Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIII)

Having in the immediate preceding chapters taken notice of what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism in his pamphlet "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 will now look at what Elder Gilbert Beebe, an apologist for Two Seedism, wrote in his paper "The Signs of the Times" in rebuttal to the pamphlet. Beebe replied to Elder Lemuel Potter’s pamphlet for June, 1880. (See here under "Number 6" of his editorials)

Wrote Gilbert Beebe (emphasis mine):

"From the cursory glance over some of its pages, we find much to approve, especially in his scriptural arguments in defense of unconditional election, and in refutation of what is commonly known as the Two Seed doctrine in the flesh of the human family. But of what he denominates the “Doctrine of Eternal Children,” it being a doctrine of which we do not remember that we ever heard before, brother Potter must excuse us for asking for more light."

I find this statement by Beebe astounding. He says he approves much of what Potter wrote in refutation of "Two Seed doctrine in the flesh of the human family." Does this mean he no longer believed in Two Seedism in 1880? Or, does it mean that he denies Two Seedism "in the flesh," believing rather in Two Seed "in the spirit"? I seriously doubt that Beebe is telling the truth when he says he knows nothing about the "doctrine of eternal children." We have seen in previous chapters that Beebe believed like other Two Seeders that the elect seminally existed in Christ from eternity. It could be, however, that Beebe is playing a game with words in these remarks, a way to dodge the issue. He might respond by saying that the children existed in seed, but not as actual children yet, in the same way people were in Adam seminally but not as actual existing developed children. 

Wrote Beebe:

"On pages 51 and 52 he (Potter) says:

"In the covenant of grace in Christ before the world began, all the means necessary to their redemption and final salvation were ordained in Christ, and this is what the apostle means when he says, ’Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (I Timothy 1:9).’ Those people were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since, or from all eternity. They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him, as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense."

"In the covenant with Abraham, they are embraced in the promise, ’In thee, and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ This is the seed that David speaks of: ’A seed shall serve him, and it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation.’ Here is the Lord’s seed; and the fact that they are called a seed does not argue that they are as old as the Lord. But we are told that they must be everlasting children, for Christ is said to be an everlasting Father, and there could not have been an everlasting Father without everlasting children."

Wrote Beebe in response:

"We fail to comprehend how God made choice of a people in Christ if that people did not in any sense exist in Christ when the choice was made." 

Of course people existed in some sense from eternity. That sense is that they were in the mind of God, being envisioned by him in his foreknowledge, as an idea of what is created is in the mind of a creator before the thing imagined is created. Had Beebe and the Two Seeders held strictly to this sense, there would have been no difficulty. However, he and the Two Seeders went much further and taught that the church or chosen people of God had an actual existence in seed form. The above words of Beebe show this to be the case. His reasoning would exclude God making choice of an idea or a merely foreknown people. Instead of "choice" (or "chosen") he might as well have used the words "loved," "known," "predestined," etc., for these words are also used to describe God's mental vision of future things. However, God said he knew Jeremiah before he was born, before he was created in the womb. (Jer. 1: 5) God loved Jacob before he was born. (Rom. 9: 10-13) How could he love and know these people before they were born? Because he foresees all, and because God exists outside of time. Further, Beebe's argumentation does show him affirming "eternal children," the very thing he denies knowing anything about the term.

Beebe continued:

"We do not understand that the flesh and blood of the people chosen in Christ existed in him, nor that he himself existed in the flesh until his incarnation, for in their flesh and blood relation they did not exist until their creation in the earthly Adam, in common with all others of mankind. Still we are informed in the word of divine revelation that the saints at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus were blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places IN Christ Jesus, according as he hath chosen them in him (not into him) before the foundation of the world."

Again, he is arguing for "eternal children," though not physical children. Beebe is disagreeing with other Two Seeders who believed in "two seed in the flesh" ideology. Beebe fails to see how his denial that the children of God physically existed in Christ from eternity is inconsistent with his argumentation. Did Christ not love the physical bodies of the elect or church? Were they not also given spiritual blessings in Christ? Did he not predestine their bodies to be saved from sin and be made spiritual and immortal? If he believes that the flesh and blood or Christ and his people did not actually exist from eternity, he ought by the same reasoning object to the spirit or souls of people actually existed from eternity.

Beebe continued:

"We cannot conceive of the existence of Christ as the Son of God, begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, only in his Mediatorial relation to his eternal Godhead, as the Father, and as the Head over all to his church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. We have understood that he is the Word that was with God, and also that he is the Word that is God. The Head of the church is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God. The fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in him. He could no more sustain his Mediatorial relation if he and the Father were not one, than the church could inherit eternal life if they were not one with him, even as he and his Father are one. We think we agree with brother Potter, if we understand him, that Christ did not exist in flesh and blood (except in purpose) until he was made flesh by incarnation, by being made of a woman, and conceived by and born of the virgin Mary. But we do believe that he did exist as the Son of God, as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, from everlasting. His Mediatorial names or titles, Jesus and Christ, are expressive of his relation to the Father as a begotten Son, and to the church as her Head and spiritual and eternal life."

As we saw in previous chapters, Beebe's Two Seed views were intimately connected with his views on the Trinity and on what it means for Christ to be the eternally begotten Son of God. Beebe and Trott and many of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists rejected the Trinity, holding to Sabellian views, and others rejected the idea that Christ's being eternally begotten was proof of his divinity and oneness with the Father. Beebe believes that Christ being begotten of the Father from eternity has to do with his being appointed to be mediator, savior, and the anointed one of his chosen people or espoused wife. He is inconsistent however in this because he has affirmed that Christ being a man was essential to being this mediator, just as much as his being God the Word. So, if he was a mediator from eternity, then Beebe must affirm that Christ has always been both God and man.

He also destroys his own Two Seed ideology when he says that Christ from eternity did exist in flesh and blood but only "in purpose." Why does he not then say that the children of God, or those chosen, likewise existed in soul or spirit from eternity in purpose but not actually? 

Other Two Seeders would argue that Christ did exist from eternity with a human body. They often would say that the church was "bone of his (Christ) bone and flesh of his flesh." (Eph. 5: 30) Even Beebe himself would cite this text to prove the preexistence of the elect. They often spoke of how Eve was "in" Adam before she was made, and in doing this they do in fact affirm that the elect had a physical existence in Christ before they were made, for they say that Eve is a type of the church. As we saw in earlier chapters, one of the oft repeated arguments by Beebe was to say that as Christ has from eternity been "head" of the church, the church being his "body" must have also always existed for a head cannot exist without a body.

Wrote Beebe:

"If we have read correctly the record which God has given of his Son, as the Head of the body, the church, he, as the Head of the church and Savior of the body, is not only the begotten, but the only begotten of the Father; and we infer that the begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body, and all the members of the body of which he is the Head. We know of no other way in which the members of Christ’s body can be partakers of the divine nature, or inheritors of eternal life. If the life which was given us in the earthly Adam was eternal, it could not die; but the life which was with the Father, and was manifested, according to I John 1:2, and which was given us in his Son, according to I John 5:11,12, is emphatically eternal life, which was with the Father, and is hid with Christ in God. And this life which was given us in the Son of God was included, with all other spiritual blessings, in the unspeakable gift of God’s dear Son. Brother Potter says (but by what authority he has failed to tell us), that “Those people” (of whom Paul speaks in II Timothy 1:9) “were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since, or from all eternity;” and that “They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him, as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense."

If the "begetting of the Head includes the begetting of the spiritual body and all the members of the body," as Beebe asserted, then he does believe in "eternal children." The blessings given to believers in Christ before the world began were not given to them personally, since they did not then actually exist. They were given to the divine Son of God, who having been appointed to represent them, received those blessings on their behalf. Even in human affairs, things are often given to people who do not yet exist. Rich people have set up trusts which are designed to give money to future descendants. These are called "dynasty trusts." John D. Rockefeller used trusts in 1934 to pass on wealth, which still supports his heirs to the seventh generation. The Walton Family Holdings Trust, used to manage shares in Walmart, holds massive wealth for the heirs. 

Wrote Beebe:

"This firstborn son, as the anti-type of David, shall be a progenitive Head, shall have children as his own seed, which were chosen in him, and blessed with and in him with all the spiritual blessings which are secured by the covenant of the sure mercies of David. “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven (Psalm 89).” Was David a type of Christ? Did his seed exist in him before they were born? Did his children proceed from him as plants from the seeds which produce them? If so, by what authority shall we say that the seed of Christ did not exist in Christ as their seminal Head, and proceed from him as the vine from its roots, as the branch from the living vine, and as plants from the seed?" 

So, again, Beebe does believe in "eternal children." Also, he does admit that Potter was correct in saying that Two Seeders believed that the children of God existed in Christ before they were born in the same way that plants are in the first seed in a chain of seeds. We have looked at this line of reasoning in previous chapters. Did Solomon exist in David before he was conceived in the womb of Bathsheba? Of course he did not, except, as we have previously observed, in a manner of speaking. The person of Solomon did not exist in David. Consider also the fact that Beebe affirms two ideas that are contradictory to each other. First, he must say that Jesus as a man existed in David before he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Second, he must say that David existed in Christ the man before David was born. 

Wrote Beebe:

"We presume that brother Potter believes, as we certainly do, that the Son of God is the begotten Son of the eternal Father, and stood in that vital relation to the Father before the world began, as the Son. Now if the children of God were chosen and blessed in him before the foundation of the world, and we accept the testimony of Christ himself, and of his inspired apostles, that they are the body of which he is the Head, would it not be a singular anomaly that a head should be begotten and born, and the body and members of that head only adopted? The Scriptures abound with figures illustrative of the union and relationship of Christ and the church. We are told that Adam is the figure of him that was to come; and that Adam was first formed, then Eve (I Timothy 2:13)."

The Son of God's agreement with the Father and Spirit to become a man in order to redeem sinners, and to be the head and representative of such redeemed sinners, does not necessitate that those sinners be in actual existence when this agreement was made in the eternal covenant. It was only necessary that God had predetermined to create man, suffer him to fall into sin, and to appoint Christ as the head of those who he intended to save, so that they existed in his mind, though they did not yet exist in actuality. 

From the above we see how the subject of how adoption relates to being begotten was a difficulty with Beebe as it has been with many others. I would encourage the reader to read my series on this subject (which are all in their own blog for easy reading - See here). Potter and others, however, have argued that if adoption is true, then it proves that those who become children of God were not so from eternity. 

Beebe is begging the question when he attempts to reason that the begetting of the Head (Christ) must involve the begetting of all those over whom he is head, or his body. But, we have shown how this line of reasoning, if true, would force him into asserting that every human being has existed from eternity and that they are all children of God, for Christ is not only the head of the church, but "the head of every man." (I Cor. 11: 3)

Wrote Beebe:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his Mediatorial Sonship, is the image of the invisible God, the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person; the appointed heir of all things; by whom also he made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15.) Adam as a type, “is the figure of him that was to come. He was created in the image and likeness of Christ, as the heir of all terrestrial things, having dominion over all created things, and as the seminal head and progenitor of his race; and of him, when he, not being deceived, had followed his bride into the transgression, it was said, “Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, etc. (Genesis 3:22).”

