Prevenient Grace (1)

Is all grace given to men irresistible, or never given in vain? If grace is irresistible in regeneration, as Calvinists teach, does this mean that grace before or after initial regeneration or rebirth is likewise irresistible? How does a belief in "common grace" relate to "irresistible grace"? How does "prevenient grace" relate to what may be called "preparatory" grace or "preparationism" as in Puritan theology? What about conviction of sin? Does it precede or follow the grace of the birth of the Spirit? If it precedes, is it then an example of prevenient grace? Is conviction of sin a gracious work of God that always brings salvation? What about the experience of sinners being "awakened"? Is it regeneration or a preparation for it? Are there means that God uses to bring about the new birth? If yes, are those means examples of prevenient grace? Is there any gracious work that God does in the hearts and minds of sinners prior to their salvation, or is regeneration the first work? 

Is it true, as many claim, that a belief in prevenient grace is peculiar to Armianism? Or, are there Calvinists who believe in prevenient grace? Does the grace of faith precede regeneration? If so, is the giving of faith not an example of prevenient grace? Does divine giving of light precede giving life, or does illumination or enlightenment, or the giving of saving knowledge, precede salvation? If yes, is this illumination an example of prevenient grace? These are some of the questions we will address in this series, and is a subject I have been wanting to write for some time but have been busy with other topical series.

I will begin this series with a citation from the great theologian John Owen, a Calvinist. Owens wrote (emphasis mine). 

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."  (From Pneumatologia; "Works of the Holy Spirit Prepatory to Regeneration" as cited here)

This citation answers one of our questions. It shows that a belief in prevenient grace, what Owen calls "preparatory works," is not unique to John Wesley nor to Arminians. As we will see in this series, Owen is not alone, for there are other Calvinists who believe in some version of prevenient grace.

First, we need to define "prevenient grace." The word "prevenient" needs clarification first. It means what comes before, coming from Latin. Just as the word "convenient" means a "coming together," so prevenient means a coming before. It is similar, in the KJV or 1611 English, to the word "prevent," which in today's English means to keep something from happening, but in old English it meant to precede. So we read such texts as this: "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word." (Psa. 119: 47) The Psalmist is not saying, of course, that he kept the dawning of the morning from occurring, but that he got up before the dawn to cry to the Lord in prayer. We also read in the new testament where Jesus is said to have "prevented" the coming of Peter into the house, which means he went in before Peter. (Matt. 17: 25)

The great Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology, volume II, Chapter 14, under "Vocation," and under "common grace," wrote (emphasis mine):

"Hence it is that the greatest of all gifts secured by the work of Christ, that without which salvation had been impossible, the Holy Ghost, in the influence which He exerts on the minds of men, has in all ages and in all parts of the Church been designated as divine grace. A work of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit; the means of grace, are the means by which, or in connection with which, the influence of the Spirit is conveyed or exercised. By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure, is granted to all who hear the truth. By sufficient grace is meant such kind and degree of the Spirit’s influence, as is sufficient to lead men to repentance, faith, and a holy life. By efficacious grace is meant such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and conversion. By preventing grace is intended that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. By the gratia gratum faciens is meant the influence of the Spirit which renews or renders gracious. Cooperating grace is that influence of the Spirit which aids the people of God in all the exercises of the divine life. By habitual grace is meant the Holy Spirit as dwelling in believers; or, that permanent, immanent state of mind due to his abiding presence and power. Such is the established theological and Christian usage of this word. By grace, therefore, in this connection is meant the influence of the Spirit of God on the minds of men."

This again shows that some Calvinists do not reject either common grace or prevenient grace. He also rightly equates the work or influence of the Spirit with grace. He also connects any means that God uses to effect salvation as graces. He defines "prevenient grace" with "that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God." He also says that such views of grace are "the established theological and Christian usage of" the word "grace." I agree with Owen and Hodge on this question. I get irritated when I hear people say, especially bible teachers who should know better, that Calvinists 1) believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and 2) deny prevenient grace and call such Arminianism. Neither is true. I have numerous articles in this blog that show that many great Calvinists, like John Calvin himself, believed that men were born again by faith and in prevenient grace.

Hodge wrote further:

"The Influences of the Spirit granted to all Man. That there is a divine influence of the Spirit granted to all men, is plain both from Scripture and from experience."

There are many bible texts which teach this truth and we will examine some of them in this series. Hodge gives several examples. In one example of them he wrote:

"The martyr Stephen (Acts vii. 51) tells the Jews, “As your fathers did...ye do always resist the ‘Holy Ghost,” as the prophet Isaiah lxiii. 10, said of the men of his generation, that they vexed God’s Holy Spirit. The Spirit, therefore, is represented as striving with the wicked, and with all men. They are charged with resisting, grieving, vexing, and quenching his operations."

If the Holy Spirit was active in urging and influencing those who rejected him, was this activity an act of grace? Was it not resisted? Was this influence of the Spirit upon the unregenerate not an example of prevenient grace?

J. L. Packer, well known theologian, wrote:

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling." (See my previous posting for this citation here)

Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in such grace, although Hyper Calvinists and those who put regeneration before faith and evangelical conversion generally deny it. Notice how Packer admits that Augustine believed in prevenient grace. Packer also wrote (See here):

"Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God." 

But, this is where Packer and Hyper Calvinists get it wrong. Regeneration or being born of God is not to be equated with the workings of God that leads to it. Packer is implying that Augustine believed that there was no preceding grace or preceding work of the Spirit in a person prior to his rebirth. In this statement he makes Augustine to contradict himself. Why would he do this? Especially since he has already admitted that Augustine believed in prevenient grace? And admitted that "Reformed theology still maintains it"? 

In "Prevenient Grace," a sermon by the famous Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1865, we find that this great Calvinist likewise believed in prevenient grace. He said (emphasis mine):

"I selected this text, not so much for its own sake, as to give me an opportunity for saying a little this evening upon a doctrine not often touched upon, namely, that of PREVENIENT GRACE, or the grace which comas before regeneration and conversion. I think we sometimes overlook it. We do not attach enough importance to the grace of God in its dealings with men before he actually brings them to himself." 

I agree with this observation of Spurgeon. Many Calvinists reject it outright because they think it is an Arminian tenet, and they do so without investigating the matter.

Spurgeon said further:

"Now, when I look at the life of a man, even before conversion, I think I can discover something of God’s moulding and fashioning in him even before regenerating grace comes into his heart. Let me give you an illustration of my course of thought. When God created man—we are told in the book of Genesis—he made him “out of the dust of the earth.” Mark him beneath his Maker’s hand, the framework of a man, the tabernacle for an immortal soul; a man made of clay, fully made, I suppose, and perfect in all respects excepting one, and that soon followed: for after God had formed him out of the dust, then he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now it strikes me that during the early part of the history of the people whom God means to save, though they have not received into their hearts any spiritual life, nor experienced any of the work of regeneration, yet their life before conversion is really a working of them in the clay."

Those Calvinists, or Hyper Calvinists, who put regeneration or rebirth before faith and repentance, or before evangelical conversion, do not believe that there is any pre-regeneration gracious acts of the Spirit but have made "regeneration" to be "the first act of God" upon a sinner in effecting regeneration, and thus deny that there is any such pre-regeneration acts of grace. I wrote about this in this post (here). I showed that these Calvinists define regeneration as solely what God does to the exclusion of what God effects in so doing. In that post I wrote the following and cited the words of the great Calvinist theologian Archibald Alexander, from his work titled "A Practical View of Regeneration" (Published in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, volume 8, 1836), in which I gave these introductory words and then gave what Alexander wrote (See here):

"Another error of those who separate regeneration from conversion, faith, and repentance, is to define "regeneration" simply as respects the "cause," whereas biblical "regeneration" includes both causes and effects, and primarily focuses upon the effect.  On this point the great head of Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

I then made these comments on these words of Alexander:

"Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause." He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition. A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration. In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation." Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect."

Alexander also wrote:

"Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy over the dry bones in the valley of vision. Thus ministers are now sent to call upon those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to awake and arise from the dead, but none will obey their voice, unless a divine power accompanies their words...That the word of God is indeed the instrument or means of producing this change is evident from many plain testimonies of Scripture..."

I then made these observations on what Alexander said:

"Those Hyper Calvinists who limit their definition of the word "regeneration" to the cause of the change, to the exclusion of the effect, or actual change, greatly err. Alexander is correct to affirm that scripture defines the experience of regeneration in such a way as to include the effect, or to what is actually effected by the cause of regeneration."

As we will see, Spurgeon also spoke of the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones to illustrate how there are things that happen to a sinner before his being brought to life. This story was one of the means for me rejecting Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism and the idea that God does not use the preaching of the gospel as a means in raising dead sinners to spiritual life. God used Ezekiel's prophesying to the dead bones to resurrect them.

Spurgeon said further:

"You would, perhaps, say that all I have talked about as yet has been providence rather than grace. Very likely, but I think that providence and grace are very near akin; at any rate if providence is the wheel, grace is the hand which turns and guides it. But I am now about to speak of GRACE PRECEDING CALLING IN ANOTHER SENSE." 

Calvinists almost universally agree that the elect will be kept from dying until they have been effectually called and often use Jude 1: 1 to prove it, where Jude says "preserved in Jesus Christ and called." Would that preservation not be an act of grace?

Spurgeon said further:

"It strikes me that it is impossible to say, concerning the elect, when the grace of God begins to deal with them. You can tell when the quickening grace comes, but not when the grace itself comes."

There is certainly grace given to sinners before he saves them.

Spurgeon said further:

"I should say that there is what I cannot call by any other name than formative grace, exercised upon the vessels of mercy at their very birth. It seems to me to be no small mercy that some of us were born of such parents as we were, and that we were born where we were. Some of us began right, and were surrounded by many advantages. We were cradled upon the lap of piety, and dandled upon the knee of holiness." 

These are providential means that prepare the way for a sinner's regeneration.

Spurgeon said further:

"This formative grace many of you, I have no doubt, can trace in the examples and influences which have followed you from the cradle through life. Why, what a blessing to have had such a Sunday-school teacher as some of you had! Other children went to schools, but they had not such a teacher, or such a class as yours. What a privilege to have had such a minister as some of you had, though perhaps he has fallen asleep now!...Furthermore, while there was this formative grace, there seems to me to have gone with it very much of preventive grace." 

Again, all means that God may use in his providence to prepare a sinner for his salvation may be called examples of prevenient grace.

Spurgeon said further:

"Beloved, I have thanked God a thousand times in my life, that before my conversion, when I had ill desires I had no opportunities; and on the other hand, that when I had opportunities I had no desires; for when desires and opportunities come together like the flint and steel, they make the spark that kindles the fire, but neither the one nor the other, though they may both be dangerous, can bring about any very great amount of evil so long as they are kept apart. Let us, then, look back, and if this has been our experience bless the preventing grace of God." 

I too have thanked God a thousand times also for things he did in my life prior to my being born of the Spirit, things which kept me from going over the abyss, from my heart being hardened by divine judgment, even from suicide. 

Spurgeon said further:

"Again, there is another form of grace I must mention, namely, restraining grace. Here, you see, I am making a distinction. There are many who did go into sin; they were not wholly prevented from it, but they could go as far into it as they wanted to do...Oh! how often God has thrown a man on a sick bed to make him well!" 

 Indeed we see restraining grace at work in the lives of God's elect before he calls them.

Spurgeon said further:

"We shall get still further into the subject when we come to what Dr. John Owen calls the preparatory work of grace. Have you ever noticed that parable about the different sorts of ground, and the sower of the seeds? A sower went forth to sow, and some of the seed fell on stony ground; you can understand that, because all men have stones in their hearts. Some fell on the thorns and thistles; you can comprehend that, because men are so given to worldly care. Another part of the seed fell on the beaten path; you can understand that—men are so occupied with worldliness. But how about the “good ground”? “Good ground”! Is there such a thing as “good ground” by nature? One of the evangelists says that it was “honest and good ground.” Now, is there such a difference between hearts and hearts? Are not all men depraved by nature? Yes, he who doubts human depravity had better begin to study himself. Question: If all hearts are bad how are some hearts good? Reply: They are good comparatively; they are good in a certain sense. It is not meant in the parable that that good ground was so good that it ever would have produced a harvest without the sowing of the seed, but that it had been prepared by providential influences upon it to receive the seed, and in that sense it may be said to have been “good ground.”" 

I have already cited from Owen and will yet cite him further in the next chapter. Hyper Calvinists who deny that the word of God is a means in effecting salvation, be it regeneration or rebirth, will argue that the heart being good and honest in the parable means that it was regenerated, and so they say regeneration precedes the sowing of the seed of the word of God and cannot therefore be a means in making the heart good. However, both Owen and Spurgeon are correct in declaring that this honest and good heart is what preceded salvation. That is clear in the parable, for the result of receiving the seed was salvation, so the heart being good and honest could not denote salvation. (See Luke 8: 12)

Spurgeon said further:

"Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace. I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soil good. In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means." 

I agree completely. God certainly gave an "attentive ear" to Lydia before she heard and believed the gospel preached by Paul. The record is that "the Lord opened her heart so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16: 14) I wrote on this text in this post (here). I showed that the Hyper Calvinist view that this opening of the heart was regeneration was false. They interpret the text in this way in order to prove their thesis that says 1) regeneration comes before faith and 2) the word of God is no means in effecting regeneration. In that post I also cited what Spurgeon said in his rejection of this view. I cite where Spurgeon said the following in preaching upon this text:

"We do not well if we forget the prevenient providences which work before our conversion, to bring us unto that spot where God was pleased to manifest himself unto us." 

"Observe next, that in Lydia's case there was not only preventing providence, but there was also grace in a certain manner preparing the soul. The woman did not know the Saviour; she did not understand the things which make for her peace, yet she knew many truths which were excellent stepping-stones to a knowledge of Jesus." 

"She worshipped God; worshipped him in sincerity; worshipped him looking for the coming of the Messiah, Israel's consolation; and so her mind was prepared for the reception of the gospel. Doubtless, dear friends, in many of us there was a preparation for Christ before Christ came to us in quickening grace."

"Still, dear friends, we ought to ascribe all this preparatory work to sovereign grace, for grace—free favour does much in which no grace of effectual salvation is perceptible. I mean that before grace renews the heart there is grace preparing us for grace; grace may be setting the mind in activity, clearing us from prejudice, ridding us of a thousand infidel and sceptical thoughts, and so raising a platform from which divine grace conducts us into the region of the new life. Such was the case of Lydia, such is the case of many; providence and grace co-work before the effectual time is come." 

"Note again, for we will only hint at these things rather than dwell upon them, that it was assuredly a work of grace, for we are expressly told, “whose heart the Lord opened.” She did not open her own heart. Her prayers did not do it; Paul did not do it; the Lord himself must open the heart, to receive the things which make for our peace. To operate savingly upon human hearts belongs to God alone." 

"...although the Lord opened the heart, Paul’s words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened, and willing to receive, but then if truth enter not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance." ("Lessons from Lydia’s Conversion" - here)

Spurgeon said further in his sermon on prevenient grace:

"The next mark of this gracious work is an ingenuousness of heart. Some persons will not hear you, or if they do they are always picking holes and finding fault, they are not honest and good ground. But there are others who say, “I will give the man a fair and an honest hearing; I will read the Bible; I will read it, too, honestly; I will really see whether it be the Word of God or not, I will come to it without any prejudices; or, if I have any prejudices I will throw them aside.” Now, all this is a blessed work of preparatory grace, making the heart ready to receive effectual calling."

I look back upon my own conversion and see how God had prepared me by prevenient grace prior to my actual conversion.

Spurgeon said further:

"Then, when this willingness and ingenuousness are attended with a tender conscience, as they are in some unconverted people, this is another great blessing. Some of you are not converted, but you would not do wrong; you are not saints, but you would not tell a lie for the world. I thank God that there are some of you so excellent in morals, that if you were proposed to us for Church-membership, we could not raise any objection to you on that ground, at any rate. You are as honest as the day is long: as for the things of God, you are outwardly as attentive to them, and as diligent in them, as the most earnest and indefatigable Christians. Now, this is because your conscience is tender. When you do wrong you cannot sleep at night; and you do not feel at all easy in being without a Saviour—I know some of you do not. You have not come to any decision; the grace of God has not really made you feel your thoroughly ruined state; still you are not quite easy...You know you have not believed in Jesus Christ, and the world keeps you back from doing so; but still there is a kind of twitching in your conscience; you do not know what it is, but there is a something got into you that makes you say at times, “O God, let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his;” yes, and you even go farther than this, and ask to live the righteous man’s life too. Now, remember, this will not save you: “Ye must be born again.” But for all this the Church of God should feel deeply grateful, for they have seen in themselves that this is often God’s preparatory work—clearing away the rubbish and rubble, and digging out the foundations, that Jesus Christ might be laid therein, the corner-stone of future hope and of future happiness." 

Years ago when I was working with Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, and author of several scholarly books, we talked about regeneration in the context of the errors thereupon by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists and I recall him saying about the "ordo salutis" that they place regeneration "too soon" in their paradigm. What we would call pre-regeneration workings of the Spirit they would call regeneration. This is evident when we discuss what is called "conviction of sin," an experience that occurs prior to conversion. Hardshells say that conviction of sin is evidence of regeneration while Arminians and many Calvinists say it is what precedes regeneration. In my series titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I have some chapters on "Conviction of Sin." (See here, here, here)

Spurgeon said further:

"Another work of grace is the creation of dissatisfaction with their present state. How many men we have known who were consciously “without God and without hope in the world.” The apples of Sodom had turned to ashes and bitterness in their mouth, though at one time all was fair and sweet to their taste. The mirage of life with them has been dispelled, and instead of the green fields, and waving trees, and rippling waters, which their fevered imagination had conjured up in the desert, they can see now nought but the arid sand and wasteness of desolation, which appal their fainting spirits, and promise nothing; no, not even a grave to cover their whited bones, which shall remain a bleached memorial that “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Multitudes have been brought to see the deluge of sin which has covered even the high places of the earth, they find no rest for the sole of their foot, but as yet they know not of an ark, nor of a loving hand prepared to pull them in, as did Noah the dove in olden time. Look at the life of St. Augustine, how wearily he wanders hither and thither with a death thirst in his soul, that no fount of philosophy, or scholastic argument, or heretical teaching could ever assuage. He was aware of his unhappy estate, and turned his eye round the circle of the universe looking for peace, not fully conscious of what he wanted, though feeling an aching void the world could never fill. He had not found the centre, fixed and stedfast, around which all else revolved in ceaseless change. Now, all this appetite, this hunger and thirst, I look upon as not of the devil, nor of the human heart alone, it was of God. He strips us of all our earthly joy and peace, that, shivering in the cold blast, we might flee, when drawn by his Spirit, to the “Man who is as a hiding-place from the storm, a covert from the tempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.”

This is what occurred to me before I was born of the Spirit. The Lord showed me the vanity of life, of my life, wherein I saw my future life as not worth living, as bringing forth more evils than good, and so death seemed like a good way to prevent it. The Lord also showed me that I was lost and condemned and that if I did kill myself that I would not be any better off, but in a far worse state. When I was thus made to see my lost condition by the working of God's grace, God was not lying to me, as the Hardshells who believe that conviction of sin is evidence of a saved state. If God was telling me that I was lost and yet I was not really lost, then that would make God a liar. I have written on this several times. See this post as an example. (here)

Is God showing kindness an act of grace? Is God being good to all also an example of his grace? 

Every Day I Thank God For Correcting Me

In many of my daily prayers, when I am enumerating the things for which I am thankful to my Lord, I say to the Lord "thank you for delivering me from erring in my interpretation of your word, and for teaching me the right interpretation, i.e. correcting me in my thinking, and from delivering me from the heresies of the Hardshell Baptist cult." I look back on the many years when I was a preacher in that cult (far too many) and I see a number of ways (healthy hindsight) wherein I was twisting and perverting God's word, not being honest with the text. I believe I did it, like most, out of ignorance, and not because I intended to do it, on purpose, as does the Devil and his ministers.

I accepted a few unscriptural theological propositions adopted by Hardshell Hyper Calvinists because they seemed to be true. I then took those false premises TO the biblical text (eisegesis) and twisted it in order to make it conform to the traditional views of that group of Hardshells I was aligned with. I should have, of course, rather retained those propositions that are FROM the scriptures (exegesis). I was during those years a fairly good parrot in uttering the traditional interpretations of the cult. That does not mean that I went overboard in practicing twisting the Bible to suit my premises so that I always went along with the announced traditions of the Hardshells, though there was often pressure to do so. 

I often took a minority view when in that heretical group, especially on eschatology, interpreting prophecy, and on particular texts, such as the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16), or on the question of whether Satan was a fallen angel out of heaven, and of other angels too. My father preached for the Hardshells for about 55 years and he also took a minority view on the two subjects just mentioned, and for which he was persecuted by many, as I also was. 

Back when I was a Hardshell I often found it difficult to find Hardshell propositions taught in the Bible. I would often come across a text that, if interpreted honestly, contradicted those cult propositions. Yet, I either took the traditional view (but not wholeheartedly, but halfheartedly), putting a fuller study on the "back burner" for future study and decision. Contemplating those past days I see where I was often in a fight when studying scripture. I was pulled in one direction in interpretation by Hardshell traditions, interpreting the Bible through Hardshell spectacles, but pulled in another direction by an honest heart and good conscience and by the Spirit of God, to interpret honestly, even if it contradicts the cult. 

Things I am glad that I changed my beliefs about 

(more fundamental doctrines first)

Hardshell Errors I Once Believed or Was Taught

1. Gospel means is not a means in salvation. 

2. God is not the first cause of all things

3. Perseverance in Christ not necessary for salvation

4. Faith in Yahweh or Christ is not necessary for salvation

5. Hyper Calvinism (no offers of salvation via the gospel)

6. Ordo Salutis (regeneration before faith)

7. Depravity involves a physical inability rather than moral

8. Conversion is not necessary for salvation 

9. Amillennialism (that the present age is the millennium)

10. Most prophecies are not to be taken literally

11. God has no love for the non-elect

12. Financially supporting missionaries is wrong

13. Paying ministers a salary is wrong

14. Sunday schools are wrong

15. Seminaries to train ministers are wrong

16. Musical instruments in worship are wrong

17. Several Landmarker beliefs

18. Hardshellism is the historic views of Baptists

19. Time Salvation ideology

20. Preparing notes for sermons is wrong

21. Altar calls are wrong

22. Revival or protracted meetings are wrong

23. Calling upon lost sinners to repent is wrong

24. Christ ordained the practice of ceremonially washing feet

25. Those who remarried unlawfully can never be church members

26. The just and unjust will be resurrected simultaneously

27. The Primitive Baptist church is the kingdom of God

28. The new heavens and earth is a figure of the church age

29. The New Jerusalem is not a literal city

30. There is no such thing as angels falling from heaven

31. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not literal

32. The foolish virgins are disobedient children of God

33. The KJV is without error and can only be used

34. Women cannot vote in the church

35. Women cannot lead singing or prayer or teach

36. All other churches are part of Mystery Babylon

37. Etc.

Some of these things are not believed by all Hardshell Baptists, but they are by many. Many of them I never accepted. 

Bible subjects I am glad I came to see more clearly

1. Adoption and Rebirth

2. Weak vs Strong Brothers

3. Christ descent into Hades

4. The intermediate state

5. Prophecies of things to come

6. How Christ is the chief corner or capstone

7. Issues in determining canonicity

8. The nature of regeneration

9. The doctrine of perseverance 

10. The doctrine of depravity

11. The fall of the angels

12. The ordo salutis

13. Predestination and free will

14. The problem of evil (theodicy)

15. The Abrahamic covenant

16. The Millennial kingdom

17. The rapture and great tribulation

18. The antichrist

19. Premillennialism

20. The Trinity

21. Antediluvian history

22. The times and seasons of Christ's return

23. The day of the Lord or judgment

24. God's purpose for the ages

25. The bible doctrine on Hell

26. Etc.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LV)

In the previous chapter we continued examining what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote about biblical "regeneration" in his work titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare," which he wrote primarily to combat the errors of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists on that subject. In that examination we noticed that Potter himself embraced unbiblical views on that subject, his views being the same as today's "Primitive Baptists." The focus was on what changes occur to a person who is born again or regenerated and on what are the causes of regeneration. Potter believed that the "no change" or "hollow log" view of regeneration as taught by his Two Seed brethren was unbiblical, and on that point he is correct. However, when he or today's "Primitive Baptists" assert that a person can remain a pagan and impenitent unbeliever after experiencing regeneration, and remain ungodly in his conduct, and remain in darkness about the one true and living God and about his way of salvation through the work of his Messiah, he and they are ironically themselves embracing a Two Seed view of it.

We have already seen where today's "Primitive Baptists" believe that a person may be regenerated and not even know it, regeneration occurring, according to Hardshell apologist R.V. Sarrels, on the subconscious level. Sarrels also taught that regeneration changed the substance or essence of the soul, though it changed not the thinking, beliefs, likes and dislikes, of the one being regenerated, nor involved any divine teaching or revelation of truth. The orthodox view, the traditional Baptist view, rather taught that the change occurring in regeneration, rebirth, conversion, etc., was a moral and spiritual change and not a change in the physics or metaphysics of the soul, mind, heart, or spirit; And, that the salvation to which the elect were chosen before the world began was "through" both a "sanctification of the Spirit" and a "belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) Hardshell regeneration imparts no saving knowledge and they teach that divine knowledge is unnecessary for being regenerated. 

We also focused on the debate in Potter's day about what part of a person experienced regeneration and whether that part could be a source for doing what was sinful. We showed that this was not the way to look at the subject, for in regeneration the mind, heart, soul, and spirit are all positively affected and made good, though not immutably or perfectly so. The presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit within a believer's heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and of the divine nature, and of the word of God, all act as leaven in its ability to permeate those parts of his constitution. Regeneration is a process that begins when the believer receives Christ into his heart, and like renewing, progressive sanctification, and transformation into the image of Christ, is continuous. 

In earlier chapters when reviewing the writings of Elder T.P. Dudley we saw where he, and the Two Seeders he spoke for, ridiculed the idea that "regeneration" was a restoration of what man lost by sin. In the last chapter, however, we showed how the view of Dudley was quite contrary to scripture, which taught that it is what was dead that is made alive in Christ, what was degenerate is what was regenerated, what was destroyed by sin was made new in regeneration. Potter agreed to a large degree with my analysis of the biblical teaching in this regard. Where Potter erred and still held to Two Seed views was in his denial that God uses the means of his word in regeneration or rebirth, or in eternal salvation, and in his thinking that whatever part of a man experiences regeneration becomes incapable of sinning.

In physical regeneration there is a renewal or restoration of a bodily part, or biological system (such as a forest) after injury or as a normal process. Physical regeneration involves remaking something that had been cut off or died. Regeneration means "create again," which is what salamanders do when they lose their tails. Even humans experience regeneration when they produce new skin cells to heal wounds and burns. This is where regeneration is a renewing, or a making new.

In chapter nine of the above work, under the title "Is the Resurrection a Birth?", Potter wrote:

"In all that I have ever heard, seen or read, I have never known any person to deny that the resurrection is a birth, until very recently. I have always thought that all people who believed the Bible agreed that to be raised from the dead, was to be born from the dead. I have often argued in the presence of my congregations that the work of the regeneration of the soul, and the raising of the dead, was of precisely the same nature, and that in both cases the dead were made alive. I had never heard any objection to that view, and I thought it was universally accepted, until, in correspondence with a No Souler, some months ago, he emphatically denied that they were works of the same nature, and I was surprised."

Here we see another error of Potter. He is rebutting the Two Seed view that says that the change of the body in the resurrection is not the same as the change of the soul, mind, heart, and spirit, and he rather affirms that the same kind of change occurs in spiritual resurrection as in physical resurrection. In taking this view Potter is seeming to take the view of Sarrels (though Sarrels came later) that there is a change in the physics of the soul (or whatever experiences regeneration) much like there will be a change in the physics of the body when it is resurrected and conformed to the glorified body of Christ.

Though there is indeed similarity between a resurrection out of a spiritual dead state into a spiritual state of life and a physical resurrection out of a state of physical death into an immortal living state, there are also dissimilarities.

Though I can agree with the Two Seeder who says that physical and spiritual resurrection are not of the same nature, I cannot agree with him on why they are not the same. His view of spiritual resurrection or regeneration of the spirit says that an eternal spiritual child of God as spiritual life or seed comes down from heaven and enters into the body of a human being, and this without changing either the spirit child nor the human being. Further, the Two Seeder does not believe that any part of the "Adam man" is risen from death nor that the eternal child is risen. So, his spiritual resurrection (regeneration) is really no resurrection at all for nothing that was dead comes to life.

It is true that the bible seems to speak of the resurrection of Christ from the dead as a begetting. (Rev. 1: 5; Col. 1: 18; etc.) However, those texts could simply mean that he who was God's "first begotten" was put to death and then resurrected. I don't know of any bible verse that equates the physical resurrection of believers with being begotten. The apostle Peter does speak of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3 nkjv) Here, however, the word "begotten" is used in a metaphorical sense, in the same way we use it in every day language. We use the words "gave birth to" in order to express causation, to produce. Christ's resurrection and victory over death is what brought about the rebirth of believers.

Metaphorically speaking, being buried in the earth following death can be called returning to the womb. So said Job: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there." (Job 1: 21 nkjv) In the creation story God says to the earth "bring forth" or give birth to plant life. The Psalmist David also speaks of his time in the womb of his mother as a time when he was in the earth. He said: "My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." (Psa. 139: 15 nkjv) Since man's physical constitution was made of the dust of the earth, we may call the earth the mother or womb from which man was brought forth. 

So, it is possible to see resurrection as a kind of birth, but doing so does not mean that resurrection and birth are in every way exactly alike. Therefore I must take issue with Potter saying "in both cases the dead were made alive." How is being born a bringing to life what was dead? If we look at birth in the sense of conception or in the sense of coming forth from the womb, there is no resurrection of the dead. The baby that comes forth from the womb was already alive when in the womb. Further, in conception, when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg there is no dead thing coming to life. It is a basic law of biogenesis that life must come from life. The sperm and the egg were not dead things.

Potter wrote:

"So, why is being raised from the dead called a being "begotten" from the dead? First, it is because being raised to life and being begotten begins a new life. Second, being buried in the ground is like returning to the womb."

That is true and is in agreement with my commentary above. However, he fails to see how physical resurrection at the last day changes the physiology of the body whereas the resurrection of the spirit in conversion does not change the physics or metaphysics of the soul or spirit. Bodily resurrection is a change of substance or essence, but spiritual resurrection from spiritual death is a moral or spiritual change. 

In chapter ten under the title "The Body Dead, the Spirit Life" Potter wrote:

"A writer said very recently, "Now, the Old Baptists, so far as my acquaintance extends, either believe that all or some part of the earthly or Adamic man, is the subject of the new birth. Those, however, who believe that only a part is born again, differ as regards the part. One says it is his mortal soul part; another it is his immortal soul part; another it is his mind part; another it is his heart part; and so on to the end of the chapter; while some hold that the man who is composed of parts, is born again in time, and will be changed in the resurrection."

What a debate! In the preceding chapter we addressed these questions. The entrance into the heart, mind, soul, or spirit of 1) the word of God, and 2) the presence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and 3) the divine nature, and 4) the divine seed, and 5) the love of God, affects all the above parts of man's non-physical constitution. In the previous chapter we used leaven (or yeast) as a metaphor for how the entrance of the above things into man's internal constitution begins to permeate all parts of that constitution. We could also use the idea of "seed" as a metaphor. We have already taken notice of the words of John who said "whoever is born of God cannot sin for God's seed remains in him." (I John 3: 9) Peter also speaks of this divine seed when he wrote: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God..." (I Peter 1: 23) This divine seed begins to grow within the believer and to permeate his soul, mind, heart, and spirit, and to choke out the remnants of moral corruption still resident within him. 

Some bible teachers think that the "incorruptible seed" is the word of God, but this is a mistake. It is true that the word of God is compared to a seed and as such is instrumental in producing children of God, but in the text the seed is distinguished from the word. This is made clear by the prepositions. Believers are born "of" God's seed but "by" the word of God. 

If Potter is correct in saying that whatever part of man is regenerated is incapable of sinning, then what is it that is renewed day by day, that is continuously transformed, that is not yet fully perfected? Recall the words of Paul who said: 

"Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." (Phil. 3: 12 nkjv)

Here Paul says that he is not yet perfected, but is pressing towards the goal of complete perfection. In the previous chapter I called attention to Paul's words in the first chapter of Philippians where he said that God would continue his work within the believer until it is finished at the day of Christ. Potter's idea is that regeneration, perfection, renewal, transformation, is instantly realized and completed when a sinner is born of God.

Potter also seems to take issue with the idea that at the time of the resurrection and glorification of the bodies of believers that the souls, minds, spirits, or hearts of believer will also be improved or perfected. Yet, the passage cited above in Philippians 1: 6 refers to God's work "in" the believer (meaning in his internal self) and it says that work will be completed "in the day of Jesus Christ," which must refer to the day when Christ returns and resurrects the bodies of the people. The biblical truth is that a believer is in the process of being perfected in his soul, mind, heart, and spirit and when he dies and his spirit and soul enter heaven his spirit and soul will be further perfected, and complete perfection of spirit and soul will occur in the day when the glorified body is joined to the perfected spirit.

Potter wrote:

"So far as his mortal soul, or immortal soul, or his mind, or his heart being born of God, the writer of the above, it seems to us, tries harder to make those who believe in the regeneration of the soul of man, look ridiculous, than to arrive at the truth of the matter. We are always willing to inquire after truth, and feel perfectly willing to investigate a point for all that is in it, but we wish to deal in a sublime manner with a sublime subject. So far as a difference as to what part of the man is born again, allowing us to use the word of No Soulers, we do not know of any material difference among those who believe that the soul lives after the body dies. We have never seen an Old Baptist yet that we know of, that believes that the soul possesses spirituality, or divinity, until after regeneration, but when they say immortal, they simply mean immortality in the sense that it survives the body, and either goes to heaven or hell when the body dies. But those who fall out with this idea do not differ so much on the immortality of the soul, but they deny the existence of the soul as the subject of salvation. They know of no soul, except in the sense that man is soul, while we claim that the Bible makes a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul leaves the body at death. But this writer says, "while some hold that it is the man who is composed of parts, is born again in time, and will be changed in the resurrection." We do not know whether the writer takes this last position or not; but if he does not then we do not know what his position is. Where in all the Bible do we find that anything is changed in the resurrection but the body? Where in the sacred word do we read that the body is born of God in time? Are the parts mentioned above - the soul, heart, mind and body - all born of God in time? Will the soul, mind, heart and body be changed in the resurrection? The writer quoted above seems to think that some Baptists believe that. Another idea in the above quotation is, that they are born of God in time but they are not changed in time."

The bible teaches that regeneration begins when a person is born of God and this occurs in the core or center of man's being, which is what the word "heart" often means in scripture. The heart of the apple is the core or center of the apple. In the biblical picture of man's inner constitution it is the spirit that is at the core of his being. Of that inner spirit Paul wrote: "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (I Cor. 2" 11 nkjv) What Paul said of the "spirit" of man is also what other scriptures say of the "heart" of man. Paul says that "God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4: 6) People often say "in my innermost being" or "in the core of my soul." They also say "from the bottom of my heart" by which they mean from my innermost being. The Greek word for "heart" is "kardia" and means the physical heart, but also means the center or seat where "self" or "ego" sits. This is where thought originates as Paul said. It is the place where purposes are formed, and includes the place where the will resides, where choices are made, and is the place of emotions. So Jesus said:

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6: 45)

Notice that a heart may produce good as well as evil. It is not correct to say that a believer has two hearts, one that produces good and one that produces evil, but that he has one heart that sometimes produces what is bad and sometimes what is good. Jesus said "blessed are the pure in heart" (Matt. 5: 8). This pureness of heart or spirit is a result of continuous purification throughout the life of the believer. In the previous chapter I cited the words of the apostle John who said that "everyone who has this hope purifies himself even as he is pure." (I John 3: 3) A popular Christian hymn says "purer in heart help me to be."  

When Christ enters into the inner sanctum of the heart or spirit, to the seat where the self or ego sits, he dethrones the ego and rules there. That phenomenon is what begins the regeneration, renewal, and transformation of the whole inner man. So, the question as to what part of man is regenerated is not even the right question. Christ sitting in the center of man's psychical being and ruling from there is what Paul has in mind when he says to believers:

"Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self ('man' kjv) with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." (Col. 3: 9-10 esv)

The new self is the one that is ruled over by Christ and the old self is the one ruled over by the ego, by the "I," and is what is called being "self-willed," (See Titus 1: 7; II Peter 2: 10) and "self pleasing." A maturing believer is one who seeks more and more for the Lord Jesus to rule over him. Notice also how this renewing, having begun when the believer experiences the washing of regeneration, is a renewing "in knowledge," meaning that a change of beliefs and an increase in the knowledge of God is part and parcel of what it means to be renewed. Today's "Primitive Baptists" believe that there is no knowledge that is necessary to be regenerated, saved, justified, sanctified, or renewed. Such a view is mighty close to the Two Seed "no change" view of regeneration that Potter is opposing.

