Elder Lemuel Potter's (1841 - 1897) book against Two Seedism is 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) and was written in 1880. The book above is only one of several books he wrote and published.
I will begin by citing these words from that book (emphasis mine):
"For the past fifty years there have been so many vain speculations among the brethren of the Baptist family on the subject of what is known as "Two Seedism," and the advocates of the doctrine having become so badly confused among themselves as to what the Two Seed doctrine is, it has caused the author of this little work to begin to investigate the subject for himself, which has resulted in the conclusions found in the following pages. Some brethren, when speaking or writing on the apostle's writing relative to the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath, seem to make it appear that God had made the vessels of wrath and hardened them in order that they should be wicked, and then he would be glorified in their destruction. We find no account of his ever hardening any man to make him wicked, but because they were already wicked."
The period of time Potter refers to by saying "for the past fifty years" is 1830-1880. Also, by "the Baptist family" he means not all Baptists but only those who Potter agreed with, or with those who called themselves "Primitive," or "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists, with few exceptions. No other Baptist group had Two Seeders among them.
Potter is correct in his description of the historical development of Two Seedism among the Hardshell Baptists of the 19th century. He says what other "Primitive Baptists" have said about Two Seedism's varied beliefs. In my post "Hassell On PB Two Seed Ancestry" (See here) I cited Sylvester Hassell from the Gospel Messenger (March, 1894) where he wrote:
"It would be impossible to tell how many changes and forms, each one inconsistent with itself, with the others, and with the Scriptures, Two-Seedism has assumed during that period."
Some Two Seeders believed the Devil was uncreated, others did not. Some denied the resurrection, others did not. Some denied the devil's children had souls, others did not. Etc. The one common tenet held by all Two Seeders, however, is the idea of "eternal vital union," a doctrine that says that when Christ was begotten or made a mediator in eternity past, so too were his seed, or children, begotten in him. This tenet involves believing that the human soul or Christ was begotten when he was begotten as the Son of God, and that this begetting of the Son of God had nothing to do with his divinity.
What is interesting to notice in the above words of Potter is his statement that "after fifty years" of hearing the "many vain speculations" of Two Seedism that he was then "caused" to become "the author of this little work" and to "begin to investigate the subject for himself, which has resulted in the conclusions found in the following pages." Is he saying that he did not investigate the tenets of Two Seedism until after those fifty years? Does that mean he held to Two Seedism until 1880 when he finally reached the "conclusions" found in his lengthy rebuttal of Two Seedism?
It was in the 1880s that there began to be a heated debate over whether the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners and Potter became a leader on the side that denied means. Up until this time there existed within the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists those who believed in means and those who did not. Prior to the Civil War it seems that the majority of the "Primitive Baptists" believed in means, but after the Civil War the anti-means side became the majority and forced a formal division. Elder Potter led the way in his debate with Elder W. T. Pence on this question in 1890. The Primitive Baptist Library in Illinois writes about this (here). A fellow "Primitive" or "Regular" Baptist who led the means side was Elder E. H. Burnam, and Hardshell historians speak of the division that occurred over the means question as the "Burnamite" split. I write about him and the debate between Pence and Potter in these posts (See here, here, here).
As I have shown in previous chapters, Elder Watson, Elder Preslar, Elder Conrad, and others said that the no means view came from the Parkerites, or Two Seeders, though Daniel Parker believed in means. So, it is ironic that Potter is writing against Two Seedism and yet in several of his beliefs he still remained a Two Seeder. I cited Elder Preslar, who in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence" wrote the following about the beliefs of Two Seeders:
"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)
You can read about this in my post "Hosea Preslar & Watson" (here). By "their views" he is referring to the Two Seeders. Potter believed that the Gospel was for the sole benefit of those who were already saved apart from the Gospel and in this he remained a Two Seeder in spite of rejecting certain tenets of that system.
Potter also wrote:
"Hence we believe that the whole family of Adam stood in him, and by his transgression fell under the law. Out of Adam's posterity, God chose a people for his name as the objects of his mercy and grace, for whom he made all the rich provisions of his grace in Christ before the world began; not because they had any right to be chosen, or that he was under any obligations whatever to choose them, only his own eternal purpose to do so."
