In earlier chapters I showed a picture of Elder Lemuel Potter when he was a young man. The above picture is of him when he was older. He died a relatively young man. In this chapter we will continue to cite from Potters autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In the previous chapter we were relating what Potter said about a couple Two Seed preachers who were causing trouble in Illinois because of their denial of the resurrection of the body and of their belief in "eternal children."
Potter continued:
"So, at the close of Elder Tabor's remarks, Elder Trainer arose, and in a short speech, said he heartily endorsed the entire discourse, and seemed to be very enthusiastic in saying so. At the close of his remarks, he was about to dismiss the congregation, when I ventured to give his coat a pull, and told him I would love to speak. I arose, and, as near as I remember, made the following speech. I told my people that we would always do well to watch strangers. If the brother we had heard preach tonight was an honest man it would not hurt him to watch him, and if he was not an honest man, we should watch him, even if it did hurt him. I told them that he was one of those men, that the apostle frequently speaks of, who go about causing divisions and trouble in the churches. It was not my intention to say so positively that he was one of these men, but I intended to say he might be one of them, but in my embarrassment, and perhaps excitement, I said it the other way, and just let it go, believing that it was the truth anyway. I told the people that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, that I could not understand Elder Tabor's position, that it was the sinner who was saved, and at the same time that the sinner saved was not Adam, nor any of his posterity. It seemed to present to my mind a contradiction and an inconsistency. I remarked that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, even if I must be called a Pharisee for saying it. For me to arise in the face of a large audience, and in the presence of two men who were as able as they were, and having so much the advantage of me in age, was one of the hardest trials of my life, as a minister. After I was through, and the meeting was dismissed, quite a number of my brethren and friends came to me and gave me their hand, and congratulated me on my faithfulness. And I felt that I had done no more than was my duty to do, although I was thought by those men to be egotistical. This meeting occurred on Friday night, and on Saturday morning I went down to the Little Wabash church, where those two brethren were going, and when I arrived there and met them on the ground, neither of them would speak to me."
It is interesting that those Two Seed Baptists called those who believed in a bodily resurrection "Pharisees." But, are the Two Seeders who denied the resurrection not Sadducees?
Potter speaks of how hard it was for him to stand up and publicly oppose two older well known ministers who had preached their non-resurrection doctrine. Well, I had the same experience when I was a young minister with the "Primitive Baptists." I stood up in a deacon ordination service, being one of the presbyters, and objected to some presbyters asking the two deacon candidates what they believed about the Devil falling from Heaven and about what the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught. The reason why these two questions were asked was because they were desirous to make one's views on these two things a test of fellowship or orthodoxy. On the way to the ordination service, I rode with two elders, my father in law Elder Newell Helms and Elder Charles Smith, both fearing that such questions would be asked, just as I was. We queried -- "what do we do?" I said we should object to such questions as they had no bearing on whether one was qualified to be deacons. They agreed with me that they would object.
Sure enough, those questions were indeed asked as we had predicted. I waited for Helms and Smith to rise and object. They did not, but looked at me and shook their heads in disapproval of those questions. They did not publicly object. So I stood up and objected and said "what do these questions have to do with whether these men are qualified to be deacons? You are asking these questions because you want to make certain interpretations on these two subjects a test of fellowship."
I recall what Elder Potter said in his debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence, both "Primitive Baptists," on the question of whether the gospel or word of God were means God used to regenerate or eternally save sinners. This debate was held in 1890 when that question was dividing churches, each side affirming that their view was the original view of Baptists. In this debate there was discussion about whether certain "Primitive Baptist" preachers of the past believed in means or not, and Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," was one of them. Pence argued that Clark believed in means (he was right, as many citations from Zion's Advocate in this blog show). Potter denied that Clark believed in means, just as he also denied that Elder John M. Watson believed in means, and denied that John Gill believed in means, which both assertions were clearly false.
