The above is a picture of one of the many books that are now being published by "Welsh tract publications" and you can see them at their web page (here). Welsh Tract church is one of the oldest in the Philadelphia Baptist Association, formed in 1707, and is the oldest Baptist Association in America. I don't know much about Guillermo Santamaria, but he has written several books giving the history of the Old School Baptists and especially of the Two Seeders and anti-Trinitarians within that sect. The web page has a tremendous amount of old writings from the first generation of Old School or Two Seed Primitive Baptists.
In this chapter we will give more citations from Elder Lemuel Potter, a man who had Two Seed leanings when he first began to preach for the "Primitive" or "Regular" Hardshell Baptists and who in his later life began to write polemically against Two Seedism, as we have seen in the immediate preceding chapters dealing with those writings of Potter. This and the next chapter we will look at some various articles Elder Potter wrote against some of the leading tenets of Two Seedism, especially as it relates to the doctrine of regeneration or of the new birth.
We have already reviewed what he said about the Two Seed doctrine of "eternal children," or "eternal vital union," and about the "preexisting humanity of Christ, and about the "non-resurrection" belief, and about the Two Seed idea about "unconditional election," etc. We have looked at citations from Potter's book titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh" and from his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" from which we will continue to cite from in this chapter. In the next chapters we will cite also from Potter's 1895 work titled "A Treatise On Regeneration And Christian Warfare." You can read that work at the Primitive Baptist Library's Web Page (here).
It is interesting that Elder Potter does not say anything about the Two Seed denial of angels, and of their view that angels are human messengers, which is because it was such a bugaboo or taboo subject so that even the opposers of full blown Two Seedism avoided the topic or simply went along with the common view that sin never occurred in heaven. In previous chapters we wrote about this issue at length. He says nothing about the fall of the angels nor of the origin and fall of Satan, as did Elder John M. Watson. Elder Potter claimed Watson as one of their first leaders or founders when they became a separate sect, as did Elders Sylvester Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, and others.
Potter, in his debate with Throgmorton (which we cited from in the previous chapter), argued that Watson did not believe in means in regeneration or eternal salvation, which was a falsehood, and I believe Potter knew it was, and if true, then why do the present day descendants of the Two Seeders, aka the "Primitive Baptists," continue to hold Potter up so highly? How could Potter deny that Watson believed in means seeing it is so clearly taught in Watson's Book "The Old Baptist Test" and through Watson's periodicals such as "The Old Baptist Banner," the "Correspondent," etc.? He was familiar with the editors of "The Baptist Watchman" that I mentioned earlier, nearly all who were physicians like Watson, and who believed in means and in the perseverance of the saints in faith. They all believed that they were carrying on the work of Watson in his fight with the Two Seeders and their beliefs, one such tenet said that the Gospel was not a means in saving sinners from sin nor in coming to have faith.
Potter used to write to the "The Baptist Watchman" that was begun by fellow ministers and doctors of Elder Watson, namely Elders R.W. Fain, J. Bunyan Stephens, and E.B. Mullins. It started after the civil war (late 1860s) and continued till the latter end of the 1870s. It was published out of Nashville, and was a weekly periodical with a wide readership and the elders who published it carried on the work and beliefs of Watson, fighting against Two Seedism, and against the view that the Gospel is no means in the eternal salvation of sinners. So, Potter no doubt knew that these brethren believed in means, in perseverance and not mere preservation, and other things that Potter would later reject along with those who followed him. So, I can only conclude that he told a falsehood. He certainly did when he also said that John Gill did not believe in means, which is another falsehood. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I have several chapters titled "Hardshells On Gill" (chapter 58-65) where I show where Gill clearly believed in means. (See that series here)
In Potter's debate on the "means question" in 1890 with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence, Potter admits that J. Bunyan Stephens believed in means, and in so doing agrees that the means view was taught by the supporters of Watson. Potter said the following in that debate:
"He (Pence) undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?" (I have cited this statement several times, such as in this post here).