One of the major objections that Potter and others, such as Grigg Thompson, made against Two Seedism was that it denied the traditional doctrine of unconditional election. The Two Seeders say that God chose his people because they were already "in Christ" by having been begotten in him from eternity. Potter shows that this view says that God chose people because they were already his children or seed by being in Christ. This view says that Christ was obligated to save the elect, because they were his seed or his wife.
Potter wrote the following under the sub-heading "WHAT IS A MAN REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE A SOUND BAPTIST?":
"This may be thought a foolish question, but we think, dear reader, if you will read the following you will not be so much surprised at it after all. We have been asked as often as any one man, in all probability, in this country, "Do you believe the Two Seed Doctrine?" and in order that we be considered sound among some of our brethren, we must be a "two-seeder." Among others, we must not be if we are considered sound. We have been questioned by our brethren on both sides of this question in a manner that seemed to us to fear that we might not be exactly square-toed on the subject of "Two-Seedism." We have always thought best not to name a doctrine, and then condemn it for its name, or believe it for its name. We never felt willing to say we believed the two seed doctrine, and then let some man tell us what it was, so we have generally called for a definition of the terms before we could answer."
Just as the "fifty year" period of time that Potter speaks of (1830-1880), relative to those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists, had Two Seeders and non-Two Seeders existing together during that time, so too did that same period have two sides of the means question existing together without any divisions, and the same may be said relative to the question over the extent of predestination or the divine decrees. Some believed as Beebe that God had predestined everything that exists or event that comes to pass and they would become known as "Absoluters." Others argued that God only predestinated what is related to salvation. The split over means and predestination occurred in the last quarter of the 19th century primarily, and so too did the split over Two Seedism reach its height in that time frame. When Grigg Thompson wrote his treatise against Two Seedism (1860) there began a more intense rivalry of these two sides. Recall that I cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association which said:
"We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."
Potter wrote further:
"In order to be a sound Two Seed Baptist, we are required to believe..."
Potter then lists eleven Two Seed tenets. We will give some in this chapter along with Potter's rebuttal and give others in the next chapters. After listing those tenets he writes:
"Can any one man believe all that is set forth in the above eleven extracts, in order to be considered sound in the faith? Surely that would be requiring a great deal of a man."
"We might go on and point out more contradictions, but we leave our readers to do that. We now propose to notice each one separately, and see how they corroborate with the Bible. We begin with the first and take them in their order, and we desire the brethren to study them carefully."
Potter gives the following as the first on the list:
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."
Notice that Potter cites from the "Herald of Truth," and it seems that what he says leads one to think that said periodical was a Two Seed publication. However, in previous chapters we have given evidence that it was started by Elder R.W. Fain, a leader in the fight against Two Seedism. In chapter 31 of this series we gave evidence of this from the Primitive Baptist Library. Perhaps Potter is citing from what Two Seeders said in writing to this periodical, or what Elder Fain was quoting from the Two Seeders. It sure would help to find in a Baptist library old issues of this periodical and see the debate over Two Seedism that was carried on in this periodical. Elder Fain promoted "The Old Baptist Test" book by Elder Watson and wrote the introduction to it. After the Civil War he, along with a couple other Primitive Baptist elders, started the weekly periodical "The Baptist Watchman." He and the other elders on the editorial staff believed in means and saw the no means view as being a Two Seed idea.
In the above citation, the Two Seeder, named Anderson Gordon, said that the bodies of the devil's children were not made by God or through Eve. This is a heresy of the worst sort. It denies that God is the only creator, and makes the Devil a creator. Did Potter believe this in those years when he said he favored Two Seedism? If so, what took him so long to discover its falsity?
Here is what Potter said in response to the first tenet on his list:
"1. In this item we read, "Nor do we believe that God made or created bodies for the devil or his children." The Bible says, "God hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. xvi. 4. If the wicked are not the children of the devil, we doubt his having any. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth." Acts xvii, 25. Are the devil's children included in all nations of men? If so, God made them; if not, they are not men. So the Bible being right, the first item is wrong. We might multiply quotations to this point, but our space will not allow us to do so."
I find it incredible that Elder Potter once believed Two Seedism. Did he not see this error of Two Seedism during the fifty year period he mentions? Why did he wait till 1880 to denounce this tenet of Two Seedism (that denies that God is the sole Creator)? He is of course right in what he says in rebuttal to this Two Seed tenet.
No comments:
Post a Comment