Elder James Osbourn

Elder James Osbourn

1780 - 1850

The above is a picture of this leader of the anti-mission movement that produced the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect. It took me time to finally find it, being taken from his book "The Lawful Captive Delivered..." It also took me awhile to find pictures of Elder John M. Watson and Elder R.W. Fain. Many "Primitive Baptists" esteemed him very highly, while others seem to be jealous of his influence. He caused some to oppose him because he spoke out against the rampant Sabellianism among many "Primitive Baptists." According to Elder Henry Sheets in his book "History of the Liberty Baptist Association: From Its Organization in 1832 to 1906" 

"Elder James Osbourn was perhaps the leading spirit in bringing about the split. Yet this item from the record tells us where he once was: "In 1817 'a committee was appointed for Domestic Missionary Affairs,' and Brethren O. B. Brown, James Osbourn and Spencer H. Cone were appointed as Home Missionaries." James Osbourn appointed a Missionary! He was Then a Primitive Baptist." 

In one post on Osbourn I wrote (See here):

"According to a present day "Primitive Baptist" web page, edited by Elder David Montgomery, "Elder Osbourn was a staunch defender of the old paths. In the 1832 split with the Missionaries, he was instrumental in keeping many faithful to the truth. His opposition to the new and unscriptural ideas being promoted, earned him the ire of the new schoolers. However, we Primitives owe him a debt of gratitude."

Another PB elder said this about Osbourn:

"In my library I have four books written by James Osbourn. James Osbourn was born in England in 1780, sat under the ministry of the celebrated William Huntington, and converted under the ministry of John Harm. Later, Osbourn moved to America and was blessed to preach extensively and to write several books. Historian Sylvster Hassell said of him that he "was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much , and wrote many religious books." He was a part of the presbytery that ordained Sylvester Hassell's father, C. B. Hassell. Osbourn's autobiography is "The Lawful Captive Delivered.""  (See here)

Sylvester Hassell also says that Osbourn was one of their ministers in his and his father's History. Elder John M. Watson thought very highly of Osbourn.

Osbourn, however, was no friend of Wilson Thompson because of his Sabellianism. He was no friend to Beebe and Trott and the "Signs of the Times" periodical also, and I have in posts shown evidence of this. Welsh Tract Publications gives Trott's response to Osbourn's attack against Hardshell Sabellianism (here). Osbourn was also a friend of Elder C.B. Hassell and even died in his house in 1850. Osbourn was one of the presbyters in the ordination of C.B. Hassell. 

In my writings on Osbourn's beliefs I show that he believed in gospel means, which was the common view of "Primitive Baptists" in the 1820s and 1830s. Below is a list of my posts on Osbourn and also a list of some of the leading books and pamphlets of Osbourn, who was a good and fluent writer. He was born in England and lived there for some periods of his life and was a friend of William Huntington. He lived in Baltimore, Maryland when living in America. 

Posts On Osbourn

"Elder James Osbourne on Means" (here)

"Elder James Osbourn On Gospel Means" (here)

"Hardshell Sabellianism" (here)

"Hardshell Sabellianism II" (here)

"Elder James Osbourn's Creed" (here)

"History of Baptist Mission Work II" (here)

Books by Osbourn

"A Fac Simile Or The Religion Of New England Portrayed: To Which Is Added, A Journal Of Facts"

"A Christian Described, And His Right Proved And Vindicated" (Available here)

"Spiritual Gleanings, or the Celestial Fruit from the Tree of Life. Intended for the Use and Benefit of Sin-sick Souls. Also, A Cluster of Evangelical Truths, Brought from the Gospel Field; in a Series of Letters to William Fewell, Esq." (1845)

"The Lawful Captive Delivered or, the Prey Taken from the Mighty" (1835) (Available here)

"North Carolina sonnets, or A selection of choice hymns for the use of Old School Baptists : compiled by the recommendation of the Kehukee Association" (1845) (Available here)

"Divine Communications or Spiritual Letters" (1822) (Available here)

"Spiritual Gleanings, or Celestial Fruit from the Tree of Life. Intended for the Use and Benefit of Sin-Sick Souls" (1847) (Available )

"A Glimpse of the Building of Mercy; Or, An Outline of the Mystical Building of Christ: and A Sketch of the Ancient House of the Hagarenes; or, The Tabernacle of Anti-Christ Pourtrayed" (1848 London)

"A Christian Described, and His Right Proved and Vindicated" (Available here)

"A Selection of Hymns, and Spiritual Songs," often referred to as "Osbourn's Selection"

"A review of the base conduct of William Parkinson, pastor of the First Baptist Church, in the city of New York in a letter to Thomas Cottrell" (Available here)

Citations From Osbourn's Creed

Osbourn gives twelve articles for his creed in the book "The Lawful Captive Delivered..." Here are some of them which show that he believed in means.

7. I believe that to all and every one of those persons, thus beloved by the Father from everlasting, and in time redeemed by the Son; the Holy Spirit is sent for the purpose of quickening, and enlightening, and preparing them for glory above; and that this Holy Spirit never was, nor can be, defeated in his design and work with those persons composing the true catholic church, or the mystical body of Christ.

8. I believe that all the ways, and works, and means, which the God of heaven hath ordained to make use of in effecting the salvation of men, ought, so far as they are binding on us, to be made use of by us, that we thereby may be benefitted, and the Lord God honored and adored.

9. I believe the Old and the New Testament to be the true and only written word of God; and that the Lord hath ordained that this his written word, and the preaching of the gospel shall be the chief means whereby to accomplish the conversion of sinners, and the edification of saints; and that whereever those means are sent, it is the duty of all men to attend upon them in due order, and also to believe the report which those means make, which thing can be done as easily as to believe the report of common things, when such reports are made. Yes, the report of the gospel can be believed, and often is, by natural men, or men in a natural state. But to believe the written word of God, and to receive the gospel, as preached by the Lord’s true sent servants, TO THE SALVATION OF THE SOUL, is effected in no other way than by the energetic influence of divine grace in the heart of the man so believing the written word of God, and so receiving the gospel preached.

10. I believe that the bodies as well as the souls of elect persons, are the purchase of a Redeemer’s blood; consequently their bodies will be raised from their graves, and their souls re-enter them in a day yet to come, and so both bodies and souls ascend with Christ to glory; and that the happiness of the saints, and the misery of the wicked, are alike interminable.

11. I believe in the doctrine of eternal union of Christ and his church; and that in time, this church receiveth divine life, and light, and glory, and beauty, and wisdom, and strength, and comfort, and joy, and peace, and faith, and hope from Christ, her covenant head; and that those things thus received from him, make up what we call, vital union between Christ and his people. And as they are thus brought to believe in the Lord of glory, and from him to receive eternal life, they shall never perish, for “who shall lay any thing to the charge -of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth,” Rom. 8. 33. 7

In my post "Elder James Osbourne on Means" (here) I cited these words that Osbourn wrote for the first widely supported periodical, "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," which was edited by Elder Daniel Jewett. Elder C.B. Hassell married Jewett's widow after the death of Daniel and the death of C.B. Hassell's first wife. 

"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began.

That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby; and hence in this his gospel he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that 1 am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God : for they shall return unto me with,their whole heart." And again says the Lord, 'Zaccheus make haste and come down, for to day I must abide at thy house.' And again it is said, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' And we are told that the Lord works in men to will and to do of his own good pleasure; and that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost; Jer. 24, 7; Luke, 19, 5; Acts, 11, 48; Phil. 2, 13; Luke 19, 10. (14, 15)." (pg. 14) (See here)

Overall, I think that Osbourn was the best educated and well versed in scripture than any "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist of his day. He was widely looked up to by many in the anti-mission movement. If he were here today he would be disgusted and amazed by what the "Primitive Baptist" denomination has become.

In the above citations we see where Osbourn, though believing in an eternal union between Christ and the church (or elect), did not believe that vital union with Christ occured until Christ was received by faith. So, he would no doubt have been an opponent of Two Seedism.

Osbourn came though this section of North Carolina in the early 19th century and preached in several churches, including, I believe, Meadow Creek Primitive Baptist Church.

Why Did Adam Not Die The Day He Sinned?

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2: 17 kjv)

Many people struggle with the fact that on the day Adam and Eve sinned they did not physically die. Some therefore think that physical death is not a punishment for sin. Pelagians have said that Adam and Eve would have died had they never sinned. Some Christians deny that all are born in sin and die because they are accounted sinners. Babies, they say, die and yet they are not sinners. All this is wrong however. Physical death is indeed a penalty for the "original sin" of Adam. (Rom. chapter five) 

Some take the view that by the words "you shall surely die" means "dying you shall surely die," denoting that the death process had begun, understanding the Hebrew words to be an idiom. I think that is true.

People who are dying, but who are not yet dead (physically speaking), may be said to be already dead. We see this in the following words of the apostle Paul.

"And if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Rom. 8: 10, 11)

Paul said that the bodies of the believers in Rome were already dead because of sin. Death is continuous throughout life. We are born to die. Paul did not say -- "your body will die in the future because of sin." So, Adam and Eve did die physically the day they sinned. Of the day they sinned it may be said "their bodies are dead because of sin." 

So Adam did die physically the day he sinned. Of him it may be said that he was dead even while he lived. (See I Tim. 5: 6) Of course, they also died in spirit and soul, or died spiritually and eternally.

The Lint of Sin

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." (Heb. 12: 1 kjv)

I prefer the English Standard Version which says:

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."

Other translations say "so easily entangles us" (niv, nasb, etc.), "so easily ensnares us" (nkjv), "the sin that just won't let go" (contemporary English version), "the sin which holds on to us so tightly" (Good News Translation). These are also good ways to think about the metaphor the apostle uses.

The words "which doth so easily beset" are from a single Greek word, euperistatos. It is the only time it is used in the new testament. It stands for anything that hinders a runner in running a race. So the exhortation speaks of laying aside "every weight." Running a race with weights insures defeat. The "weight" is a metaphor for "sin" in the text. Each sin is a weight to the Christian in running the race he began when he became a Christian. But, the apostle uses another metaphor, that of things that cling to a person or to his clothes, such as lint. When Paul says "which does so easily" cling or beset us it does make one think of how lint so easily clings to us. It is not so easy to shake off lint, though it is so easy to find lint clinging to you.

I had a four night debate in the early 1990s with John Welch of the "Church of Christ" in Indianapolis on whether a truly born again believer could lose salvation and in one of my speeches I said "we all sin every day." Well, like a good sarcastic Campbellite, he got up and said "Steve, why don't you tone down your sin a little." I responded by citing the above text and said that Paul also said that sin did easily beset him, and that he also said "when I would do good evil is present with me."

Sometimes you need help to get rid of the lint that clings to you. There are instruments designed to remove lint, such as sticky rollers, and there are instruments God has given to us to help us remove the lint of sin. There are also places on us that have lint that we cannot reach, such as on our backs, and so we need someone to use the roller, and they are helps in removing this lint. So, our brothers and sisters may be a big help to us in ridding ourselves of the lint of sin. Though there are tools for removing lint, I know of none that prevent lint from clinging to us. However, David did say: "Your word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you." (Psalm 119: 11 nkjv) God's word in the heart can be a preventative and it is true that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." One way to limit the amount of lint (sin) from clinging to us is not to go to places where you are likely to pick up a lot of lint, such as in a cotton factory. Just like working in a greasy engine repair shop will prove difficult in keeping the oil, dirt, and grime off, so too is going to places where sin abounds.

