In this chapter we will put on record what else Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in connection with Two Seedism, which had caused so much trouble in the ranks of the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Primitive Baptists, with few exceptions, claim that they have thrown away the heresies of Two Seedism and yet they still retain remnants of Two Seedism. Historian and Professor John G. Crowley, author of "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999), himself a "Primitive Baptist" of a Georgian faction that still believes that the word of God is a means in saving sinners, said that one may still find remnants of Two-Seed doctrines expounded by today's Primitive Baptists "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) If you have followed me through this series on Two Seedism, its beliefs and history, you too will see the remnants of Two Seedism if you listen to their sermons.
In this chapter we will look at some other things Potter said in some scraps of his writings that should be included before I close this part of our series dealing with what Potter wrote about Two Seedism.
We will return to Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare" which you can read at the web site of the Primitive Baptist Library (here). We have already cited much about Potter's views on "regeneration" in the other two writings we have cited from, from "Life and Travels of Lemuel Potter," and from his1880 pamphlet "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh."
In chapter four under "No Souler" Potter wrote in his treatise on regeneration (highlighting mine):
"He challenged for the proof that any of his brethren believed anything of the sort. And yet when a text is given him with the word soul in it, to give a distinction of soul and body, he will squirm under it and say "Soul in that text means life." Give him another, and he will say, "Soul in that text means simply the man." Then give him the case of the rich man and Lazarus, and he will ask if you believe that circumstance just as it reads. Then ask him if he believes that the body of Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, and he will say, "I believe that Lazarus went there; the book says it was Lazarus, not his soul, or a part of him." In speaking of the rich man he makes about the same turn, and yet he says he believes men have souls, and thinks hard of being called a No Souler. Ask him what he thinks of the idea of a man out of the body, and he will try to make it appear that he was simply not out of the body, but in such a strain of mind, or so transported, that for the time being, he had forgotten himself. Everything he says goes in the direction of denying that man possesses a soul, distinct from the body, and that it helps to make up the man, yet he thinks hard of being called a No Souler."
Potter speaks of the Two Seeder who, when under scrutiny and being challenged with reasoned questions, would predictably "squirm under it and say..." Recall that Elder Watson spoke of how Two Seeders were serpentine, slippery, and hard to nail down, acting like weasels. That seems to be what Potter was also saying. It also reminds us of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote about the serpentine ways of many of the Two Seeders.
Next he mentions the teaching regarding "the rich man and Lazarus" and gives it as his belief that it taught what happens to people when they die and go to Hades or the place of the dead. In chapter forty six of this series I gave some citations from some leading Hardshells about what they believe about the story of the rich man and Lazarus, showing that the older leaders who debated the Universalists, like Potter, all taught the common orthodox opinion that it is talking about where saved and lost people go when they die. I showed, however, that it was common for the Two Seeders to deny the orthodox teaching and give it a parabolic non-literal interpretation which denies that it is teaching what happens when the body dies. I showed how many in my lifetime wanted to declare non-fellowship for you if you didn't take the Two Seed view. I told of how it was asked in two ordination services in the Bear Creek Association (NC) when I was a young elder in that association. I was asked my views on it in my ordination and I gave the orthodox view and was surprised that I was still ordained.
It was a common practice, as Watson testified, for the Two Seeders to "allegorize" literal events in the bible, give a figurative or symbolic interpretation to literal things like the resurrection of the physically dead. On the other hand, they would take some things hyper literally, such as the term "seed" or "children of the Devil." There is simply something terribly wrong with how the Two Seeders handled scripture, the kind of bible interpreters Paul spoke of who "handled the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) It is what Peter called "twisting" or "distorting," like a contortionist, or wrestler, the holy scriptures, interpreting them according to their own whims. (II Peter 3: 16)
Many Two Seeders did deny that the Devil's people had souls, much like many Southerners thought about the black people they enslaved, and believing this made them feel little guilt for treating them as animals without human souls. However, many Two Seeders chose not to say "there is no soul" but simply fought all attempts to define it as given by others.
In chapter six titled "The Soul Born Again" Potter wrote:
"This verse certainly does teach that our Savior recognized the idea that the soul lived separate from the body. We see two points in this text; one is that there is a distinction of soul and body; and the other is that the soul lives after the body dies. I know of nothing else mentioned in the Scriptures pertaining to man that survives the body, except the soul, or spirit, and when I read of a person going into heaven at the death of the body, even if it should be called by the name of the person, as in the case of Lazarus, I understand it to be the soul; or if he goes to hell, as in the case of the rich man, for I know of nothing that dies as they did only the body, and I know of nothing that lives after the body dies, except the soul, or spirit. I do not believe that the dead body of Lazarus was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, but I believe his soul was. I might not have thought about it being his soul, if the Savior had not told me that the soul survived the body. I do not believe that the dead body of the rich man lifted up its eyes in hell, being in torment; but I do believe that something that was called the rich man did, and I believe it was his soul, in all this agony, while his body was dead in the grave. The reason I believe it was his soul, is because the Savior has already taught me that the body might be dead, and the soul yet alive. Our Savior said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I do not believe his body went to paradise that day, but I believe it died, for the Scriptures say so. Men killed his body, who were not able to kill the soul. At the death of the body, the soul went to paradise. Paul says, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Philippians 1: 21. I do not understand what he would gain by dying, if there is to be no more of him until the resurrection."
So, we can add Potter to the list of those "Primitive Baptist" leaders who taught the traditional orthodox view on the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Also, we notice once again how Potter contends that a denial of the orthodox view came from Universalists and from some Two Seeders. Recall that in earlier chapters when we were examining what Two Seeder Elder Thomas P. Dudley said about man having a soul, that his beliefs were characterized as the "two souls" doctrine, one soul of the elect being that eternal child of God that was begotten in eternity and one soul coming from Adam. However, that is how others described Dudley's view. For himself he would always challenge his opponents by asking "what is the soul?"
Potter continued:
"If you mention the "inner man" to him, to prove that man has a soul, or something internal, that is called "inner man," in the Bible, he will tell you that the "inner man" is Christ, and that the unrenewed sinner has no "inner man."
Recall what Two Seed apologists Gilbert Beebe and Thomas Dudley taught about the "inner man." They believed this was that eternal seed or seminal child that was begotten in Christ before the world began and comes down from heaven, enters the physical form of man (the "Adam man"), and dwells there for awhile and engages in battle with the "outer man" (the physical or fleshly man), and then at death the "inner man" or "new man" returns to heaven and the outer man goes back to dust ever to stay dust. For the above no-souler to say that the "inner man" is Christ is a kind of dodge for he believes that the eternal child is divine in origin, being the very emanation or mystical body of Christ from eternity.
Potter continued:
"If you quote the language of Jesus, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," and tell him that this text is so plain a distinction of soul and body that he can not very well say that it is man's life, or that it is man himself, and as we know that it is not the body, he will say, "I do not know what that means." Yet he says he believes that man has a soul, distinct from the body, and he thinks hard if he is accused of not believing it. The truth is he does not believe it. He does not believe that man's body will die, and the soul still live, and he is afraid of any text, or construction of a text, that means that when the bodies of the saints die, that their souls leave the body, and go to heaven. They, some of them, make very strange at the thought, that when the body dies, any part of the man still lives. Whether it is the proper name for them or not, I call all such No Soulers," and I charge them with believing and preaching heresy. It is not warranted in the Bible, and it antagonizes the Primitive Baptist doctrine. Those who deny the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body have become so intolerant in some localities, that with them a man jeopardizes his standing, if he says soul and body. I heard one brother, with whom I am well acquainted, in referring to one of his brethren, who believed as I do, stigmatize him "Doctor of Divinity," with quite a sarcastic air. I think that was a bad spirit."
Heretical cults have certain spirits connected with them. So the apostle John indicated when he wrote:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (I John 4: 1-3 nkjv)
Here we see that false teaching on fundamental doctrine is connected with false spirits. The word "spirit" in the above text is the same in meaning as seen in these verses:
"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9: 54-56 nkjv)
James and John thinking that Christ would want the cities who did not receive him to be instantly destroyed were thinking wrongly and were acting out of a bad spirit. I have seen such spirits manifesting themselves in various cults with whom I have interacted. The "Church of Christ" (aka "Campbellites") have a spirit that is like Alexander Campbell, one of their leading founders. The "Primitive Baptists" (aka "Hardshells") likewise have a unique spirit, the very kind that characterized many in the anti-mission movement that spawned their sect. The Two Seeders likewise had a "familiar spirit." They could be intolerant, stubborn, cantankerous, schismatic, and have a "holier than you" or "more orthodox than you" attitude towards all other Christian churches. Recall that Elder John M. Watson in his book "The Old Baptist Test" bore witness to the spirit of Two Seeders, saying their ways were "serpentine." Potter in the above citation also reveals something of this evil spirit, speaking of the intolerant spirit of the Two Seeders and of their sarcastic air. The very label "Hardshell" expresses the fact that many Christians judged the "spirit" of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists as being stubborn and recalcitrant.
Potter wrote further under the same section:
"I now want my readers to know that the reason I am saying so much on this subject is that there are some who do not believe that man is changed in the new birth, but just a new principle is put into him, and the same old principle that was in him before regeneration, is still in him, and that makes the warfare, and that the whole man, soul, body and spirit, some of them say, is born of God in time, and that the same man, all of him, soul, body and spirit, will die, and remain dead until the resurrection. They make strange of the idea that any part of man goes to heaven at the death of the body. They believe that man is not changed until the resurrection."
The two extremes of the Two Seeders on the change that occurs to a person in being born again are expressed by two labels as we saw in previous chapters. One view came to be known as the "hollow log" doctrine and the other came to be known as the "whole man" doctrine. We also saw how the Two Seed idea of spiritual birth stated that something came down from heaven and was "planted" within a person but did not change the person but simply dwelt inside the person, like a parasite or virus. In fact, even among today's "Primitive Baptists" who claim not to be Two Seeders one can still hear them describe the new birth as denoting something being "implanted" within a person. Thus, Christ is implanted, faith is implanted, spiritual life is implanted, etc. Other Two Seeders spoke of the "whole man" being born of the Spirit or regenerated because they denied that man had a soul. In an upcoming chapter we will hear Hardshell leader elder C.H. Cayce comment on these two doctrines.
It is ironic however that today's "Primitive Baptists" carry a Two Seed view of regeneration or rebirth. They do not believe that being born again makes a person a believer in the one true God nor in Jesus Christ. That is why most of them teach that many heathen people who worship false gods have been regenerated and born again. It is also why they speak of regeneration being something done on the sub-conscious level, a person being born again but does not know it.
In chapter five under the title"The Body Not Born Again in Time" Potter said:
"So, I will start out by saying that when a man is born of God, he is born of an incorruptible seed. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." I Peter 1: 23. To carry out the rule, given by the Savior to Nicodemus, which is, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," so, that which is born of corruptible seed is corruptible, and that which is born of incorruptible seed is incorruptible, we would necessarily have to admit that our bodies, after being born of incorruptible seed, are incorruptible, and I do not see any way for a man who believes the body is born of God in time, to escape the conclusion that the body is incorruptible. But the apostles recognize the body as corruptible, mortal, vile and natural, and they no where allude to the body as immortal, spiritual or incorruptible. On account of these facts I have always denied, and do yet deny, that the body is regenerated in time."
I do not understand how the Two Seeders could believe that the physical body was regenerated or born of the Spirit. Again, we see how this idea falls under the label "whole man" doctrine. It is true that when the spirit of a man is reborn, it becomes the place where Christ sits enthroned, in the place where the ego or self once ruled, and from then on that experiential fact will take control of the body, for the mind controls much of what the body does.
Potter wrote further:
"I presume no one will claim that in regeneration the body is cleansed and sanctified. Then it is not born again. But I have been often told by good people that the body must be born again, for the Savior said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." They claim that he did not say a part of him, nor he did not say that his soul or spirit must be born again, but he, Nicodemus, must be born again. Let me ask, did he tell Nicodemus that his body must be born again? But "no soulers" claim that the body is born again, for it is the body that weeps and cries and feels badly and condemned. I doubt very seriously that the arrow of conviction ever touched the body, even if the body did cry and weep on account of sin, the pain and ache that caused those tears were not pains and aches of the body. But I have often been told that when the sinner is born again, the body turns its course, and begins to act differently from what it did formerly. They talk this way: "It was I that felt like I was a great sinner, and that God's holy law had been broken by me, the greatest sinner in the world. I mourned and grieved and prayed the Lord to forgive my sins. It was I, and not something in me that had sinned, and it was me that was made to hate sin, the very thing that I had loved before. I tried all the good things that I could do to drive the trouble away, and I finally concluded I must die and be lost, for there was no mercy for such a sinner as I was; and when Jesus revealed himself to me as my Savior, I felt like I was the beneficiary of his mercy, and it seemed that it was me all the time. While it was I that mourned, it was I that afterwards rejoiced, not something in me, but me. I do not wish to divide the man up, I do not want to dissect man. I believe I am the man, both soul and body, that is born of God, in the work of regeneration, in time."
Potter ought to have been a little more careful and precise when he said that no one claims that the body is cleansed or sanctified. That is because the bible does speak of the body being ceremonially cleaned and sanctified. Notice these texts:
"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 22 kjv)
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1 nkjv)
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 nkjv)
Being made holy does not necessarily mean that the physical substance is changed. In the old testament there were holy utensils such as forks and bowls. These sanctified utensils did not experience a change in their physical makeup, but were simply "set apart" for divine service. So Paul wrote:
"I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 19 nkjv)
By "members" he means the parts of the body, or human faculties. The Christian should make sure that his hands, feet, etc., are employed in doing the will of God. The whole body is to become a holy living sacrifice to the service of God.
Potter wrote further:
"But I have often been told that the body is certainly affected in the new birth. We are not talking about what is affected by the new birth, but what is born again. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus, "Ye must be affected." He did not say "Except a man be affected he can not see the kingdom of God." The man, then, must be born again, not affected. So, I see nothing to convince me that the body is born of God, in time. I claim that it will be born again in the resurrection. You will find my argument on that in another part of this little work."
Potter makes an important distinction between what is born again and what is affected by the spirit of a man being renewed.
In chapter six titled "The Soul Born Again" Potter wrote:
"It seems to me, from all that I have heard men say on the subject, that it is a hard matter for any of them, no matter what their views may be on the subject, to just simply admit that man has no soul. After an admission that man had a soul, and that it was distinct from the body, by one of those men who denied the separation of soul and body at death, I asked him where the soul went when the body died? He answered me that if I would tell him where the light went to when I blew out the lamp, he would tell me. He was not a Soul Sleeper. He did not believe in the existence of the soul separate from the body, neither did he believe that the soul existed in the body after the body died. He believed that all that pertained to man, or all that constituted man died."
Recall in earlier chapters where Elder T. P. Dudley, one of the foremost apologists for Two Seedism, likewise seemed to be a "no souler." In chapter fourteen I cited these words of Dudley:
"It is contended by some, yea, many professors of religion, that the soul is regenerated. We confess we know but little about the soul...If the soul were regenerated, would it not be as wholly devoted to God, subsequently, as it had been to sin, antecedently to the new birth?
We also looked at how Dudley's Two Seed views led others to charge him with believing that man had "Two Souls."
Potter wrote:
"I will first try to prove, then, that man has a soul, distinct from the body. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10: 28. The soul in this text can not be said to mean simply the man, for if it is the man, then there is a man without a body, for we here have a soul without a body. Soul, in this text certainly does not mean the breath of life, for the very idea of killing a man's breath is a grand absurdity."
A man has to be very stubborn to resist such plain teachings about the distinction between body and soul. It is bewildering how anyone could deny that man has a soul distinct from the body.
In the next chapter we will continue to review what Potter wrote in "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare."
No comments:
Post a Comment