The only arguments that Potter provided was to say 1) that Clark held a written discussion with Elder J.B. Stephens (who clearly believed in means) and supposedly took a different view than Stephens (although he could not provide proof of this and I have never been able to find a record of that discussion), and 2) that Clark was a moderator of a presbytery to ordain a minister and the candidate was asked in he believed in means and the answer was "no." Potter said that this proved that Clark denied means because he did not object to the questions. That is no proof at all. If he had better proof of this, why argue this way? Why not just give citations written by Clark in his paper "Zion's Advocate"?
So, I know the hesitation of Elder Potter in making a public opposition to aged ministers. He however did the right thing. Paul told Timothy "let no one despise your youth." (I Tim. 4: 12)
In chapter fourteen Potter wrote:
“They had an appointment at Grayville, on their way home, for the Tuesday night following, and I went again, thinking, I will make Elder Trainer speak to me now." We had always been good friends. So I went early to the church, and found only a few there, and I went and sat down by him and spoke to him, and in conversation, I asked him if he endorsed what that man had been preaching all the time. He said he did, and that if the Baptists did not believe it, that Elder Tabor would debate the question with any of them. I told him we wanted no debate, but that I would love for him to state to me as nearly as he could and in as few words as possible, what he believed. He said he believed that there were three generations of people. The generation of Adam, the generation of Jesus Christ, and the generation of vipers. The generation of Adam were made of the dust of the ground, and would go back to the dust where they came from, and remain there forever. The generation of Jesus Christ came down from heaven, took up their abode in the Adam man, and they would finally go back to heaven where they came from. The generation of vipers came from hell, and they also took up their abode in the Adam man, and would go back to hell where they came from."
I can hardly believe that Lemuel Potter, one of the most celebrated debaters for the "Primitive Baptists," said that he and the church "wanted no debate" on the doctrine of the resurrection. Oddly enough he does later have a debate with a Two Seeder on that subject. In chapter twenty one Potter wrote:
"In the month of February, 1881, I held a three days' discussion with a gentleman by the name of Williams, in Franklin County, Illinois, on the following proposition: —The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of all the sons and daughters of the first man Adam, or natural man, some of them to endless life, and some to endless punishment." Mr. Williams was a Universalist. and while he professed to believe in the salvation of "all men," as he said, he did not believe that Adam's posterity would be saved."
Potter was such a highly promoted defender in debate for the Hardshells that another one of their champion debaters, Elder John R. Daily, named one of his sons, "Lemuel Potter Daily" (1890). I think Daily felt like the mantle had passed from Potter to him, like the mantle of Elijah passed to Elisha. Potter died in 1897. Both were originally from Indiana, and served churches there, though Potter moved to Illinois and Daily to Virginia, though Daily returned to Indiana and died in Indianapolis in 1920.
The Two Seed statement that there are "three generations of people" is one that would grab the attention of most people. It is however one of those "cunningly devised fables" that the apostle Peter warned about, or an invention of evil doctrine, as the apostle Paul spoke about.
First, "the generation of Jesus Christ" (Matt. 1: 1) denotes the family tree of the man Christ Jesus. The context makes that clear. Nowhere in the bible is the family of God called such, although the family of Jesus might well be called such, or more properly "the generation of Father God" denoting those who are "born of God."
Second, the "generation of Adam" alludes to Genesis chapter five, and particularly to verse one, "book of the generations of Adam." Again, as the context shows, that refers to the family tree of Adam, or his progeny, all those who are descended from him. It is in the plural, unlike the Two Seed terminology. So, it is not far-fetched to say that the human race is one family, or one generation, or one kind of people. But, the Two Seeders were not united on whether to affirm or deny the proposition that says that any part of the "Adam man" was a child of God. Some said that all of Adam's descendants were the children of God, and the children of the Devil are not Adam's descendants. These would say that all the "generation of Adam" were the "generation of Jesus Christ." Some would say that the "generation of Adam" denoted those who have a human body but no soul and whose bodies would return to the dust and never exist again.
Third, "generation of vipers" is a term for lost people, or perhaps to a particular segment of that group.
Both saved and unsaved people are of Adam's family tree and in that sense all are of the "generation(s) of Adam." The generation of vipers are of the generation of Adam. So, the Two Seed idea that these are three distinct groups of people is an intriguing fable, but not the teaching of the scriptures. Think of a Venn diagram, such as this one:
Imagine each of these three circles representing the three generations asserted by the Two Seed minister that Potter refers to. I will leave it with the reader to discern whether a particular area is empty or not.
In chapter eighteen Potter wrote the following which occurred in 1873:
"Elder Hearde, in his debate with me, treated me very courteously, I being quite a young man while he was much older. He undertook to prove in his affirmation that the people of God are a seed which existed in heaven prior to the formation of the Adam man, that they would all go back to heaven where they came from. I do not pretend to say that I have his proposition verbatim, but this is the substance of it, and he led out in the opening of that question, with a speech for one hour, in which he made a number of scripture quotations to show that God’s people were a seed. He quoted this among others; “A seed shall serve him, and it shall be counted to the Lord for a generation." And "In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and it shall bruise his heel." Quite a number of other texts of this character were introduced in his first speech, without a great many comments. He stated that he intended to merely lay his planks down loose, in this speech, and that he would come with his hatchet and nails and fasten them down in his next speech. In my reply to his arguments on these proof-texts, to prove the pre-existence of God's people, I simply admitted that I believed that the Lord's people were a seed, and that was all that he had proven by these texts. I was not here to deny that God's people were a seed, but that I was here to deny that they had an eternal existence, and that there was not a single text in all the catalogue of texts that he had quoted that said anything about the pre-existence of the people mentioned in his proof-texts. I thought then, and do yet, however, that he did about as well in proving that doctrine as any man could do. I felt very confident that he could not prove it by the Bible. He finally inquired where the Lord got his people, if they did not eternally exist. I replied that he made them. That I knew of no people as the subjects of eternal salvation, only the people that God made. That the Bible frequently spoke of the fact that God made his people. "Thy maker is thine husband," is one expression of Scripture, and the very idea of a maker is the best inferential testimony that they must have been made. Again, I do not believe that they had an eternal existence, because it was said that Adam was the first man, I could not conceive of the idea of there being a man before him, and not only was he the first man, but that he was made of the dust of the ground. This was the man that I believed had transgressed the law of God, and fallen under its curse, and became subject to death, and all the miseries consequent upon sin, and that they were the subjects of salvation. But I will not stop here to give a full detail of the arguments, any more than to say that I became more fully convinced during that discussion against the doctrine of the pre-existence of God's people than I had ever been."
I would like to know more about this debate with Hearde. It seems Potter had more than one debate with others who held to Two Seed tenets. I don't know why Potter was not fully convinced of the errors of Two Seedism before this debate. Recall that he said that when he first began to preach that he rather favored Two Seed ideology.
Wrote Potter further:
"He finally, however, made this remark, that if I would admit the pre-existence of God's people, he did not ask me any boot on the question of the resurrection. So I say to- day, that the non-resurrection doctrine is the legitimate consequence, and the inevitable result of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the children of God, or the doctrine of eternal children. Men may talk all they wish about the doctrine of eternal vital union, eternal children, eternal justification, and so forth, but I do not believe in the eternal existence of God's people; neither do I believe in eternal vital union. Now, if a man admits the doctrine of eternal children, he may as well admit the doctrine of non-resurrection. We discussed this proposition a day and a half, after which I affirmed that there will be, in the future, a resurrection of the bodies, both of the just and the unjust, of Adam's posterity, some to eternal life, and some to everlasting punishment."
These are excellent observations. Though not all Two Seeders denied the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, men such as Gilbert Beebe, yet many did. In an upcoming chapter we will cite further from Elder Watson on this point.
Potter wrote:
"I believed then, and do to-day, that it was the Adam sinner that was saved, the same man that was made of the dust of the ground. I did not then believe, nor do I yet, that any part of him came from heaven. I believe that the very same body that goes to the grave will be precisely the same body that will be raised from the dead and finally taken to heaven. I contended for that doctrine in this discussion."
I don't know why there were not more public debates between Two Seeders and their opponents. It would be good if some of those debates had been published and preserved for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment