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.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLII)

In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "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 are focusing on a basic Two Seed tenet that affirms that the man Christ Jesus preexisted his incarnation, being what the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists today still have in their articles of faith, a remnant of the Two Seedism that was prevalent in it throughout the 19th century, which says:

"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)

The words in bold are exactly what Arius taught and is a leading tenet of Arianism. Arianism is a belief in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization. However, the Bible clearly shows that Jesus in his divinity as the Son of God was never created, but was himself the Creator of all things. It is true that the humanity of Jesus, including his body and soul, were created in the womb of the virgin Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott where they interpreted Colossians 1: 15-17 and Revelation 3: 14 in a similar way as do the Arians, saying that when Christ is called the "firstborn of every creature" and "the beginning of the creation of God," it means that Christ was the first thing God the Father created. However, Arians say that Christ when created before time was not then created with a human body, but was a created incorporeal god and that he became incarnate when he took upon himself a human body via being born of the virgin Mary. Two Seed Arians, however, say that Christ as a man and as the Son of God (not divine) was created or begotten before time. 

Potter wrote:

"And while there are strong advocates for the doctrine that the body of Christ is eternal, and that at most he only received his blood from the Virgin Mary, his flesh and bone being eternal, we should notice very carefully what is said on the subject. Whatever it was that is so frequently called a branch of David, or seed of David, is what he took from his mother, whether it be blood exclusively, or flesh, bone and blood. We may also further consider that this branch came out of David, and not out of eternity. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Isa. xi. 1."

And,

"...the only existence this branch had at the time of the prophecy was in the loins of Jesse. If he did exist in eternity, in flesh and bone, he could not be of the seed of David according to the flesh."

And,

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews vii. 14. If the Lord sprang out of Judah and was so carefully preserved through all generations from Judah down to the time of his birth of the Virgin Mary, was he not properly of the lineage of Judah? It is, surely, in this sense that he is the seed of David according to the flesh. But the objector says that his flesh and bone and nature was in heaven, and was put forth in the womb of the Virgin Mary when she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then he took his blood."

Many Two Seeders argue that since Christ was Head of all from eternity, therefore his body (or the church, his mystical body) existed from eternity. Some of them also argued that the human soul of Christ existed from eternity. Some of them argued that the human body of Christ existed from eternity. In previous chapters I have stated how this was similar to the view of Joseph Smith and the Mormons who viewed God, Father and Son, as having human bodies. But, Mennonites also denied that Christ received his true humanity from Mary. Sixteenth-century Anabaptist leader Menno Simons, along with Melchior Hoffman, taught that Jesus did not derive his human nature from Mary, a doctrine known as "celestial flesh." They believed Christ's flesh was divine and "conceived in her," not "of her," to ensure he was not tainted by Adam's sin.

Potter shows however that the scriptures do not teach such a far fetched notion. Christ's humanity was conceived in the womb of the virgin and did not exist prior to this time except in the mind and purpose of God. He was "the seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15) Likewise, through his mother biologically, he is the "seed of Abraham" and the "seed of David." Jesus acknowledges that he is both the "son" of David and the "Lord" of David (Matt. 22: 41-45). He is David's son as respects Christ's human body and soul. He is David's Lord as respects Christ's divinity. Jesus says of himself: "I am the root and offspring of David." (Rev. 22: 16) By this he means that he was a human being by human procreation, although he was begotten by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph, the wife of the virgin Mary. Paul says that Christ "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1: 3)

Wrote Potter:

"But let us proceed with the scriptural testimony relative to his assuming humanity. The Apostle gives the following admonition: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. ii. 5-8. What was it that was made in the likeness of men? It could not have been his body, if it existed in eternity in the form of a man; for that which already existed could not be made. It could not have been human nature if he always possessed that, and yet he was made in the likeness of men. In this it seems clear from the scriptures already quoted, that he became like a man by taking on him the nature and body of a man. Whatever the nature of a man is, is the human nature, and it is strictly in this sense that he was of the tribe of Judah. But I am asked, what was it that took this nature? I answer, Divinity. And when Divinity took upon himself the form and nature of a man, he possessed two natures - human and divine. When the angel explained to Joseph the condition of Mary, he did not say that an eternal human body or nature had been put forth in the womb of the blessed Virgin, but that something was conceived or begotten in her; he did not say it was of humanity, but of the Holy Ghost. Matt. i. 20. Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father. John iii. 15-18. Jesus being thus begotten of God and born of the Virgin Mary, comes into the world just what had been promised from the time man needed a Saviour."

The words "took upon himself the form of a servant" shows that Christ did not always have this form, this "fashion as a man," this being "made" in the "likeness of men."

However, I am a little perplexed by Potter's comment which stated: "Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father." It seems to me that he believes that Christ being the "only begotten Son of God," or "only begotten God," was what was true of his human conception rather than his divine conception (or generation). The orthodox view affirms that Christ's being begotten in his divinity was from eternity, what theologians called "eternal generation." Christ has always been the begotten Son of the Father so that there never was a beginning to his sonship nor to the Father's fatherhood. In human generation or procreation there is a beginning to it. But, with the divine generation of the Son there is no beginning. Just as Wisdom can be said to be "set up from everlasting" so too can we say that the Son was begotten from everlasting, that he has always been in the bosom of the Father, and is why he is the "only" begotten, his being divinely begotten being unique and unlike human generation.

It is true that we may say that Jesus was the Son of God in several ways besides his being God by having been begotten of the Father from eternity. Potter says that he believes that Christ is the Son of God by his having been born of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, this being what he means by "hence." If Potter limits Christ being the Son of God to that birth of his humanity, then he holds a serious error. As I noted in a previous chapter when giving the anti Two Seed views of Elder Joshua Lawrence, we saw where he also denied that Christ being begotten of the Father pertained to his divinity. It seems that many first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists likewise believed this, although today I would say that most do not. In my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I mention how a few elders back in the 1970s, when I was also a young elder among them, began to teach that Christ being the Son of God had reference to his being begotten in the womb of Mary, or to his resurrection. Both elders, Conrad Jarrell and Jackie Mott, were disfellowshipped by the majority of Hardshells and so they started their own sub cult.

In my series on Adoption I cited from David Schrock (See here) to show how Christ is named "Son of God" in four ways. He is the “Son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam (who was called the Son of God (Luke 3: 38) Christ being the second Adam, (2) Israel (who is also called God's son (Exo. 4: 22), Christ enduring the temptation of Satan in the wilderness whereas Israel did not, and (3) David, who was God's begotten son because he was set up as king over the people of God and who Jesus supersedes as King, and (4) as the divine Son by having been eternally begotten. 

Wrote Potter:

"We read on down to the 14th verse; it is said, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Here is when he assumes humanity. He was not flesh in eternity; but the Word that was in eternity was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. But when we ask, how could that be made flesh that was always flesh? We are met with this answer: It does not say when it was made flesh. That indeed is masterly, as though it could be eternal at all, and yet be made. It does not matter when it was made flesh; but was it made flesh at all? If so, flesh is not eternal; for that which is made is not eternal. The Word was eternal, but flesh is not. Hence, when we speak of the Word that was in the beginning, we speak of the Son in the original capacity."

This is all true, but one must be careful not to use such reasoning to deny that Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, that there was no time when he was not so. It is amazing how Two Seeders, on the one hand, spoke of Christ in his composite nature as a Mediator, composed of both human and divine natures, being such from eternity but then, on the other hand, argued that what is begotten denotes a derivation or beginning. 

Wrote Potter:

"Although it was by him the worlds were made, and he is truly said to come down from heaven; yet his flesh and bone, or human nature, did not come down; for it was "made of a woman, made under the law (not made in heaven), to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4-5."

Wrote Potter further:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii. 13. From this we are clearly taught that even when he was in the flesh, he filled immensity. He was here teaching the people, and yet was in heaven. If it was necessary for him to have a body in eternity in order to exist as the Son of man, it would now become necessary for him to have two bodies; one on earth, and one in heaven. But this text is sometimes used to prove that he came down from heaven in a body, undertaking to show from it that whatever of Jesus ascends to heaven first came down from heaven. But it seems to always prove too much when it is all quoted, and according to the interpretation they give it, that nothing will go to heaven only what comes from there, the body of the Saviour will be excluded from heaven; for he is here in the body, and says no man has ascended up to heaven but the Son of man which is in heaven. His body is not in heaven when he makes use of the expression. This is not all that we may learn from this text; for something has descended from heaven, and whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body. But it seems that this is as good an opportunity as is afforded in the Bible anywhere for us to ascertain whether the body of Christ did come down from heaven or not. Whatever was in heaven, called the Son of man was that that had ascended; and that which had ascended, had come down from heaven. If the body had not ascended it had not come down from heaven, and yet something had come down from heaven, and that something had ascended while the body of Jesus was still on earth. Hence, it is easily understood from this that when the Bible gives any account of the Saviour coming down from heaven, it has direct allusion to something besides his body. It must, therefore, be understood to be that that was in the beginning with God, which is the Word. He, in this capacity, as the Son of man, held the office of Redeemer before the creation; for, in view of his fulfilling this office, and as a part of its work, the creation of other worlds, as well as our own, and all that it contains, was assigned him by the Father. He, therefore, existed before he appeared in the world; yea, he sat upon the mediatorial throne and executed his office from the beginning of time."

In earlier chapters I cited the Two Seed motto that said - "nothing goes to heaven but what first came down from heaven." Potter mentions this fact. I believe Potter is right when he says - "whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body." I would add that the term "son of man" in reference to Christ does not strictly denote his humanity, but to his identity as the Son of God and his divinity by allusion to what the prophet Daniel saw in regard to this "son of man." (Dan. 7: 14) There this son of man is clearly an equal to the "ancient of days" who sits upon the throne and who is given an everlasting kingdom. I would encourage the reader to read what Bible scholar Sam Shamoun wrote on this matter in "The Son of Man as the Son of David; Examining the OT Evidence for The Messianic Identity of Daniel’s Heavenly Figure." (See here)

On John 3: 13 Gill wrote:

"Not that he brought down from heaven with him, either the whole of his human nature, or a part of it; either an human soul, or an human body; nor did he descend locally, by change of place, he being God omnipresent, infinite and immense, but by assumption of the human nature into union with his divine person..."

Jesus often spoke of his "coming down from heaven." By this he does not mean that he existed as a man prior to his conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. He means what Potter said. He as the Son of God came down from heaven when he became incarnate.

Some bible teachers think that what Christ says is this: "no one has ascended to heaven and come back." But, that seems like adding to what Christ said, although it may indeed be what he meant.

Others suggest that what Christ means is that no one has ascended to heaven by his own choice, effort, or means. Yes, Enoch and Elijah were taken away to heaven, but they were taken up there, being passive in being taken there, and not ascending there by their own means. Elijah went to heaven and yet he later appeared with Moses on the mount and conversed with Christ, so he is one who went to heaven, came back to earth, and went back I suppose. But, Elijah did not speak to people on earth and tell them about what he saw in heaven.

Adam Clark in his commentary says:

"This seems a figurative expression for, No man hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God; as in Deuteronomy 30:12; Psalms 73:17; Proverbs 30:4; Romans 11:34. And the expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot."

That too may be the meaning. Jesus in this case would be saying - "I have come down from heaven. So, anything you want to know about it, I am the only one who can tell you."

The following verses seem to agree with this point of view:

“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." (Rom. 10: 6-8 nkjv)

No one needs to ascend to heaven to know something about heaven because 1) God himself came down from heaven, descended upon Mt. Sinai, and there revealed himself and his word to Moses and Moses revealed it to the people, and 2) Christ, the Son of God, has also come down from heaven and is now revealing the things of heaven. What we know of the abyss of Hell, or of the sea, is also a result of it being revealed by God's revelation. 

In conclusion we must realize that John 3: 13 cannot be decisive in affirming that Christ had a human body before his descent from heaven. 

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLI)

In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "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 are at this point in our investigation where we look at what many Two Seeders taught about the preexistence of the man Christ Jesus, a view that we saw was taught to some degree by early 17th century Hyper Calvinists such as Joseph Hussey, and by the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts. They taught that the human soul of Christ existed in eternity past, though not his human body. Many Two Seeders accepted this view but went further, affirming that even the human body of Christ was eternal, which is why Potter attacked this view and argued that it was illogical to say that what was created was without beginning. In Potter's pamphlet (which were his writings from his paper the "Church Advocate") he writes the following under the heading "HUMANITY OF CHRIST":

"As there are some controversies in the present age about the humanity of Christ, and, we have often feared, many contentions by some without that strict and impartial investigation of the subject that every one should give before taking a permanent position, we have concluded not only to take a position, but to appeal to inspiration as the author of whatever position we may assume, as well as our warrant for opposing erroneous sentiments on this subject."

The early church saw heresies arise over the humanity of Christ. Two Seedism is a later heresy as it relates to the humanity of Christ, although, as we have seen, several elements of Two Seedism are not new.

Potter wrote further:

"The first impression we wish to make is, that it is the humanity and not the divinity of Christ that this brief work will treat of; for while there may be a dissension between ourself and others on the eternal humanity of Christ, we presume all will agree on his eternal divinity. If, therefore, the eternal existence of Christ should be denied in this investigation of the subject, it will be his humanity. The doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ, we expect to disprove in this work, and to this question the work is devoted."

In earlier chapters we noticed that some Hyper Calvinists at the beginning of the 17th century taught that the human soul of Christ was created in past eternity, such as Joseph Hussey and Isaac Watts. Very few of them believed that the human body of Christ was likewise without beginning. The preexistence of the humanity of Christ was a central idea in Two Seedism. Some held to the preexistence of the human soul alone but a few others held to the preexistence of the human body of Christ also. I contended that this was one of the causes for the development of Two Seedism among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century. This is affirmed by the words of Potter above.

In "Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary" we find an article titled "Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ" (See here) which has some information on this belief. Speaking of Christ Watson wrote (emphasis mine):

"That he really did exist, is plain from John 3:13; John 6:50 , &c; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 17:24; 1 John 1:2; but there are various opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His body was formed in the virgin's womb; but his human soul, they suppose, was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation; they differ from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ's human soul began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Hebrews 2:17." 

This is a good description of Two Seed Primitive Baptist ideology. Some Two Seeders took the view of Hussey and argued that the human soul or Christ was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God in eternity past. Other Two Seeders went further and believed that the human soul and body were eternally begotten or created. Watson says that some Bible teachers affirmed this, but he does not tell us who they are. 

He also says that "these divines," whoever they were, differed from the Arians because they did not deny the divinity of the Son of God. However, as we have seen in former chapters, Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder John Clark labeled Two Seedism as "Arianism." I stated, however, that I prefer to call them semi-Arians, because their views seem to be like Arianism in several ways, chiefly as it relates to Christ being the Son of God. Many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, whether Two Seeder or not, resisted believing that Christ's being begotten as the Son of God respected his divinity, arguing that Christ's divinity is not derived, and being begotten denoted inferiority to the Father. We saw how this was strongly affirmed by Two Seeders elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, and by an anti Two Seeder, Elder Joshua Lawrence. 

Watson wrote further:

"The writers in favour of the preexistence of Christ's human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments*:

1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union,

2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could not properly have divested itself of any glory, John 17:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:9 . It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth.

3. It seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins."

*(I wish he had told us who these writers were who taught this, but surely he must have in mind men like Joseph Hussey)

Those are some good arguments and are not easily rebutted. However, they do not prove that the Son of God and second person in the holy Trinity always had a human soul, body, or nature. His appearance in the old testament as a man does not imply that he had a body from eternity. We also find that angels, distinct from the "angel of the Lord" (who is indeed Yahweh the Son, the one who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses saying "I Am That I Am") appeared in human bodies, but in their normal state they do not have physical bodies, being incorporeal spirits. Even in the new testament angels appeared in the form of human bodies at the tomb of the risen Christ. (See John 20: 11-14; Mark 16: 5-6) Also, at the time of Christ's bodily ascension into heaven we read where "two men stood by" the apostles and spoke to them and who were clearly angels. (Acts 1: 9-11) Also the apostle Paul wrote to the early Christians: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2 niv). 

The old testament appearances of the Son of God in human form are called "theophanies" or "Christophanies." If angels can appear in human bodies, then so too could the Son of God. Many people then wonder why, if this is true, did Christ need to be conceived in the womb of Mary and obtain a human body this way. In response I say that the bodily form of Christ in the old testament, like the bodily form of lesser angels, were not human bodies in every way like bodies born by human procreation. We surmise that they did not have blood or bones or all the bodily organs. Secondly, it was the will of God that the Messiah be born of a woman, be of the seed of Abraham and David, so that he might be in every way like the humans he came to save. 

In response to the objection that argues that the Son of God's lowering himself by such Christophanies is not compatible with his being the eternal God we say that this is the beauty of God to condescend to us in this manner. Also, the fact that the Father sends the Son to do a thing does not mean that the Father and the Son are not equal. Equals may send one another. One equal may speak for other equals. 

In response to the Son of God divesting himself of his divine glory being incompatible with his being God, I say this divestiture only pertained to his revealed glory and not his essential glory. His divine glory was veiled by his incarnation. The Son of God never lost any of his divine attributes when he became a man. 

In response to the Son of God becoming poor (II Cor. 8:9) I say that this does not relate to his divinity. Christ, even in his humanity was "the heir of all things." (See Matt. 21: 38; Heb. 1: 2; Rom. 8: 17) But, he nevertheless chose to be born in poor circumstances, chose to own nothing except his clothes, chose not to live in luxury while on earth, etc. So when it is argued that it cannot "be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth" is incorrect, for he was born rich, that is, entitled to all things. There have been several instances even among men where rich men have chosen to live as paupers, no one knowing that they were actually rich. 

In response to the argument that "It seems needful that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins" I say that this is not so. The consent of the divine Son of God was what was necessary.

Watson wrote further:

"On the other side, it is affirmed that the doctrine of the preexistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and subverts that of his divine personality.

1. A pure intelligent spirit, the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures, created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the least difference except in name."

Before giving the other points that Watson gives of those who deny the preexistence of the human soul of Christ I wish to comment on the statement that the idea of a preexistent human Christ "exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity." Grigg Thompson and John Clark accused Two Seeders of being Arian because they denied that Christ was God by his being the Son of God by being begotten of the Father, the Two Seeders thinking, like the Arians, that such could not be said of God, for that would imply the Son's inferiority and subordination to the Father. The Arians however denied that Christ was God, but the Two Seeders did not. But, there is a resemblance to Arianism and is why I prefer to say that Two Seed views on Christ are semi Arians. 

Watson next gives these reasons why it is wrong to believe in the preexistence of the human soul of Christ:

2. This preexistent intelligence, supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to consist of three natures.

3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common, like the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man?

4. The passages quoted in proof of the preexistence of the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which others allege in proof of the preexistence of all human souls.

5. This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first is active."

6. This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul says, "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren," Hebrews 2:17: he partook of all our infirmities, except sin. St. Luke says, "He increased in stature and wisdom," Luke 2:52 . Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God."

These are good reasons to reject the idea that Christ had a human soul in past eternity. The scriptures plainly say that Christ became a man like us when he was conceived in the womb of Mary and was because of that both the "seed of the woman" and "the seed of Abraham" and "seed of David." 

In the next chapter we will continue looking at what Potter had to say about this Two Seed view about the preexistent humanity of Christ.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XL)

Two areas of theology that were involved in the Two Seed controversy dealt with the nature of man and with whether Christ was a man from eternity. We will now look at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote on these two subjects. Potter first gives us what the Two Seeders said and he gives the following article from Martin Ellis titled "WHAT IS MAN?" (Hardinsburg, Ind., January 27, 1879) This article is given in Potter's 1880 pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." Potter wrote the following, giving us what the Two Seeder wrote in response to a previous article by Potter titled "What Is Man" (emphasis mine):

"Noticing an article in the Church Advocate, of December 16, 1878, on the subject of "What is Man," I, by your permission, wish to present your readers a few thoughts on the same subject, but refer you to a different text, which you will find in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, 15th chap. and 47th verse. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." I wish to be understood that when Paul penned the text, he was moved by the Holy Spirit and wrote the truth. Then there is a man from heaven and a man of earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven. Paul says to the church at Rome, 5th chapter and 14th verse, that the earthly man is the figure of Him that was to come. In the 15th chapter and 45th verse of 1st Corinthians, Paul calls this heavenly man and this earthly both Adam, bearing the same name."

"The question is, is there any relationship between the two men. I take the ground there is. What is it? says one. The prophet Isaiah says to Israel "Look to the rock from whence you were hewn; which rock is Christ. Now anything hewn from out of anything must be of the same substance as that from which it is hewn. I will tell you what Paul says about it. He says to the Church "ye are of his body, of his flesh and of his bones," I will here say that all that stood in Adam, when God blessed him were the children of God, and fell in transgression in Adam, in the character of a seed. David says in the 22nd Psalm, 30th verse, "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation." Now, as we have come to this point, I ask did David have reference to the Adam family when he was talking about a seed to serve the Lord? I say yes; that is just what he calls a generation. Paul called Christ a seed in writing to the Galatian Church, 3rd chapter, 16th verse. He says, "Not unto seeds, as of many, but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ." Now this is the woman's seed which bruised the serpent's head. When we speak of seed it is that (if it is a good seed) which will produce."

"Then I reckon no one will try to deny that Christ is a good seed. Then he is productive, and produced Adam. And when Adam was produced he was "good and very good." Now we go to the 13th chapter of Matthew, 37th verse; Christ there says, "He that sowed the good seed is the Son of Man." In the next verse he says, "the field is the world," the good seed are the "children of the kingdom." The tares are "the children of the wicked one." The enemy that sowed them is the devil. There are two generations brought to view in the scriptures. There is the generation of Jesus Christ and the generation of vipers."

"He took one of his ribs and made it a woman, and Adam says, "this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." We there find her first existence in her husband, and she existed in substance as soon as her head, and husband existed."

"Then the heavenly man is the husband of the earthly man. Then, as this is true, Christ is bound for her debt, by law. To pay the debt he died on the tree of the cross. There is no man that has a wife that contracts a debt, but the law holds her husband responsible for the payment of it. Now did the bride of Christ exist in Christ before the world began? I will tell you what Paul says, Eph. 1st chapter, 4th verse, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world."

"Paul says in Corinthians, 15th chapter and 21st verse. "For as in Adam all die." Then the bride of Christ, or Lamb's wife died in earthly Adam. Then as sin did not destroy the flesh and bone relation, nor could not, it still remains. Then if sin could not destroy the relation, it cannot be destroyed. Then this being true, the flesh and bone relation between Christ and his bride is not destroyed. Then I ask the question which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age."

In these citations we see where the basic Two Seed tenets are affirmed. First, Christ as a man existed from eternity, as a mediator, as a husband of the elect or church, and Second, the church existed in him or in his seed from eternity, and Third, after being deposited in Adam, they sinned and fell in Adam, but this did not destroy their relationship to God, did not separate them from God, did not bring them under wrath or degenerate them. The doctrine of "eternal children" is affirmed for the Two Seeder says that Christ and his bride are of the same age. 

The doctrine of unconditional election, or election by grace, is also denied, for the Two Seed apologist (Ellis) says that Christ was obligated in law to pay the debt of sin that his wife incurred. In this paradigm it is affirmed that Christ was already the "last Adam" before the "first Adam" was created, and that Adam the first was created, body, soul, and spirit after the image of the human Christ. These tenets are but cunningly devised fables. Recall that I cited from the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association (1832), and which remains present in them to this day, and shows that the association was infected with Two Seedism from the start, a fact that Elder Hosea Preslar testified to when he returned from Tennessee and lived once again in the bounds of that association. That article said:

Art. 2. 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.

You can read Elder Hosea Preslar's words on Two Seedism in the Bear Creek Association in these posts: (here, here, here here, here). Recall also that I have shown in previous chapters how they make Christ the first Adam or first man, and yet Adam, the husband of Eve, was called the first man or first Adam.

Now let us notice what Potter said in rebuttal. Potter wrote:

"We propose to make the Bible our umpire, and hope that we have no desire to appeal from its decisions on any subject that may come before us. Brother Ellis tells us that Adam, the earthly man, was made in the image, and after the likeness of the man from heaven. This is the first information we have had that Adam was made in the image and after the likeness of a man at all. The Bible says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." Gen. i. 27. From what Elder Ellis says, we suppose he must reckon God to be the man from heaven. We, however, are not ready to accept the position yet, until we can get it from better authority. We shall still adhere to the Bible on the subject, that Adam was made in the image of God and not man."

The claim of Ellis and the Two Seeders that "Adam, the earthly man, was made in the image, and after the likeness of the man from heaven" is exactly what the Bear Creek article of faith says. This is, as I have also stated in previous chapters, very close to what Mormons teach. According to Doctrine and Covenants 130:22, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” They also teach that the only begotten Son of God had a body before the world began and Adam was made with a body in the likeness of the bodies of the Father and Son.

Potter wrote further:

"Then the apostle truly says, "We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." Not that we are of his body, in a sense that we were produced by his body of flesh and bones. What text of scripture says we were made of Christ. We read that he was made of a woman - that he was of the seed of David according to the flesh - that the Virgin Mary brought him forth, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, etc. But that Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, we do not learn from the Bible."

Albert Barnes in his commentary on Ephesians 5: 30, where Paul says of believers that they are "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," rightly says:

"Of his flesh, and of his bones - There is an allusion here evidently to the language which Adam used respecting Eve. "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;" Genesis 2:23. It is language which is employed to denote the closeness of the marriage relation, and which Paul applies to the connection between Christ and his people. Of course, it cannot be understood "literally." It is not true literally that our bones are a part of the bones of Christ, or our flesh of his flesh; nor should language ever be used that would imply a miraculous union. It is not a physical union, but a union of attachment; of feeling; of love. If we avoid the notion of a "physical" union, however, it is scarcely possible to use too strong language in describing the union of believers with the Lord Jesus."

Of course, in the case of Adam and Eve, it was literally true that Eve was bone of Adam's bone and flesh of Adam's flesh. But, it is not true of every other marriage. I cannot say of my wife what Adam said of his wife. Paul uses that language to denote the union of believers with Christ, and the "body" of which they are members is not a physical body, but a group of people, an assembly or congregation of believers. 

John Gill in his commentary wrote:

"For we are members of his body,...Not of his natural body, for this would make Christ's human nature monstrous; Christ, as man, is of our flesh and of our bones, or a partaker of the same flesh and blood with us; or otherwise, his incarnation would have been of no service to us; and had our human nature been from Christ, it would not have been corrupted; but our bodies, flesh, and bones, are from the first, and not the second Adam, and so corrupt and sinful...Of his flesh and of his bones: for so the church may be called, his own flesh, his flesh and bones, on account of the marriage relation she stands in to him, and that spiritual union there is between them, which these phrases are expressive of; and which the near relation of man and wife is an emblem of..."

This is an excellent response to the Two Seeder view. The Bible is clear in affirming that Christ is a descendant of Adam, getting his body from him, and not vise versa. So Paul wrote:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same" (Heb. 2: 14 kjv). 

As we saw in previous chapters, this was a verse much used by Elder Beebe to prove his Two Seed views. His view was that both Christ and his children preexisted and then took part of flesh and blood, each becoming incarnate or coming down from heaven. However, for the view of the Two Seeders to be correct, the text should rather read as follows:

"Therefore, because Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood from before the world began, the children likewise partake of flesh and blood." 

The words of Paul indicate that the children were first being partakers of flesh and blood, and Christ then took part of flesh and blood. Who does Paul indicate first partook of flesh and blood? Christ or his children?

Some who believe as do the Roman Catholics that the bread and wine of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper become the literal flesh and blood of Christ will say that believers do partake of the literal body of Christ. But, if this is true, what about his bones? How would such a view of the Supper make it true that the communicants become "bone of his bone"? The truth is, we do partake of Christ in the Supper, and in feasting upon him and his sacrifice, but this is not so literally or physically, but spiritually and mentally. This is what Paul means when he says: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast..." (I Cor. 5: 7-8 nkjv) Priests in the old testament were to eat of the burnt sacrifice of the Passover, and today we do so by faith and through our joyful meditations upon that sacrifice.  

Potter wrote:

"If Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, then he did not make Adam any more than we make our children. Yet we find that man was created, which means he was brought into being; and this fact contradicts the idea that he eternally had a being."

He also wrote:

"There is no text in the Bible that proves the pre-existence of the seed of Abraham." 

Of course, Two Seeders would dispute this claim. Granted, there is no text that explicitly says that the elect actually preexisted before their conception in the womb of their mothers, but the Two Seeders would try to prove it by inference, as we have seen. They believed that Eve being in some sense in Adam before she had an actual developed existence or creation out of Adam's rib and say that this shows that the bride of Christ was also in Christ before she was in time created in the womb. 

In the next chapter we will continue to look at what Potter wrote against the Two Seed idea of the preexisting humanity of Christ.