In this chapter we will continue to review Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":
"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."
"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil. The apostle Peter exhorts his brethren to "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." I Peter 2: 11. In this text we have a war, and the soul seems to be one of the parties in the conflict, and the fleshly lusts seem to be the opposite party in the war. The soul is not divided, but it seems to be all on one side. Another text says, "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would." Galatians 5: 17. The lusts of the flesh in this text must be precisely the same thing that Peter mentions which war against the soul. I simply understand that against which it is at war, in both cases, to be precisely the same thing. Paul says, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit," and Peter warns his brethren against fleshly lusts which war against the soul. Paul, again, says, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7: 25. He does not seem to serve the law of God, and the law of sin, both with the same mind. He serves one with the mind and the other with the flesh."
Both Potter and the Two Seeders, and even those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and decry Two Seedism, are confused on the nature and constitution of man and on what occurs when a man is initially saved, born again, regenerated and renewed. We need not state the errors of the Two Seeders on this area of doctrine for in previous chapters we have delineated those errors. However, Potter himself expresses an error himself on what happens when a person is born of the Spirit. He thinks that when a person is regenerated that his soul or spirit is "made entirely clear of sin." However, that is not scriptural. He says that the soul or spirit is no longer able to sin; And, since he seems to believe that "soul" and "spirit" are the same (the dichotomy view), he affirms that a regenerated man is unable to sin in his soul or spirit. So, what about the mind and the heart? How do they relate to the soul and spirit? Are they likewise "made entirely clear of sin"?
The bible does not teach that the heart, mind, soul, or spirit is so completely and instantly transformed, or made holy, when a man is regenerated or born of the Spirit, that he cannot in his constitutional parts ever sin. Rather, the bible teaches that the new birth is the beginning of regeneration, renewal, transformation, sanctification, etc. Let us notice some scripture that shows this to be so and thus show that Potter's thesis is all wrong.
"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1 nkjv)
If the "spirits" of the Corinthian believers were "made entirely clear of sin" so that they could never sin nor become morally filthy, then the above text is out of place. It rather shows that the cleansing of the spirit or soul is continuous in the life of the believer. So the apostle John wrote: "And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (I John 3: 3 nkjv) This purification is continuous. We see this truth also confirmed in these words of the apostle John:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (I John 1: 8-10 nkjv)
If what Potter says is right, there is no need for continuous cleansing of the soul and spirit after being initially regenerated because he says that it cannot sin; And, if the unregenerate part of man is incapable of doing right, or being changed for the better, then all admonitions to sin not are meaningless. James also wrote: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4: 5 kjv) I don't think that James is speaking to those who are unregenerate, for he says "us," meaning the believers to whom he is writing as well as himself. So much for the "spirit" being unable to sin. The truth is, even God's people get into a bad spirit.
"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)
Oftentimes the soul or spirit of believers is often divided, contrary to what Potter says. Now let us notice the same truth stated in regard to the "soul."
"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart." (I Peter 1: 22 nkjv)
This purification of the souls of believers is progressive, and therefore shows that when a believer is first regenerated that his soul is not so made clean and holy that it no longer can sin. It is commanded of all that they love God with all their "souls" (Luke 10: 27) and what believer will say that he does this perfectly? To believers James also wrote:
"Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1: 21 nkjv)
Again, this is said to those who are already believers and thus shows that the souls of believers continually need to be saved.
What is true of the believer's soul and spirit is also true of his heart and mind. Surely Potter would not deny that the heart and mind also experienced regeneration and transformation. In fact, one of the leading texts that is generally believed to speak of regeneration says that the Lord will "take away the heart of stone" and give "a heart of flesh," to give a "new spirit," and to "write his laws in their minds." (Eze. 11: 19; 36: 26; Jer. 31: 33; Heb. 10: 16) This giving of a new heart, spirit, and mind does not mean that sin is no longer possible, nor does it mean that the creating of such is instantaneous and complete all at once. Just as we have seen where the soul or spirit of believers may still sin and need fresh cleansing, so too many scriptures say the same thing of the believer's heart and mind.
I think John Calvin was correct when he viewed "regeneration" as progressive and continuous rather than instantaneous and complete all at once. This is certainly true regarding being "renewed." Let us look at the passage that speaks of both regeneration and renewing.
