In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can be read (here).
We are at the point in our investigation where we look at what many Two Seeders taught about the preexistence of the man Christ Jesus, a view that we saw was taught to some degree by early 17th century Hyper Calvinists such as Joseph Hussey, and by the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts. They taught that the human soul of Christ existed in eternity past, though not his human body. Many Two Seeders accepted this view but went further, affirming that even the human body of Christ was eternal, which is why Potter attacked this view and argued that it was illogical to say that what was created was without beginning. In Potter's pamphlet (which were his writings from his paper the "Church Advocate") he writes the following under the heading "HUMANITY OF CHRIST":
"As there are some controversies in the present age about the humanity of Christ, and, we have often feared, many contentions by some without that strict and impartial investigation of the subject that every one should give before taking a permanent position, we have concluded not only to take a position, but to appeal to inspiration as the author of whatever position we may assume, as well as our warrant for opposing erroneous sentiments on this subject."
The early church saw heresies arise over the humanity of Christ. Two Seedism is a later heresy as it relates to the humanity of Christ, although, as we have seen, several elements of Two Seedism are not new.
Potter wrote further:
"The first impression we wish to make is, that it is the humanity and not the divinity of Christ that this brief work will treat of; for while there may be a dissension between ourself and others on the eternal humanity of Christ, we presume all will agree on his eternal divinity. If, therefore, the eternal existence of Christ should be denied in this investigation of the subject, it will be his humanity. The doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ, we expect to disprove in this work, and to this question the work is devoted."
In earlier chapters we noticed that some Hyper Calvinists at the beginning of the 17th century taught that the human soul of Christ was created in past eternity, such as Joseph Hussey and Isaac Watts. Very few of them believed that the human body of Christ was likewise without beginning. The preexistence of the humanity of Christ was a central idea in Two Seedism. Some held to the preexistence of the human soul alone but a few others held to the preexistence of the human body of Christ also. I contended that this was one of the causes for the development of Two Seedism among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists of the 19th century. This is affirmed by the words of Potter above.
In "Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary" we find an article titled "Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ" (See here) which has some information on this belief. Speaking of Christ Watson wrote (emphasis mine):
"That he really did exist, is plain from John 3:13; John 6:50 , &c; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 17:24; 1 John 1:2; but there are various opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His body was formed in the virgin's womb; but his human soul, they suppose, was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation; they differ from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ's human soul began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Hebrews 2:17."
This is a good description of Two Seed Primitive Baptist ideology. Some Two Seeders took the view of Hussey and argued that the human soul or Christ was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God in eternity past. Other Two Seeders went further and believed that the human soul and body were eternally begotten or created. Watson says that some Bible teachers affirmed this, but he does not tell us who they are.
He also says that "these divines," whoever they were, differed from the Arians because they did not deny the divinity of the Son of God. However, as we have seen in former chapters, Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder John Clark labeled Two Seedism as "Arianism." I stated, however, that I prefer to call them semi-Arians, because their views seem to be like Arianism in several ways, chiefly as it relates to Christ being the Son of God. Many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, whether Two Seeder or not, resisted believing that Christ's being begotten as the Son of God respected his divinity, arguing that Christ's divinity is not derived, and being begotten denoted inferiority to the Father. We saw how this was strongly affirmed by Two Seeders elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, and by an anti Two Seeder, Elder Joshua Lawrence.
Watson wrote further:
"The writers in favour of the preexistence of Christ's human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments*:
1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union,
2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could not properly have divested itself of any glory, John 17:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:9 . It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth.
3. It seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins."
*(I wish he had told us who these writers were who taught this, but surely he must have in mind men like Joseph Hussey)
Those are some good arguments and are not easily rebutted. However, they do not prove that the Son of God and second person in the holy Trinity always had a human soul, body, or nature. His appearance in the old testament as a man does not imply that he had a body from eternity. We also find that angels, distinct from the "angel of the Lord" (who is indeed Yahweh the Son, the one who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses saying "I Am That I Am") appeared in human bodies, but in their normal state they do not have physical bodies, being incorporeal spirits. Even in the new testament angels appeared in the form of human bodies at the tomb of the risen Christ. (See John 20: 11-14; Mark 16: 5-6) Also, at the time of Christ's bodily ascension into heaven we read where "two men stood by" the apostles and spoke to them and who were clearly angels. (Acts 1: 9-11) Also the apostle Paul wrote to the early Christians: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2 niv).
The old testament appearances of the Son of God in human form are called "theophanies" or "Christophanies." If angels can appear in human bodies, then so too could the Son of God. Many people then wonder why, if this is true, did Christ need to be conceived in the womb of Mary and obtain a human body this way. In response I say that the bodily form of Christ in the old testament, like the bodily form of lesser angels, were not human bodies in every way like bodies born by human procreation. We surmise that they did not have blood or bones or all the bodily organs. Secondly, it was the will of God that the Messiah be born of a woman, be of the seed of Abraham and David, so that he might be in every way like the humans he came to save.
In response to the objection that argues that the Son of God's lowering himself by such Christophanies is not compatible with his being the eternal God we say that this is the beauty of God to condescend to us in this manner. Also, the fact that the Father sends the Son to do a thing does not mean that the Father and the Son are not equal. Equals may send one another. One equal may speak for other equals.
In response to the Son of God divesting himself of his divine glory being incompatible with his being God, I say this divestiture only pertained to his revealed glory and not his essential glory. His divine glory was veiled by his incarnation. The Son of God never lost any of his divine attributes when he became a man.
In response to the Son of God becoming poor (II Cor. 8:9) I say that this does not relate to his divinity. Christ, even in his humanity was "the heir of all things." (See Matt. 21: 38; Heb. 1: 2; Rom. 8: 17) But, he nevertheless chose to be born in poor circumstances, chose to own nothing except his clothes, chose not to live in luxury while on earth, etc. So when it is argued that it cannot "be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth" is incorrect, for he was born rich, that is, entitled to all things. There have been several instances even among men where rich men have chosen to live as paupers, no one knowing that they were actually rich.
In response to the argument that "It seems needful that the soul of Jesus Christ should preexist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins" I say that this is not so. The consent of the divine Son of God was what was necessary.
Watson wrote further:
"On the other side, it is affirmed that the doctrine of the preexistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and subverts that of his divine personality.
1. A pure intelligent spirit, the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures, created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the least difference except in name."
Before giving the other points that Watson gives of those who deny the preexistence of the human soul of Christ I wish to comment on the statement that the idea of a preexistent human Christ "exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity." Grigg Thompson and John Clark accused Two Seeders of being Arian because they denied that Christ was God by his being the Son of God by being begotten of the Father, the Two Seeders thinking, like the Arians, that such could not be said of God, for that would imply the Son's inferiority and subordination to the Father. The Arians however denied that Christ was God, but the Two Seeders did not. But, there is a resemblance to Arianism and is why I prefer to say that Two Seed views on Christ are semi Arians.
Watson next gives these reasons why it is wrong to believe in the preexistence of the human soul of Christ:
2. This preexistent intelligence, supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to consist of three natures.
3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common, like the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man?
4. The passages quoted in proof of the preexistence of the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which others allege in proof of the preexistence of all human souls.
5. This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first is active."
6. This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul says, "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren," Hebrews 2:17: he partook of all our infirmities, except sin. St. Luke says, "He increased in stature and wisdom," Luke 2:52 . Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God."
These are good reasons to reject the idea that Christ had a human soul in past eternity. The scriptures plainly say that Christ became a man like us when he was conceived in the womb of Mary and was because of that both the "seed of the woman" and "the seed of Abraham" and "seed of David."
In the next chapter we will continue looking at what Potter had to say about this Two Seed view about the preexistent humanity of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment