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.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVII)

I John 3: 8

In this chapter we are continuing to cite from Elder Lemuel Potter's 1880 booklet titled ""UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here). It is a lengthy treatise and much of it is repetitious and not very well organized and we are only citing those portions of it that have substance. The web site above is from the web page of the "Primitive Baptist Library" and does not format Potter's writings against Two Seedism very well. His pamphlet were copies of articles he wrote in his church paper "The Church Advocate." In the pamphlet Potter listed eleven doctrinal tenets that are held to by Two Seeders, though there were disagreements among Two Seeders. Having already considered articles one through six, we will in this chapter begin with tenet number seven. Potter wrote, giving us the following citation from a Two Seeder:

"7. "Hence I will say without any fear of successful contradiction from the Word of God, that if the greatly multiplied stood in Adam before the curse was pronounced in consequence of the transgression, the non-elect are safe, for what God blessed in Adam He could not curse; for James informs us that every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." - Herald of Truth, by M. Loveridge, Vol. 3, p. 5."

By "the greatly multiplied" there is reference to that Two Seed tenet that says that a result of Satan sowing his seed in Adam or Eve, that God multiplied the human seed, so that now not only will the children of God be born into the human race, but a host of other humans of the seed of Satan, and that this is what is implied in God saying to Eve that he would "multiply" her "sorrow" and "conception." (Gen. 3: 16) However, that may not be what the text says. On that text the learned Dr. John Gill wrote:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived in conception, and besides is a blessing; but this takes in all griefs and sorrows, disorders and pains, from the time of conception or pregnancy, unto the birth; such as a nausea, a loathing of food, dizziness, pains in the head and teeth, faintings and swoonings, danger of miscarriage, and many distresses in such a case..." (Commentary)

Of course, when the Lord said this to Eve it was not intended for Eve alone, as if she alone would suffer travails in conception. Rather, Eve stands for all women who become pregnant and who are thus cursed as a result of her sin and that of her husband Adam.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges gives this commentary:

"...thy conception] Lat. conceptus tuos. But LXX τὸν στεναγμόν σου = “thy groaning,” according to a reading which differs by a very slight change in two Hebrew letters. This is preferred by some commentators..."

Pulpit Commentary says: "A hendiadys for "the sorrow of thy conception" (Gesenius, Bush)."

However, Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament says:

"I will greatly multiply (הרבּה is the inf. abs. for הרבּה, which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, 240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and Genesis 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfilment of the blessing to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), could be no punishment, והרנך must be understood as in apposition to עצּבונך thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. "That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child" (Delitzsch)."

It is possible that the oracle does mean that the number of children to be born will be greater because of sin. The Lord told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 28), and this before they had sinned. So when the Lord pronounced the curse on woman, saying he would "multiply" her "conception," he may have meant that she would be more fruitful and multiply, but if so it would have to be a cursed consequence and not a blessed one. It does not seem right to think that the blessing of being "fruitful" would be enhanced by the apostasy of Adam and Eve. Recall that the Psalmist said: "Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them (children)" (127: 5 nkjv). So, it is incongruent to say that Eve's punishment would be to have more children. It seems, therefore, that the right interpretation is as the commentators indicate, as previously cited, which say that the text means that Eve and women would have multiplied travail in birthing children.

That is not to deny, however, that Eve's sin would also often cause abortions, deformed offspring, etc., beyond the multiplied pains of pregnancy and childbirth. The same thing could be said about sexual intercourse itself, which would have been painless to Eve before her transgression, but often is painful for women today who are under the curse placed upon women by the fall of Adam and Eve. 

So, even if the text says that more children will have been born than would have been born, had Adam and Eve not sinned, it does not necessarily mean what Two Seeders read into that assumed fact.

The Two Seeders, as we have seen in earlier chapters when noticing what they taught about the parable of the wheat and tares, have strange views on it. In that parabolic story, the owner of a field first sowed wheat in it, and existed for a time without any tares (weeds). Then sometime later an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. In the interpretation that Jesus gives of this parable we see what each item in the story represents. The wheat represented the children of God and the tares the children of the Devil. 

So, what is strange and novel about the Two Seed interpretation? 

First, it must be their idea that the children of God existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in Christ (in him as a Mediator possessing a third nature, a composite of his divinity and humanity).

Second, likewise it must be their idea that the children of the Devil existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in the Devil.

Third, it must be their idea that some are born wheat and some born weeds, therefore some born to stay wheat and be burned up and some born to stay tares and be harvested for the owner (farmer) of the field. 

Fourth, it must be their idea that those who are wheat have always been wheat, and have always been saved, and therefore never were tares, and therefore never lost.

Fifth, it wholly gives a new meaning to why God created human beings, and what was his purpose in planting the preexisting wheat seeds into humans, and what was his purpose in making it possible for the Devil to sow tares in his field.

Sixth, it calls into question why the need for a resurrected body for either the wheat or the tares. If the bodies are simply temporary houses for preexisting souls, for the purpose of developing or training those souls for life in eternity, then it seems like there will come a time when the physical bodies no longer serve their purpose, and death simply returns a soul to its source, whether God or Satan. 

But, such a Two Seed interpretation is broadening the elements of the parable beyond what was intended. The main elements of the parable are these:

1) there are lost sinners in the world as a result of the work of the Devil, and

2) there are saved sinners in the world as a result of the work of Christ, and

3) both saved and unsaved will exist together until the time of the harvest.

If the Two Seed ideas on the parable are correct, you would expect Christ, in his interpretation of the parable, to give the Two Seed interpretation. But, he did not. Let us notice some things from the parable.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared." (Matt. 13: 24-26 nkjv)

Good seed was sown first and this means that God originally made Adam and Eve good. The enemy sowing tares came after. This is what we see in the opening chapters of Genesis. But, we cannot make every detail of the parable have some hidden meaning. If so, what do the words "while men slept" mean? It can't mean while God slept, nor while the angels slept, and it cannot mean men in general, for only Adam and Eve existed when the Devil first sowed his seed (false ideas) into the mind of Eve. Also, the results of the enemy sowing tares did not need to wait for the grain (wheat) to sprout and produce a crop.

Potter wrote this in rebuttal to the seventh tenet of Two Seedism, given above:

"7. We presume this item was intended for two seed doctrine; and we have frequently been asked the question, "Do you believe the two seed doctrine? If the above is two-seedism, we do not now, nor never did believe it. We believe that the children of God, or the elect transgressed the law, which brought them under the curse. This item denies the curse being pronounced on the elect. We do not believe the law holds any claims on a people who never transgressed it. The above places the curse on "the greatly multiplied," and yet denies their being in the transgression. We believe the objects of God's redemption to have been under the curse. We read in the Bible, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3: 13. We cannot divine how they could be redeemed from the curse, if they were never under it. We do not believe the non-elect were redeemed, yet the above would necessarily make them the subjects of redemption; for the elect could not be cursed because God had blessed them, so the curse must have been placed on the non-elect, and they that were under the curse were the ones Christ redeemed. This makes the non-elect safe any way you turn it according to the writer above quoted."

This is a good rebuttal by Potter. However, I am a little puzzled by his assertion that he never believed in this tenet of Two Seedism, saying "we do not now, nor never did believe it." We have seen where Potter confessed that he favored Two Seedism for many years and it was not till around 1880 that he felt that he must attack it. Perhaps he did not believe this tenet of Two Seedism when he favored Two Seedism. After all, there are varieties of Two Seedism, some holding one tenet and another not. He says that he always believed that the redeemed were cursed, under wrath, because of sin, just as the unredeemed. He disagrees with those Two Seeders who affirmed - "what God blessed in Adam He could not curse." As we have seen, Daniel Parker was inconsistent on this point. He would affirm that the Devil's seed could be saved if they chose to be saved, on one hand, and then say that they could not on the other hand. Parker did not believe that any being created in God's image could be damned. 

Further, consider the fact that the blessed Jesus was made a curse for us. (Gal. 3: 13) But, if God cannot curse what he had blessed, then he could not curse the blessed Jesus. In fact, many things that were originally blessed by God were later cursed by him. If God cannot turn blessings into curses, then can he turn curses into blessings? Adam and Eve were blessed while living in Eden, but when they rebelled against their God, they were cursed by him.

Potter wrote further and gave us tenet number eight:

"8. - "The non-elect are no more related to the elect than the cocklebur is to the corn, both growing in the same field." - Elder G. Dalby, in Herald of Truth."

This is what Two Seeders often said when talking about the parable of the wheat and the tares, saying that the wheat were never tares, and vice versa. We saw in a former chapter where Elder Joshua Lawrence, a first generation leader of the Hardshells of the Kehukee Association, strongly disagreed with this idea, affirming that the wheat were once tares. By this he means this is so in respect to what they are in themselves, that the saved were once unsaved, the regenerate were once unregenerate, the justified were once condemned, etc. He does not mean that the elect were once non-elect. The elect and the non-elect are "related" by both being descendants of Adam and Eve, both born in sin and under wrath. Jacob and Esau were twins, related to each other, and yet one was loved and chosen before he was born, and the other was hated and rejected before he was born. 

In reply to this tenet Potter wrote:

"8. Cain is considered one of the non-elect, and the Bible recognizes Cain and Abel as brothers. Every Bible reader knows that after Cain had killed Abel, the Lord inquired of Cain where his brother was. Gen. 9: 9. "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." I. John iii, 12. To be brothers, is to be children of the same parents. There must be quite a similarity, or a oneness in the nature of two brothers, if they both partake of the nature of their parents; and we can see no reason why Cain would not be as likely to partake of the nature of his parents as Abel. Jacob and Esau were brothers, as every one knows who is acquainted with the Bible. Matt. i: 2. They must be more related and more alike than corn and cockleburs."

Paul plainly says that believers were once children of disobedience and under God's wrath "even as others." (Eph. 2: 3) This fact is also seen in Romans 3: 10-12. All are alike condemned for the one sin of Adam. (Rom. 5: 12-18) "In Adam all die" (I Cor. 15: 22). All come from the same lump of clay, whether they are vessels of mercy afore prepared for glory, or vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. (Rom. 9) 

Potter wrote:

"God has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil." Proverbs xxi. 4. Then the wicked are not an emanation from the devil, as men, or produced, or brought forth by or from the devil, as the plant comes forth from the seed. For God made them, and he either made them when he made Adam, or he made him afterwards; or before. All the man the Bible gives any account of being made, was Adam, and it is generally conceded that when the Lord made him, he made all his posterity in him. God, then, made the wicked; not that he made them wicked, but he made them, and they became wicked. If the Bible ever says one word about the people of God pre-existing the creation and formation of Adam, we have so far failed to find it."

Potter attacks one of the chief errors of Two Seedism, one which says that the Devil's children were not created by God. This view says that there is more than one Creator. That is gross heresy indeed. When Potter says that "it is generally conceded that when the Lord made Adam that he made all his posterity in him," he should have explained that further. This is what the Two Seeders said loudly and began to make inferences from that fact. 

If it is true that every person whoever is born into the world existed in Adam when Adam was created, then how could there be a multiplied increase in the number of children as a result of Adam and Eve's sin? When Eve sinned and God cursed her with the prospect of bringing forth all the persons of the Devil's children, were they in Adam originally or placed in him after his original creation and after they had sinned? When did the children of the Devil originate in Adam? 

Potter is correct to say that the Bible no where says that anyone actually existed before they were conceived in the womb. They did exist in God's foreknowledge, and were represented by the Son of God, to whom they were given and promised by a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit. But, we cannot rely too much on arguments from silence. Are there not bible passages which state that a person's birth into the world is when they begin to exist? Yes, many. Why does Potter not cite those passages.