What does Beebe mean by "Mediatorial Sonship"? As we have seen in former chapters, Beebe believed that Christ had three natures, a divine nature, a human nature, and a mediatorial nature. He believed that Christ's mediatorial nature was begotten when he was begotten of the Father before time began. Beebe and Trott and other Two Seeders were anti-Nicenists, being opposers of the Nicene creed which says:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

Christ being begotten of the Father is proof of his divinity and oneness with the Father. That, however, is not believed by Beebe and many other "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century. To be begotten proves that Christ was not God, said they, for God cannot be begotten, so though Christ was God it was not because he is the only begotten Son of God. Therefore, his being begotten had do do with him becoming human or a mediator.

When Beebe says that Adam "was created in the image and likeness of Christ" he means not that he was made in the "image of God," although this is what the Bible says, but was made in the image of the begotten or created Mediator, who they say was "the first thing God created" per Colossians 1: 15 and Revelation 3: 14, and which is why they were called Arians by Elders Grigg Thompson and John Clark. This belief is behind the second article in the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association (of which I was once a part), which I have cited previously, and reads as follows:

"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)

Wrote Beebe:

"In all this the earthly Adam is the image or type of him that was to come. Adam, as the seminal head and progenitor of all the race of mankind, is the figure of Christ, as the seminal Head and spiritual progenitor of his spiritual seed, which he saw when his soul was made an offering for sin. He is their life, and that life in him is eternal life. It was with the Father, and given to his seed in the Son, or Sonship of the only begotten of the Father. It is only in this begotten relation that any vital union can be developed between God and the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty."

This is simply a further statement of the above belief. It smacks of Arianism. It makes "the first Adam" to be the second Adam, and vise versa, as I have previously stated.

Wrote Beebe:

"We hope that it is not in any derisive, sarcastic or scoffing way that any of our brethren would speak of the eternity of the existence of the children of God in Christ, as the head and source of all spiritual union and communion with God through Jesus Christ our Lord, as “eternal children.”"

Why are the words "the eternity of the existence of the children of God in Christ" not an affirmation of "eternal children"? Why is it sarcasm or scoffing to call this belief a belief in eternal children?

Wrote Beebe:

"It is with deep concern that we have observed of late, among some who claim to be Old School or Primitive Baptists, a disposition to sap the foundation of the Christian’s faith and hope in God, by ignoring the vitality of our union to and with God in Christ. They are willing to admit an eternal union, if we will give up the vitality of it, and call it a covenant union, or in any way deprive it of vitality; but it seems to us that a union without life would be a dead union, it could not make us partakers of the divine nature. But when we claim that the life on which our relation to God as his children rests was given us in Christ Jesus, with all other spiritual blessings, before the foundation of the world, although this heart-cheering doctrine is so fully declared in the Scriptures, an effort is made to call down onus, and what is far worse, on the doctrine, the obliquity and ridicule of those who do not entertain the same views that we do."

Potter and others did not deny that there was a predestined or representative union from eternity for God in his divine decrees determined that Christ be the head and representative and savior of those chosen to salvation. In those decrees the Father gave the elect to Christ in a covenant and is why Christ said "all that the Father gives to me shall come to me." (John 6: 37) But, to affirm that this ordained union proves that the elect actually existed from eternity is highly objectionable. Actual union with Christ follows actual existence, and follows being joined to Christ in time by faith.

Wrote Beebe:

"Much of the confusion in the minds of the saints, we think, arises from a failure to discriminate between Adam and Christ. In the earthly Adam we all die. Why? Because we were all in him in the transgression. By that one offense sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Did all men sin in the first offense of Adam? That occurred almost six thousand years before the birth of any of the men of the present generation. But if we had not been in Adam as our seminal head and progenitor, could we have sinned in him? Could death have passed on us as men that had sinned, if we were not in him as his posterity or children? If we were not children of Adam when he transgressed, and death thereby entered and passed upon us, when did we become his children? Did Adam call his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living before any of her living children were born? Did Levi pay tithes to Melchisedec before or after he was born? Were Jacob and Esau children before their birth, or was it not until afterward? These questions relate to our natural life, as children of the earthly Adam, and who is the figure of him that was to come. Then tracing the analogy of the figure, we ask, Are we the children of God in Christ today? If so, were we his children yesterday? He is the same yesterday, today and forever. If we are his seed, or children now, were we his seed almost two thousand years ago, when his soul was made an offering for sin, and when we saw his seed and was satisfied?"

