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.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXIX)

There are several tenets of Two Seedism that are surely heretical, for they are surely false teachings on major fundamental doctrines of the Bible and the Christian faith. These tenets are heterodox in areas of theology dealing with the nature and works of God, such as the Trinity, or in several points in soteriology dealing with election, the means of faith and repentance, and the means of the word of God or Gospel, etc. In the previous chapters we have been examining what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism in 1880. We have reviewed the eleven tenets of Two Seedism that Potter listed and rebuttal comments made by Potter against them. Now we will begin to cite what else Potter said about Two Seedism. 

Keep in mind that Potter was well versed in it. He lived in Illinois (before moving to Indiana) where Daniel Parker first published his books promoting Two Seedism and a state where Two Seedism was embraced by a seeming majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. He has also said that in his early years in the ministry (late 1860s into the 1870s) that he "rather favored" Two Seedism, though he says he did so without investigating the matter first. He also had at his disposal in 1880 two previous lengthy writings against Two Seedism, the first by Elder Grigg Thompson (1860-61), and the second by a brother minister in Illinois, Elder George Y. Stipp (1826-1886), who published his treatise in 1879. You can read that treatise by Stipp at the web site of the Primitive Baptist Library (here). He no doubt was well read in the debate about Two Seedism that was carried on in the various Hardshell periodicals from the days of Gilbert Beebe and Joshua Lawrence (1830s).

In previous chapters we have been citing from Elder Potter's small pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can also be read at the above web page (See here). In this chapter we will cite further from this same work. Following this we will look at some things Potter said about Two Seedism in some of his other published works.

Potter wrote:

"But we wish to notice the origin of man a little farther. We are frequently told that Adam was a figure of Christ, and that as Adam possessed Eve, his bride, in himself, so the church of Christ, or his bride stood in him, before the world began. If Adam and Eve are ever mentioned in scripture as being a figure of Christ and the church, we have failed to see it. So, such a foundation as that for the doctrine of eternal children is unwarranted in the scripture."

And,

"We sometimes hear it said, that as Adam was the figure of Christ, and that when he was first formed out of the dust of the ground Eve was in him, that Eve is also the figure of the church. On this it is claimed that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church. We have been wonderfully surprised at the universal acceptation of this idea among our brethren. But as we must be allowed to believe for ourself, regardless of the numbers that are against us, we now take the liberty to say, that there is not a solitary text in the whole volume of God's word that proves Eve to be a figure of the church more than any other lawful wife."

And,

"After assuming the positions that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church, then, the next thing is to show that Adam's wife was in him before she was developed, so the bride of Christ, in order to be a true antitype of Adam and Eve, must have been in him before she was developed. In this state she existed in Christ in heaven before the world began, and grace was given her in Christ before the world began. There is only one text in the Bible that says Adam was the figure of Christ, and that has no allusion to the relation between Christ and the church. The apostle is merely showing the manner of the introduction of sin and death into the world. He is not speaking of Adam in any other sense only to show that by his transgression, he involved his posterity in sin and death. The sin and transgression of Adam proved as effectual in bringing condemnation upon his family, as the obedience and righteousness of Christ would be in bringing justification and salvation, and eternal life upon his. Each one represented his own people; the act of Adam effected all his people because he represented them; so the act of Christ effected all his people because he represented them. This is the matter, and the only sense in which Adam was a figure of Christ, and Eve is not mentioned in the whole connection. Hence it is unreasonable as well as unjust to draw such conclusions as many do from such premises as this. Let us always limit our conclusions to what the Bible says, on the subject we treat on, and if we are taking a position that is not at all sustained by the Bible, we had better give up the idea than to misconstrue scriptures."

Two Seed apologists relied heavily on Adam and Eve being symbols of Christ and the church, as Potter indicates. In previous chapters we have cited from Beebe and others on this argumentation by the Two Seeders. Potter does a fairly good job in stating the reasons why their view on the supposed symbolism of Adam and Eve are not right. However, he should have agreed that it is not denied that the union of Adam and Eve is a type of the union of Christ and the church, but not more than all wives and husbands. So Paul said:

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her... 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5: 22, 28-32 nkjv)

The church was not the wife of the Lord Jesus from eternity past. The Lord "foreknew" his people's existence, and in his decrees concerning those who he intended to create he chose every believer to salvation, to be one of his people, to be a member of his social, spiritual, or ecclesiastical body, to be married to the Lord Jesus Christ. She was not the wife of the Lord before the world began. A believer does not become united to Christ, or married to him, until he exists, and until he chooses to marry the Lord. In support of this we cite the following words of the same apostle who wrote the above Ephesian epistle:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7: 4 nkjv)

The words "that you may be married to another" show that believers were not married in eternity past. They are married when they say "I do" in being united to Christ by an act of faith. Paul, writing to the believers in Corinth, wrote: "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2 nkjv) If the believers were already Christ's wife from before the world was made, the above language of the apostle is a falsehood. Why does he need to betroth, espouse (kjv), or engage them if they were already the wife of the Lord? Paul also wrote to the Corinthian believers and said: "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (I Cor. 6: 17 nasb)

Eve was once a part of Adam, having been made from a rib taken from his side. But, no other wife was ever a part of her husband nor had her origin in him. Two Seeders who use this fact to affirm that as Eve was in Adam before she was created and joined to Adam as his wife so too was each believer (or chosen one) in Christ before he or she was created and joined to Christ by an act of choice (betrothal) and faith. So, Potter is correct to say that Eve is not especially a picture of the bride of Christ. He should have stated, however, that in saying that Eve was such a type of the church one should be careful not to read too much into that. The same is true with Adam who, though being "a figure of him who was to come" (or Christ; Rom. 5: 14) is not like Christ in every way imaginable. Adam sinned, but Jesus the second Adam never sinned. The first Adam was of the earth, the second Adam was the Lord from heaven. 

Remember the words of Paul who said: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (I Tim. 2: 13 kjv) This text alone destroys the whole argumentation of the Two Seeders, for they say that Eve was as old as Adam, since she was created in Adam and existed in him from the moment of his creation. Paul says, however, that Adam existed by himself alone before Eve came into existence. In fact, God said "it is not good for man (Adam) to be alone" (Gen. 2: 18). But, if Eve was always present in Adam, then he was not really alone. 

Potter wrote:

"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."

The Two Seeders would say that the giving of the elect to Christ through the covenant made between the Father and Son implies that the elect existed, for how can one give to another what does not exist? They make the same argument from another popular text of theirs, the one where Paul wrote:

"Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." (II Tim. 1: 9 nkjv)

If grace was given to believers before time began, argued the Two Seeders, then they must have existed, for how can God give a gift to people who existed not? Two replies to this were made by those who opposed the Two Seeders. First, they were given grace by giving it to the Son of God who was appointed to be the head and representative of the elect by a covenant agreement. Second, it is a case where things not yet existing or occurring are spoken of as having already existed or already occurred. So Paul wrote:

"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom. 4: 17 kjv)

God spoke in the past perfect tense to Abraham when he said "I have made you a father of many nations." At that time however Abraham was not yet the father of many nations, those nations not yet being in existence. Paul explains this by saying that this is a case where God "calls those things which be not as though they were." Isaiah also wrote this oracle of God:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 10 kjv)

In the movie "Back To The Future" the characters in the movie went into the future and came back in time and then related what they saw. In describing that future they would use the present tense saying "you are put in jail." That is what is called the "futuristic present tense." This is where simple present or present continuous verbs describe future events that are scheduled, fixed, or already arranged, often implying high certainty or immediacy. Common examples include -- "The train is leaving at 5 p.m," meaning it is scheduled to leave at 5 p.m, even though the present tense words "is leaving" are used. 

It also needs to be said that the above texts that speak of the Father gifting the elect, church, or body of believers, to the Son of God, do not only imply that the elect then existed when they were gifted but also do not imply that Christ as a man then existed. Two Seeders, as we have seen, not only affirmed that the elect existed from eternity but so too did the humanity of Christ exist from eternity. When the gift was given, the Son of God had not yet become a man, though he, like the angels, could appear in human form in old testament times. So we read where the apostle John said that "the Word," or the "Logos," the one who created all things and who was both with God and was God himself, "became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1: 14) So we also read where he who was "in the form of God" from all eternity did in time, via the incarnation, take upon himself the "form of a servant." (Phil. 2: 6-8) 

Potter wrote:

"There are only two sides to the issue. They eternally possessed the spiritual nature of Christ, or it is given to them in time. If the former, they need not to be born again to possess it; if the latter, then it must begin when they are born again."

The life that is given to believers is eternal, without beginning, but that does not mean that they possessed it from eternity. Beebe and the Two Seeders argued that the children of God existed in that eternal life fr all eternity, which is a fable.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVIII)

Surely Two Seed doctrine, or "Parkerism," is an unsound, unhealthy, unwholesome doctrine. It is a fable, the very kind the apostle warned about in the above text. Several new testament texts speak of such fables. In I Timothy 1: 4 the same apostle exhorted Timothy not to "give heed to fables" which raises questions rather than answering them, causing disputes rather than edifying. In I Timothy 4: 7 Paul mentions "profane and old wives fables." To Titus Paul warns about "giving heed to Jewish fables." The apostle Peter similarly speaks of "cunningly devised fables." (II Peter 1: 16) 

In this chapter we will continue to examine what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against the Two Seed heresy that had been rampant among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," "Hardshell," or "Old Regular" Baptists. In that treatise he gave eleven tenets of Two Seedism, citing from statements by Two Seeders, mostly from "The Herald of Truth." We have already addressed what were the first eight tenets, and given Potter's comments upon them, as well as our own thoughts. Before we do that I want to cite the following words from Elder J. T. Oliphant, a recognized leader of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, taken from his book "Principles and Practices of Regular Baptists" (you can read it here) in that section dealing with unconditional election. Wrote Oliphant (emphasis mine):

"Note: - We think that the doctrine of the two seeds, as taught by Parker, and also the doctrine of eternal vital union, as held by others, are opposed to the doctrine of election as taught by the bible, and that they are equally as objectionable as the doctrine of election as taught by Wesley. Each of these views finds the reasons of one's election in himself. Wesley ascribes our election to our obedience, which is at war with grace. Parker and others find a difference in the origin of men that accounts for the election of some and the reprobation of others, while the bible puts it upon the sovereignty of God. Eld. Lemuel Potter has recently published a pamphlet in which this subject is fully investigated, in which he has shown that all these views are open to the same objections: These pamphlets can yet be had by addressing Eld. Lemuel Potter, Cynthiana, Posey county, Indiana."

It is interesting that Oliphant (1841-1925) and Potter (1841-1897) were both from Indiana and were born in the same year, although Potter was first a resident of Illinois. It is also interesting that Oliphant does not mention the previous work of Elder Grigg Thompson. Perhaps it is because it was no longer in print when Oliphant wrote his book in 1883. It is also interesting that Oliphant does not mention the book written by Elder George Y. Stipp who wrote a treatise against Two Seedism in 1879 and who was a resident of Illinois. You can read that work (here), and we will examine it later after we have finished examining the writing of Potter against Two Seedism. Was Stipp's book not available in 1883? Also, I don't think that Potter quite "fully investigated" the tenets of Two Seedism. 

Potter wrote further and gave us article number nine in the eleven articles of faith of the Two Seeders:

"9. - "God's throne and footstool are eternal; and create does not mean, in scripture, what men think it does." - Samuel Clark, in Herald of Truth, Vol. 1, No. 1."

On this article Potter wrote:

"9. The Lord has said, "Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool," and the idea that the earth is eternal, and that create in the Bible does not mean what men think it does, is only a foundation for an argument that God's children are as old as eternity itself. Our readers will see our views on that subject in "What is man?" The two last we have already replied to in another place, and it is not necessary to make a reply now."

In chapters following we will give what Potter wrote in his article titled "What is man?" The idea that what is created may be without a beginning is indeed a fable, an absurdity, a fantastic concoction. In the previous chapters we have seen how many Two Seeders spoke of Christ being "made" or "begotten" in order to "become" the Son of God or Mediator, thus denoting what on the one hand speaks of creation, and then speak of Christ being such from eternity on the other hand. This involves the absurdity of something being created and yet without beginning. To believe in "eternal children" denies that the children were created or begotten. As we saw in previous chapters, Elder Beebe tried to say that he did not believe in eternal children, and yet this is what he believed. He believed that the children of God existed seminally in Christ, and if Christ has always existed, so too has his seed. Beebe would say that Christ being "made" or "begotten" occurred in the eternal past, being the time when he was "set up from everlasting" (Prov. 8: 23). The words "set up" seems to indicate a time when something was done, but the words "from everlasting" seems to indicate something that had no beginning point in time.

The next tenet of Two Seedism that Potter gave in his list is this:

"10. - "Then there is a man from heaven and a man from earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven." - Martin Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."

This tenet reminds us of the tenet I have cited in former chapters of the article of faith of the Bear Creek Association of North Carolina (1832), one which I was once a part of. Article number two 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."

Who is the "man from heaven" and who is "the man from earth"? Clearly the Two Seeders meant that Christ the Son of God and Mediator was the man from Heaven, or "second Adam," and that Adam was the man from earth, or "first Adam." Are the Two Seeders denying that Christ was an earthly man? Are the Two Seeders affirming that Christ existed as a man before his incarnation by means of the virgin Mary? We have already seen how Two Seedism is connected with a denial of the orthodox view concerning Christ being from eternity the only begotten of the Father and was a proof of his deity and equality with the Father. We have seen that it adopted the views of Joseph Hussey, et al, that said that Christ had a human soul and nature before the world began, and that the only thing he got through Mary was his human flesh. Some even went further and said that the human flesh and blood of Christ existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem. We will address this further later, and so too will Potter. However, I have previously observed how this paradigm makes Christ to be the first Adam and the first Adam to be the second Adam, contrary to the teaching of the apostle Paul. 

Potter then gives us the final tenet in his list, which says:

"11. - "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." - Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."

If Christ is eternal without beginning, then so too is the bride of Christ (the elect). As we saw in previous chapters the Two Seeders said that the elect were "in" Christ in the same way all men were in Adam when Adam was created. However, as we have shown, opposers of Two Seedism said that one is not in Christ until he is united to Christ via the new birth and faith. They would cite Paul's statement that some were "in Christ" before he was (Rom. 16:7) in order to show the fallacy of the Two Seeders. 

Potter wrote further:

"Can any one man believe all that is set forth in the above eleven extracts, in order to be considered sound in the faith? Surely that would be requiring a great deal of a man. The first and fifth contradict each other so pointedly that we cannot believe both, and we wish to be excused from the belief of both those items. The first says, the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, but that every seed produces its own body. The fifth says, the devil's seed partook of their humanity by means of the creation that God had made. Instead of every seed producing its own body, as per first item, the fifth says, God multiplied the conception of His creation, and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed. He also says, the serpent's seed are equally human beings with the children of the creation."

Potter wrote further:

"The third and fourth contradict each other. The third says, "those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do." The fourth says, "and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works."

Potter wrote further:

"We might go on and point out more contradictions, but we leave our readers to do that. We now propose to notice each one separately, and see how they corroborate with the Bible. We begin with the first and take them in their order, and we desire the brethren to study them carefully."

"When we come to examine the family of Adam, we find them all to be sinners, and not one of them righteous - none of them entitled to the love and mercy of God for what they do or are. To say that the people of God once lived in heaven, and that they came down from heaven into this world, in consequence of which they were eternally heirs of God, and for that reason they will be saved, destroys every idea of mercy. It is not an act of mercy to give a man what he is legitimately and justly entitled to."

This is very true. So, why did it take Potter so many years to finally come to that conclusion? He was himself a Two Seeder in sentiment for many years, as he confessed.

Potter wrote:

"If any of our readers should believe in the doctrine of eternal children, and consequently eternal heirs, allow us for a moment to call to mind your experience. What had you been engaged in all your life? Will you not agree with the apostle that you were dead in trespasses and sins? Were you not walking according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience? Why are you not pursuing the same course yet? Many others are still going the same way yet."

I don't think this was the best way to argue against Two Seedism. Using what his readers experienced in their conversions is no proof. Yet, this is a common tactic with Hardshell Baptists who will often say that such and such is true because it is biblical AND agrees with a convert's experience. We interpret our experiences by the bible and not the other way around.

Potter is arguing that the very persons who were spiritually dead in sin are the same ones who were raised to spiritual life in regeneration. But, this was denied by many Two Seeders. In previous chapters we cited from Elders T. P. Dudley and Gilbert Beebe who said that they did not believe that the "Adam man" was regenerated, for they said that God does not renovate or remodel the "old man," but rather implants in the Adam man the "new man" which is that eternal child of God that existed in Christ from eternity. This new man, however, never sinned and so never needed to be regenerated. But, the argument by Potter was not very convincing to Two Seeders like Dudley and Beebe, for they would say that the experience of walking in sin was what their old man was doing and would continue to do.

Potter wrote about Ephesians 2: 1-3:

"Let us make a remark that there seems to be some misunderstanding among some of our brethren on this expression of Scripture, one taking the position that the text means that all are the children of the devil in a state of nature, and others denying that the elect ever were the children of the devil, and hence they deny that the text means that all alike are the children of the devil. If wrath in the text means devil, then they are all alike children of the devil. But we do not think that the term wrath could be properly read devil in this text; but we do believe that it teaches that they were, like others, exposed to God's wrath for their sins. It has been said that God's people were never exposed to wrath. If that be true, then as a natural consequence, they have never been saved from wrath; but the text does say they were the children of wrath, and if being the children of wrath does not mean the children of the devil, and the doctrine be true that the elect were never exposed to wrath, please tell us what the text does mean."

Not all Two Seeders affirmed that the preexisting children of God were never under God's wrath. Many did, however, and it is these that Potter addresses. I don't know why Potter is reluctant to say that being under God's wrath and spiritually dead in sin means that one is a child of the Devil. Elder Joshua Lawrence, as we saw in previous chapters, taught that all were children of the Devil until they were adopted into God's family or born of the Spirit. It seems that Potter still, in 1880, retains elements of Two Seed philosophy. We have already seen this to be the case when it comes to his denying that the preaching of the gospel and word of God are means in the salvation of sinners and in his agreeing with the Two Seed tenet that says that no one goes to heaven for anything he does in his life.

Potter wrote:

"From the above we might be able to assign a reason why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. It was because he made Jacob and did not Esau. But if he did not make Esau, and yet has no partnership with the devil, neither makes bodies for the devil or his children, and the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, how is it that Jacob and Esau are twin brothers? Some men seem to think that the belief of the above is a good test for the soundness of an Old Baptist. If it is, we presume there are very few sound ones among us. If God did make Jacob and Esau both, then the editor above quoted affirms the unconditional election of Esau as well as Jacob. If God loved Jacob because he made him, and hated Esau because he did not make him, and one of them was the offspring of God, and the other the offspring of the devil, then the choice between the two was not unconditional."

In Romans chapter nine Paul makes it very clear that Jacob and Esau were both the offspring of Isaac and Rebecca. He says that both Jacob and Esau were "conceived by one man, Isaac." (Rom. 9: 10) So, both had the same mother and father, and therefore if one was elect and the other not, then the choice could not have been made based upon a difference in the flesh. It is possible that a woman could be pregnant with twins and one of them be from a different father. This would occur when two men had intercourse with the woman one after the other, and then the sperm of one becomes the father of one and the sperm of the other man becomes the father of the other twin. This occurs when the twins are the result of two eggs of the mother being fertilized and not in cases where there is one egg that divides. But, Paul is very clear to say that this is not what happened, saying "even by one man Isaac." This is why we have those who are called "Two Seed in the spirit predestinarian Baptists" and "Two Seed in the flesh predestinarian Baptists." There was a difference in the two children even when in Rebecca's womb, as Moses wrote:

"But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25: 22-23 nkjv)

The difference between Jacob and Esau while in the womb was not because one was a birth child of the Devil and the other was a birth child of God. Yes, one was chosen and the other rejected, but that was not based upon their pedigree or ancestry. It was not even based upon one being the firstborn, for the firstborn was rejected. As Potter said, both Jacob and Esau were humans created by God.

Potter wrote:

"But some one is ready to ask, Do you not believe in the doctrine of two seeds? We answer, we do, most assuredly believe that the Bible speaks of two seeds; but we want it according to the Bible, instead of the imaginations of ourself (sic), or any other man, or set of men. We are not willing to foster the idea of two seeds to the extent that we will gulp down anything that men see fit to hand us, simply because they wrap it up with the name two seed. We believe that God eternally loved his people, and that there never was a beginning of that love; and that in consequence of his immutable love for them, he chose them in Christ before the world began. In the covenant made in eternity, the objects of God's love were given to Christ, and they have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since. They did not sustain a spiritual, or fleshly relationship to Christ from eternity, but they were in the covenant, and God has known them as his from all eternity. They belong to Christ in the covenant by gift, and not because he was an eternal seed and naturally produced them, as the seed of vegetation produces the plant. He says, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me." John xvii, 6. "Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me." Heb. ii, 13. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." John vi, 37. They are his now by gift, and not only were they given to him before the world began, but he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world to be their Redeemer, but was manifest in these last times."

Here Potter gives the standard Calvinistic view on how and why sinners may be deemed "children of God" prior to being born of God. They are chosen and predestined to become the children of God but are not actually so until they are born of the Spirit. We see this in the case of Isaac. He was a promised and chosen child or heir even before he was born. But, he was not an actual son of Abraham until he was conceived in the womb of Sarah via the seed of Abraham. So too are those who are chosen to salvation by God, before the world began a gift of the Father to his Son. That is clear from the texts cited by Potter. So Abraham could have said - "the son that God gave to me in his covenant promise will be born to me."

Potter wrote:

"Then in the work of regeneration, or new birth, they partake of his spirit, and from that birth there is a spiritual relationship between them that never existed before. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is one seed that we believe the Bible sets forth clearly. They are the Lord's all the time, even from eternity, and will ultimately all be made spiritual. They are men and women of Adam's family, and never had any actual being till Adam was made of the dust of the ground. This seed is often spoken of in both the Old and New Testament as the sheep of the Lord. They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state. See Ezekiel 34 and John 10. This seed were unconditionally chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, not because they were holy, or that they naturally possessed any of the nature of God that others did not possess, for that would have been a conditional choice. The choice would be controlled by that nature, in which there would have been no sovereignty of God; no mercy, and no grace. These people we can only know when they are manifested in the work of the new birth. God knows them as His just as well before regeneration as he does afterward. "In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil." As to the devil's seed, we do not realize a great deal of comfort from talking about them, and will not have space here to give them a very extended notice."

Notice that Potter, unlike other "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists prior to him and in his day, believed that "regeneration" and the "new birth" were the same thing. Most of the first generation of Hardshells believed that regeneration was the begetting, or conception, and was followed by the birth, oftentimes many days, weeks, months, or years later. I have written some on this in previous chapters. Beebe and Trott believed this, as did the majority of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. The Two Seeders would respond to what Potter says by saying that the "birthing" of the child is not the beginning of the child, for the born child was already a child by being previously "begotten" in the womb. So they would say that the birth of the Spirit only brought forth, delivered, or manifested the previously begotten child, and they would say that the begetting took place in eternity past when Christ was begotten as a Son of God and made a Mediator. In the scriptures, however, a person is said to become a child of his parents when that child is born. In being born of God there is no begetting that is separate from a birthing.

In the above words of Potter he says that being a sheep does not necessarily denote a regenerated person, but may denote a chosen person who has not yet been regenerated or born again. Potter said: "They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state." This is not, however, what he argued in his debates on whether the gospel is a means in regeneration. I write about this in two posts. In chapter 85 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I wrote the following (See here):

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10: 16 KJV)

Some Hardshell debaters and apologists, like Elder Lemuel Potter, have used this verse to uphold their "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," their aberrant "born again before and apart from faith" view.

Elder Potter argued, in his debate with Elder W. P. Throgmorton, that this verse proved that sinners are "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith, that heathen who had not yet heard the word and truth of God, and who were worshipping false deities, were nevertheless "born again."

He cited the words of Christ in John 10 to show that people who had not yet been "brought" were "sheep," and that the fact that they were "sheep" before they were "brought" proves that they were "regenerated" before they were "brought," before they heard the truth of the gospel and were brought to faith and converted."

In chapter 62 of the same series (See here) I wrote:

Elder Potter continues arguing such in his debate with Elder Yates (Presbyterian), saying:

"Now, I want to make an argument upon the sheep. John x. 14—16 is the language of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Now notice, he says “other sheep I have.” Hence when he speaks of the sheep, he does not mean his people among the Jews exclusively, but he speaks of those among the Gentiles—among the heathen. He says, I have them, they are mine, I must bring them—that is what I am here for, that is my mission in the world, and I must bring them. According to the covenant, I am under obligation to bring them; they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold. Isaiah lvi. 8: “The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.” It is evident from these passages that the Lord has sheep among the heathen."

In these two debates Potter interprets the term "sheep" to denote regenerated elect, but in the above citation from his writing against Two Seedism he says that the sheep were such even while in their unregenerate state.

Potter wrote:

"But some one may be ready to inquire, "Do you not think the children of God, and the non-elect are men and women?" We do most certainly think they are men and women of Adam's race, but their natural birth is not what makes them heirs of glory, but it is being born of God. The divine nature is implanted in the new birth, which they did not possess in the fleshly birth, nor in the creation. They had none of the nature of God until they partook of it in the new birth; neither did they possess anything in and of themselves that entitled them to the new birth. It is the work of grace in Christ, not in themselves. In the new birth he partakes of the good seed, and that seed remaineth in him, and by its renovating powers he will ultimately be of the same nature of the seed; soul, body and spirit. But let us examine what seed it is in him that remaineth. Is it a seed he possessed in nature? Or one of which he became possessed in the new birth? If he is born of God in consequence of his being of the good seed originally, and that the reason he does not sin now, is, because his seed remaineth in him, it is strange that the seed did not prevent him from sin before. We are told that Christ is a seed, and that being a productive seed he produced all the elect, and that on account of having been produced by him, they naturally possess the nature of the seed that produced them, that is Christ, and in consequence of that natural affinity they are the recipients of grace. If this logic be good, then the elect must be born of God twice: first, when they are first brought into being, and second, when they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and *abideth forever."

The text alluded to in these words of Potter is this:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9 kjv)

Many "Primitive" Baptists have held to the view that this text is saying that the "new man," or divine nature, received in being regenerated, did not sin, nor could it. Potter rightly argues that if this new man or "incorruptible seed," or divine nature, cannot sin, and preexisted in Christ, it could not have sinned, and if that is so, it needed no redemption. The Two Seeders who hold this view of I John 3: 9 must believe that the new man never sinned. Those who hold this view will say that it is teaching the same thing Paul taught in Romans 7: 15-23. In other words, all the sinning of a believer originates from his corrupt nature, or the "old man," and all the obedience originates from his divine nature, or the "new man." Other Calvinists believe that the text means "whosoever is born again does not practice sin," as a lifestyle, which has more in its favor than the Two Seed view. My own view is a little more nuanced than either view. I make my argument based upon the Greek word for "sin," which is from "hamartia" and means to miss the mark or fail of the goal. No born again child of God will miss the mark, fail to reach heaven as a goal. So Paul says that he "presses forward to the mark (or goal) for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 14) Whoever is born of God will not sin, not miss this mark, not fail to obtain the prize.

When he says that the Two Seeders are forced into saying that the elect must be born of God twice, this is not fully true, for as I have previously observed, they have the elect being born of God three times. The first time was sometime in eternity past when they were begotten when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. The second time is also a "begetting" or "conception" and occurs when a person is regenerated and has the seed of God implanted in him. The third time is the birth proper, associated with the time when the already existing and begotten child has been fully developed in the womb and then is delivered, brought forth, and manifested, this occurring when the regenerated and begotten child is converted by faith in Christ. 

Wrote Potter:

"We do not deny that there are such men known in the Bible as children of the devil, but we do deny the doctrine that they came from the devil, or that the devil produced them. We do not believe that as a people they are the natural product of the devil. But the wicked nature that they possess is of the devil, as Elder Parker has truly said."

Potter will not say, as did Elder Joshua Lawrence, that the children of God were once the children of the Devil, but simply says that the Devil produced (or gave birth to) the fallen natures of the children of God. He also denies that the children of the Devil were produced by him. But in this he reflects his remaining Two Seed sentiments. He admits that the Devil has children, so how can he deny that the Devil produced them? If the Devil produced the wicked nature and that wicked nature made them his children, then he did produce or father them. It is true that the children of the Devil were once created by God and were his natural children, as we have before seen from Acts 17: 28 where Paul says of all men - "we are all his offspring." Adam was a child of God when he came pristine from God's creation of him. When he sinned he became a child of the Devil. When he was redeemed, or born again, he became a child of God again, and in a greater way, for he can no longer cease to be such.