both "Primitive Baptists," on the question of whether the gospel or word of God were means God used to regenerate or eternally save sinners. This debate was held in 1890 when that question was dividing churches, each side affirming that their view was the original view of Baptists. In this debate there was discussion about whether certain "Primitive Baptist" preachers of the past believed in means or not, and Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," was one of them. Pence argued that Clark believed in means (he was right, as many citations from Zion's Advocate in this blog show). Potter denied that Clark believed in means, just as he also denied that Elder John M. Watson believed in means, and denied that John Gill believed in means, which both assertions were clearly false. 

The only arguments that Potter provided was to say 1) that Clark held a written discussion with Elder J.B. Stephens (who clearly believed in means) and supposedly took a different view than Stephens (although he could not provide proof of this and I have never been able to find a record of that discussion), and 2) that Clark was a moderator of a presbytery to ordain a minister and the candidate was asked in he believed in means and the answer was "no." Potter said that this proved that Clark denied means because he did not object to the questions. That is no proof at all. If he had better proof of this, why argue this way? Why not just give citations written by Clark in his paper "Zion's Advocate"? 

So, I know the hesitation of Elder Potter in making a public opposition to aged ministers. He however did the right thing. Paul told Timothy "let no one despise your youth." (I Tim. 4: 12)

In chapter fourteen Potter wrote:

“They had an appointment at Grayville, on their way home, for the Tuesday night following, and I went again, thinking, I will make Elder Trainer speak to me now." We had always been good friends. So I went early to the church, and found only a few there, and I went and sat down by him and spoke to him, and in conversation, I asked him if he endorsed what that man had been preaching all the time. He said he did, and that if the Baptists did not believe it, that Elder Tabor would debate the question with any of them. I told him we wanted no debate, but that I would love for him to state to me as nearly as he could and in as few words as possible, what he believed. He said he believed that there were three generations of people. The generation of Adam, the generation of Jesus Christ, and the generation of vipers. The generation of Adam were made of the dust of the ground, and would go back to the dust where they came from, and remain there forever. The generation of Jesus Christ came down from heaven, took up their abode in the Adam man, and they would finally go back to heaven where they came from. The generation of vipers came from hell, and they also took up their abode in the Adam man, and would go back to hell where they came from."

I can hardly believe that Lemuel Potter, one of the most celebrated debaters for the "Primitive Baptists," said that he and the church "wanted no debate" on the doctrine of the resurrection. Oddly enough he does later have a debate with a Two Seeder on that subject. In chapter twenty one Potter wrote: 

"In the month of February, 1881, I held a three days' discussion with a gentleman by the name of Williams, in Franklin County, Illinois, on the following proposition: —The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of all the sons and daughters of the first man Adam, or natural man, some of them to endless life, and some to endless punishment." Mr. Williams was a Universalist. and while he professed to believe in the salvation of "all men," as he said, he did not believe that Adam's posterity would be saved."

Potter was such a highly promoted defender in debate for the Hardshells that another one of their champion debaters, Elder John R. Daily, named one of his sons, "Lemuel Potter Daily" (1890). I think Daily felt like the mantle had passed from Potter to him, like the mantle of Elijah passed to Elisha. Potter died in 1897. Both were originally from Indiana, and served churches there, though Potter moved to Illinois and Daily to Virginia, though Daily returned to Indiana and died in Indianapolis in 1920. 

The Two Seed statement that there are "three generations of people" is one that would grab the attention of most people. It is however one of those "cunningly devised fables" that the apostle Peter warned about, or an invention of evil doctrine, as the apostle Paul spoke about. 

First, "the generation of Jesus Christ" (Matt. 1: 1) denotes the family tree of the man Christ Jesus. The context makes that clear. Nowhere in the bible is the family of God called such, although the family of Jesus might well be called such, or more properly "the generation of Father God" denoting those who are "born of God." 

Second, the "generation of Adam" alludes to Genesis chapter five, and particularly to verse one, "book of the generations of Adam." Again, as the context shows, that refers to the family tree of Adam, or his progeny, all those who are descended from him. It is in the plural, unlike the Two Seed terminology. So, it is not far-fetched to say that the human race is one family, or one generation, or one kind of people. But, the Two Seeders were not united on whether to affirm or deny the proposition that says that any part of the "Adam man" was a child of God. Some said that all of Adam's descendants were the children of God, and the children of the Devil are not Adam's descendants. These would say that all the "generation of Adam" were the "generation of Jesus Christ." Some would say that the "generation of Adam" denoted those who have a human body but no soul and whose bodies would return to the dust and never exist again. 

Third, "generation of vipers" is a term for lost people, or perhaps to a particular segment of that group. 

Both saved and unsaved people are of Adam's family tree and in that sense all are of the "generation(s) of Adam." The generation of vipers are of the generation of Adam. So, the Two Seed idea that these are three distinct groups of people is an intriguing fable, but not the teaching of the scriptures. Think of a Venn diagram, such as this one:

Imagine each of these three circles representing the three generations asserted by the Two Seed minister that Potter refers to. I will leave it with the reader to discern whether a particular area is empty or not.

In chapter eighteen Potter wrote the following which occurred in 1873:

"Elder Hearde, in his debate with me, treated me very courteously, I being quite a young man while he was much older. He undertook to prove in his affirmation that the people of God are a seed which existed in heaven prior to the formation of the Adam man, that they would all go back to heaven where they came from. I do not pretend to say that I have his proposition verbatim, but this is the substance of it, and he led out in the opening of that question, with a speech for one hour, in which he made a number of scripture quotations to show that God’s people were a seed. He quoted this among others; “A seed shall serve him, and it shall be counted to the Lord for a generation." And "In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and it shall bruise his heel." Quite a number of other texts of this character were introduced in his first speech, without a great many comments. He stated that he intended to merely lay his planks down loose, in this speech, and that he would come with his hatchet and nails and fasten them down in his next speech. In my reply to his arguments on these proof-texts, to prove the pre-existence of God's people, I simply admitted that I believed that the Lord's people were a seed, and that was all that he had proven by these texts. I was not here to deny that God's people were a seed, but that I was here to deny that they had an eternal existence, and that there was not a single text in all the catalogue of texts that he had quoted that said anything about the pre-existence of the people mentioned in his proof-texts. I thought then, and do yet, however, that he did about as well in proving that doctrine as any man could do. I felt very confident that he could not prove it by the Bible. He finally inquired where the Lord got his people, if they did not eternally exist. I replied that he made them. That I knew of no people as the subjects of eternal salvation, only the people that God made. That the Bible frequently spoke of the fact that God made his people. "Thy maker is thine husband," is one expression of Scripture, and the very idea of a maker is the best inferential testimony that they must have been made. Again, I do not believe that they had an eternal existence, because it was said that Adam was the first man, I could not conceive of the idea of there being a man before him, and not only was he the first man, but that he was made of the dust of the ground. This was the man that I believed had transgressed the law of God, and fallen under its curse, and became subject to death, and all the miseries consequent upon sin, and that they were the subjects of salvation. But I will not stop here to give a full detail of the arguments, any more than to say that I became more fully convinced during that discussion against the doctrine of the pre-existence of God's people than I had ever been."

I would like to know more about this debate with Hearde. It seems Potter had more than one debate with others who held to Two Seed tenets. I don't know why Potter was not fully convinced of the errors of Two Seedism before this debate. Recall that he said that when he first began to preach that he rather favored Two Seed ideology.

Wrote Potter further:

"He finally, however, made this remark, that if I would admit the pre-existence of God's people, he did not ask me any boot on the question of the resurrection. So I say to- day, that the non-resurrection doctrine is the legitimate consequence, and the inevitable result of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the children of God, or the doctrine of eternal children. Men may talk all they wish about the doctrine of eternal vital union, eternal children, eternal justification, and so forth, but I do not believe in the eternal existence of God's people; neither do I believe in eternal vital union. Now, if a man admits the doctrine of eternal children, he may as well admit the doctrine of non-resurrection. We discussed this proposition a day and a half, after which I affirmed that there will be, in the future, a resurrection of the bodies, both of the just and the unjust, of Adam's posterity, some to eternal life, and some to everlasting punishment."

These are excellent observations. Though not all Two Seeders denied the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, men such as Gilbert Beebe, yet many did. In an upcoming chapter we will cite further from Elder Watson on this point.

Potter wrote:

"I believed then, and do to-day, that it was the Adam sinner that was saved, the same man that was made of the dust of the ground. I did not then believe, nor do I yet, that any part of him came from heaven. I believe that the very same body that goes to the grave will be precisely the same body that will be raised from the dead and finally taken to heaven. I contended for that doctrine in this discussion."

I don't know why there were not more public debates between Two Seeders and their opponents. It would be good if some of those debates had been published and preserved for us.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIV)

Having in the immediate preceding chapters focused on what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote about Two Seedism in his 1880 pamphlet "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh" (It can be read (here) I wish now to examine some things he said about Two Seedism in his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" (1894). He wrote the following in chapter thirteen (See here). Following that we will also look at what he wrote in his 1895 work "A TREATISE ON REGENERATION AND CHRISTIAN WARFARE" for it also has things to say about Two Seed views. In his book on his life, or his labors and travels, he writes (emphasis mine):

"After I commenced taking the care of churches, and baptizing and administering The Supper, it seemed like things were going along very smoothly except once in a while a brother would seem to criticize the doctrine of the resurrection. There was an old minister living in the country whose name was William Trainer, and who had been preaching in that country for many years before I was grown. He used to preach at my father's house when I was a boy. I held him in very high esteem as a man and a minister for some years after I commenced trying to preach. When I began to go out among the brethren, I would sometimes hear remarks made concerning him, that he did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. He was occasionally accused of saying that he did not believe that anything would ever go to heaven that did not first come down from heaven." 