I like the old word "beset." It speaks of how things come at you from all directions, like lint. Christians of the past often spoke of "besetting sins." These are particular sins that are peculiar to a particular Christian. Every Christian has his or her weaknesses or faults. James says "For we all stumble in many things."(James 3: 2 nkjv) 

Would to God that righteousness and godliness did cling to us as easily as sin! 

Potter On Knowing Christ and Regeneration

Elder Lemuel Potter

1841-1897

Elder Lemuel Potter's book "A Treatise On Regeneration And Christian Warfare" (Read it here) was written in 1895. Potter at that time, and since his death, has been a recognized leader and apologist for those who call themselves "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, although Potter, like some others who were such, rather chose to be known as "Regular Baptists." In it he writes the following in chapter ten "The Body Dead, the Spirit Life" (emphasis mine):

"The idea that Christ is in his people presents a subject of great magnitude to us. He is in his people as he is not in the whole race of men, and all the rest of his creatures...He is in the hearts of his people by his Spirit and grace. In the new birth he takes possession of them, and the Father reveals him in them, and he manifests himself to them, and to them he communicates his grace, and grants them communion with himself. All this, and perhaps more is meant by the inspired apostle in the expression, "If Christ be in you." The saints are told that they are reprobates except Christ is in them. He is the life of his people, and if he is in them they have life, for Christ is their life."

In these words Elder Potter affirms that all born again children of God know both Jesus and his Father. That is not, however, what nearly all "Primitive Baptists" believe today. In my recent article titled "Hardshell Damnable Heresy" (See here) I cite from a "Primitive Baptist" book that actually says that many people are born again who do not know Jesus and in some cases even reject Christ.

From the above words of Potter, how would you answer the question -- "did Potter believe that people believe in Jesus when they are born again"?  

Potter, like many leading "Primitive Baptists" at the end of the 19th century, did not want to deny that Christ was revealed to sinners when they were regenerated. They did not want to affirm that unbelievers were saved. Elder Sylvester Hassell, another leader among them, wrote:

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."

When the "Primitive Baptists" rejected the doctrine that God saves sinners by the means of the gospel or word of God, they then found themselves in an awkward state. Do we, or do we not, believe that a sinner must be a believer in Jesus and his Father to be eternally saved? Many at the end of the 19th century took the position that said -- "yes, they must believe in Jesus, but not through the preaching done by human preachers, but by the preaching Jesus himself would do personally." However, since the start of the 20th century, they have gone further and denied that Jesus reveals himself to those he regenerates so that they become believers in him.

So, though today's "Primitive Baptists" hold Potter in high esteem, they cannot accept what he said in the above words. They love his debates with W. P. Throgmorton and W.T. Pence wherein he denied that the Gospel or word of God were means in saving sinners, but I doubt that many will endorse what he said in the above citation.

What think ye?

Divine Intervention Needed

Intervention was an American television series that premiered on A&E on March 6, 2005. The series profiled people who were addicted to drugs or alcohol, and who had made life miserable for their families and friends as a result. At a planned "intervention" (which would be hidden from the addict) family members would present an ultimatum to their addicted family member, saying to that person -- "enter a drug rehabilitation program immediately or risk the loss of contact, financial support, or other privileges." Most times this intervention proved unsuccessful, the addicted person unable to give up his life of addiction. In many of these instances the family of the addict is totally exhausted with trying to deal with the addict, having been the recipient of the addict's thefts or abuse, as most addicts need to steal to fund the purchase of their narcotics.

My sister and I, both Christians, have often discussed the situation in our extended family where some members have become such addicts and have caused much heartache to their families and have left us exhausted mentally, emotionally, and physically, along with the loss of the things that were stolen. All the efforts at trying to persuade such addicts to stop their drug use, by family members, have failed and those family members finally say to their addicted loved one -- "we have had enough." They give the addict a final ultimatum to either quit that behavior or be "cut off" from all family help and communication.

I have often told my sister that such addicts need a "divine intervention." I say "only God can save them." I meant that unless God by his almighty power turns the person around, that person is doomed. So, we pray for this divine intervention. This call to prayer arises from the fact that we believe that God can save any addict, or any sinner, any time he determines to do so. Paul prayed for the salvation of others (Rom. 10: 1). He said "my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Such a statement indicates that Paul believed that God could save lost Jews if he willed to do so.

Every Christian or saved person can only say that he or she was saved because God chose to intervene in his or her life to turn them around. They ought to know that -- "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Prov. 21: 1 nkjv) So, we pray to God to intervene in the lives of such lost sinners, knowing that he can save them and turn their hearts around. So Ephraim in his lost condition says to the Lord: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned." (Jer. 31: 18 kjv)

My sister and I have also spoken of how we feel pity and compassion for such lost souls. I told her the other day that I would doubt the salvation of any professing Christian who did not feel such pity and who did not pray for God's intervention in the lives of such sinners. I told her that this pity on such lost souls is why the song "Broad is the Road that leads to Death" is sung in a minor key. It is sad to think about it. So, we pray for such people, and try to persuade them to repent and turn to the Lord, but knowing all along that unless the Lord blesses our efforts it will all be in vain. (See Psalm 127: 1)

Some people may say "there is no help for him in God" as they did of king David. (Psalm 3: 2) Or, "he is so bad or so far gone that even God cannot help him." But, that is simply not true. No hardened sinner is beyond the power of God to rescue.