Seeing "heart" and "spirit" as virtual synonyms representing the core of man's inner being is apparent in several ways. Sometimes we hear someone say of another - "he is rotten to the core." We also speak of "core values" and a "core curriculum" in education dealing with core knowledge. Core values are deeply ingrained principles. When one receives Christ into his innermost being there is a renewal of knowledge and change of core beliefs. It is in the core of man's incorporeal being where the self, or ego, resides. It may be compared to what we call the "driver's seat," or the "pilot's seat" of the cockpit. Christians even sing a hymn called "Jesus Savior Pilot Me." I have seen bumper stickers that read "Jesus is my co-pilot." However, ideally Jesus is the pilot and the believer is the co-pilot.  In unregenerate or unrenewed sinners the self, or ego, or "I" sits in that driver's seat. This truth is seen in this testimony of the apostle Paul:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (Gal. 2: 20 nkjv)

In the words "it is no longer I who live" we have the Greek word "ego" for the pronoun "I." This is rare, for in Greek the word "I" is often included in a compound word, being implied. So, for instance, the words "I go" are from the singular Greek word "erchomai." On other occasions, however, the "I" is not part of the compound word and the above text is one example. Another would be where Christ said "I am" or "ego eimi" (John 8: 58; etc.). Paul says that his "I" or ego has been crucified with Christ and that Christ now occupies the place where the "I", self, or ego sat. So Jesus said: “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matt. 16: 24 nkjv)

In conversion to Christ the self is crucified or dethroned. In the driver's seat of the spirit and soul sat sin, ruling and reigning. Also, though sin and self, and the old nature and old habits take a back seat when a person is converted and Christ enters his spirit, yet sometimes sin and self can take the wheel of the soul and this is perhaps what Paul means when he writes:

"But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7: 17, 20 nkjv)

We see where Potter and the Two Seeders both had difficulty defining "soul," as well as spirit, mind, heart, etc. I like to think of it after the image of the tabernacle. There were three sections to it. There was the outer court, the inner court (called the holy place), and the innermost court (called the most holy place or sanctuary). The apostle Peter referred to his body as a tabernacle. (II Peter 1: 13) The physical body would correspond to the outer court, the soul to the holy place, and the spirit to the most holy place. In the ancient Hebrew tabernacle or temple it was in the most holy place where God's presence was more fully experienced by the priest and where communication with God occurred. It is in man's innermost being, in his heart or spirit, where God dwells and where he communicates with believers, where the Spirit bears witness with the human spirit. (Rom. 8: 16) This view was held by the great theologian Martin Luther.

The soul and spirit are distinct yet connected parts of a human's immaterial being. The soul, from the Greek word psuche (psyche) has to do with personality and psychology, and with man's animal life. The spirit is considered the higher part that connects directly with God or the spiritual realm. In fact the Bible indicates that animals possess a "nephesh" (Hebrew for soul, life, or breathing creature), acknowledging them as living beings with a life force, particularly in Genesis 1:20-24. Anyone who has had pet animals knows that they can experience emotion and process information. Of course, the soul of humans exceeds the souls of animals, for the soul of humans was made in the image and likeness of God. That the soul and spirit are not the same is evident from these verses:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12 nkjv)

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 nkjv)

Though there is a lot of disagreement among bible teachers on what is meant by the dividing of soul and spirit by the living word of God, I will offer my understanding of it. I once held to the dichotomy view of man's immaterial being, seeing soul and spirit as basically synonyms. This was my father's view. However, after years of studying this question I rejected the dichotomy view in favor of the trichotomy view. Just as "joints and marrow" are not the same so "soul and spirit" are not the same. From that same text we learn that soul and spirit are joined together and that they stay joined together until they are separated by the word of God. So, what is meant by separating them? Why is it a good thing for them to be divided by the word of God in conversion? 

The word "discerner" in the above text is the only time it is used in the bible and it means to judge, distinguish, criticize or give critical analysis, and the word of God is a discerner of "the thoughts and intents of the heart." The use of the word "heart" adds another variable to the text, for now we have soul, spirit, and heart. The heart is the core and in this core we have both spirit and soul. In both the soul and spirit thoughts and purposes are conceived. In unregenerate people the spirit is dead to God and is ruled over by the animalistic soul. In regenerated people the spirit is alive to God and rules over the soul, at least it begins to do so, though at times even the regenerated believer allows his animal soul to rule over his spirit. We may say that the soul is man's lower self and the spirit is man's higher self. So, to divide the soul from the spirit denotes the work of freeing the spirit from the tyranny of the soul.

What about the conscience as it relates to the views of Potter and the Two Seeders? We have spoken of the heart, mind, soul, and spirit. What about the conscience? From a review of the biblical texts we see that the conscience denotes that faculty of soul and spirit whereby one is able to discern what is morally right and wrong. This is because it is in the conscience that God has written his law so that a man may feel guilt when doing morally wrong and feel righteous and morally clean when doing right. (Rom. 2: 15) We know that the conscience also needs cleansing. (Heb. 9: 14) Would Potter say that this cleansing occurs in regeneration and then never needs to ever be cleansed again? The text above says that this cleansing removes the believer from "dead works" so that he may serve God. Surely this is a continuous cleansing. Hebrews also speaks of the believer's heart being sprinkled from an evil conscience. (10: 22) This first occurs in conversion but it also continues throughout the life of the believer. 

Potter wrote:

"Paul says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." In this he is arguing the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The change of the body spoken of is that it will be made spiritual or immortal. It will be made alive from the dead, and fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ. All such expressions as these refer to the body exclusively. If man is composed of parts, as soul, mind, heart and body, then the body is all that is changed in the resurrection. Where is the other part? We are told that some Old Baptists hold that the man who is composed of parts, is born of God in time, and changed in the resurrection. Are we to understand that to be born of God is not to be changed? Or that in the new birth no part of the man is changed? That is the way we understand the writer."

The new birth does change a man but that change is not necessarily all the change he needs, for as we have before shown, the change occurring when born again is but the beginning of change. So, the Two Seeders erred in denying that there is any change to the begotten child for he believes it was begotten in Christ before the world began and it is born in a person when that child comes down from heaven and enters into him. The only change to this eternal child is a change of location and there is no change to the body, soul, mind, or spirit of the "Adam man."

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIV)

In this chapter we will continue to review Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":

"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."

"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil. The apostle Peter exhorts his brethren to "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." I Peter 2: 11. In this text we have a war, and the soul seems to be one of the parties in the conflict, and the fleshly lusts seem to be the opposite party in the war. The soul is not divided, but it seems to be all on one side. Another text says, "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would." Galatians 5: 17. The lusts of the flesh in this text must be precisely the same thing that Peter mentions which war against the soul. I simply understand that against which it is at war, in both cases, to be precisely the same thing. Paul says, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit," and Peter warns his brethren against fleshly lusts which war against the soul. Paul, again, says, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7: 25. He does not seem to serve the law of God, and the law of sin, both with the same mind. He serves one with the mind and the other with the flesh."

Both Potter and the Two Seeders, and even those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and decry Two Seedism, are confused on the nature and constitution of man and on what occurs when a man is initially saved, born again, regenerated and renewed. We need not state the errors of the Two Seeders on this area of doctrine for in previous chapters we have delineated those errors. However, Potter himself expresses an error himself on what happens when a person is born of the Spirit. He thinks that when a person is regenerated that his soul or spirit is "made entirely clear of sin." However, that is not scriptural. He says that the soul or spirit is no longer able to sin; And, since he seems to believe that "soul" and "spirit" are the same (the dichotomy view), he affirms that a regenerated man is unable to sin in his soul or spirit. So, what about the mind and the heart? How do they relate to the soul and spirit? Are they likewise "made entirely clear of sin"? 

The bible does not teach that the heart, mind, soul, or spirit is so completely and instantly transformed, or made holy, when a man is regenerated or born of the Spirit, that he cannot in his constitutional parts ever sin. Rather, the bible teaches that the new birth is the beginning of regeneration, renewal, transformation, sanctification, etc. Let us notice some scripture that shows this to be so and thus show that Potter's thesis is all wrong. 

"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1 nkjv)

If the "spirits" of the Corinthian believers were "made entirely clear of sin" so that they could never sin nor become morally filthy, then the above text is out of place. It rather shows that the cleansing of the spirit or soul is continuous in the life of the believer. So the apostle John wrote: "And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (I John 3: 3 nkjv) This purification is continuous. We see this truth also confirmed in these words of the apostle John: 

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (I John 1: 8-10 nkjv)

If what Potter says is right, there is no need for continuous cleansing of the soul and spirit after being initially regenerated because he says that it cannot sin; And, if the unregenerate part of man is incapable of doing right, or being changed for the better, then all admonitions to sin not are meaningless. James also wrote: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4: 5 kjv) I don't think that James is speaking to those who are unregenerate, for he says "us," meaning the believers to whom he is writing as well as himself. So much for the "spirit" being unable to sin. The truth is, even God's people get into a bad spirit.

"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9: 54-56 nkjv)

Oftentimes the soul or spirit of believers is often divided, contrary to what Potter says. Now let us notice the same truth stated in regard to the "soul." 

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart." (I Peter 1: 22 nkjv)

This purification of the souls of believers is progressive, and therefore shows that when a believer is first regenerated that his soul is not so made clean and holy that it no longer can sin. It is commanded of all that they love God with all their "souls" (Luke 10: 27) and what believer will say that he does this perfectly? To believers James also wrote:

"Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1: 21 nkjv)

Again, this is said to those who are already believers and thus shows that the souls of believers continually need to be saved.

What is true of the believer's soul and spirit is also true of his heart and mind. Surely Potter would not deny that the heart and mind also experienced regeneration and transformation. In fact, one of the leading texts that is generally believed to speak of regeneration says that the Lord will "take away the heart of stone" and give "a heart of flesh," to give a "new spirit," and to "write his laws in their minds." (Eze. 11: 19; 36: 26; Jer. 31: 33; Heb. 10: 16) This giving of a new heart, spirit, and mind does not mean that sin is no longer possible, nor does it mean that the creating of such is instantaneous and complete all at once. Just as we have seen where the soul or spirit of believers may still sin and need fresh cleansing, so too many scriptures say the same thing of the believer's heart and mind.

I think John Calvin was correct when he viewed "regeneration" as progressive and continuous rather than instantaneous and complete all at once. This is certainly true regarding being "renewed." 

Wrote Calvin:

“…by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form us anew in the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced in the transgression of Adam.” (Institutes, III.3.ix)

Calvin also wrote:

“This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare.” (III.3.ix)

Let us look at the passage that speaks of both regeneration and renewing. 

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 4-7 nkjv)

Some might argue that Paul speaks of salvation, washing, regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit as a completed work in the above text, occurring when a sinner was converted to Christ. However, that argument is not valid. First, because other scriptures show that salvation is continuous, affirming that the believer has been saved, is continuously being saved, and will yet be saved. (See I Cor. 1: 18) Likewise, scripture shows that cleansing from sin is continuous, as we have already seen. Likewise, scripture shows that "renewal" is continuous. Notice these texts:

"Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)

"that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 22-24 nkjv)

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Rom. 12: 2 nkjv)

"and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10 nasb)

So, if three of the four terms in Titus 3: 5 are continuous and progressive throughout the life of a believer, and not a one time instantaneous act, then why not the regeneration? In the above passage in Romans 12:2 we see where the "renewing" of the "mind" is connected with being "transformed." Is not transformation into the perfect image and likeness of God also continuous and progressive as is renewal, the washing of sanctification, and salvation? The following texts show it to be continuous:

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (II Cor. 3: 18 nkjv)

"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1: 6 niv)

The view of Potter is not much different from the view of the Two Seeders. Both would interpret the following text in the same way:

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." (I John 3: 9 nkjv)

Many "Primitive Baptists" say that John means "whatever part of a man is born again or regenerated cannot sin, not even once." The idea behind this interpretation is to say that the new nature, or divine nature, partaken of in regeneration, cannot sin, and that the old nature cannot do what is right, neither being able to be changed in the least. In the closing chapters of this lengthy series I hope to give some of my insights on this important question. I will show that the more correct biblical teaching is that the Christian’s total self is progressively being renewed and restored throughout the sanctifying process. We must also keep in mind that in regeneration the believer is changed, but it is not a change of substance, as many Hardshells teach. Instead, it is a change in direction, a change in disposition.

The question as to what occurs when one is born again or regenerated is not an easy one. One view says that in the new birth a new nature or principle is implanted in the soul or spirit so that there are then two natures, one begotten of God and one born of the flesh. It is argued that the new nature cannot sin nor produce sin and that all sin is produced by the old nature. However, it is more likely that the same nature that was corrupted by sin is what is now being changed by a participation of the divine nature, by the presence of Christ, and the presence of eternal or spiritual life. This is what, biblically speaking, is meant by being "regenerated" or "renewed." It involves restoring what was destroyed. Further, what is it that is being sanctified progressively in the life of the believer? If the new nature is already as holy as it can be, then why the need for further sanctification? If the old nature cannot be changed, then exhortations for further sanctification cannot be given in reference to it. 

In the above passage it is doubtful that the apostle John intends to say that a certain part of a believer cannot sin, for the context is showing how it is inconsistent for a person who has been born of God and has a faith that is born of God to live in sin as he did before he was born again, i.e. he cannot habitually sin without restraint as he did before he was saved. Further, if John intended to say that the new nature or divine seed cannot sin he would have said "for it (the seed) cannot sin" rather than "whosoever" is born again "cannot sin." 

Something coming from outside a person in order to enter and indwell him, as the Two Seeders taught, cannot be what the bible calls regeneration or renewal. What is made new is the very thing that was made old, what is made alive is the same thing that died, what is regenerated is the very thing that became degenerate. Therefore, the giving of a new heart, a new mind or way of thinking, or a new spirit, is to drastically change the old heart, the old way of thinking, and the old spirit. The "new creature" or "new creation" is made from the old creation. In the coming regeneration of the heavens and earth we do not see an annihilation of the old or first heavens and earth, but such a renovation that makes them new once again. Likewise, in the resurrection of the physical body it is the same old body that is made into a new body. 

Regeneration and renewal, therefore, is not a change in the "essence" or substance of the soul or spirit, as taught by Hardshell Elder R.V. Sarrels in his book "Systematic Theology." You can see various citations from this work in several past articles of mine where he states this. (See here in particular) The qualities that make a soul a soul are still the same after regeneration as they were before, and the same spirit that is renewed is the same spirit that needed renewal. There are no new faculties given to the soul, mind, heart, or spirit in being born again. They are given a new direction and a new focus. This is what great theologians of the past have emphasized, such as Jonathan Edwards.

The fact that "renewal" is continuous and not a one time instantaneous experience shows that this is so. Does the divine nature that a believer partakes of need daily renewal? We would ask the Two Seeder whether the "inner man" (who is that eternal spiritual child of God who has come down from heaven) needs daily renewal? Does the new heart, mind, and spirit that God produces in being initially saved need continual renewal? There is a difference between physical or constitutional inability to do what is right and moral or spiritual inability. Many Calvinist writers have stressed this distinction. In this post (here) I cited from Jonathan Edwards and A.W. Pink on this question. First, I cited Pink who wrote:

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."

And,

"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things..."

Further, as stated, new birth or regeneration does not make the soul or spirit perfect in holiness, but it does place within it that which begins to transform it, like leaven being put into dough begins a process that continues until the whole is leavened. 

Potter wrote:

"If, as some have thought, the body can not do good or evil, only as prompted to do so by the soul, or as Paul says, the mind, by which he serves the law of God, then it seems to me that he might have said, "I with the mind serve the law of sin, and I with the same mind serve the law of God." I can not yet accept the idea that he meant that."

Potter is mistaken here in assuming that a renewed mind cannot ever produce a sinful thought or a sinful purpose. Potter would seem to teach that a regenerated man has "two minds," one that minds truth and righteousness and one that minds falsehood and unrighteousness. Potter seems to be saying that the mind of the believer either cannot sin or else has two minds. But, I take "mind" to denote one of man's faculties, which faculty is capable of serving the law of God or not. It may also denote one's thoughts and opinions, as when one says "you know my mind on that," meaning you know my thoughts and beliefs. So, it is more in line with scripture to see the Christian as having one mind, or one faculty for thinking, just like every unsaved man, and to see that the same mind sometimes produces holy and godly thoughts but at other times unholy and sinful thoughts and resolutions. 

The mind of the believer, like his spirit, soul, and heart was set in the right direction in conversion, but not perfectly or immutably so, for like in the other constituent parts of his non-corporeal being, the change of the mind is only begun then. That is why the believer is frequently exhorted by the new testament writers to work on perfecting their minds, to transform their thoughts, so that they more and more "have the mind of Christ" (I Cor. 2: 16). 

In being born again there is begotten in a believer a change of mind or belief, and such a change that brings about a change of direction and behavior. This is why John Calvin rightly saw regeneration as denoting basically the same thing as repentance. Though the mind is changed in conversion, yet that change is not completed all at once, but is begun and is drastic at the start. Nor is the change of mind a change in the mental faculty or the substance or essence of the mind. It is a moral or spiritual change that begins when a sinner is given revelation of theological or gospel truth, when his eyes are opened so that he sees things that make him a believer and makes him change his way of thinking, his values, his purpose for living, etc. A drastic change of belief or the experience of falling in love with a person or a beautiful object may be so dramatic and life changing as to be called "epiphanies." In "Epiphanies, Revelations and Transformations" Psychologist Dr. Saul Levine at Psychology Today says (emphasis mine): 

"Some people make major transformations after believing new truths about life." (See here) He says that "an “epiphany,” is "a dramatically new insight into the meaning of his life," and that "this usually occurs after an intense emotional experience in which a person has a revelation which brings totally new attitudes and perceptions." 

This is certainly true in the story of the prodigal son.

"But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” (Luke 15: 15-19 nkjv)

The words "but when he came to himself" are packed full of meaning and significance and relates to what I have been saying. This was an epiphany that resulted from a Eureka moment, from the moment when the prodigal son saw how unreasonable and foolish he had been in the decisions he had made. It was also the time when he "wised up" and came to realize his need for repentance and to now make the right decision. This epiphany is the cause of his change of mind and conduct, what made him a new man. This epiphany did not change the essence of his mind, heart, soul, or spirit, but changed its beliefs, and changes in belief can have profound effects on the psychology of a person. When the prodigal chose to take his inheritance and to live immorally he thought he was making a good decision, acting upon a false belief. When he came to himself and saw his error and changed his belief he then became a new man. Some translations say "but when it dawned on him." 

We have other instances in scripture where we see that a change of mind resulted from an epiphany, from having one's eyes opened, from receiving a life changing revelation, and that this change of mind was not a physical change in the mental faculty but in what we might call his "mindset." It involves reorienting the mind so that it is directed towards God and righteousness and embraces nobler values. 

We have many other examples in scripture that, like the story of the prodigal son, show where changing a person's beliefs and perspective can bring about drastic changes in the person's soul or in his psychology. We must realize too that epiphanies can also occur that have negative effects, where an event or change of beliefs makes a person a deeper dyed villain. For instance, what an epiphany occurred when Eve believed what the Serpent told her! So we read:

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." (Gen. 3: 7 nkjv)

On a positive note, we think of the conversion experience of Saul the persecutor. He was like a raving maniac in his hatred of Christ and Christians and their good news message. But, when Christ appeared to him in his glory, immediately Paul's former beliefs were smashed and he was made to believe in Christ, and this new belief had far-reaching effects, making him a new man. Further, this change in the mind of Paul was not a change in the essence of his mind, but was a change in what the mind believed.

Certainly it took an eye opening revelation and change in belief for the pagans to whom Paul preached to have "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv).

I also think of the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two and of their epiphanic experience when they realized that the one they had crucified was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. So we read:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (36-38 nkjv)

The words "they were cut to the heart" denotes the same kind of epiphany that was experienced by the prodigal son. It all resulted from believing the things that Peter had said in his discourse. At that point they were no longer the same people, for they then repented and became Christians. We see a similar epiphany by one of the Roman soldiers who took part in the crucifixion of Christ, who, upon seeing the eclipse and the earthquake occurring in conjunction with the death of Christ, said "truly this man was the Son of God." (Matt. 27: 54; etc.) 

I have labored this point because it is important for understanding where the Two Seeders and even Potter himself went astray in their beliefs about the change that occurs when a person is converted to Christ. 

Potter wrote

"It seems to be sin that dwells in Paul, and not Paul himself that sins. It is sin that dwells in him that does the work, and this sin is in the body, and not in the soul. "If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live." It does not say if you through the spirit mortify the deeds of the soul, or spirit, you shall live. Again the apostle says, "If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness." The spirit in this text must be the spirit of man, for it is set over against the body. The body is dead, and the spirit is alive. Sin is in the body, but if there is any sin in the renewed soul, I do not remember the text, at this time, that says so."

Here again we see where Potter repeats his premise and which is one which the scriptures do not teach. He again says that there is no sin "in the renewed soul." There is no doubt that Paul says that all sin in the life of a believer may be traced to an internal cause and that all righteous acts are likewise traced to an internal cause. But, saying this is a far cry from saying that the heart, soul, mind, or spirit of a believer is incapable of sinning. 

When James said "out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing" and "these things ought not so to be" (James 3: 10) he shows that he does not reason as did Potter and some other bible teachers. Just as the same mouth may produce blessing and cursing so too may the same heart, soul, mind, and spirit of a believer give birth to sin or to righteousness. A believer does not have two hearts, two minds, two souls, two spirits, etc. He has within his singular heart, mind, soul, or spirit that which is good, but he also has in those entities that which is bad. This is why Paul urged believers to "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3: 12) 

In chapter eight titled "Is Man Changed in the New Birth?" Potter wrote:

"We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me, seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to me." 

It is ironic, however, that Potter's view, and the view that many "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace at the end of the 19th century, also sees very little change in those who are born again or regenerated. In Hardshell Baptist Tom Hagler's work titled "Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth" (2006) we have this view clearly affirmed. Hagler wrote (as cited by me in this post here):

"God has many children who are not Christians since they do not publicly acknowledge Christ. They may have heard the gospel, but have rejected it. The ones that rejected the gospel may have chosen to follow other religious orders, as with the Jews or other eastern religions. In this case, these children of God are regenerate, but they have not been converted to a knowledge of the truth. They are not Christians, but they are still God’s children. Some may have even been Christians at one time, but have backslidden and fallen away from the truth to other religions or to no religion." (pg. 154)

In other postings I cite from the "Systematic Theology" of Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote (as cited by me in this post here):

"The disappointing end to which this view directs us is clearly shown by the following statement by Dr. Shedd.  "In this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the righteousness of God from which we fell in Adam" (Dogmatic Theology, II, 492)  This makes regeneration to be a restoration to a former state, instead of a resurrection to a new and higher state.  According to this view, as Dr. Strong states it, regeneration "is not a change in the substance of either body or soul" (Systematic Theology, 823).  Certainly this whole concept is in direct conflict with such Scriptures as Titus 3: 5; Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 8: 29."  (pg. 339)

"Regeneration is the regenesis of the soul substance (pg. 340).

The view of Sarrels says that in regeneration there is no change of beliefs, no change of behavior, but only a change in the "substance" of the soul. So he said further:

“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it. . .God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian." (page 349)

So, today's Hardshell view is that regeneration does not change a person's beliefs about God and does not convert him from paganism. 

Potter wrote:

"The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again."

This description of Two Seed views on regeneration is almost identical to what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe, as the citations above from Hagler and Sarrels show. So, though they think that they have cast off Two Seedism, yet we still see remnants of it in their theology. In the next chapter we will continue to review the works of Potter against Two Seedism.