Elder Lemuel Potter on Eagerness to Preach

Elder Lemuel Potter in his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" wrote the following in chapter 24 (See here; emphasis mine):

"I am now in my thirtieth year in the ministry, and my experience is such that I often think if I had my time to go over, I could make many improvements, but it may be if I had my life to live over again, that under the same circumstances, I would do no better than I have. My experience as a minister has been one peculiar to myself. I have found that no other minister I have ever heard talk has had the same experience that I have had. When I first began to exercise in public, my recollection is, that I was more willing to try to preach than was becoming. I thought many times that I would be glad to have an opportunity to try to preach. I was well aware of the fact that propriety would dictate for me to remain silent, and occupy an humble seat, when there were older ministers present; yet that did not suit me all the time, for my desires to exercise in public were such, that if I was invited, I was rather too willing to get up. I frequently feared that the brethren would notice this in me, and I was well aware of the fact that it would be against me if they did. I very well knew that nothing would hurt a young minister quicker in the estimation of his brethren in the ministry, as well as the people generally, than for him to be too anxious to preach. Yet I was distressed frequently in my mind to keep my feelings concealed in this particular. I do not know just how many years I had this evil to contend with, but if the brethren did notice it in me, they seemed to treat me well, and encouraged me to exercise my gift, and invited me to their meetings, as if they did not notice anything wrong."

I find this interesting due to my having had the same "evil to contend with" as he did. I wrote about this in a short post (here) from several years ago. This "evil" happened when I had only been preaching a few years and in my early twenties. In that post I wrote:

"Another time I was told by Newell (I think) that some folks went to Elder Mills (senior pastor at Union Grove at the time) and spoke of how anxious I seemed to be to preach, and they said to Mills - "he is going to preach or bust." Mills responded and said - "let him bust." Now, I have thought about this boot camp experience many times.

I think I said to Newell (we were very close friends) - "was not that the experience of Jeremiah who found that he could not quit preaching (though he tried) and said that the reason was that the word was in him like fire and he could not keep quiet?"

What is wrong with a young minister who has been called to preach being ready and anxious to tell others about the gospel? Now, I never was so anxious to preach or to teach that I pushed myself to preach ahead of others (though this was never really possible any way). But, when called upon, I tried to be ready. Oftentimes I came to church after days and weeks of bible study and had messages to deliver, excited about what I had learned, and desiring to share it. What was wrong with that?"

By "Mills" I am referring to the cult leader of the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists, to which I once was a part of, Elder C.M. Mills. Mills did not put his stamp of approval upon me and many of the Hardshell brotherhood therefore would not fully embrace me. He was the one who partnered with the Powell Valley Association and a few other associational popes to declare non-fellowship against my father and our church (father being himself a leading elder among the Hardshells) for teaching that Satan was an angel who sinned in and fell from heaven. So, when I moved to North Carolina and joined one of the churches in this association, that church later called for my ordination. 

Elder Mills believed that since I was ordained by the church of my membership, pastored by father, after this formal declaration of non-fellowship, that I needed to be ordained properly, the former one not being legal or legit because of the action of the Powell Valley Association. That caused me no small grief. Elder John Robbins of the Powell Valley Association and the clerk of that association traveled several hundred miles from East Tennessee so that we all could discuss "my situation." They pretended to be acting in my best interests in demanding a new ordination, saying that I could travel and preach without a "cloud" over me. But, even then I had a strong intuition or discernment that they were not really interested in my ministry, but were mainly showing their opposition to father and his views. This meeting was in the home of Elder Mills in Charlotte, N.C. I had previously met him a few years before when I traveled with my father to North Carolina to preach in the churches of the Bear Creek Association. That was when father was recognized and in high esteem by most "Primitive Baptist" churches. We spent the day with Mills talking about the church and scripture. 

So, I never got the stamp of approval from Mills, and he being pope, his not giving his stamp led to many diehard Hardshells to distance themselves from me. Mills was a disciple of Elder C.H. Cayce, one of the leaders of the Hardshells at the start of the 20th century. Cayce's interpretations were the standard for all to follow, or else be shunned to some degree. One evidence of this is the opposition of Mills, not only to the view that Satan fell from heaven, but to the view that the story of the death of the rich man and Lazarus was talking about what happens when saved and unsaved people die, his view being that the parable taught the cutting off or death of the old Jewish church (old covenant, represented by the rich man) and the church or Gentiles being brought into Paradise or enjoyment of the new covenant. Cayce was a gross spiritualizer and so was Mills, and so are many Hardshells. 

When I was ordained the second time, this time by the presbytery of the Bear Creek Association, guess what questions were asked me to see if I was qualified to be ordained? You guessed it. I was asked - "do you believe the Devil fell from heaven?" And, "do you believe that the story of the rich man and Lazarus teaches about what happens at death?" I was not intimidated by them. I answered in the way the apostle Paul did when he on one occasion said that he was a believer in a bodily resurrection. (Acts 23: 6-10) To my surprise they ordained me anyway. However, some of the presbyters, deacons and elders, were not very happy about it.

Elder Sonny Pyles was highly favored by the churches of the Bear Creek Association and he annually filled a week's preaching in those churches. Mills and Pyles had a good relationship, owing I think to the fact that the people first fell in love with Pyles and Mills could do nothing but like him too. Sonny became a friend of mine, as he had been a close friend of father (Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.). When he would visit in North Carolina I would get to spend much time with him and even had him as an overnight guest in my house. I also flew out to Graham, Texas and spent four or five days with him. Sonny once told me about the time that he asked Mills why he was not helping me in my ministry by recommendations or otherwise, Sonny trying to help me. I don't remember verbatim what Mills said, but it was basically because he felt not inclined to do so. This is the man who told the brothers "let him bust." So, when I read the above from the highly esteemed Lemuel Potter, I felt a need to write this post. Would Mills have viewed the anxiousness of Potter to preach in the same way?

Later in the same chapter Elder Potter wrote:

"After I had been preaching a few years, there was quite a change in my feelings, so that I became as unwilling to preach as I had hitherto been willing. I thought for a while that if the brethren would not meet me with solicitations, and urgent appeals to come to their meetings, I could remain at home very well satisfied, not to preach at all. I had the care of churches, and when I went to meeting, I really dreaded for the moment to arrive that I should begin services. I often felt while on my way to church, that it would be a great relief to me, if some brother in the ministry would happen to come, who would do the preaching. I suffered a great deal in mind from this state of feeling. I often wished, that as I must preach, I were more willing. I sometimes took my case to the Lord, and begged him, that if it was my duty to preach, it should not be such a burden to me."

Well, the same thing happened to me. However, I do feel that preachers should never lose their zeal to teach and to preach. They should not do it in order to gain a following or draw attention to themselves.

Potter also wrote:

"I think I know what it is to wish very much to preach and not have an opportunity, but I also know what it is to be compelled to preach when I do not wish to. This frame of mind oppressed me for a few years, I do not remember just how long, and then my mind underwent another change. I have since felt perfectly passive in the hands of the brethren, and perhaps as easy upon the subject of preaching as any man among our brethren."

"When I was younger I often contemplated a big sermon for special occasions. and about as often, failed to do any preaching at all. I have, many times, arose to preach when I did not think I could say a word, and it seemed I was blessed with the presence of the Lord, and the power of his might to preach to the edification and encouragement of his people. In fact matters have seldom ever worked out in my experience, as a Christian, or as a minister according to the plan that I have arranged. I have even taken a text thinking that I would present certain points or arguments or thoughts during the course of my remarks, and would spend my time on an entirely different line of thought. "I am reminded many times of what I have heard other brethren in the ministry say, and that is that they never could learn how to preach. I think what I have learned might be profitable to younger men in the ministry, provided they will study carefully what I have said, and examine themselves carefully. I have studied a great deal about preparing notes, or as some men call it sketches, or skeletons of sermons, but I have never tried such a thing, and I think that I would be very awkward at anything of that kind, I feel confident of one thing, that if I were to write out a sermon and read it, I might be as able to read it at one time as another, but I do not think I would be a very good judge as to whether the Lord was in that matter or not. I have written speeches and read them, and my judgment is that if I speak extemporaneously, I can tell better whether I really have the presence of the Lord or not. I take it as an evidence that the Lord is with me when I feel a deep and abiding interest on the subject of which I treat, and that he is not with me when I feel no interest in the subject I am trying to talk about. Be that as it may, there is one thing certain, and that is that I cannot live contented and neglect the ministry."

There are some good things advised in the above words but there are some things that I don't agree with. His view on preaching (what some call "homiletics") reflects a view that was prevalent by the frontier preachers in the 19th century. They judged a sermon based upon the preacher preaching off the cuff, extemporaneously, or as the Lord poured thoughts into their minds while preaching, or in a sing-song or rhythmic manner, and with emotion, etc. To preach with a prepared sermon was taboo to them and showed that the preacher was not depending upon the inspiration of the Spirit. They follow the instructions Jesus gave to his first ministers, which said "take no thought how or what you shall speak for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak" (Matt. 10: 19). 

Potter says the old ministers used to say that they never learned how to preach, and this was a maxim with them, probably as a result of their opposition to theological education (seminaries), accusing their use to be the making and calling of preachers, which they said only the Lord could do. He seemed to agree with that maxim at the time he was writing his biography in his elder years. However, he then, after stating this maxim, goes against that maxim by saying that he was giving advice to young ministers to profit them in their preaching! He also did the same when he advised them to "study" his counsel. He also contradicts the maxim when he says that he "studied a great deal about preparing notes," etc. He also says that he wrote out his speeches for debates, which contradicts his maxim. If he can prepare his speeches for debate on Bible issues, why could he not do it for sermons? Was he not relying on the Spirit in his debate speeches? 

Elder Potter's Conversion

1841 - 1897

Elder Lemuel Potter in his autobiography "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" (See here) writes the following in chapter four (emphasis mine):

"Often have I, in the great agony of my poor heart, taken a walk, more to be alone than anything else, and in those lonesome hours I would often find myself trying to ask the Lord for mercy as I walked along. Sometimes I was made to think that the Lord had shown me the wickedness of my poor, sinful self, that I might see His justice in my condemnation. It seemed that my time in the world was now going to close, and I must die and be lost. 0, how wretched! It was not worth while to tell others of the trouble I was in, for they could not sympathize with me, I thought. Still I kept trying to do something good that the Lord would bless me with peace of mind and it seemed that nothing would give that but mercy in the forgiveness of sins. If the Lord would forgive all my wrongs, and the innumerable sins I had committed, I thought I would be under greater obligations to Him than any poor sinner that ever lived in the world. In this way I went on for four or five weeks, and it seemed that I could see no peace at any time or place. Everything wore a gloomy, dismal appearance to me. Finally I came to the conclusion that there was something that I had not done that I must do before the Lord would have mercy."

Potter also wrote:

"O, it is more than I can do to describe the anguish of soul just at this time. Lord, be merciful; if I am lost it is just, and if saved, it is a poor guilty sinner saved by Grace. It seems now that I stood in one place and was trembling like a leaf, trying to ask the Lord for mercy. and had almost given up in despair, when suddenly there was a change came over me that brought peace that I am not able to describe, and I felt like praising the Lord for his grace in the salvation of a lost and justly condemned sinner. My trouble was gone..."

When was Potter quickened into spiritual life? When was he saved, born again, forgiven of sins? The Hardshells tell us that he was such a man even when he was under conviction of sins, when he saw himself as lost and without hope, and yet in saying this they make the Holy Spirit to be a liar, for he was the one who was convicting Potter of being lost, but if he was not lost, then the Holy Spirit was telling Potter what was not true. 

Potter's regeneration, however, followed his conviction of sin, occurring when he stood trembling before the Lord and when in despair he asked the Lord for mercy. Following that is when he was delivered from his sense of condemnation, being commensurate with his believing the Gospel and embracing Christ as his Savior. Peace with God comes when a sinner believes in Christ and is declared justified by God in the conscience. (Rom. 5: 1) 

I have written on how the Hardshell views on conviction makes the Spirit a liar in these posts (here, here) You can also read the three chapters on "Conviction of Sin" in my series titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here, here, here).

A Guaranteed Bonanza (appendix)

While re-reading Elder Lemuel Potter's ("Primitive" or "Regular" or "Old Baptist") autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" I noticed that he wrote the following in chapter five (See here; emphasis mine):

"I would say to all who have a hope in the Savior, and have never yet united with the church, you get the most pay for the least service rendered when you obey the Lord, more than anything else that I ever knew anything about."

A few months back I wrote three posts under the title "A Guaranteed Bonanza" (See here, here, here). In those posts I affirmed that God has promised a good return on your investment, or a bonanza of blessings, in serving him in his kingdom. I cited from a "Primitive Baptist" elder who seemed to be writing against that first post and took issue with this affirmation. I showed where numerous texts of scripture proved that affirmation. Since many "Primitive Baptists" read this blog, I thought I would put the above citation from one of their most revered apologists as an appendix to those three posts. He agrees with my affirmation.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVII)

I John 3: 8

In this chapter we are continuing to cite from Elder Lemuel Potter's 1880 booklet titled ""UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here). It is a lengthy treatise and much of it is repetitious and not very well organized and we are only citing those portions of it that have substance. The web site above is from the web page of the "Primitive Baptist Library" and does not format Potter's writings against Two Seedism very well. His pamphlet were copies of articles he wrote in his church paper "The Church Advocate." In the pamphlet Potter listed eleven doctrinal tenets that are held to by Two Seeders, though there were disagreements among Two Seeders. Having already considered articles one through six, we will in this chapter begin with tenet number seven. Potter wrote, giving us the following citation from a Two Seeder:

"7. "Hence I will say without any fear of successful contradiction from the Word of God, that if the greatly multiplied stood in Adam before the curse was pronounced in consequence of the transgression, the non-elect are safe, for what God blessed in Adam He could not curse; for James informs us that every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." - Herald of Truth, by M. Loveridge, Vol. 3, p. 5."

By "the greatly multiplied" there is reference to that Two Seed tenet that says that a result of Satan sowing his seed in Adam or Eve, that God multiplied the human seed, so that now not only will the children of God be born into the human race, but a host of other humans of the seed of Satan, and that this is what is implied in God saying to Eve that he would "multiply" her "sorrow" and "conception." (Gen. 3: 16) However, that may not be what the text says. On that text the learned Dr. John Gill wrote:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived in conception, and besides is a blessing; but this takes in all griefs and sorrows, disorders and pains, from the time of conception or pregnancy, unto the birth; such as a nausea, a loathing of food, dizziness, pains in the head and teeth, faintings and swoonings, danger of miscarriage, and many distresses in such a case..." (Commentary)

Of course, when the Lord said this to Eve it was not intended for Eve alone, as if she alone would suffer travails in conception. Rather, Eve stands for all women who become pregnant and who are thus cursed as a result of her sin and that of her husband Adam.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges gives this commentary:

"...thy conception] Lat. conceptus tuos. But LXX τὸν στεναγμόν σου = “thy groaning,” according to a reading which differs by a very slight change in two Hebrew letters. This is preferred by some commentators..."

Pulpit Commentary says: "A hendiadys for "the sorrow of thy conception" (Gesenius, Bush)."

However, Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament says:

"I will greatly multiply (הרבּה is the inf. abs. for הרבּה, which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, 240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and Genesis 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfilment of the blessing to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), could be no punishment, והרנך must be understood as in apposition to עצּבונך thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. "That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child" (Delitzsch)."

It is possible that the oracle does mean that the number of children to be born will be greater because of sin. The Lord told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 28), and this before they had sinned. So when the Lord pronounced the curse on woman, saying he would "multiply" her "conception," he may have meant that she would be more fruitful and multiply, but if so it would have to be a cursed consequence and not a blessed one. It does not seem right to think that the blessing of being "fruitful" would be enhanced by the apostasy of Adam and Eve. Recall that the Psalmist said: "Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them (children)" (127: 5 nkjv). So, it is incongruent to say that Eve's punishment would be to have more children. It seems, therefore, that the right interpretation is as the commentators indicate, as previously cited, which say that the text means that Eve and women would have multiplied travail in birthing children.

That is not to deny, however, that Eve's sin would also often cause abortions, deformed offspring, etc., beyond the multiplied pains of pregnancy and childbirth. The same thing could be said about sexual intercourse itself, which would have been painless to Eve before her transgression, but often is painful for women today who are under the curse placed upon women by the fall of Adam and Eve. 

So, even if the text says that more children will have been born than would have been born, had Adam and Eve not sinned, it does not necessarily mean what Two Seeders read into that assumed fact.

The Two Seeders, as we have seen in earlier chapters when noticing what they taught about the parable of the wheat and tares, have strange views on it. In that parabolic story, the owner of a field first sowed wheat in it, and existed for a time without any tares (weeds). Then sometime later an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. In the interpretation that Jesus gives of this parable we see what each item in the story represents. The wheat represented the children of God and the tares the children of the Devil. 

So, what is strange and novel about the Two Seed interpretation? 

First, it must be their idea that the children of God existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in Christ (in him as a Mediator possessing a third nature, a composite of his divinity and humanity).

Second, likewise it must be their idea that the children of the Devil existed as seed before being planted in a human body, yea, even preexisting in the Devil.

Third, it must be their idea that some are born wheat and some born weeds, therefore some born to stay wheat and be burned up and some born to stay tares and be harvested for the owner (farmer) of the field. 

Fourth, it must be their idea that those who are wheat have always been wheat, and have always been saved, and therefore never were tares, and therefore never lost.

Fifth, it wholly gives a new meaning to why God created human beings, and what was his purpose in planting the preexisting wheat seeds into humans, and what was his purpose in making it possible for the Devil to sow tares in his field.

Sixth, it calls into question why the need for a resurrected body for either the wheat or the tares. If the bodies are simply temporary houses for preexisting souls, for the purpose of developing or training those souls for life in eternity, then it seems like there will come a time when the physical bodies no longer serve their purpose, and death simply returns a soul to its source, whether God or Satan. 

But, such a Two Seed interpretation is broadening the elements of the parable beyond what was intended. The main elements of the parable are these:

1) there are lost sinners in the world as a result of the work of the Devil, and

2) there are saved sinners in the world as a result of the work of Christ, and

3) both saved and unsaved will exist together until the time of the harvest.

If the Two Seed ideas on the parable are correct, you would expect Christ, in his interpretation of the parable, to give the Two Seed interpretation. But, he did not. Let us notice some things from the parable.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared." (Matt. 13: 24-26 nkjv)

Good seed was sown first and this means that God originally made Adam and Eve good. The enemy sowing tares came after. This is what we see in the opening chapters of Genesis. But, we cannot make every detail of the parable have some hidden meaning. If so, what do the words "while men slept" mean? It can't mean while God slept, nor while the angels slept, and it cannot mean men in general, for only Adam and Eve existed when the Devil first sowed his seed (false ideas) into the mind of Eve. Also, the results of the enemy sowing tares did not need to wait for the grain (wheat) to sprout and produce a crop.

Potter wrote this in rebuttal to the seventh tenet of Two Seedism, given above:

"7. We presume this item was intended for two seed doctrine; and we have frequently been asked the question, "Do you believe the two seed doctrine? If the above is two-seedism, we do not now, nor never did believe it. We believe that the children of God, or the elect transgressed the law, which brought them under the curse. This item denies the curse being pronounced on the elect. We do not believe the law holds any claims on a people who never transgressed it. The above places the curse on "the greatly multiplied," and yet denies their being in the transgression. We believe the objects of God's redemption to have been under the curse. We read in the Bible, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3: 13. We cannot divine how they could be redeemed from the curse, if they were never under it. We do not believe the non-elect were redeemed, yet the above would necessarily make them the subjects of redemption; for the elect could not be cursed because God had blessed them, so the curse must have been placed on the non-elect, and they that were under the curse were the ones Christ redeemed. This makes the non-elect safe any way you turn it according to the writer above quoted."

This is a good rebuttal by Potter. However, I am a little puzzled by his assertion that he never believed in this tenet of Two Seedism, saying "we do not now, nor never did believe it." We have seen where Potter confessed that he favored Two Seedism for many years and it was not till around 1880 that he felt that he must attack it. Perhaps he did not believe this tenet of Two Seedism when he favored Two Seedism. After all, there are varieties of Two Seedism, some holding one tenet and another not. He says that he always believed that the redeemed were cursed, under wrath, because of sin, just as the unredeemed. He disagrees with those Two Seeders who affirmed - "what God blessed in Adam He could not curse." As we have seen, Daniel Parker was inconsistent on this point. He would affirm that the Devil's seed could be saved if they chose to be saved, on one hand, and then say that they could not on the other hand. Parker did not believe that any being created in God's image could be damned. 

Further, consider the fact that the blessed Jesus was made a curse for us. (Gal. 3: 13) But, if God cannot curse what he had blessed, then he could not curse the blessed Jesus. In fact, many things that were originally blessed by God were later cursed by him. If God cannot turn blessings into curses, then can he turn curses into blessings? Adam and Eve were blessed while living in Eden, but when they rebelled against their God, they were cursed by him.

Potter wrote further and gave us tenet number eight:

"8. - "The non-elect are no more related to the elect than the cocklebur is to the corn, both growing in the same field." - Elder G. Dalby, in Herald of Truth."

This is what Two Seeders often said when talking about the parable of the wheat and the tares, saying that the wheat were never tares, and vice versa. We saw in a former chapter where Elder Joshua Lawrence, a first generation leader of the Hardshells of the Kehukee Association, strongly disagreed with this idea, affirming that the wheat were once tares. By this he means this is so in respect to what they are in themselves, that the saved were once unsaved, the regenerate were once unregenerate, the justified were once condemned, etc. He does not mean that the elect were once non-elect. The elect and the non-elect are "related" by both being descendants of Adam and Eve, both born in sin and under wrath. Jacob and Esau were twins, related to each other, and yet one was loved and chosen before he was born, and the other was hated and rejected before he was born. 

In reply to this tenet Potter wrote:

"8. Cain is considered one of the non-elect, and the Bible recognizes Cain and Abel as brothers. Every Bible reader knows that after Cain had killed Abel, the Lord inquired of Cain where his brother was. Gen. 9: 9. "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." I. John iii, 12. To be brothers, is to be children of the same parents. There must be quite a similarity, or a oneness in the nature of two brothers, if they both partake of the nature of their parents; and we can see no reason why Cain would not be as likely to partake of the nature of his parents as Abel. Jacob and Esau were brothers, as every one knows who is acquainted with the Bible. Matt. i: 2. They must be more related and more alike than corn and cockleburs."

Paul plainly says that believers were once children of disobedience and under God's wrath "even as others." (Eph. 2: 3) This fact is also seen in Romans 3: 10-12. All are alike condemned for the one sin of Adam. (Rom. 5: 12-18) "In Adam all die" (I Cor. 15: 22). All come from the same lump of clay, whether they are vessels of mercy afore prepared for glory, or vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. (Rom. 9) 

Potter wrote:

"God has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil." Proverbs xxi. 4. Then the wicked are not an emanation from the devil, as men, or produced, or brought forth by or from the devil, as the plant comes forth from the seed. For God made them, and he either made them when he made Adam, or he made him afterwards; or before. All the man the Bible gives any account of being made, was Adam, and it is generally conceded that when the Lord made him, he made all his posterity in him. God, then, made the wicked; not that he made them wicked, but he made them, and they became wicked. If the Bible ever says one word about the people of God pre-existing the creation and formation of Adam, we have so far failed to find it."

Potter attacks one of the chief errors of Two Seedism, one which says that the Devil's children were not created by God. This view says that there is more than one Creator. That is gross heresy indeed. When Potter says that "it is generally conceded that when the Lord made Adam that he made all his posterity in him," he should have explained that further. This is what the Two Seeders said loudly and began to make inferences from that fact. 

If it is true that every person whoever is born into the world existed in Adam when Adam was created, then how could there be a multiplied increase in the number of children as a result of Adam and Eve's sin? When Eve sinned and God cursed her with the prospect of bringing forth all the persons of the Devil's children, were they in Adam originally or placed in him after his original creation and after they had sinned? When did the children of the Devil originate in Adam? 

Potter is correct to say that the Bible no where says that anyone actually existed before they were conceived in the womb. They did exist in God's foreknowledge, and were represented by the Son of God, to whom they were given and promised by a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit. But, we cannot rely too much on arguments from silence. Are there not bible passages which state that a person's birth into the world is when they begin to exist? Yes, many. Why does Potter not cite those passages. 

Hardshells & Repentance (again)

I have recently written about the Hardshell view on repentance and its relation to salvation. I first wrote in this post (here) where I cited the words of Elder Lemuel Potter (1841-1897), a recognized champion of modern day "Primitive Baptist" soteriological beliefs, who said: "We deny that repentance is a condition of salvation." In a short follow up post (here), I cited Acts 3: 19 which said: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," which refutes this belief of Potter and the Hardshells. Then I wrote another short post on II Peter 3: 9 in order to show how Potter's belief is against that text also, because it says that not only does God will that none of the elect perish (general Calvinist view), but that they all come to repentance. Potter denies that they all will come to repentance because God has willed it.

In this short post I will add a few additional thoughts. The first thing I want to mention is what the Fulton Convention of "Primitive Baptists" gave as their confession of faith for the time (1900). The elders who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky first endorsed the 1689 London Baptist Confession but added footnotes to those sections of the confession that they disagreed with or thought needed to be "clarified."

They particularly focused on two issues, one dealing with God's decrees respecting all things (or the "absolute predestination of all things") and one dealing with whether the word of God or Gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. We can safely assume that the sections of that Confession to which they gave no footnotes were accepted as written.

Two sections that had no footnotes were chapter XV, "Of Repentance Unto Life And Salvation," and chapter XVII, dealing with "The Perseverance of the Saints." Yet, today's "Primitive Baptists" would reject what those two sections say about repentance and perseverance. In fact, Potter in his debates with Dr. Throgmorton said that the "Primitive Baptists" were the rightful supporters and preservers of that old confession.

With all this said, let us now cite what the Confession says about repentance and its connection with salvation:

3. "This saving repentance is an (d) evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth by faith in Christ humble himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, (e) praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor, by supplies of the Spirit, to (f) walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things."

5. "Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the Covenant of Grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation, that although there is no sin so small but it deserves (h) damnation, yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that (i) repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary."

Several things need to be called attention to for the purpose of showing how Potter was not in league with that old Confession when he said that repentance was no condition for salvation. First, they show that repentance is indeed essential for salvation. The title of that article even says "repentance UNTO life and salvation." Second, they say that this repentance is an "evangelical grace," meaning that it is produced by hearing the Gospel, as they also said about "evangelical faith." Third, they say that this repentance was made certain for believers (or the elect) because it was a "provision" of the "Covenant of Grace for the preservation of believers UNTO SALVATION." Fourth, they clearly infer that without this repentance there would be "damnation" on them.

I encourage all to read my short series titled "Elder John Clark On Repentance." (See here, here, here, here) Elder John Clark (1804-1882) was also a recognized leader of the "Primitive Baptists" and a senior to Potter. In his paper "Zion's Advocate," another recognized paper of the "Primitive Baptists," there was carried on a little debate over whether repentance should be preached and sinners exhorted to repent in order to be saved. If you read those four posts you will see what Clark and others wrote on this issue in that periodical. For instance, here is what Clark wrote in Vol. 1, No. 14, for July 15th, 1854 in his periodical:

"The Arminian method admits that Christ and his apostles preached the gospel under the circumstances referred to, but that men were able to obey the gospel in repenting of their sins. The professed anti-Arminian scheme (of Beebe and his followers in the Signs of the Times, and also of today's PBs - SG) was national, and that it did not belong to the covenant of grace; that men can repent nationally but not evangelically--could repent under the old, but cannot under the new covenant. We do not believe in either of these schemes, as such. There is a little truth attached to each of them and about the same amount of error. We should interpret scripture, scripturally, no matter where it leads..."

"These scriptures prove conclusively that repentance towards God, or unto life, is a gift of grace, a blessing of the everlasting covenant. But this gift is not given in Christ alone, nor is it bestowed upon sinners alone. It is written that God "hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ," (Eph. 1:3) and that we are saved and called, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began." (2 Tim. 1:9) And in this bestowment of these spiritual blessings upon men, remission of sins, faith, &c., are always united with repentance. Hence we read from our glorious Redeemer himself that, Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, and in his ministry he also said, Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Also, Paul, Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." 

"Our watchword has been, THUS SAITH THE LORD--THUS IT IS WRITTEN: and thus we have it here upon the doctrine of repentance, and the apostolic mode of preaching it. And of the things which we have spoken this is the sum--The doctrine of repentance shows conclusively that it is the gift of God, and yet the primitive ministers addressed men upon the subject, seemingly, as though they could repent, or possessed the power to appropriate this gift to themselves, yet never told them that they possessed any such power--never."

"But it is enough for us to know that Christ gives both repentance and remission of sins, and yet these are to be preached in his name, and that men were called upon by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles, in their public ministrations of the word, to do this very thing." 

"This is the "Godly sorrow that worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of." (II Cor. 7:10) It is a repentance to salvation; that ends in salvation; a repentance unto life. It is from life, and leads to, and ends in eternal life. Salvation is begun--has come to the poor sinner that is found repenting in dust and ashes before God."

"Some suppose that the primitive ministers in saying, Repent, repent ye, and believe the gospel, &c., designed to be understood only as addressing those who had passed from death unto life, as it would have been inconsistent so to address the ungodly and unconverted, as such had no power to repent and believe. Now, while such brethren are so much afraid of Arminianism, they seem not to be aware that their view of the subject has in it that ism very distinctly developed!"

So, we say in closing that the view of Potter and of the vast majority of "Primitive Baptists" today is not the view of their forefathers and so they cannot legitimately claim to be "primitive." We also say that this failure to exhort sinners to repent and believe the Gospel is a large reason why they continue to wilt and die. It is also something that they can expect the Lord to rebuke and judge them for when they appear before him.

In another recent post I cited the following from Elder C.B. Hassell (1809-1880):

"The Report indirectly charges Kehukee Baptists with believing or teaching, that those who finally die in a state of impenitence, are taken to heaven by an absolute decree of God. The Report need lay claim to no originality here, for this same charge was full grown in the apostolic age and must be quite grey headed by this time...Paul denied the charge, treated it as a slander and so does the Kehukee Association." (see here)

God Opens and Shuts

In my prayers I often give God thanks for "opening" my heart, eyes, ears, mind, understanding, and mouth or lips. I also pray that he continues to do so. Because of sin and innate depravity, and by our choices to shut out God, we have "closed" our hearts, eyes, ears, and minds. Opened eyes, ears, hearts, and mouths are set in opposition to closed eyes, ears, hearts, minds, and mouths. The above text speaks of the Messiah, and of his power to open what is shut and to shut what is open.

Opened Hearts

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14 kjv)

God opens the door of the heart so that his word may gain entrance. I have written at length on this text as it relates to the ordo salutis, and whether it teaches that Lydia was "regenerated" when the Lord opened her heart, and that this therefore shows that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. (See here) I show that this is not what is meant by the Lord opening her heart, but rather that the text reveals what God does in the hearts and minds of sinners prior to regeneration or conversion, being an instance of what is called "prevenient grace." The word "prevenient" means what precedes or goes before. God operates on the hearts of sinners prior to their regeneration.

These are "preparations" for conversion. It is possible that Lydia was already regenerated before her heart was opened on this occasion, since she was a believer in Yahweh and was assembled for prayer with other women. If that be the case, then the opening of her heart simply meant that the Lord caused her to give attention to what Paul was preaching, which shows that even believers who are saved need for God to continue to open their hearts to give attention to his word.

God opening the heart had for its purpose of making her receptive or attentive to the gospel message of the apostle. The old Puritans spoke of sinners being "awakened" prior to being regenerated or converted. They taught that some sinners are awakened to their lost condition and need of salvation, and yet go back to sleep and are never saved. This is true when one's interest in the gospel stirred for a time when God has providentially gained their attention. I wrote a short series on "Awakened Sinners" back in 2018. (This post give the third in that series and gives links to the previous ones - here)

God has no trouble getting the attention of sinners, nor awakening them from their slumber, when he determines to do so. Thank God for this act of mercy, for it was what in many cases led to embracing the gospel and receiving Christ and salvation. Even as Christians we need to constantly ask the Lord to continuously open our hearts to the truth and to make us careful about closing our hearts, minds, eyes, and ears to God and his word.

Opened Eyes

The Psalmist said: "Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law." (Psa. 119: 18 nkjv) This is what Christians are to continuously pray. God first opened our eyes when he first awakened us to our lost condition and need of his salvation, and later too when he opened our eyes to see Christ as the way of salvation, to see the cross of Calvary as the place of propitiation. So the old Christian song says:

"At the cross, at the cross, where I first SAW the light, and the burden of my heart rolled away. It was there by faith I received my sight and now I am happy all the day."

It was prophesied that God's servant, the Messiah, would be sent to the people in order "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." (Isa. 42: 7 kjv) This is what happens when a sinner is converted and born of the Spirit. So we read where the Lord Jesus opened the eyes of the persecuting Saul of Tarsus and then commissioned him to go to the Gentiles to preach the gospel, the means of salvation, and for this purpose:

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 18 kjv)

Our Hardshell brethren don't believe God uses his ministers to save sinners and they therefore have much difficulty with this passage. They will make every effort to say that the above description of salvation is a mere timely deliverance and has nothing to do with eternal salvation. They force this view upon the text because they believe their proposition that says that God does not use human means in the eternal salvation of sinners is an inspired proposition and they therefore hack and hew on the text to make it fit with this proposition. They will often say - "the text does not say that Paul would be the means of giving them eyes but of opening their eyes." However, all men have eyes, or the natural ability to see truth and error, though they do not have the moral or spiritual ability because of depravity. Sin blinds the eyes, but men are active in this blindness. So the Lord says:

"Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not." (Jer. 5: 21 nkjv)

Notice that the people who are foolish and without understanding, which is a description of unsaved people, have eyes and ears, but these they have closed, which is why the Lord chastises them. (See also Eze. 12: 2) This is why the Lord says to such lost sinners: “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see." (Isa. 42: 18 nkjv) If such deaf and blind people were so because they had no physical ability to see or hear, this would be a cruel thing for God to ask. But, if the deafness and blindness was owing to the people making themselves such by their depravity, and by their spiritual and moral inability, then such a command is quite understandable.

It is true that there are several bible verses that say that God shuts the eyes and ears of sinners, but this is a judicial act by God in response to the stubbornness of sinners and their refusal to hear and see. So we read:

“Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” (Isa. 6: 10 nkjv)

God did this as a judgment. So we say that God in some sense shuts eyes and ears, and so too do sinners shut their own eyes and ears. We may also say that Satan does that very thing. So Paul wrote:

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Cor. 4: 4 kjv)

Satan (the "god of this world") does this to sinners but not against their will, sinners allowing Satan to do this. They are complicit and not innocent victims. So the Lord Jesus said:

"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (Matt. 13: 15 nkjv)

The opening of the eyes is what happens when a sinner is saved. It is connected, as we saw from Acts 26: 18, with being "turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" and with "receiving forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith." But, even saved Christians need to constantly have their eyes opened to understand the scriptures. So the Psalmist, as a saved man, prayed for God to open his eyes so that he might understand and see wondrous things from God's word. So the apostle Paul prayed for the Ephesian believers in order that they might have "the eyes of your understanding enlightened" (Eph. 1: 18 nkjv).

Opened Ears

Solomon said: "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The LORD has made them both." (Prov. 20: 12 nkjv) So, if a person sees or hears the word of the Lord he can only thank God for it. So too did the Psalmist exclaim: "My ears You have opened." (Psa. 40: 6 nkjv) Sin and depravity deafens us. Though sinners are deaf and blind he still says to them, as we saw, “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see." He says to them: "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3 kjv) So the apostle Paul says:

"See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven." (Heb. 12: 25 nkjv)

People choose to "turn their ears away from the truth" (II Tim. 4: 4 nkjv). The Lord said through Isaiah: "I spoke to you in your prosperity, But you said, ‘I will not hear.’ This has been your manner from your youth, That you did not obey My voice." (Jer. 22: 21 nkjv)

What we see is that the opening of the eyes and ears is a work of God and yet it is something that people do, being exhorted thereunto by the Lord. It is one of the errors of Hyper Calvinism to wrongly interpret texts which say that when God does something in a person it excludes that person himself doing that thing. God opens the eyes and ears and people open their eyes and ears. God shuts the eyes and ears and people shut their eyes and ears. We should all be asking God to open our hearts, eyes, and ears, and when we do that we are doing the opening.

Opened Understanding

"And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24: 32 kjv)

We have already taken notice of the text that speaks of opening "the eyes" of one's "understanding." The above text is a companion to that verse. This "opening" of the scriptures is what we call "enlightenment" or "illumination." We have already referred to how "the god of this age blinds the minds" of people, and how the Lord "shines" upon such people through giving "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ." While lost in sin the "understanding" is "darkened" (Eph. 4: 18), there being no inner light nor experience of having their understanding opened by the Lord. In such a state there is no "spiritual understanding." (Col. 1: 9) Once saved and converted the sinner possesses "all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." (Col. 2: 2 kjv) God must "give understanding in all things." (II Tim. 2: 7) Wrote the apostle John:

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5: 20 nkjv)

This giving or opening of the understanding to know spiritual things is necessary for anyone to "know" God "who is true," and to know Christ Jesus the Son who is also "true." By this understanding a person knows God and his Son, and this is salvation.

Opened Lips and Mouths

"O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise." (Psa. 51: 15 kjv)

"I am the LORD your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt; Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it." (Psa. 81: 10 nkjv)

When we are able to open our mouths in praise and prayer to God, we can thank God for it. He is the reason why we do this. So many close their mouths, refusing to praise God, refusing to pray to him, and refusing to speak of him to others. Let us praise the Lord for opening so that none can shut, and shutting so that none can open. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVI)

"that we should no longer be children, 

tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, 

by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" 

(Ephesians 4: 14 nkjv)

What a mighty wind of false doctrine is Two Seedism! It has "tossed to and fro" those known as "Primitive," or "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Potter in his pamphlet* against Two Seedism said:

"Of those who maintain this doctrine, we find about as many different positions on it as we find men who advocate it. Their tongues are as badly confused as those of the builders of the Tower of Babel." 

*"UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION STATED AND DEFINED; OR, A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH" and can be read (here)

In this chapter we will continue our examination of what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in his pamphlet against Two Seedism in 1880. In that pamphlet he gave eleven tenets of Two Seedism and in the past few chapters we have given the first three along with Potter's response to each. Potter wrote further, giving us the fourth tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. - "Are the serpent's seed accountable beings to God, and on what principle will they be judged, condemned and punished? The serpent's seed are accountable to God, because they are in His rightful dominion, came into action in the world by way of God's creation, and live in this world on the bounties of heaven, and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works." - Daniel Parker, Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June, 1831, editorial."

Parker does not affirm that the "serpent's seed" were "accountable to God" because they were his creation, but because they were in his dominion. We have already seen where Parker did not believe that God created the Devil, and that he believed that all who were created in God's image would be saved, and so this involves believing that God did not create the Devil's children, nor that they were made in the image of God. How did the Devil's children get into God's dominion? Parker said that the Devil's children, like the evil angels (who he believed were humans), were particles infused into the human race. In chapter XII Nowlin cited Parker where he said this very thing. Also, Potter has already given us tenet number one in the list of Two Seed tenets, which said:

1. - "Now, dear sister, we agree with you, that God has no partnership with the devil. Nor do we believe that God created or made bodies for the devil or his children, or that the devil draws upon Eve for bodies. We believe that every seed produces its own body." - Herald of Truth, by Anderson Gordon, January 1878, p. 201."

Potter makes this comment on this Two Seed 4th tenet of Two Seedism:

"4. We endorse the idea that the wicked will be punished for their wickedness and rebellion against the government of God. By their sins they incur the just penalty of God's law, and they will be judged and condemned by it, just as the elect of God would without redemption from the curse of the law. Gal. iii: 13."

He did not, however, point out the things I just pointed out, and you would think that he should have done so. Further, why did he not cite other Two Seeders who said that nothing a person does in his life is a cause of his going to Hell forever? This was what tenet number three stated.

3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world...our doings in this life only affect us in this life."

So why does Potter not say that Parker was wrong to deny that the Devil's seed were accountable to God because they were his creation and not simply because they were in God's dominion? Why does Potter not say that he agrees with Two Seeders on the proposition that says that nothing that a person does in this life is a reason why he goes to an eternity of bliss? He does say that he agrees with Parker in affirming that people go to Hell because of their sins, even though later Two Seeders denied this.

Potter wrote further, giving us tenet number five of the Two Seeder's creed, which stated:

"5. - "Are the serpent's seed human beings? If they are, how did they partake of humanity? The serpent's seed are human beings; they partook of their humanity by means of the creation which God had made. Creation was made good; the serpent corrupted and got into it, for which cause God yet multiplied its conception and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed, and thus the children of the multiplied conception, coming through the created stock, are equally human beings with the children of creation, or divinely appointed conception, and the old serpent, the devil, is also the father of the wicked, corrupt nature that is in man, or in the world." - Church Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 9, June 1831, editorial."

Again, this is what Daniel Parker said, and it was not what other Two Seeders who followed him believed. So, why did Potter put this in his list of tenets of Two Seedism that are unsound? It is true that later Two Seeders would deny that the Devil's seed, or the "multiplied conception," were fully human beings, or had human souls, but Parker did not go that far. It is possible that Parker meant that the Devil's seed were humans physically, but not fully, lacking a soul and spirit.

It is allowable to say that the Devil sowed a "seed" into the woman's mind, that seed being a thought, or suggestion. After all, we do speak of thoughts being "conceived" in the mind. When Paul was in Athens and teaching the word of God, he was accused of being a "babbler," and the Greek word is spermalogos, which is a compound of "sperma" (seed) and "logos" (words). (See my posting on this here) Paul was viewed as one who was broadcasting seed, giving news. So we speak of newsmen as "broadcasters." The Devil did not sow his seed in the sense of child producing sperm.

Potter's response to this article said:

"5. So far as the manner of the serpent's seed partaking humanity is concerned, there are only three positions for us to take, provided they are human beings, and this item says they are; one is that God made them when he made Adam, or he made them after he made Adam, or he did not make them at all. If they are the wicked he made them, and if they are men and women he made them, as we have already shown above. We have no account in the Bible that God made any man but Adam. To say that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in man or in the world, and that that makes some of them his seed, would be to make all of them his seed that possess the wicked and corrupt nature; and to take the wicked and corrupt nature out of all of them would leave him with no seed, and we would have the same men and women in the world; for the corrupt and wicked nature in man is no part of man."

Recall in earlier chapters we gave the rebuttal of Elder Joshua Lawrence to the Two Seedism of Daniel Parker and showed where Lawrence said that all lost sinners are children of the Devil and it is this same seed of the Devil that God makes into his children. All men are born in sin, born under wrath, born morally corrupt, and so they are all born children of the Devil.

Potter also said:

"We take Parker's position as quoted above, that the devil is the father of the wicked and corrupt nature that is in them, and that were it not for the provisions that God has made for the objects of his love, to redeem them from sin, and rid them of the wicked and corrupt nature, they would be fit for nothing but to live in the service of sin in this world, and at last to make their home eternally among the demons of eternal despair."

So, can we prove from scripture that those who become the children or seed of God were previously the children or seed of the Devil? In Matthew chapter three John the Baptist addresses Jews (Pharisees and Sadducees) and called them a "brood of vipers." Yet, to them he gives a warning to flee from the wrath to come, and says that he would baptize them upon their repentance, saying to them "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" and "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (vs. 7-12) Who is the "you" in this text? Clearly it is to those vipers who repented and heeded the warning. If being vipers is equated with being children of the Devil, then by exhorting these vipers to repentance his aim was to make children of God out of the children of the Devil. In John chapter five Jesus addresses some of these children of the Devil and exhorts them to come to him for life and salvation. We should also call attention to the case of Cain, one whom the apostle John said was "of the Devil" (I John 3: 12), and who the Two Seeders who followed Parker said was of the Devil's seed and could therefore never be saved. However, notice what God says to Cain when he and his offering were rejected by him. The text says;

"but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen. 4: 5-7 nkjv)

John Gill, the Calvinist, in his commentary on the expression - "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" - says:

"...if thou doest thine offering well, or rightly offereth, as the Septuagint; or offers not only what is materially good and proper to be offered, but in a right way, in obedience to the divine will, from love to God, and with true devotion to him, in the faith of the promised seed, and with a view to his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance; then thine offering would be well pleasing and acceptable."

Gill does leave out the fact that not only would God accept Cain's offering when it is made in the right way and in the right motive, but Cain himself would be accepted. After all, the Lord not only rejected Cain's offering but also rejected Cain himself. Therefore his counsel to Cain involved what Cain should do to have both his offering and his person accepted by God. God says that Cain himself would be accepted if he did what he was counseled by God to do. So, this shows that children of the Devil may become children of God.

Potter wrote further, giving the following short statement for the sixth tenet of Two Seedism:

"6. - "Two seeds manifest in the flesh." - Herald of Truth, Vol. 3, No. 6."

Potter writes this in commentary on the above tenet:

"6. Two seeds manifest in the flesh would make a difference in the flesh; so that some men would be good seed in consequence of their natural birth. This would make flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Bible says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I. Cor. xv: 50. Those that were admitted to John's baptism were not admitted because of their fleshly birth, but they must have other qualifications. Those who received Jesus when he came into the world were not different from those did not, by virtue of their natural birth; but they were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is being born of God that makes a difference between them and others, and even makes the same man different from what he was before. If the natural, or fleshly birth made a man a child of God, there would be no need of him being born again to entitle him to enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." John iii, 6."

Of course the bible teaches that the children of God are his seed or offspring. However, all men are God's offspring in a natural sense, as Paul said to the Athenian idolaters, citing from their own poet, "we are all God's offspring." (Acts 17:28) But, not all men are God's offspring by a spiritual birth. Lost sinners are God's offspring because they are God's creation, through procreation, but only those who have been "born of God" or "of incorruptible seed," through the Spirit and "by the word of God" (John 1: 12-13; I Peter 1: 23) are his spiritual children via a new creation. This is what Potter is arguing and it is fully scriptural. However, when he says that there is no difference between those who "received Jesus" and those who rejected him, he is going against what he himself teaches. Why? Because he and those "Primitive Baptists" who follow him today say that the reason why one receives Jesus and another not is because there is a difference between them, one being born of God and another not. Maybe this is why Potter adds these words after his comma -- "by virtue of their natural birth."

Potter also does not explain the Two Seed response to his rebuttal. As I have shown in previous chapters, Two Seeders like Beebe would say that the birth is not the begetting of the child, not the origin of the child, for the child born was "conceived" prior to the birth. So, Beebe would say that birth only "manifests" the already begotten child. He would say that the child born of the Spirit was "begotten" in eternity past when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. Potter and his brethren would say that being born of the Spirit "manifests" those who have been chosen to salvation. He and they would also say that "receiving Jesus" only manifests that one was already born of God, was already a child of God. This is contrary to what the apostle John wrote when he wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

They became children of God when they received Christ and believed on him, and not before. It is when they received him that they were "born of God."

In the next chapter we will continue our review of Potter's lengthy rebuttal of Two Seedism.

What Does It Mean To Forgive Others?

When I type in a Google search the words "what is involved in forgiving others" I get this response:

"Forgiving others involves an intentional decision to release resentment, anger, and the desire for revenge. This process can take time and often includes acknowledging the hurt, understanding the situation, letting go of negative feelings, and choosing to move forward for your own well-being, even if the person doesn't respond or make amends. Forgiveness is often about releasing the other person from the "debt" of what they owe you, allowing you to heal and detach from the event."

This summation concerning forgiveness is not biblical. Forgiveness is not unconditional. I wrote on this subject not too long ago in a short post titled "Unconditional Forgiveness?" (See here) I cited the following text to show that forgiveness was not unconditional.

"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Luke 17: 3-4 kjv)

Forgiveness is not unconditional. We are not obligated to forgive those who have not confessed their trespass against us nor repented of it. Oftentimes this would include recompensing for any damage done by the trespass. If a person steals my car and wrecks it, and then says "I am sorry, please forgive me," I am obligated to grant forgiveness. But, that does not relieve the person from paying for the damage to the car. There are many bible passages we could cite to show that this is what God counsels.

What many preachers mean by advising Christians to forgive all unconditionally is because it is a way to release anger and manage emotion, such as hate and bitterness. But, that is not the chief idea involved in biblical forgiveness. True forgiveness involves restoration and reconciliation. God does not forgive unconditionally, but requires confession and repentance. Notice these texts:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1: 9 nkjv)

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3: 19 nkjv)

Here we see that confession of sins and repentance are conditions for divine forgiveness. Of course, this does not mean that we must confess every sin, for we often sin and don't know it, and therefore such sins do not get specifically confessed. That is why we pray for God to forgive us for all sins, even those we are not aware of. There are sins of commission and sins of omission.

We must also realize that there are two contexts in which forgiveness takes place. One is judicial and involves criminals being legally or judicially justified, acquitted, or pardoned. The other is parental forgiveness and involves being spared discipline or chastisement. A child of God is already forgiven of all sins, past, present, and future, so far as the law of God is concerned. But, God's child needs fatherly forgiveness every day.

Let me now enlarge upon my thesis to show that forgiveness is not unconditional, but conditional. Our Lord said:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matt. 18: 15-17 nkjv)

Here Jesus says the same thing as he did in Luke 17: 3-4, mentioned above. Forgiveness by the church is conditional upon the brother who sins against another brother "hearing" or heeding the counsel of other brothers, and of the whole church. This hearing involves confession and repentance. Without this the brother offended, and the church, is not to forgive the sinning brother, but is to look upon him as not being a brother, but a "heathen." If the sinning brother heeds the counsel of others and repents, he is then forgiven, and such forgiveness involves restoration and reconciliation. We see an example of this in First Corinthians chapter five, where Paul addressed the severe sexual immorality in the Corinthian church, involving a brother fornicating with his father's wife (stepmother). Paul demanded that the church discipline him by excluding him, in order to bring him to repentance so that his spirit could be saved. Without this repentance there would be no forgiveness nor restoration. In II Corinthians chapter two we read where Paul urges forgiveness after the man repents.

Now let us look at another example of this same paradigm. It involves the evil that a professing Christian brother did to the apostle Paul. In his letter to Timothy, Paul writes:

"Alexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done" (2 Timothy 4:14, NIV).

The original Greek can be translated as either "the Lord will repay" (a statement of fact about divine justice) or "may the Lord repay" (an expression of a desire or a wish for divine judgment). So, is this what is called "imprecatory prayers"? Many of the Psalms are called such. These are prayers for evil doers to get what they deserve in some kind of punishment. (Psa. 35: 6; 55: 15; 58: 6; 69: 28; 109: 8)

What is interesting in what Paul says about Alexander is what he says right after this, in verse 16. He wrote:

"At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them." (II Tim. 4: 16 nkjv)

In verse 14 Paul is wanting Alexander to be repaid for the harm he had done to Paul. In verse 16 he is praying that God forgives those brothers who forsook him when he was on trial. What are we to make of this? Is forgiveness always conditional? Is it sometimes unconditional? This becomes a point to consider when we focus on the words of Christ when he was being crucified and said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." (Luke 23: 34) Was he praying for the Jews who cried "crucify him" to be forgiven unconditionally? Is he asking his Father to unconditionally forgive the Romans who were also guilty of his murder?

It is a dangerous thing to be unwilling to forgive others. Jesus taught us to pray, saying "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us." (Matt. 6: 12; Luke 11: 4) This fact is forcefully impressed upon us by these words of the Lord Jesus to Peter when Peter asked - “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” (Matt. 18: 21 nkjv) Jesus then said to him:

"22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Here forgiveness involved eliminating a debt. It does not however necessitate releasing a wrongdoer from paying for the crime he has done, as I showed above in the example of a person who steals your car, wrecks it and damages it, and who says he is sorry. Your forgiveness of him does not mean that you pay for the damage yourself. It also does not mean that you don't punish the person who stole your car and wrecked it. If your son did this, you might forgive him upon his repentance, but you might not ever allow him to use your car in the future nor put your car keys in a place where he can get them.

Let us look at the case where John Mark forsook Paul in their missionary journey. Paul was offended by this. We also see where later in Act 15:35-40, as Paul prepares to set out on his second missionary journey with Barnabas, that Paul and Barnabas had a serious squabble over whether to take Mark with them. We learn that “Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.” Paul strongly disagreed with that idea because Mark’s forsaking Paul previously. (Acts 13:13) In Paul’s eyes his new missionary plan was too serious to risk failure. So we read: “But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.” The subject of John Mark was so divisive between Paul and Barnabas that “they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, and he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:39-40). John Mark had caused the break up of one of history’s great missionary teams. Paul no doubt forgave Mark but that did not mean that he was restored in every way, having the same level of trust in the mind of Paul as before. I am also sure that Mark told Paul that he was sorry. We see this same scenario where a minister is caught in adultery or some other heinous sin and he confesses his wrong to the church, and to his wife and others, and is forgiven, and yet he loses, at least for a time, his standing as a minister.

The above lesson in Matthew about the creditor who forgave a debtor and voided that forgiveness when he saw how the one forgiven refused to forgive debtors who owed him, shows how important it is for us to be willing to always forgive. If we have been forgiven by God, and realize how gracious it is, then we should be as forgiving as our God. It is in our progressive sanctification that we learn how to forgive, when to forgive, and the importance of it. We keep in mind these words:

"For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." (James 2: 13 kjv)

"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless." (Psa. 18: 25 nkjv)

Showing mercy involves forgiving. 

There is much more that could be said on this subject. I do believe that the one wronged may forgive another even if there is no repentance. By "forgive" I mean not holding a grudge or allowing a "root of bitterness" to grow in our hearts when we have suffered a wrong. (Heb. 12: 15) My first wife committed adultery after we had been married six years and had two children. I was willing to forgive her and save our marriage and family. She refused, adding sin to sin. She never said she was sorry nor repented. Yet, I have forgiven her even without her confession and repentance. I refuse to remain bitter over it. 

Let me close by asking whether forgiving another means

1) you no longer are angry at what was done,

2) that you now love or like the one who did you wrong,

3) that you no longer let the wrong affect your relationship.

Doubting Salvation is Proof of Salvation?

In a recent article by David Wise of "March To Zion" web page, a Hardshell Baptist publication, titled "How Do You “Know” That You’re a Child of God?" (See here), the author wrote:

"It is a very common struggle in this world for God’s children to wonder “am I really saved?” Let me first say before we dig into this lesson, that is never a question that a person will ever ask that is unregenerate, so just your desire to ask that question is evidence that you are already born again and the Spirit inside you is stirring for you to ask that question."

The words in bold type (by me) represent a far-fetched theological idea. It is similar to another thing that Hardshells say, which is - "if you have ever felt convicted of sin and realized your guilt before God, then this proves that you are regenerated." In my recent post titled "Are Muslims Saved?" (See here) I spoke of this idea, and I cited Elder C.H. Cayce who wrote:

"...if we are sorry for sin and grieve on account thereof, it is because we are alive spiritually." (Cayce's Editorials, Vol. 3, page 169)

I showed how ridiculous is this view, using the case of Judas to disprove it. I wrote:

"Judas felt sorry for what he had done. (Matt. 27: 3) Does that mean that he was a child of God possessing divine life? Did not Jesus say that Judas was a "demon"? (John 6: 70) Did Jesus not say that it would have been better that Judas had never been born? (Matt. 26: 24) This one case disproves what Cayce said, and what many other Hardshells have affirmed since his day." 

Not only that, but I have shown in several writings that if conviction of sin and guilt, and the Holy Spirit bringing a sinner to acknowledge his lost condition, is an evidence of a saved and justified state, then this makes the Holy Spirit a liar. I write about this in this post (here). Elder Throgmorton in his debate with Elder John Daily made this point and Daily avoided responding to it. However, Elder Sarrels responded to it in his "Systematic Theology" by saying: "...the quickened person in conviction sees himself NOT as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." That makes the Holy Spirit a liar.

In another recent post (See here) I cited from the "Signs of the Times," an "Old School" Baptist paper, from 1862 where a brother Johnson wrote: "If I should hear a person say,- "I know that I am a christian," I confess that I should have doubts of his christianity."

So, if you want to gain assurance of your salvation, you must doubt your salvation, or doubt that you are a Christian. If you want to know you are saved you must say "Am I saved?" 

When someone says that he doesn't know that he is saved, he probably is not saved. What if instead of asking "am I saved?" a person asked "am I lost?" If the former question proves that the person asking was saved, why doesn't the latter question prove that the person asking is lost? When a person doubts his salvation, he ought to be shown how to be saved and sure of it. When a lost person doubts that he is lost, he ought to be shown why he is wrong.

All this is evidence that the "Primitive Baptists" are quasi Universalists, and is one of the reasons why they have had so many of their number go off into full Universalism, being known as "Primitive Baptist Universalist."