It saddens me to know that many of my Hardshell brethren think it is wrong to pray for the salvation of sinners. This attitude results from their Hyper Calvinism. They not only deny that the word of God, either read or heard preached, is a means in the salvation of sinners, but deny that prayer is also a means. That is why you never hear them praying for such sinners. However, they sin in failing to pray for their salvation. Said the prophet Samuel: "far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you the good and the right way." It is our duty as Christians to pray for sinners and to teach them the good and right way, for they will be means that God will use, when it pleases him, to turn sinners. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLII)

In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can be read (here).

We are focusing on a basic Two Seed tenet that affirms that the man Christ Jesus preexisted his incarnation, being what the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists today still have in their articles of faith, a remnant of the Two Seedism that was prevalent in it throughout the 19th century, which says:

"We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity." (Article Two)

The words in bold are exactly what Arius taught and is a leading tenet of Arianism. Arianism is a belief in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization. However, the Bible clearly shows that Jesus in his divinity as the Son of God was never created, but was himself the Creator of all things. It is true that the humanity of Jesus, including his body and soul, were created in the womb of the virgin Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott where they interpreted Colossians 1: 15-17 and Revelation 3: 14 in a similar way as do the Arians, saying that when Christ is called the "firstborn of every creature" and "the beginning of the creation of God," it means that Christ was the first thing God the Father created. However, Arians say that Christ when created before time was not then created with a human body, but was a created incorporeal god and that he became incarnate when he took upon himself a human body via being born of the virgin Mary. Two Seed Arians, however, say that Christ as a man and as the Son of God (not divine) was created or begotten before time. 

Potter wrote:

"And while there are strong advocates for the doctrine that the body of Christ is eternal, and that at most he only received his blood from the Virgin Mary, his flesh and bone being eternal, we should notice very carefully what is said on the subject. Whatever it was that is so frequently called a branch of David, or seed of David, is what he took from his mother, whether it be blood exclusively, or flesh, bone and blood. We may also further consider that this branch came out of David, and not out of eternity. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Isa. xi. 1."

And,

"...the only existence this branch had at the time of the prophecy was in the loins of Jesse. If he did exist in eternity, in flesh and bone, he could not be of the seed of David according to the flesh."

And,

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews vii. 14. If the Lord sprang out of Judah and was so carefully preserved through all generations from Judah down to the time of his birth of the Virgin Mary, was he not properly of the lineage of Judah? It is, surely, in this sense that he is the seed of David according to the flesh. But the objector says that his flesh and bone and nature was in heaven, and was put forth in the womb of the Virgin Mary when she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then he took his blood."

Many Two Seeders argue that since Christ was Head of all from eternity, therefore his body (or the church, his mystical body) existed from eternity. Some of them also argued that the human soul of Christ existed from eternity. Some of them argued that the human body of Christ existed from eternity. In previous chapters I have stated how this was similar to the view of Joseph Smith and the Mormons who viewed God, Father and Son, as having human bodies. But, Mennonites also denied that Christ received his true humanity from Mary. Sixteenth-century Anabaptist leader Menno Simons, along with Melchior Hoffman, taught that Jesus did not derive his human nature from Mary, a doctrine known as "celestial flesh." They believed Christ's flesh was divine and "conceived in her," not "of her," to ensure he was not tainted by Adam's sin.

Potter shows however that the scriptures do not teach such a far fetched notion. Christ's humanity was conceived in the womb of the virgin and did not exist prior to this time except in the mind and purpose of God. He was "the seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15) Likewise, through his mother biologically, he is the "seed of Abraham" and the "seed of David." Jesus acknowledges that he is both the "son" of David and the "Lord" of David (Matt. 22: 41-45). He is David's son as respects Christ's human body and soul. He is David's Lord as respects Christ's divinity. Jesus says of himself: "I am the root and offspring of David." (Rev. 22: 16) By this he means that he was a human being by human procreation, although he was begotten by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph, the wife of the virgin Mary. Paul says that Christ "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1: 3)

Wrote Potter:

"But let us proceed with the scriptural testimony relative to his assuming humanity. The Apostle gives the following admonition: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. ii. 5-8. What was it that was made in the likeness of men? It could not have been his body, if it existed in eternity in the form of a man; for that which already existed could not be made. It could not have been human nature if he always possessed that, and yet he was made in the likeness of men. In this it seems clear from the scriptures already quoted, that he became like a man by taking on him the nature and body of a man. Whatever the nature of a man is, is the human nature, and it is strictly in this sense that he was of the tribe of Judah. But I am asked, what was it that took this nature? I answer, Divinity. And when Divinity took upon himself the form and nature of a man, he possessed two natures - human and divine. When the angel explained to Joseph the condition of Mary, he did not say that an eternal human body or nature had been put forth in the womb of the blessed Virgin, but that something was conceived or begotten in her; he did not say it was of humanity, but of the Holy Ghost. Matt. i. 20. Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father. John iii. 15-18. Jesus being thus begotten of God and born of the Virgin Mary, comes into the world just what had been promised from the time man needed a Saviour."

The words "took upon himself the form of a servant" shows that Christ did not always have this form, this "fashion as a man," this being "made" in the "likeness of men."

However, I am a little perplexed by Potter's comment which stated: "Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father." It seems to me that he believes that Christ being the "only begotten Son of God," or "only begotten God," was what was true of his human conception rather than his divine conception (or generation). The orthodox view affirms that Christ's being begotten in his divinity was from eternity, what theologians called "eternal generation." Christ has always been the begotten Son of the Father so that there never was a beginning to his sonship nor to the Father's fatherhood. In human generation or procreation there is a beginning to it. But, with the divine generation of the Son there is no beginning. Just as Wisdom can be said to be "set up from everlasting" so too can we say that the Son was begotten from everlasting, that he has always been in the bosom of the Father, and is why he is the "only" begotten, his being divinely begotten being unique and unlike human generation.

It is true that we may say that Jesus was the Son of God in several ways besides his being God by having been begotten of the Father from eternity. Potter says that he believes that Christ is the Son of God by his having been born of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, this being what he means by "hence." If Potter limits Christ being the Son of God to that birth of his humanity, then he holds a serious error. As I noted in a previous chapter when giving the anti Two Seed views of Elder Joshua Lawrence, we saw where he also denied that Christ being begotten of the Father pertained to his divinity. It seems that many first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists likewise believed this, although today I would say that most do not. In my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I mention how a few elders back in the 1970s, when I was also a young elder among them, began to teach that Christ being the Son of God had reference to his being begotten in the womb of Mary, or to his resurrection. Both elders, Conrad Jarrell and Jackie Mott, were disfellowshipped by the majority of Hardshells and so they started their own sub cult.

In my series on Adoption I cited from David Schrock (See here) to show how Christ is named "Son of God" in four ways. He is the “Son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam (who was called the Son of God (Luke 3: 38) Christ being the second Adam, (2) Israel (who is also called God's son (Exo. 4: 22), Christ enduring the temptation of Satan in the wilderness whereas Israel did not, and (3) David, who was God's begotten son because he was set up as king over the people of God and who Jesus supersedes as King, and (4) as the divine Son by having been eternally begotten. 

Wrote Potter:

"We read on down to the 14th verse; it is said, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Here is when he assumes humanity. He was not flesh in eternity; but the Word that was in eternity was made 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. But when we ask, how could that be made flesh that was always flesh? We are met with this answer: It does not say when it was made flesh. That indeed is masterly, as though it could be eternal at all, and yet be made. It does not matter when it was made flesh; but was it made flesh at all? If so, flesh is not eternal; for that which is made is not eternal. The Word was eternal, but flesh is not. Hence, when we speak of the Word that was in the beginning, we speak of the Son in the original capacity."

This is all true, but one must be careful not to use such reasoning to deny that Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, that there was no time when he was not so. It is amazing how Two Seeders, on the one hand, spoke of Christ in his composite nature as a Mediator, composed of both human and divine natures, being such from eternity but then, on the other hand, argued that what is begotten denotes a derivation or beginning. 

Wrote Potter:

"Although it was by him the worlds were made, and he is truly said to come down from heaven; yet his flesh and bone, or human nature, did not come down; for it was "made of a woman, made under the law (not made in heaven), to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4-5."

Wrote Potter further:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii. 13. From this we are clearly taught that even when he was in the flesh, he filled immensity. He was here teaching the people, and yet was in heaven. If it was necessary for him to have a body in eternity in order to exist as the Son of man, it would now become necessary for him to have two bodies; one on earth, and one in heaven. But this text is sometimes used to prove that he came down from heaven in a body, undertaking to show from it that whatever of Jesus ascends to heaven first came down from heaven. But it seems to always prove too much when it is all quoted, and according to the interpretation they give it, that nothing will go to heaven only what comes from there, the body of the Saviour will be excluded from heaven; for he is here in the body, and says no man has ascended up to heaven but the Son of man which is in heaven. His body is not in heaven when he makes use of the expression. This is not all that we may learn from this text; for something has descended from heaven, and whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body. But it seems that this is as good an opportunity as is afforded in the Bible anywhere for us to ascertain whether the body of Christ did come down from heaven or not. Whatever was in heaven, called the Son of man was that that had ascended; and that which had ascended, had come down from heaven. If the body had not ascended it had not come down from heaven, and yet something had come down from heaven, and that something had ascended while the body of Jesus was still on earth. Hence, it is easily understood from this that when the Bible gives any account of the Saviour coming down from heaven, it has direct allusion to something besides his body. It must, therefore, be understood to be that that was in the beginning with God, which is the Word. He, in this capacity, as the Son of man, held the office of Redeemer before the creation; for, in view of his fulfilling this office, and as a part of its work, the creation of other worlds, as well as our own, and all that it contains, was assigned him by the Father. He, therefore, existed before he appeared in the world; yea, he sat upon the mediatorial throne and executed his office from the beginning of time."

In earlier chapters I cited the Two Seed motto that said - "nothing goes to heaven but what first came down from heaven." Potter mentions this fact. I believe Potter is right when he says - "whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body." I would add that the term "son of man" in reference to Christ does not strictly denote his humanity, but to his identity as the Son of God and his divinity by allusion to what the prophet Daniel saw in regard to this "son of man." (Dan. 7: 14) There this son of man is clearly an equal to the "ancient of days" who sits upon the throne and who is given an everlasting kingdom. I would encourage the reader to read what Bible scholar Sam Shamoun wrote on this matter in "The Son of Man as the Son of David; Examining the OT Evidence for The Messianic Identity of Daniel’s Heavenly Figure." (See here)

On John 3: 13 Gill wrote:

"Not that he brought down from heaven with him, either the whole of his human nature, or a part of it; either an human soul, or an human body; nor did he descend locally, by change of place, he being God omnipresent, infinite and immense, but by assumption of the human nature into union with his divine person..."

Jesus often spoke of his "coming down from heaven." By this he does not mean that he existed as a man prior to his conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. He means what Potter said. He as the Son of God came down from heaven when he became incarnate.

Some bible teachers think that what Christ says is this: "no one has ascended to heaven and come back." But, that seems like adding to what Christ said, although it may indeed be what he meant.