First, I have shown how Potter was wrong about Elder John Clark of Virginia, a first generation leader of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect, in saying that Clark denied means. This same claim was made years later in the famous "Mt. Carmel Church Trial." (1909) In that trial the means side of the "Primitive Baptist" church testified that Elder Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," did not deny means, and even cited articles of his from "Zion's Advocate" that showed that to be the case. I spent a whole day driving to Duke University years ago and reading old issues of the periodical and I saw clearly that Clark, like Stephens, believed in means. The means view was the original view of most of those who were part of the "anti-mission" movement, and the "no means" view was a later view begun by the Two Seeders who came after Elder Daniel Parker. My blog "The Old Baptist Test" (named after Watson's book title) is filled with Clark's writings that show this to be true. I also show that other first generation leaders were believers in the traditional Orthodox Baptist view that avers that the Gospel or written word of God is a means God uses in bringing about the birth of the Spirit and the eternal salvation of sinners. I also have citations from many other first generation Hardshells which prove this thesis, such as Elder R.W. Fain, Elder James Osbourn, Elder Mark Bennett, Elder Joshua Lawrence, Elder Samuel Trott, Elder C.B. Hassell, etc.
Potter in "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" wrote the following in chapter nineteen (See here; emphasis mine):
"During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District Association. I visited their Association once or twice, and visited a number of their churches, and found that among them and some of their correspondents, the question was being agitated as to what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration. Some of the preachers of that, and some other Associations, differed so widely about it that they were accused of taking positions that were very extreme. One man was accused of claiming that the body was no part of the child of God. Another denied any distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man that was born again, to use their own language, was, the man that ate bacon and cabbage. There might have been other issues among the people, but about, that time I met a man by the name of G. W. Paine, who denied the doctrine that the soul was born again in the work of regeneration, and who made light of the idea that any part of the man went to heaven when the body died. The first hint that I ever had from him on this question, was in a conversation which I overheard between him and another brother in Paris, Illinois. As soon as I had an opportunity, I asked him if he believed that there was a distinction between the soul and body, and if he believed that the soul went to heaven when the body died. He held forth the idea that man went to the grave and remained there until the resurrection, and that if he went to the grave he did not go to heaven. He denied being a soul-sleeper, but at the same time in speaking of the state of the dead, he had the whole man in the grave. He said when the Bible said soul it meant man, and when it said man it meant soul. According to his own definitions, I sometimes called him soul-sleeper, and sometimes accused him of believing that man had no soul, the latter, I think perhaps is the most proper name."
The controversy over regeneration has plagued the "Primitive," "Old School," "Old Regular," or "Hardshell" Baptists since it began via the anti-mission movement of the 1820s and 1830s. The controversy involved several points, one of which is mentioned by Potter in the above. It concerned stating "what is it that is born again?" Another question involved describing what occurred in regeneration, what changes, if any, occurred to a sinner when he was regenerated or born again. Another question involved whether regeneration is the same as spiritual rebirth. Another question involved whether the begetting was distinct from the birthing. Another question involved whether those "born" of the Spirit were "begotten" in eternity past. Another involved the question about whether regeneration involved conversion, or evangelical faith and repentance, whether a sinner could be regenerated without being converted. Another question involved whether a person did anything in order to be regenerated. Another question involved whether God used human means, or the means of the Gospel or word of God in his work of regeneration. Another question involved whether regeneration was in any sense a renovation or restoration of the fallen nature of sinners. Another question involved discerning what are the causes and effects of regeneration. Another question involved the doctrine of vital union with Christ, whether regeneration brought about this union or whether the union was from eternity.
Potter continued:
"He also held forth the idea that the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ had existed from all eternity, and that no part of the body of the Savior was taken from the Virgin Mary except the blood. In conversation with him, I asked him this question; "Jesus Christ said to the thief on the cross. 'To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.' Where is paradise of which the Savior spoke on that occasion?" He said it was the grave. I then asked him, “If the grave was paradise, why would not both the thieves be in paradise when they went to the grave?" This question he did not answer, if I remember correctly. He finally began to make visits among the churches and country where I lived, and as is always the case, when heresy is introduced among a people, he had a following. I opposed his doctrine, and I also opposed him as a man. Finally the churches refused to open their doors to him to preach, because he advocated the doctrine that I have already mentioned in this chapter."
About the idea that Christ's body existed from eternity we have already addressed, and quite extensively. It is one of the ideas that helped to produce the Two Seed sect in the Baptist family.
Potter continued:
"During the agitation of this question among our brethren, I became more discouraged in the ministry than at any other one thing that could have happened. I did not believe that doctrine. I believed that there was a distinction of soul and body in the man, and that the soul was born again in the work of regeneration, that it went to heaven at the dissolution of the body, and that in the resurrection, the body would be changed and taken to heaven, and that soul and body thus united would make a complete man, capable of enjoying heaven with all that heaven means. I still believe that doctrine. There has never been a moment of time when I thought on that subject that these have not been my sentiments, and so far as the pre-existence of the children of God is concerned, I never have believed that they actually existed. I have believed that God has known them from all eternity, and that it was as easy for Him to know them before they existed as afterwards. I believe that God made his people, both soul and body, and I have never believed that he brought any part of them down from heaven."
I believe Potter is equating "soul" with "spirit" in the above words. Therefore he seems to take the view that man is dichotomous rather than trichotomous. My departed father, a minister with the "Primitive Baptists" for over fifty years, held to the dichotomy view, which I did also until I studied the matter more fully and came to believe in the trichotomy view. In either case, the argument of Potter, if true, destroys one of the leading tenets of Two Seedism. How is that? Because the Two Seeders believed that there was no change to the "old man," to the fallen man, to the "Adam man"; not to his soul, spirit, mind, heart, or body. They rather believed that something outside the man was "deposited" or "implanted" within the Adam man and did not change the Adam man, like a rabbit's entering into a hollow log, which does not change the log (hence the "hollow log" doctrine that we spoke about in previous chapters).
The truth is, of course, that God's internal work in a sinner, begun in what is called "regeneration," is the beginning of a transformation process which is changing the man in all his inward parts, his soul, spirit, heart, and mind. The body is not changed, nor his "fleshly" nature obliterated, but by God's work in "progressive sanctification" he assures that the new nature, the divine nature, will ultimately win in its battle with the old depraved nature. So Paul wrote:
"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 6 (esv)
"Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (II Cor. 3: 18 nkjv)
These verses show that by God's internal work the invisible parts of man's constitution are continuously and progressively being changed, restored, reconstituted, reformed, being a kind of spiritual metamorphoses.
Potter says "I never have believed that they (children of God) actually existed" in eternity past when God foreknew and predestined them to become his sons and daughters. However, later in the book he writes:
"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it. It was nothing uncommon to hear a minister speak out in favor of that doctrine in his sermons. It seemed that in our immediate connection, it had the ascendency (sic). Some of the Associations in our correspondence passed resolutions that the belief or disbelief of that doctrine should not be a bar to fellowship. For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it, enough to accept it at least, and without any investigation of the matter, I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally. I finally began to study the matter for myself, and I soon became satisfied that if it was the Baptist doctrine I did not believe it. After trying to discourage the agitation of it for a few years, I studied the matter so much that I finally concluded to write on that subject, which I did, and put out a small work, giving my objections to it, in the year 1880." (pg. 262)
Is he saying that he never believed in the "eternal children" doctrine, but did believe in some of the other Two Seed tenets? He also said: "I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally." I find that statement to be a head-scratcher.
Wrote Potter further:
"I also believe that Jesus Christ took everything from the Virgin Mary, his mother, that pertains to his humanity. I do not now, nor have I ever believed in the pre-existence of human nature. Because I contended for what I believed on these things, and opposed what I did not believe, some of the brethren thought very hard of me, especially the admirers of Mr. Paine. One man who had been, and is yet a friend of mine, spoke to me on one occasion concerning the matter about this way: "Let me tell you as a friend, that when you undertake to fight Elder Paine, you are killing yourself. You are jealous of him—that is the trouble. He can beat you preaching. He does not even leave you the bone to gnaw on, that is the reason you are opposed to him." I replied to him that if my opposition to Elder Paine and his doctrine killed me, to just let me die. I expected to oppose him and his doctrine as long as I was able to do so, and thought it necessary. His doctrine is heresy, and it is not good for the church."
In chapter twenty Potter wrote:
"Among other things that Elder Paine preached, besides the no-soul doctrine, as I have stated in another chapter, was that the flesh and bones of Christ and his human nature had existed in heaven from all eternity. I had about as little use for this as for the no-soul doctrine, or the non-resurrection doctrine, and I had frequent conversations with him upon that subject."
Again, we have in previous chapters spoken of this leading tenet of Hyper Calvinists of the early 18th century (Hussey, et. al) and how it (preexisting humanity of Christ) became one of the pillars of Two Seed ideology.
Potter continued:
"Then I began to make inquiries and was told that Elder Paine himself had gone away and told the people that he preached the eternal flesh and bones of Jesus in my pulpit, and that I and my brethren endorsed it, and that I called on them to come forward and give him their hand as a token that they endorsed his doctrine. I did not feel much surprised, when I was told that Elder Paine had so willfully misrepresented what I had said, for he had prevaricated so many times, while he was in our part of the country, on different occasions, that I had lost confidence in his veracity. I was not alone in that view. A number of other brethren soon found out that it would not do to depend too much on his word."
Potter continued:
"He was at Mount Pleasant Church on one occasion, and the brethren requested him to come out on those points plainly in his Sunday discourse, so they would know just where he stood, but he politely declined and preached a good sermon, that I suppose no Primitive Baptist would make any serious objections to. But afterwards he preached at a brother's house in the neighborhood—and in his discourse stated that he could prove by the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was on earth three times before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he ate meat, and after his meeting was over he walked around among the brethren, and seemed to feel very much elated with the thought that all those brethren were going to take his doctrine...I was told that he thought very hard of me for opposing him in that country, but I feel thankful that his preaching, with all the zeal and ability that he possessed, did not effect a division among our people, and perhaps very few if any of the brethren of the Skillet Fork Association fell in with his doctrines, concerning what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration in time, and the pre-existence of the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ."
Of course, the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ, as the "angel of the LORD," or "Malek Yahweh," the eternal Son of God, in a human form does not prove that the Son of God has always had a human body. These are called "theophanies" by theologians. Some wonder, because of these theophanies, why Christ needed to be born of woman to obtain a human body. In reply we say that by being conceived in Mary, Jesus took on human flesh so that He could be our “kinsman-redeemer.” As a literal descendant of Adam, Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice for Adam's offspring. The Messiah was prophesied to be the "seed of the woman" and the "seed of Abraham" and the "seed of David." The bodily forms in which Jesus appeared in the old testament did not fit this description. Notice these words of the writer of Hebrews:
"14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage...17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2: 14-16, 17 nkjv)
Recall that this was a favorite proof-text of Gilbert Beebe in his affirmation of Two Seedism. He thought that it taught that Christ's incarnation was the same as the children of God, that just as Christ existed prior to his assumption of a human body, so likewise did the children of God (or elect) exist from eternity before becoming incarnate in human bodies. That view of course no one ascertains by reading the text, prima facie. You have to see it through the spectacles of a Two Seeder. However, the verse does show that Christ partook of flesh and blood. So, the question is, when did he do this? Certainly it was not from eternity. The apostle John wrote:
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1: 14 nkjv)
Clearly John is referring to Christ being begotten in the womb of his mother, the virgin Mary.
Other angels, other than the uncreated "angel of the LORD," appeared in human bodies in the old testament time period. But, angels do not have physical human bodies. So said Jesus: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24: 39) and scripture tells us that angels are disembodied spirits. (He. 1: 14). So, just as angels appearing in human forms do not prove that they have had human bodies from the very beginning of their existence, so too Christ appearing in human form in the old testament does not prove that he had a human body from eternity.
No comments:
Post a Comment