In earlier chapters we listed the various errors or heresies that are part of Two Seedism and a denial of the resurrection of the body was one of those errors, although not all Two Seeders denied it. Elder John M. Watson, from whose writings we cited in earlier chapters, stated that many of the Two Seeders in his area of middle Tennessee did deny a bodily resurrection. When I was a young "Primitive Baptist" minister I sometimes heard someone say of another "Primitive Baptist" minister that he denied the resurrection. I often said -- "I don't see how anyone can get that out of the Bible." I also would hear someone say of some Hardshell minister that he was a "no-Heller." These two denials spring from Two Seedism. We might even say that those who are known as "Primitive Baptist Universalists" came from Two Seedism. These would say that all of Adam's race would be saved, but would deny that all men are of Adam's race, those not of the race were the Devil's seed. 

In earlier chapters we stated that it was a basic premise of Two Seedism to say that nothing would go to heaven but what first came down from heaven and Potter says that very thing in the above citation. This premise or proposition was not derived from scripture, but one that was invented outside of scripture and then taken to the scriptures, and the scriptures twisted so as to make them agree with their man-made proposition. The Hardshells have invented other such propositions, ones that they think are inspired and are used to make the scriptures to square with them. Another one says this:

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. 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.""

I wrote about this in this post (here). The above words were written by Elder David Montgomery, a minister I met years ago. I also met Elder Richards years ago when I was preaching in Texas. You see the man-made proposition in the above, a proposition that is not stated in scripture but invented and then taken to the scriptures and one which takes priority over the scriptures and one which all scripture is interpreted or misinterpreted in order to square with it. The invention of such unbiblical propositions is a case of people being what Paul called "inventors of evil things." (Rom. 1: 30) I wrote upon this in this post (here), even citing Dr. John Gill who also applied this to invented false doctrines. The Hardshell proposition that says that any time salvation in the Bible is conditioned upon faith, repentance, etc., then it must be a mere time salvation, but any salvation text that mentions no such condition is a text dealing with eternal salvation, is of course, clearly unbiblical. This is true with the Two Seed proposition stated by Potter. 

Recall how Potter said that it was also a proposition of Two Seedism to say that nothing a person does in life is a reason for either going to heaven or hell. The proposition of Richards echoes this Two Seed proposition. 

When I was a young Hardshell minister I heard this motto and even heard one of the arguments or texts of scripture used to uphold it, which was taken from Revelation chapter twenty one where John sees the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God. Interpreting "new Jerusalem" as synonymous with "children of God" they argued that the children of God were once in heaven before they came down from heaven, which is a ridiculous interpretation. 

Potter continued:

"It was hard for me to believe but that he was all right, and I thought that some of the other ministers were jealous of him, and that that was the reason they found fault with his preaching. I was very fond of him, and I watched very closely after I had heard him accused, and I finally became satisfied that he did not believe in the salvation of the Adam man. He believed that the body—the earthly body—was no part of a child of God. After I became convinced that this was his faith, I said nothing for awhile, because I was young, and felt that I might be mistaken about the matter, until one time he preached at a school house a few miles from where I lived and I went to hear him." 

In a future chapter I will talk more in depth about how many Two Seeders denied the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust. At that time we will cite more from Elder Watson and his book against Two Seedism titled "The Old Baptist Test." The idea that "the Adam man" was "no part of a child of God" reflects the chief idea of Two Seedism, which says that in being "born of God" a preexisting soul or spirit comes down from heaven and enters into the Adam man and does not change the Adam man, a view that came to be known as the "hollow log" doctrine, which metaphor says that the children of God come down from heaven and enter the "Adam man" like a rabbit enters into a hollow log, and where the entrance of the rabbit into it does not change the log. Recall also that this entrance of the eternal child into the Adam man is called a "birth," but the "begetting" preceded the birth, occurring in past eternity when Christ was begotten. The "birth" was simply for the purpose of "developing" the eternally begotten spiritual child, and so, when the development is completed, the "Adam man" dies and the eternal child returns to God fully matured. 

It is hard to believe that when Potter saw the error of denying the bodily resurrection that he "said nothing for awhile," saying it was "because he was young and might be mistaken about the matter." How could he keep quiet? Was it because, as he said, that he rather favored Two Seedism when he began to preach? How could he be mistaken about such a fundamental element of the Christian faith? Does this confession of Potter not show how extensive Two Seedism and a denial of bodily resurrection were in Illinois in the 19th century? I can tell you this, I too was once a young minister among the Hardshells and I did not hesitate to call out the heresies and wrongdoings of some of them.  

Potter continued:

"His appointment had been published the Sunday before, and on that Sunday I went to my father's in company with some others for dinner, and as we were about separating, I overheard my father and another brother, in conversation, speak of Elder Trainer's appointment. They both expressed a desire to go and hear him, saying that if he had ever denied the resurrection of the body, they had never heard him. I said nothing, but thought that I had heard him. I went to hear him on this occasion, and when I got there these brethren were there, and when he arose to preach, he stated that some people were mistaken as to who the child of God is, or else he was. He said some thought that the lady and gentleman were the children of God, but that he did not believe that. When he made use of that expression I thought, "they hear it now." I know now, and did then, that if the lady or gentleman is not the child of God, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not a true doctrine. Elder Trainer, at that time was on his way to Little Wabash Church, in White county, and I concluded to make the trip with him, which I did. I rode with him all day, during which time he talked a great deal, for he was a great talker. He satisfied me that he did not believe in the resurrection of the body for he said it in so many words. His preaching among the churches in that part of the country caused a great deal of wrangling and considerable hardness among the brethren, and the exclusion of some good men from the church. This was rather embarrassing for me, to go among brethren who differed, and yet seemed to be good brethren. Matters went on in this way for some two or three years, before a final separation came on account of the non-resurrection doctrine."

This is a part of the history of many of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and yet they want to sweep it under the rug as much as possible. So, why did Potter, who came to be such a great champion debater, not challenge Elder Trainer? As we will see, he did later have a debate with a Two Seeder on the issue of the resurrection of the bodies of the dead. 

Potter wrote further:

"In the winter of 1868, I was called to the care of Grayville church, and moved down into the neighborhood of that church. After I had been there about a year, it seemed that the non-resurrection doctrine advocated by Elder Trainer and others was causing more and more trouble all the time, and the feeling was getting very high, until finally the church at Little Wabash called a council from several of the churches around, to advise them what to do, which council advised all our churches to shut the anti-resurrection doctrine out of their houses. This most of the churches did throughout the Skillet Fork Association."

This denial of bodily resurrection is a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology.

Potter wrote:

"While I am on the subject of the trouble concerning the non-resurrection doctrine, I will state that in the year 1869, the church at Little Wabash, White county, Illinois, at the request of her pastor, Elder David Stuart, called for the council mentioned in the preceding chapter. The council was to meet in February. Some of Elder Trainer's friends notified him of the meeting, and he and another preacher by the name of Enoch Tabor attended the meeting. On their way to that meeting, they had an appointment at my church at Grayville, for Tabor to preach on Friday night. I had never seen Elder Tabor, but he was said to be a very able man. Being in company with Elder Trainer, it was natural to suppose that he would be in sympathy with him on that doctrine. I went out to hear him preach, and he took for his text, “It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." For about an hour and a half, I thought he made as able a defense of the doctrine of salvation by grace, without creature conditions or merits, and against the charges on the part of conditionalists, as I ever heard a man make. I could not help but be pleased with his ability and the masterly and powerful manner in which he defended the doctrine of salvation as being by grace alone, through the Lord Jesus Christ. At the end of that time he began to inquire, “But who is it that is saved? Is it the Adam man, or any of his posterity?” and for another hour and a half, I do not think I have ever heard a man give his own people, claiming the Baptists as his people, more abuse for believing the doctrine of the resurrection, and the salvation of the Adamic sinner than he did. He said he had been in good standing with the Baptist people ever since the year 1827, and that he had opportunities to know what the Baptist doctrine was, and he wanted no better evidence that a man was a Pharisee than for him to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. He said that if a man had his name written in letters of gold upon his forehead, whose brilliancy would outshine the sun, “Pharisee,” it would be no better evidence to him that he was a Pharisee than for him to say he believed in the resurrection of the just and the unjust. While he was preaching, I looked over my congregation and saw that the house was full of people, and that the majority of them were unacquainted with what the Baptists really did believe upon the question of the resurrection. All my responsibilities began to bear heavily upon my mind. Should I, young, weak and timid as I was, presume so much as to tell this intelligent and thinking audience that I did not believe or endorse this man's preaching on the question of the resurrection? If I undertake to argue against him the people will think I am foolish. If I let matters go and say nothing about it, I do injustice to my own cause. I am the pastor of this church, and have read in scripture the obligations resting upon a watchman who sees the foe coming and does give the alarm, I made up my mind, however, that I would not say a word until after Elder Trainer had said what he had to say." 

The idea that salvation is without conditions on the part of people is also a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology. That is not to say that there were not others, prior to the genesis of Two Seedism, who denied that there were conditions for salvation. 

In J.H. Spencer's history, volume two, he writes the following about the Elkhorn Baptist Association of Kentucky in chapter one, published 1886 (See here):

"In answer to a query from Tates Creek, the churches were advised to use all tenderness to re-claim persons holding the error of conditional salvation, but if they could not be reclaimed, to exclude them."

This occurred in 1785 the year the Elkhorn Association was organized. What is interesting, however, is the association's endorsement of both the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions of faith, as well as the Philadelphia Confession, which of course does teach that there are conditions for salvation. In fact, in 1793 we have this record given by Spencer:

"1793. October 12. At South Elkhorn. Grassy Lick and Flat Lick Churches had been received, in May, and now Springfield Church was received. A union was formed with the four churches which had recently seceded from South Kentucky Association, on the following terms, proposed by the seceding churches:

"We agree to receive the regular Baptist Confession of Faith; but to prevent its exerting a tyrannical power over the consciences of any, we do not mean that every person is to be bound to the strict observance of everything therein contained, yet that it holds forth the essential truths of the gospel, and that the doctrines of salvation by Jesus Christ, and free, unmerited grace alone, ought to be believed by every christian, and maintained by every minister of the gospel. And that we do believe in the doctrines relative to the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the sacred authority of the Scriptures, the universal depravity of human nature, the total inability of men to help themselves without the aid of divine grace, the necessity of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the justification of our persons entirely by the righteousness of Christ imputed, believer's baptism by immersion only; and self-denial; and that the supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be none other than the holy Scriptures, delivered by the Spirit, into which Scriptures, so delivered, our faith is finally resolved."

So, salvation is unconditional and yet faith and repentance are necessities for salvation? Obviously they felt like the term "conditional salvation" implied things that they did not believe. I write about this extensively in my series on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and in some other articles. (See here, here, here) In the latter I cite from Elder John M. Watson, who we have cited from extensively in earlier chapters, on this question. He wrote:

"Some suppose that as this doctrine includes conditions or means, the performance of, or compliance with, them determines the acts of the Lord, making His acts dependent on them of the creature; and as the subject is sometimes discussed in such a manner as to embarrass those who are otherwise sound in the faith, it may not be amiss to give scriptural exposition of conditions and means."

"The reader should be reminded that there is a difference between the conditions of the first covenant under the law, and those of the Gospel under the second, or new covenant, Heb. 8: 9, 19...The condition, do and live was performed by Christ, and the benefits of it are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with it; for by nature we are morally unable to do so." (page 355)

Next Watson cites Perkins:

"William Perkins writes equally as clear on this subject as follows: "In the covenant of grace, two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace as well as the substance." And no less in point is the following: "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and life and salvation by Him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, nourisheth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience of the truth of their faith."

"So that the subject of the conditions of the Gospel, which have been confounded by many with those of the law and have given rise to so many Arminian errors, admits of a very satisfactory exposition. The Lord did not under the first covenant, promise to give grace to the fallen sinner to enable him to keep the whole law, that being the condition of justification and life; but under the new covenant it was both promised and given." (page 356)

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14."

It is not surprising that the Two Seedism of Elder Trainer included a view that denied conditions for salvation. Recall that in a previous chapter we gave one of the propositions of Two Seedism which stated that nothing a person does in his life is a condition for going either to heaven or hell. 

In this next chapter we will continue what Potter says about Elder Trainer and Elder Tabor and their Two Seed tenets and their denial of a bodily resurrection.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIII)

Having in the immediate preceding chapters taken notice of what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism in his pamphlet "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh" (It can be read (here), we will now look at what Elder Gilbert Beebe, an apologist for Two Seedism, wrote in his paper "The Signs of the Times" in rebuttal to the pamphlet. Beebe replied to Elder Lemuel Potter’s pamphlet for June, 1880. (See here under "Number 6" of his editorials)

Wrote Gilbert Beebe (emphasis mine):

"From the cursory glance over some of its pages, we find much to approve, especially in his scriptural arguments in defense of unconditional election, and in refutation of what is commonly known as the Two Seed doctrine in the flesh of the human family. But of what he denominates the “Doctrine of Eternal Children,” it being a doctrine of which we do not remember that we ever heard before, brother Potter must excuse us for asking for more light."

I find this statement by Beebe astounding. He says he approves much of what Potter wrote in refutation of "Two Seed doctrine in the flesh of the human family." Does this mean he no longer believed in Two Seedism in 1880? Or, does it mean that he denies Two Seedism "in the flesh," believing rather in Two Seed "in the spirit"? I seriously doubt that Beebe is telling the truth when he says he knows nothing about the "doctrine of eternal children." We have seen in previous chapters that Beebe believed like other Two Seeders that the elect seminally existed in Christ from eternity. It could be, however, that Beebe is playing a game with words in these remarks, a way to dodge the issue. He might respond by saying that the children existed in seed, but not as actual children yet, in the same way people were in Adam seminally but not as actual existing developed children. 

Wrote Beebe:

"On pages 51 and 52 he (Potter) says:

"In the covenant of grace in Christ before the world began, all the means necessary to their redemption and final salvation were ordained in Christ, and this is what the apostle means when he says, ’Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (I Timothy 1:9).’ Those people were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since, or from all eternity. They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him, as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense."

"In the covenant with Abraham, they are embraced in the promise, ’In thee, and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ This is the seed that David speaks of: ’A seed shall serve him, and it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation.’ Here is the Lord’s seed; and the fact that they are called a seed does not argue that they are as old as the Lord. But we are told that they must be everlasting children, for Christ is said to be an everlasting Father, and there could not have been an everlasting Father without everlasting children."

Wrote Beebe in response:

"We fail to comprehend how God made choice of a people in Christ if that people did not in any sense exist in Christ when the choice was made." 

Of course people existed in some sense from eternity. That sense is that they were in the mind of God, being envisioned by him in his foreknowledge, as an idea of what is created is in the mind of a creator before the thing imagined is created. Had Beebe and the Two Seeders held strictly to this sense, there would have been no difficulty. However, he and the Two Seeders went much further and taught that the church or chosen people of God had an actual existence in seed form. The above words of Beebe show this to be the case. His reasoning would exclude God making choice of an idea or a merely foreknown people. Instead of "choice" (or "chosen") he might as well have used the words "loved," "known," "predestined," etc., for these words are also used to describe God's mental vision of future things. However, God said he knew Jeremiah before he was born, before he was created in the womb. (Jer. 1: 5) God loved Jacob before he was born. (Rom. 9: 10-13) How could he love and know these people before they were born? Because he foresees all, and because God exists outside of time. Further, Beebe's argumentation does show him affirming "eternal children," the very thing he denies knowing anything about the term.

Beebe continued:

"We do not understand that the flesh and blood of the people chosen in Christ existed in him, nor that he himself existed in the flesh until his incarnation, for in their flesh and blood relation they did not exist until their creation in the earthly Adam, in common with all others of mankind. Still we are informed in the word of divine revelation that the saints at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus were blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places IN Christ Jesus, according as he hath chosen them in him (not into him) before the foundation of the world."

Again, he is arguing for "eternal children," though not physical children. Beebe is disagreeing with other Two Seeders who believed in "two seed in the flesh" ideology. Beebe fails to see how his denial that the children of God physically existed in Christ from eternity is inconsistent with his argumentation. Did Christ not love the physical bodies of the elect or church? Were they not also given spiritual blessings in Christ? Did he not predestine their bodies to be saved from sin and be made spiritual and immortal? If he believes that the flesh and blood or Christ and his people did not actually exist from eternity, he ought by the same reasoning object to the spirit or souls of people actually existed from eternity.

Beebe continued:

"We cannot conceive of the existence of Christ as the Son of God, begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, only in his Mediatorial relation to his eternal Godhead, as the Father, and as the Head over all to his church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. We have understood that he is the Word that was with God, and also that he is the Word that is God. The Head of the church is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God. The fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in him. He could no more sustain his Mediatorial relation if he and the Father were not one, than the church could inherit eternal life if they were not one with him, even as he and his Father are one. We think we agree with brother Potter, if we understand him, that Christ did not exist in flesh and blood (except in purpose) until he was made flesh by incarnation, by being made of a woman, and conceived by and born of the virgin Mary. But we do believe that he did exist as the Son of God, as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, from everlasting. His Mediatorial names or titles, Jesus and Christ, are expressive of his relation to the Father as a begotten Son, and to the church as her Head and spiritual and eternal life."

As we saw in previous chapters, Beebe's Two Seed views were intimately connected with his views on the Trinity and on what it means for Christ to be the eternally begotten Son of God. Beebe and Trott and many of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists rejected the Trinity, holding to Sabellian views, and others rejected the idea that Christ's being eternally begotten was proof of his divinity and oneness with the Father. Beebe believes that Christ being begotten of the Father from eternity has to do with his being appointed to be mediator, savior, and the anointed one of his chosen people or espoused wife. He is inconsistent however in this because he has affirmed that Christ being a man was essential to being this mediator, just as much as his being God the Word. So, if he was a mediator from eternity, then Beebe must affirm that Christ has always been both God and man.

He also destroys his own Two Seed ideology when he says that Christ from eternity did exist in flesh and blood but only "in purpose." Why does he not then say that the children of God, or those chosen, likewise existed in soul or spirit from eternity in purpose but not actually? 

Other Two Seeders would argue that Christ did exist from eternity with a human body. They often would say that the church was "bone of his (Christ) bone and flesh of his flesh." (Eph. 5: 30) Even Beebe himself would cite this text to prove the preexistence of the elect. They often spoke of how Eve was "in" Adam before she was made, and in doing this they do in fact affirm that the elect had a physical existence in Christ before they were made, for they say that Eve is a type of the church. As we saw in earlier chapters, one of the oft repeated arguments by Beebe was to say that as Christ has from eternity been "head" of the church, the church being his "body" must have also always existed for a head cannot exist without a body.

Wrote Beebe:

"If we have read correctly the record which God has given of his Son, as the Head of the body, the church, he, as the Head of the church and Savior of the body, is not only the begotten, but the only begotten of the Father; and we infer that the begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body, and all the members of the body of which he is the Head. We know of no other way in which the members of Christ’s body can be partakers of the divine nature, or inheritors of eternal life. If the life which was given us in the earthly Adam was eternal, it could not die; but the life which was with the Father, and was manifested, according to I John 1:2, and which was given us in his Son, according to I John 5:11,12, is emphatically eternal life, which was with the Father, and is hid with Christ in God. And this life which was given us in the Son of God was included, with all other spiritual blessings, in the unspeakable gift of God’s dear Son. Brother Potter says (but by what authority he has failed to tell us), that “Those people” (of whom Paul speaks in II Timothy 1:9) “were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since, or from all eternity;” and that “They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him, as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense."

If the "begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body and all the members of the body," as Beebe asserted, then he does believe in "eternal children." The blessings given to believers in Christ before the world began were not given to them personally, since they did not then actually exist. They were given to the divine Son of God, who having been appointed to represent them, received those blessings on their behalf. Even in human affairs, things are often given to people who do not yet exist. Rich people have set up trusts which are designed to give money to future descendants. These are called "dynasty trusts." John D. Rockefeller used trusts in 1934 to pass on wealth, which still supports his heirs to the seventh generation. The Walton Family Holdings Trust, used to manage shares in Walmart, holds massive wealth for the heirs. 

Wrote Beebe:

"This firstborn son, as the anti-type of David, shall be a progenitive Head, shall have children as his own seed, which were chosen in him, and blessed with and in him with all the spiritual blessings which are secured by the covenant of the sure mercies of David. “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven (Psalm 89).” Was David a type of Christ? Did his seed exist in him before they were born? Did his children proceed from him as plants from the seeds which produce them? If so, by what authority shall we say that the seed of Christ did not exist in Christ as their seminal Head, and proceed from him as the vine from its roots, as the branch from the living vine, and as plants from the seed?" 

So, again, Beebe does believe in "eternal children." Also, he does admit that Potter was correct in saying that Two Seeders believed that the children of God existed in Christ before they were born in the same way that plants are in the first seed in a chain of seeds. We have looked at this line of reasoning in previous chapters. Did Solomon exist in David before he was conceived in the womb of Bathsheba? Of course he did not, except, as we have previously observed, in a manner of speaking. The person of Solomon did not exist in David. Consider also the fact that Beebe affirms two ideas that are contradictory to each other. First, he must say that Jesus as a man existed in David before he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Second, he must say that David existed in Christ the man before David was born. 

Wrote Beebe:

"We presume that brother Potter believes, as we certainly do, that the Son of God is the begotten Son of the eternal Father, and stood in that vital relation to the Father before the world began, as the Son. Now if the children of God were chosen and blessed in him before the foundation of the world, and we accept the testimony of Christ himself, and of his inspired apostles, that they are the body of which he is the Head, would it not be a singular anomaly that a head should be begotten and born, and the body and members of that head only adopted? The Scriptures abound with figures illustrative of the union and relationship of Christ and the church. We are told that Adam is the figure of him that was to come; and that Adam was first formed, then Eve (I Timothy 2:13)."

The Son of God's agreement with the Father and Spirit to become a man in order to redeem sinners, and to be the head and representative of such redeemed sinners, does not necessitate that those sinners be in actual existence when this agreement was made in the eternal covenant. It was only necessary that God had predetermined to create man, suffer him to fall into sin, and to appoint Christ as the head of those who he intended to save, so that they existed in his mind, though they did not yet exist in actuality. 

From the above we see how the subject of how adoption relates to being begotten was a difficulty with Beebe as it has been with many others. I would encourage the reader to read my series on this subject (which are all in their own blog for easy reading - See here). Potter and others, however, have argued that if adoption is true, then it proves that those who become children of God were not so from eternity. 

Beebe is begging the question when he attempts to reason that the begetting of the Head (Christ) must involve the begetting of all those over whom he is head, or his body. But, we have shown how this line of reasoning, if true, would force him into asserting that every human being has existed from eternity and that they are all children of God, for Christ is not only the head of the church, but "the head of every man." (I Cor. 11: 3)

Wrote Beebe:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his Mediatorial Sonship, is the image of the invisible God, the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person; the appointed heir of all things; by whom also he made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15.) Adam as a type, “is the figure of him that was to come. He was created in the image and likeness of Christ, as the heir of all terrestrial things, having dominion over all created things, and as the seminal head and progenitor of his race; and of him, when he, not being deceived, had followed his bride into the transgression, it was said, “Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, etc. (Genesis 3:22).”

What does Beebe mean by "Mediatorial Sonship"? As we have seen in former chapters, Beebe believed that Christ had three natures, a divine nature, a human nature, and a mediatorial nature. He believed that Christ's mediatorial nature was begotten when he was begotten of the Father before time began. Beebe and Trott and other Two Seeders were anti-Nicenists, being opposers of the Nicene creed which says:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

Christ being begotten of the Father is proof of his divinity and oneness with the Father. That, however, is not believed by Beebe and many other "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century. To be begotten proves that Christ was not God, said they, for God cannot be begotten, so though Christ was God it was not because he is the only begotten Son of God. Therefore, his being begotten had do do with him becoming human or a mediator.

When Beebe says that Adam "was created in the image and likeness of Christ" he means not that he was made in the "image of God," although this is what the Bible says, but was made in the image of the begotten or created Mediator, who they say was "the first thing God created" per Colossians 1: 15 and Revelation 3: 14, and which is why they were called Arians by Elders Grigg Thompson and John Clark. This belief is behind the second article in the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association (of which I was once a part), which I have cited previously, and reads as follows:

"We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity." (Article Two)

Wrote Beebe:

"In all this the earthly Adam is the image or type of him that was to come. Adam, as the seminal head and progenitor of all the race of mankind, is the figure of Christ, as the seminal Head and spiritual progenitor of his spiritual seed, which he saw when his soul was made an offering for sin. He is their life, and that life in him is eternal life. It was with the Father, and given to his seed in the Son, or Sonship of the only begotten of the Father. It is only in this begotten relation that any vital union can be developed between God and the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty."

This is simply a further statement of the above belief. It smacks of Arianism. It makes "the first Adam" to be the second Adam, and vise versa, as I have previously stated.

Wrote Beebe:

"We hope that it is not in any derisive, sarcastic or scoffing way that any of our brethren would speak of the eternity of the existence of the children of God in Christ, as the head and source of all spiritual union and communion with God through Jesus Christ our Lord, as “eternal children.”"

Why are the words "the eternity of the existence of the children of God in Christ" not an affirmation of "eternal children"? Why is it sarcasm or scoffing to call this belief a belief in eternal children?

Wrote Beebe:

"It is with deep concern that we have observed of late, among some who claim to be Old School or Primitive Baptists, a disposition to sap the foundation of the Christian’s faith and hope in God, by ignoring the vitality of our union to and with God in Christ. They are willing to admit an eternal union, if we will give up the vitality of it, and call it a covenant union, or in any way deprive it of vitality; but it seems to us that a union without life would be a dead union, it could not make us partakers of the divine nature. But when we claim that the life on which our relation to God as his children rests was given us in Christ Jesus, with all other spiritual blessings, before the foundation of the world, although this heart-cheering doctrine is so fully declared in the Scriptures, an effort is made to call down onus, and what is far worse, on the doctrine, the obliquity and ridicule of those who do not entertain the same views that we do."

Potter and others did not deny that there was a predestined or representative union from eternity for God in his divine decrees determined that Christ be the head and representative and savior of those chosen to salvation. In those decrees the Father gave the elect to Christ in a covenant and is why Christ said "all that the Father gives to me shall come to me." (John 6: 37) But, to affirm that this ordained union proves that the elect actually existed from eternity is highly objectionable. Actual union with Christ follows actual existence, and follows being joined to Christ in time by faith.

Wrote Beebe:

"Much of the confusion in the minds of the saints, we think, arises from a failure to discriminate between Adam and Christ. In the earthly Adam we all die. Why? Because we were all in him in the transgression. By that one offense sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Did all men sin in the first offense of Adam? That occurred almost six thousand years before the birth of any of the men of the present generation. But if we had not been in Adam as our seminal head and progenitor, could we have sinned in him? Could death have passed on us as men that had sinned, if we were not in him as his posterity or children? If we were not children of Adam when he transgressed, and death thereby entered and passed upon us, when did we become his children? Did Adam call his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living before any of her living children were born? Did Levi pay tithes to Melchisedec before or after he was born? Were Jacob and Esau children before their birth, or was it not until afterward? These questions relate to our natural life, as children of the earthly Adam, and who is the figure of him that was to come. Then tracing the analogy of the figure, we ask, Are we the children of God in Christ today? If so, were we his children yesterday? He is the same yesterday, today and forever. If we are his seed, or children now, were we his seed almost two thousand years ago, when his soul was made an offering for sin, and when we saw his seed and was satisfied?"

Beebe misunderstands how and why the sin and guilt of Adam is imputed to his descendants. It is not strictly because of "seminal union" but because of a representative union, because God decreed that Adam should stand for the entire race. If that is not the case, then every man becomes responsible for every sin of his ancestors.

Also, as we have seen, Paul spoke of some who "were in Christ before I was" (Rom. 16: 7), which destroys the thesis of Beebe that all the children of God were in Christ from eternity. It also destroys the idea that says "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26). The apostle Peter also wrote to the believers: "Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (I Peter 2: 10 kjv)

Wrote Beebe:

"God’s children were children before they were partakers of flesh and blood, even as Christ was the Son of God before he took part in like manner of the same flesh and blood."

However, as we just saw, this is not what the Bible teaches. God chose and predestined people to become the children of sons of God, but they do not become so until they have an existence in time and until they have become united to Christ by faith.

So, in conclusion, it is obvious that Beebe's answer to the Two Seed objections by Potter was not cogent.