Others suggest that what Christ means is that no one has ascended to heaven by his own choice, effort, or means. Yes, Enoch and Elijah were taken away to heaven, but they were taken up there, being passive in being taken there, and not ascending there by their own means. Elijah went to heaven and yet he later appeared with Moses on the mount and conversed with Christ, so he is one who went to heaven, came back to earth, and went back I suppose. But, Elijah did not speak to people on earth and tell them about what he saw in heaven.

Adam Clark in his commentary says:

"This seems a figurative expression for, No man hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God; as in Deuteronomy 30:12; Psalms 73:17; Proverbs 30:4; Romans 11:34. And the expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot."

That too may be the meaning. Jesus in this case would be saying - "I have come down from heaven. So, anything you want to know about it, I am the only one who can tell you."

The following verses seem to agree with this point of view:

“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." (Rom. 10: 6-8 nkjv)

No one needs to ascend to heaven to know something about heaven because 1) God himself came down from heaven, descended upon Mt. Sinai, and there revealed himself and his word to Moses and Moses revealed it to the people, and 2) Christ, the Son of God, has also come down from heaven and is now revealing the things of heaven. What we know of the abyss of Hell, or of the sea, is also a result of it being revealed by God's revelation. 

In conclusion we must realize that John 3: 13 cannot be decisive in affirming that Christ had a human body before his descent from heaven. 

Additional Thoughts on Revelation 1: 1-3

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Rev. 1: 1-3 nkjv)

In a previous article titled "What Is Meant by "Signified" in Rev. 1?" (here) I showed how many people, especially Amillennialists, argue that the word "signified" means information communicated through symbols and therefore the whole of the Book of Revelation is symbolic, having nothing or very little in it that is literal. That is a big mistake.

When a person reads in the Book of Exodus about the ten plagues, such as blood, frogs, gnats, flies, livestock pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, and the death of the firstborn, does he think that these things are mere symbols? That there were no literal frogs, locusts, flies, etc.? I think that most Christians believe that these things were literal. That being so, we must wonder why many of those same Christians, when reading of similar plagues in the Book of Revelation, want to take them as mere symbols and not as literal events and things.

In this post I will begin to comment on what some other words in the opening words of the Book of Revelation mean, for there are indeed some misinterpretations of them also by many. First, we will look at what is meant by "things which must shortly come to pass." Second, we will look at what is meant by "for the time is at hand."

Many theologians of the Amillennial school, or Preterists, want to say that the words "must shortly come to pass" mean that those "things" occurred shortly after John recorded them, and therefore there is nothing left unfulfilled in the Book of Revelation. They also do the same when it comes to the words "for the time is near." However, both these phrases or clauses do not mean that all the things prophesied in the Book of Revelation were to take place immediately after John recorded it. Those of this school of thought often want to put an earlier date to the writing of the Book so that they can say that the prophecies of the Book were all fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70. Most scholars however contend that John wrote it about 95 A.D.

We must also keep in mind that 1) the Book of Revelation is a prophetic book, so the prologue says "the words of this prophecy" and "things that must come to pass," and 2) that it deals with the second coming of Christ, which is what the title of the book alludes to by the words "the revelation (apocalypse) of Jesus Christ." The revelation of Jesus Christ is his second coming, being his parousia, epiphany, or apocalypse. In II Thessalonians chapter two we have two of these words used to describe the coming apocalypse of Christ, which in the KJV are "the brightness of his coming." The word for "brightness" is "epiphania" and is elsewhere translated as "appearing." The word for "coming" is parousia and means coming or presence. We may therefore translate as "the appearing of his presence." In chapter one Paul wrote of this return of the Lord: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." (vs. 7) The Greek word for "revealed" is apokalypsei. So, all three of these words are used to denote the return of Christ.

Shortly Come To Pass

The word "shortly" comes from the Greek word "tachei" and ἐν τάχει (en tachē) may be translated as "in or with haste" or "hastily" or "quickly" or "rapidly" or "speedily." In fact, "speedily" is how this word is translated in the following text, where Jesus said: "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily." (Luke 18: 8 kjv). Paul similarly to Revelation 1: 1 (kjv) says "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." (Rom. 16: 20)

How can John claim these events would happen “soon” or "shortly" occur when nearly two millennia have passed? Considerable discussion attends the meaning of ἐν τάχει. There are three interpretations of these words. First, the words require all of the events set forth in the book to have transpired within the lifetimes of John’s initial readers (the preterist interpretation). Second, the words denote events which may be in the distant future, but which transpire in rapid sequence once they begin. Third, the words denote closeness in time, but from God’s perspective. For myself, I am sure that the words mean what option two says. It implies that once the end-times events begin, they will unfold rapidly, rather than suggesting a short time from when the prophecy was written.

However, I do admit that the words themselves may carry the connotation that what is prophesied will take place in a short period of time starting from the time the prophecy was uttered. This is clearly the meaning of its use in these words of the apostle Paul: “I hope to come to you shortly” (I Tim. 3:14). Later in Revelation we have “things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 22: 6) and where Jesus says in the next verse “I am coming quickly” (ἔρχομαι ταχύ; erchomai tachy). The force of the adverb ταχύ (tachy) may therefore mean, “Whenever I come, I will come quickly,” in which case the stress is on the certainty of the coming. So we thus read: "And they departed quickly (tachy) from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word." (cf. Matt 28:8) So Jesus may have meant, “I am on my way and I intend to be there very soon.” It may also be a futuristic present tense.

The question then becomes whether the words "shortly come to pass" denote the manner in which events will transpire (rapidly) or the certainty and imminency attending the events. I firmly believe that ἐν τάχει in Revelation does not mean soon but swiftly, and indicates rapidity of action when once the action begins. We see this in the medical compound word tachycardia, which does not mean that the heart will beat soon, but that it is beating rapidly. We also get our word tachometer from the same Greek word we are studying. Automobiles have both a speedometer and a tachometer. The former measures the speed of the auto while the latter measures the revolutions per minute of the engine. Both measure the rapidity of motion when the action of moving starts. These terms are not descriptive of when the events will occur and our Lord will come, but rather, descriptive of the manner in which they will take place when they occur.

For The Time Is Near

So what is meant when the text says "for the time is near" or "the time is at hand"? The Greek word for "near" or "at hand" is "engys" and is used in various contexts and may signify what is near in a physical sense or what is near in the sense of time. Notice these verses where this word is used by our Lord in conjunction with his coming again and of the signs of that coming:

“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!" (Matt. 24: 32-33 nkjv)

Once we begin to see the signs of the Lord's coming, we may say that the coming of the Lord is near. So Jesus said:

“And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; “men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. “Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.” (Luke 21: 25-28 nkjv)

"Draws near" is from the Greek word "engizō" which is from "engys." Notice that it is "when" the signs "begin to happen" that we may say that redemption is near. Paul said: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Rom. 13: 12 kjv) where "at hand" is from the same Greek word. He also spoke of Christians "seeing the day approaching" (Heb. 10: 25) where "approaching" is the same Greek word. James says "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James 5: 8 kjv) where the same Greek word is used. Peter says "the end of all things is at hand." (I Peter 4: 7)

So we may say of the words of Christ in Revelation 1: 3 that "the time is near," or "the time is drawing closer," or "the time is approaching," or "the time is not far away." They do not mean that the prophecies in the Apocalypse would occur immediately after John wrote down the things he saw and heard. The "end of all things" has not yet happened, nor have the prophetic events described in the Apocalypse.

Barnes in his commentary rightly observes:

"It would apply to any event whose beginning was soon to occur, though the end might be remote, for the series of events might stretch far into the future." 

By the judgment of Christ against the seven churches we may say that the beginning of the judgment of God has begun. After all, Peter wrote:

"For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome (or 'end') for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (I Peter 4: 17 esv)

This is what we see in the Book of Revelation. Christ first, in connection with his coming Apocalypse and day of judgment, judges first the churches, or professing Christians, and then comes the judgment of the unsaved wicked.

We must also call the reader's attention to the fact that the word "time" in the words "the time is at hand" is from "kairos" and not "chronos." Kairos and Chronos are two distinct ancient Greek concepts of time. Chronos is quantitative, linear, and measurable (clock/calendar time), while Kairos is qualitative, representing the character of segments of time. Chronos focuses on the duration (how long), whereas Kairos focuses on the season or what is characteristic of certain periods of time. This is why chronos is better translated by "time" or "times" and kairos is better translated as "season" or ''seasons." Trench in his synonyms says:

"Chronos is simply time as such or the succession of moments...Olympiodorus remarked: "Chronos is the interval at which something is done; kairos is the time [kronos] suitable for the action. Thus chronos can be kairos, but kairos is not chronos..."

Where chronos is quantitative, kairos is qualitative. When I say "it is time to do so and so" I could mean because a certain date has been reached, or I could mean that circumstances for doing that thing are right. 

So, when Jesus says to John "for the time (kairos) is near," he meant that the things that will characterize the world prior to his return are near, and not that a certain date was near.

I wrote a series titled "The End Is Near" in 2012 in my Baptist Gadfly blog and had nine chapters. You can read the first (here) for November, and the others are in December. They also can be found in my blog where I am moving all my writings on eschatology. (See here)

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLI)

In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can be read (here).

We are at the point in our investigation where we look at what many Two Seeders taught about the preexistence of the man Christ Jesus, a view that we saw was taught to some degree by early 17th century Hyper Calvinists such as Joseph Hussey, and by the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts. They taught that the human soul of Christ existed in eternity past, though not his human body. Many Two Seeders accepted this view but went further, affirming that even the human body of Christ was eternal, which is why Potter attacked this view and argued that it was illogical to say that what was created was without beginning. In Potter's pamphlet (which were his writings from his paper the "Church Advocate") he writes the following under the heading "HUMANITY OF CHRIST":

"As there are some controversies in the present age about the humanity of Christ, and, we have often feared, many contentions by some without that strict and impartial investigation of the subject that every one should give before taking a permanent position, we have concluded not only to take a position, but to appeal to inspiration as the author of whatever position we may assume, as well as our warrant for opposing erroneous sentiments on this subject."

The early church saw heresies arise over the humanity of Christ. Two Seedism is a later heresy as it relates to the humanity of Christ, although, as we have seen, several elements of Two Seedism are not new.

Potter wrote further:

"The first impression we wish to make is, that it is the humanity and not the divinity of Christ that this brief work will treat of; for while there may be a dissension between ourself and others on the eternal humanity of Christ, we presume all will agree on his eternal divinity. If, therefore, the eternal existence of Christ should be denied in this investigation of the subject, it will be his humanity. The doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ, we expect to disprove in this work, and to this question the work is devoted."

In earlier chapters we noticed that some Hyper Calvinists at the beginning of the 17th century taught that the human soul of Christ was created in past eternity, such as Joseph Hussey and Isaac Watts. Very few of them believed that the human body of Christ was likewise without beginning. The preexistence of the humanity of Christ was a central idea in Two Seedism. Some held to the preexistence of the human soul alone but a few others held to the preexistence of the human body of Christ also. I contended that this was one of the causes for the development of Two Seedism among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century. This is affirmed by the words of Potter above.

In "Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary" we find an article titled "Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ" (See here) which has some information on this belief. Speaking of Christ Watson wrote (emphasis mine):

"That he really did exist, is plain from John 3:13; John 6:50 , &c; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 17:24; 1 John 1:2; but there are various opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His body was formed in the virgin's womb; but his human soul, they suppose, was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation; they differ from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ's human soul began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Hebrews 2:17." 

This is a good description of Two Seed Primitive Baptist ideology. Some Two Seeders took the view of Hussey and argued that the human soul or Christ was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God in eternity past. Other Two Seeders went further and believed that the human soul and body were eternally begotten or created. Watson says that some Bible teachers affirmed this, but he does not tell us who they are. 

He also says that "these divines," whoever they were, differed from the Arians because they did not deny the divinity of the Son of God. However, as we have seen in former chapters, Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder John Clark labeled Two Seedism as "Arianism." I stated, however, that I prefer to call them semi-Arians, because their views seem to be like Arianism in several ways, chiefly as it relates to Christ being the Son of God. Many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, whether Two Seeder or not, resisted believing that Christ's being begotten as the Son of God respected his divinity, arguing that Christ's divinity is not derived, and being begotten denoted inferiority to the Father. We saw how this was strongly affirmed by Two Seeders elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, and by an anti Two Seeder, Elder Joshua Lawrence. 

Watson wrote further:

"The writers in favour of the preexistence of Christ's human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments*:

1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union,

2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could not properly have divested itself of any glory, John 17:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:9 . It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth.

3. It seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins."

*(I wish he had told us who these writers were who taught this, but surely he must have in mind men like Joseph Hussey)

Those are some good arguments and are not easily rebutted. However, they do not prove that the Son of God and second person in the holy Trinity always had a human soul, body, or nature. His appearance in the old testament as a man does not imply that he had a body from eternity. We also find that angels, distinct from the "angel of the Lord" (who is indeed Yahweh the Son, the one who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses saying "I Am That I Am") appeared in human bodies, but in their normal state they do not have physical bodies, being incorporeal spirits. Even in the new testament angels appeared in the form of human bodies at the tomb of the risen Christ. (See John 20: 11-14; Mark 16: 5-6) Also, at the time of Christ's bodily ascension into heaven we read where "two men stood by" the apostles and spoke to them and who were clearly angels. (Acts 1: 9-11) Also the apostle Paul wrote to the early Christians: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2 niv). 

The old testament appearances of the Son of God in human form are called "theophanies" or "Christophanies." If angels can appear in human bodies, then so too could the Son of God. Many people then wonder why, if this is true, did Christ need to be conceived in the womb of Mary and obtain a human body this way. In response I say that the bodily form of Christ in the old testament, like the bodily form of lesser angels, were not human bodies in every way like bodies born by human procreation. We surmise that they did not have blood or bones or all the bodily organs. Secondly, it was the will of God that the Messiah be born of a woman, be of the seed of Abraham and David, so that he might be in every way like the humans he came to save. 

In response to the objection that argues that the Son of God's lowering himself by such Christophanies is not compatible with his being the eternal God we say that this is the beauty of God to condescend to us in this manner. Also, the fact that the Father sends the Son to do a thing does not mean that the Father and the Son are not equal. Equals may send one another. One equal may speak for other equals. 

In response to the Son of God divesting himself of his divine glory being incompatible with his being God, I say this divestiture only pertained to his revealed glory and not his essential glory. His divine glory was veiled by his incarnation. The Son of God never lost any of his divine attributes when he became a man. 

In response to the Son of God becoming poor (II Cor. 8:9) I say that this does not relate to his divinity. Christ, even in his humanity was "the heir of all things." (See Matt. 21: 38; Heb. 1: 2; Rom. 8: 17) But, he nevertheless chose to be born in poor circumstances, chose to own nothing except his clothes, chose not to live in luxury while on earth, etc. So when it is argued that it cannot "be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth" is incorrect, for he was born rich, that is, entitled to all things. There have been several instances even among men where rich men have chosen to live as paupers, no one knowing that they were actually rich. 

In response to the argument that "It seems needful that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins" I say that this is not so. The consent of the divine Son of God was what was necessary.

Watson wrote further:

"On the other side, it is affirmed that the doctrine of the preexistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and subverts that of his divine personality.

1. A pure intelligent spirit, the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures, created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the least difference except in name."

Before giving the other points that Watson gives of those who deny the preexistence of the human soul of Christ I wish to comment on the statement that the idea of a preexistent human Christ "exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity." Grigg Thompson and John Clark accused Two Seeders of being Arian because they denied that Christ was God by his being the Son of God by being begotten of the Father, the Two Seeders thinking, like the Arians, that such could not be said of God, for that would imply the Son's inferiority and subordination to the Father. The Arians however denied that Christ was God, but the Two Seeders did not. But, there is a resemblance to Arianism and is why I prefer to say that Two Seed views on Christ are semi Arians. 

Watson next gives these reasons why it is wrong to believe in the preexistence of the human soul of Christ:

2. This preexistent intelligence, supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to consist of three natures.

3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common, like the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man?

4. The passages quoted in proof of the preexistence of the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which others allege in proof of the preexistence of all human souls.

5. This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first is active."

6. This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul says, "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren," Hebrews 2:17: he partook of all our infirmities, except sin. St. Luke says, "He increased in stature and wisdom," Luke 2:52 . Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God."

These are good reasons to reject the idea that Christ had a human soul in past eternity. The scriptures plainly say that Christ became a man like us when he was conceived in the womb of Mary and was because of that both the "seed of the woman" and "the seed of Abraham" and "seed of David." 

In the next chapter we will continue looking at what Potter had to say about this Two Seed view about the preexistent humanity of Christ.