Beebe misunderstands how and why the sin and guilt of Adam is imputed to his descendants. It is not strictly because of "seminal union" but because of a representative union, because God decreed that Adam should stand for the entire race. If that is not the case, then every man becomes responsible for every sin of his ancestors.

Also, as we have seen, Paul spoke of some who "were in Christ before I was" (Rom. 16: 7), which destroys the thesis of Beebe that all the children of God were in Christ from eternity. It also destroys the idea that says "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26). The apostle Peter also wrote to the believers: "Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (I Peter 2: 10 kjv)

Wrote Beebe:

"God’s children were children before they were partakers of flesh and blood, even as Christ was the Son of God before he took part in like manner of the same flesh and blood."

However, as we just saw, this is not what the Bible teaches. God chose and predestined people to become the children of sons of God, but they do not become so until they have an existence in time and until they have become united to Christ by faith.

So, in conclusion, it is obvious that Beebe's answer to the Two Seed objections by Potter was not cogent.

Elder Jesse Cox on Hardshell Sabellianism

 

Elder Jesse Cox

1793 - 1879

In an old post of mine on Hardshell Sabellianism (here) I cited from The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor where Elder Jesse Cox wrote in reply to Elder James Osbourn saying that many "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the Mississippi valley held to Sabellianism. Elder Cox (1793–1879) was a prominent 19th century Primitive Baptist minister, historian, and pioneer resident of Williamson County, Tennessee. He served as the second pastor of the Big Harpeth Primitive Baptist Church, succeeding Elder Garner McConnico. I visited with Elder Milton Lillard who pastored these churches when I was a young "Primitive Baptist" and he spoke to me of his predecessors in the Nashville area, such as Elder McConnico, Elder John M. Watson, Elder R.W. Fain, etc. He also spoke of Elder Cox. Cox wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation which I read parts of years ago, and was quite disappointed in his handling of that text, giving interpretations of its parts that were uniquely his own. 

Here is what Cox wrote (1839):

"1 am truly glad to hear from Bro. Osbourn through the medium of your paper, and am sorry to see the opposition that seems to be raised against him on account of his doctrine, and especially that coming from the state of Ohio. 1 cannot but believe that some mistake, or misuuderstanding has taken place; for we heard him preach frequently, and conversed with him often; and we heard nothing but what we fully believe, especially upon the Holy Trinity, and the work and office of the Holy Spirit. But Bro. Osbourn has written and published a letter in the Advocate, that would go to represent that all the Baptists in the Great Valley of the Mississippi hold the Sabellian heresy. That a great many in some parts of Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio hold it, there is no doubt; but in this part of Tennessee, we as a denomination do not. And among the ministry I know of none; and I believe that Bro. Osbourn would say we do not. In a word, we believe, that there Are Three That Bear Record in Heaven, The Father, The Word, And The Holy Ghost, And That These Three Are One. Not three in office, but three in person, One in Three, and Three in One—one in will,—one in wisdom, one in power, perfectly united together by the same divine principle. like, for instance, the sun that illuminates our world; there is the body, the heat, and the light completely united in one, and yet three; and deprive it of one of these properties, and it would cease to be what it is. But I leave this important subject for more able heads than mine. May the God t»f all grace comfort and support you. Dec. 1839. Yours, in gospel bonds, Jesse Cox." (pg. 153 of Vols. 3-4 of the Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor - see here)

So, here is more proof of the widespread Sabellianism among many of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. Further, my historical research shows that most first generation Hardshells tolerated such heresies respecting the Trinity. Elder James Osbourn, however, vehemently denounced this rampant heresy, but he seems to be the only one who did so. 

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.