"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 4-7 nkjv)
Some might argue that Paul speaks of salvation, washing, regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit as a completed work in the above text, occurring when a sinner was converted to Christ. However, that argument is not valid. First, because other scriptures show that salvation is continuous, affirming that the believer has been saved, is continuously being saved, and will yet be saved. (See I Cor. 1: 18) Likewise, scripture shows that cleansing from sin is continuous, as we have already seen. Likewise, scripture shows that "renewal" is continuous. Notice these texts:
"Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)
"that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 22-24 nkjv)
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Rom. 12: 2 nkjv)
"and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10 nasb)
So, if three of the four terms in Titus 3: 5 are continuous and progressive throughout the life of a believer, and not a one time instantaneous act, then why not the regeneration? In the above passage in Romans 12:2 we see where the "renewing" of the "mind" is connected with being "transformed." Is not transformation into the perfect image and likeness of God also continuous and progressive as is renewal, the washing of sanctification, and salvation? The following texts show it to be continuous:
"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)
"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1: 6 niv)
The view of Potter is not much different from the view of the Two Seeders. Both would interpret the following text in the same way:
"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." (I John 3: 9 nkjv)
Many "Primitive Baptists" say that John means "whatever part of a man is born again or regenerated cannot sin, not even once." The idea behind this interpretation is to say that the new nature, or divine nature, partaken of in regeneration, cannot sin, and that the old nature cannot do what is right, neither being able to be changed in the least. In the closing chapters of this lengthy series I hope to give some of my insights on this important question. I will show that the more correct biblical teaching is that the Christian’s total self is progressively being renewed and restored throughout the sanctifying process. We must also keep in mind that in regeneration the believer is changed, but it is not a change of substance, as many Hardshells teach. Instead, it is a change in direction, a change in disposition.
The question as to what occurs when one is born again or regenerated is not an easy one. One view says that in the new birth a new nature or principle is implanted in the soul or spirit so that there are then two natures, one begotten of God and one born of the flesh. It is argued that the new nature cannot sin nor produce sin and that all sin is produced by the old nature. However, it is more likely that the same nature that was corrupted by sin is what is now being changed by a participation of the divine nature, by the presence of Christ, and the presence of eternal or spiritual life. This is what, biblically speaking, is meant by being "regenerated" or "renewed." It involves restoring what was destroyed. Further, what is it that is being sanctified progressively in the life of the believer? If the new nature is already as holy as it can be, then why the need for further sanctification? If the old nature cannot be changed, then exhortations for further sanctification cannot be given in reference to it.
In the above passage it is doubtful that the apostle John intends to say that a certain part of a believer cannot sin, for the context is showing how it is inconsistent for a person who has been born of God and has a faith that is born of God to live in sin as he did before he was born again, i.e. he cannot habitually sin without restraint as he did before he was saved. Further, if John intended to say that the new nature or divine seed cannot sin he would have said "for it (the seed) cannot sin" rather than "whosoever" is born again "cannot sin."
Something coming from outside a person in order to enter and indwell him, as the Two Seeders taught, cannot be what the bible calls regeneration or renewal. What is made new is the very thing that was made old, what is made alive is the same thing that died, what is regenerated is the very thing that became degenerate. Therefore, the giving of a new heart, a new mind or way of thinking, or a new spirit, is to drastically change the old heart, the old way of thinking, and the old spirit. The "new creature" or "new creation" is made from the old creation. In the coming regeneration of the heavens and earth we do not see an annihilation of the old or first heavens and earth, but such a renovation that makes them new once again. Likewise, in the resurrection of the physical body it is the same old body that is made into a new body.
Regeneration and renewal, therefore, is not a change in the "essence" or substance of the soul or spirit, as taught by Hardshell Elder R.V. Sarrels in his book "Systematic Theology." You can see various citations from this work in several past articles of mine where he states this. (See here in particular) The qualities that make a soul a soul are still the same after regeneration as they were before, and the same spirit that is renewed is the same spirit that needed renewal. There are no new faculties given to the soul, mind, heart, or spirit in being born again. They are given a new direction and a new focus. This is what great theologians of the past have emphasized, such as Jonathan Edwards.
The fact that "renewal" is continuous and not a one time instantaneous experience shows that this is so. Does the divine nature that a believer partakes of need daily renewal? We would ask the Two Seeder whether the "inner man" (who is that eternal spiritual child of God who has come down from heaven) needs daily renewal? Does the new heart, mind, and spirit that God produces in being initially saved need continual renewal? There is a difference between physical or constitutional inability to do what is right and moral or spiritual inability. Many Calvinist writers have stressed this distinction. In this post (here) I cited from Jonathan Edwards and A.W. Pink on this question. First, I cited Pink who wrote:
"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."
And,
"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional." ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)
And,
"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional." ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)
Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:
"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things..."
Further, as stated, new birth or regeneration does not make the soul or spirit perfect in holiness, but it does place within it that which begins to transform it, like leaven being put into dough begins a process that continues until the whole is leavened.
Potter wrote:
"If, as some have thought, the body can not do good or evil, only as prompted to do so by the soul, or as Paul says, the mind, by which he serves the law of God, then it seems to me that he might have said, "I with the mind serve the law of sin, and I with the same mind serve the law of God." I can not yet accept the idea that he meant that."
Potter is mistaken here in assuming that a renewed mind cannot ever produce a sinful thought or a sinful purpose. Potter would seem to teach that a regenerated man has "two minds," one that minds truth and righteousness and one that minds falsehood and unrighteousness. Potter seems to be saying that the mind of the believer either cannot sin or else has two minds. But, I take "mind" to denote one of man's faculties, which faculty is capable of serving the law of God or not. It may also denote one's thoughts and opinions, as when one says "you know my mind on that," meaning you know my thoughts and beliefs. So, it is more in line with scripture to see the Christian as having one mind, or one faculty for thinking, just like every unsaved man, and to see that the same mind sometimes produces holy and godly thoughts but at other times unholy and sinful thoughts and resolutions.
The mind of the believer, like his spirit, soul, and heart was set in the right direction in conversion, but not perfectly or immutably so, for like in the other constituent parts of his non-corporeal being, the change of the mind is only begun then. That is why the believer is frequently exhorted by the new testament writers to work on perfecting their minds, to transform their thoughts, so that they more and more "have the mind of Christ" (I Cor. 2: 16).
In being born again there is begotten in a believer a change of mind or belief, and such a change that brings about a change of direction and behavior. This is why John Calvin rightly saw regeneration as denoting basically the same thing as repentance. Though the mind is changed in conversion, yet that change is not completed all at once, but is begun and is drastic at the start. Nor is the change of mind a change in the mental faculty or the substance or essence of the mind. It is a moral or spiritual change that begins when a sinner is given revelation of theological or gospel truth, when his eyes are opened so that he sees things that make him a believer and makes him change his way of thinking, his values, his purpose for living, etc. A drastic change of belief or the experience of falling in love with a person or a beautiful object may be so dramatic and life changing as to be called "epiphanies." In "Epiphanies, Revelations and Transformations" Psychologist Dr. Saul Levine at Psychology Today says (emphasis mine):
"Some people make major transformations after believing new truths about life." (See here) He says that "an “epiphany,” is "a dramatically new insight into the meaning of his life," and that "this usually occurs after an intense emotional experience in which a person has a revelation which brings totally new attitudes and perceptions."
This is certainly true in the story of the prodigal son.
"But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” (Luke 15: 15-19 nkjv)
The words "but when he came to himself" are packed full of meaning and significance and relates to what I have been saying. This was an epiphany that resulted from a Eureka moment, from the moment when the prodigal son saw how unreasonable and foolish he had been in the decisions he had made. It was also the time when he "wised up" and came to realize his need for repentance and to now make the right decision. This epiphany is the cause of his change of mind and conduct, what made him a new man. This epiphany did not change the essence of his mind, heart, soul, or spirit, but changed its beliefs, and changes in belief can have profound effects on the psychology of a person. When the prodigal chose to take his inheritance and to live immorally he thought he was making a good decision, acting upon a false belief. When he came to himself and saw his error and changed his belief he then became a new man. Some translations say "but when it dawned on him."
We have other instances in scripture where we see that a change of mind resulted from an epiphany, from having one's eyes opened, from receiving a life changing revelation, and that this change of mind was not a physical change in the mental faculty but in what we might call his "mindset." It involves reorienting the mind so that it is directed towards God and righteousness and embraces nobler values.
We have many other examples in scripture that, like the story of the prodigal son, show where changing a person's beliefs and perspective can bring about drastic changes in the person's soul or in his psychology. We must realize too that epiphanies can also occur that have negative effects, where an event or change of beliefs makes a person a deeper dyed villain. For instance, what an epiphany occurred when Eve believed what the Serpent told her! So we read:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." (Gen. 3: 7 nkjv)
On a positive note, we think of the conversion experience of Saul the persecutor. He was like a raving maniac in his hatred of Christ and Christians and their good news message. But, when Christ appeared to him in his glory, immediately Paul's former beliefs were smashed and he was made to believe in Christ, and this new belief had far-reaching effects, making him a new man. Further, this change in the mind of Paul was not a change in the essence of his mind, but was a change in what the mind believed.
Certainly it took an eye opening revelation and change in belief for the pagans to whom Paul preached to have "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv).
I also think of the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two and of their epiphanic experience when they realized that the one they had crucified was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. So we read:
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (36-38 nkjv)
The words "they were cut to the heart" denotes the same kind of epiphany that was experienced by the prodigal son. It all resulted from believing the things that Peter had said in his discourse. At that point they were no longer the same people, for they then repented and became Christians. We see a similar epiphany by one of the Roman soldiers who took part in the crucifixion of Christ, who, upon seeing the eclipse and the earthquake occurring in conjunction with the death of Christ, said "truly this man was the Son of God." (Matt. 27: 54; etc.)
I have labored this point because it is important for understanding where the Two Seeders and even Potter himself went astray in their beliefs about the change that occurs when a person is converted to Christ.
Potter wrote
"It seems to be sin that dwells in Paul, and not Paul himself that sins. It is sin that dwells in him that does the work, and this sin is in the body, and not in the soul. "If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live." It does not say if you through the spirit mortify the deeds of the soul, or spirit, you shall live. Again the apostle says, "If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness." The spirit in this text must be the spirit of man, for it is set over against the body. The body is dead, and the spirit is alive. Sin is in the body, but if there is any sin in the renewed soul, I do not remember the text, at this time, that says so."
Here again we see where Potter repeats his premise and which is one which the scriptures do not teach. He again says that there is no sin "in the renewed soul." There is no doubt that Paul says that all sin in the life of a believer may be traced to an internal cause and that all righteous acts are likewise traced to an internal cause. But, saying this is a far cry from saying that the heart, soul, mind, or spirit of a believer is incapable of sinning.
When James said "out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing" and "these things ought not so to be" (James 3: 10) he shows that he does not reason as did Potter and some other bible teachers. Just as the same mouth may produce blessing and cursing so too may the same heart, soul, mind, and spirit of a believer give birth to sin or to righteousness. A believer does not have two hearts, two minds, two souls, two spirits, etc. He has within his singular heart, mind, soul, or spirit that which is good, but he also has in those entities that which is bad. This is why Paul urged believers to "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3: 12)
In chapter eight titled "Is Man Changed in the New Birth?" Potter wrote:
"We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me, seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to me."
It is ironic, however, that Potter's view, and the view that many "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace at the end of the 19th century, also sees very little change in those who are born again or regenerated. In Hardshell Baptist Tom Hagler's work titled "Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth" (2006) we have this view clearly affirmed. Hagler wrote (as cited by me in this post here):
"God has many children who are not Christians since they do not publicly acknowledge Christ. They may have heard the gospel, but have rejected it. The ones that rejected the gospel may have chosen to follow other religious orders, as with the Jews or other eastern religions. In this case, these children of God are regenerate, but they have not been converted to a knowledge of the truth. They are not Christians, but they are still God’s children. Some may have even been Christians at one time, but have backslidden and fallen away from the truth to other religions or to no religion." (pg. 154)
In other postings I cite from the "Systematic Theology" of Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote (as cited by me in this post here):
"The disappointing end to which this view directs us is clearly shown by the following statement by Dr. Shedd. "In this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the righteousness of God from which we fell in Adam" (Dogmatic Theology, II, 492) This makes regeneration to be a restoration to a former state, instead of a resurrection to a new and higher state. According to this view, as Dr. Strong states it, regeneration "is not a change in the substance of either body or soul" (Systematic Theology, 823). Certainly this whole concept is in direct conflict with such Scriptures as Titus 3: 5; Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 8: 29." (pg. 339)
"Regeneration is the regenesis of the soul substance (pg. 340).
The view of Sarrels says that in regeneration there is no change of beliefs, no change of behavior, but only a change in the "substance" of the soul. So he said further:
“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it. . .God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian." (page 349)
So, today's Hardshell view is that regeneration does not change a person's beliefs about God and does not convert him from paganism.
Potter wrote:
"The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again."
This description of Two Seed views on regeneration is almost identical to what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe, as the citations above from Hagler and Sarrels show. So, though they think that they have cast off Two Seedism, yet we still see remnants of it in their theology. In the next chapter we will continue to review the works of Potter against Two Seedism.
