Several new testament texts speak of the necessity of holding to "sound" doctrine, and the above is one of them. (See also Titus 1: 9; I Tim. 1: 10; II Tim. 4: 3) The word "sound" means to be wholesome and healthy. Unsound doctrine is sick or unhealthy doctrine. The apostle Paul in the same vein also warned of false teachers who would arise within the community of saints and be found teaching "perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20: 30kjv) By "perverse things" he means perverted teachings, twisted or distorted interpretations of holy scripture. (See also II Peter 3: 16) In chapter 31 I cited Paul's warning about "strange doctrines." (Heb. 13: 9) Truly Two Seed doctrine is sick, perverted, and weird.
Before we proceed to address what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against Two Seedism, I want to cite from O. Max Lee's book
"DANIEL PARKER'S DOCTRINE OF THE TWO SEEDS" (1962), his Thesis Paper (See
here), from which we cited much already in chapter 25. The reason for this is to enlarge upon what I stated in previous chapters regarding my assertion that the one tenet that all factions of Two Seed Primitive Baptists believed was the eternal oneness existing between Christ and his people or wife. This tenet necessitated believing that the children of God preexisted in Christ before their birth in the womb of their mothers. Another reason is to give further evidence of my contention that the idea that God saved his people by the means of the word of God or gospel was a Two Seed idea, even though Parker himself did not deny means. So, those
"Primitive Baptists" today who say they are not Two Seeders and yet deny that God uses means are holding to Two Seed tenets in doing so. First, in regard to the doctrine of eternal vital union, Lee wrote:
"According to Parker, "the nature and certainty of the relationship or union which exists in Christ with his Church" was a crucial issue in his two-seeds doctrine. Parker said that an eternal oneness existed between Christ and His Church." (pg. 55)
"I wish to be understood as believing, and now aiming to prove, that Christ and his Church are one; and if they are now, or ever will be one, that, that oneness has existed as long as Christ has existed, as it is as impossible for a head to exist without a body, as for a body to exist without the head." (pg. 55)
"This oneness or union, while existing prior to God's creation, was demonstrated in the creation itself." (pg. 55)
"Having come into the world, the Church sinned. Adam, who stood with the Church (the elect) in him, partook of the forbidden fruit, causing him and the Church to deserve God's wrath. But because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin, and redeemed her from the curse of the law. Such a manifestation of love, while having no equal, was a logical outgrowth of the eternal union which existed between Christ and his Church." (pg. 56)
When Parker said - "because of Christ's union with and love for the Church, he married her human nature, assumed her debt of sin," he was denying the Calvinistic doctrine of "unconditional election" which affirms that the choice of sinners to salvation was not based upon any difference in the ones chosen from those not chosen. As we have seen, Elder Grigg Thompson dealt much with this consequence of the Two Seed doctrine, and so too did Elder Lemuel Potter.
The idea of an eternal "vital" or "actual" union of Christ and his elect people is a foundational belief of all Two Seeders, and involves the idea that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. As we have seen, this belief had adverse effects for two bible doctrines, one dealing with unconditional election by grace, and the other with the nature and causes of regeneration or rebirth in the spirit.
Now let us focus on the Two Seed idea that the means of gospel preaching and teaching are not means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Lee wrote (emphasis mine):
"In seeking to refute the two-seed views, Watson understood the doctrine to include (1) the denial of the resurrection of the bodies of the just and unjust, (2) the absence of souls in the non-elect, and (3) the rejection by God of the use of any kind of means to bring about salvation. Parker had explicitly taught the opposite in his two-seed views." (pg. 63)
Watson was correct in affirming that the Two Seeders who followed Parker did generally promote the idea that God did not use such means. Lee implies that Watson was wrong. But, that is not true. Watson never said that Parker himself denied means. We have given other testimonies of other elders of the 19th century who also all said that a denial of means was a Two Seed idea. We also saw this from my citation from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists. Some Two Seeders taught that no such means were used by God to "regenerate" or "beget" sinners, but did teach that such means were used to "birth" those who were previously begotten and they connected this birthing with evangelical conversion. See my post titled "Elder Samuel Trott On Means" (here) and also chapter 52 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Beebe Trott Model" (here).
Wrote Lee:
"Some groups which held generally to the two-seed views rejected certain portions of the doctrine. One such group, the Old School Baptists of Bethel and Muddy River Associations (Illinois), strenuously denied that the proclamation of the gospel had anything to do in bringing sinners to a knowledge of the truth. Daniel Parker had declared just as strenuously that God used such means to bring sinners to repentance." (pg. 63-64)
Lee's failure is that he was not as familiar with the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists as I am, although he was thoroughly knowledgeable of the writings of Daniel Parker, having access to them all. The two instances Lee mentions where Two Seed associations declared against means should have prevented Lee from thinking that Parker's belief in means showed that Two Seeders did not deny means. As I have been careful to state in previous chapters, though Parker believed in means his later followers began to deny them.
So, as we have before observed, it is ironic that Potter writes against Two Seedism in 1880 and yet becomes the leading advocate for the no means view that was spread by those Two Seeders who followed Parker. Beebe and Trott, however, were reluctant to deny means completely. They also did not think that anyone who did not love and believe in Jesus would go to heaven. With these preliminary comments, let us return to what Potter wrote. In the previous chapter we saw that he gave eleven items that Two Seeders thought were necessary to believe to be sound in the faith. We began with the first item in the list and now proceed to the next. Potter wrote further citing a Two Seeder:
"2. - "We affirm the following: Unconditional election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam." - Herald of Truth, by the Editor, Jan. 1878, p. 206."
Many Two Seeders would say that Christ died for all of Adam's descendants, and some might think that this means that they believed that Christ made atonement for every human being, but that would be the wrong jump. That is because they did not believe that the Devil's seed came from Adam, or had souls.
In response to this Two Seed tenet Potter says:
"2. This item affirms the election and final redemption of all that God made, blessed and called Adam. This does not merely include those that God blessed; but it includes all that he made. Then surely it embraces the wicked. It embraces all nations of men that dwell on all the face of the earth. Is not this two-seeder a Universalist? Excuse us from believing the second extract."
This is a good rebuttal by Potter to this Two Seed tenet. Those who are children of the Devil and remain so till they die, will not be redeemed, and yet they are of the Adamic race.
Potter wrote further and gave us this third tenet of Two Seedism:
3. - "No man will be taken to eternity of bliss or sent to an eternity of woe for what he does in this world. But those that are accounted worthy of an eternity of bliss, will receive it on the principle of heir-ship, as an inheritance, for what they are, and not for what they do. So, also, those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do. We say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that our doings in this life only affect us in this life." - Herald of Truth, Editor, Dec. 1878, pp. 69-70."
The statements highlighted in red are Two Seed beliefs and it is ironic that Potter and his brethren who denied that the gospel was a means in salvation, and so too faith and repentance, and perseverance, actually agree with the Two Seeders on these statements. I recall reading an article by Elder C. H. Cayce where he said that a person reaps in the same field in which he sows, meaning that a person only reaps in this life for the things he has done, whether good or bad, and so no one reaps in the afterlife. If this is true, then no one goes to Hell for anything he did in this life, for no sin committed. It also denies that coming to Christ, believing in him, or repenting of sin, are necessary conditions for being eternally saved.
This is so clearly heresy for it is against what is so plainly taught in the Bible. Many of today's "Primitive Baptists" would agree with the first statement, that no one will go to heaven for anything he did in life. They would not agree, however, with the second statement, that no one will go to hell for anything he did in life. All this is quite heretical of course, for if the former statement was true, then it would mean that coming to Christ is unnecessary for a person to do in order to go to heaven, nor believing in God or Christ, nor repenting of sin, etc.
Notice again the irony in what Potter says. He condemns the Two Seed view given, and yet he himself believed that nothing the sinner does is a necessary condition for salvation, and which makes himself a Two Seeder in this respect also.
Potter replies to this Two Seed article of faith by saying:
"3. There are two points in this we want to call attention to: the first is, that we receive an eternity of bliss on the principle of heirship as an inheritance. That is all good enough, if it does not carry with it the idea that we were eternally heirs, and consequently eternally children. The Bible says, "That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii, 7. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii, 29. Not that we were eternally heirs, in consequence of which the promise was made, but we are heirs according to the promise. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph. i: 6. Not that we were eternally children, but God predetermined to adopt us children."
Again, this is a good rebuttal to the Two Seed idea that no one suffers in the afterlife or in eternal torment in Hell for any sins he committed in his life. No one was an actual heir of God in eternity past, nor before he had an existence in time, nor is he an heir before he actually becomes a child of God. Even then, the child does not obtain his inheritance until he has come of age. Isaac was chosen by God to be the heir of Abraham before he was conceived and born into the world, and so too with everyone of the elect. But, they do not actually become heirs by the preordination.
Potter replies to the second part of that tenet, saying:
"The next is those that are sent to the region of endless misery, will go there for what they are, not for what they do. That our works only effect us in this life. The Bible says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx: 12. The next verse closes by saying, "and they were judged every man according to his works." The writer was speaking of the dead, and he certainly does hold forth the idea that the wicked are punished for what they do, and that their works do effect them after this life. Our sins affect us after this life to the extent that none could go to heaven until their sins are forgiven, hence the use of redemption from sin by the Great Redeemer."
Potter is correct in his argumentation and shows by the scriptures that men will suffer in the afterlife and in eternity for the evil deeds they did in life. It is sad however that he did not see how men will also be rewarded in the afterlife for the good deeds they did in life, and that eternal salvation is given to those who did certain things, such as come to Christ, believe, repent, and persevere. Jesus taught this. He said:
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8: 24 nasb)
Believing is something people do, and doing or not doing that determines whether they go to Heaven or Hell. Jesus also said:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world...Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6: 51, 53-54 nkjv)
This is another text that overthrows the Two Seed notion that says that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he will go to Heaven and have eternal life. Eating the bread of life, partaking of Christ, must be done by a sinner in order to be saved in Heaven.
In the next chapter we will continue our examination of Potter's list of eleven Two Seed tenets and of his rebuttal to each.
No comments:
Post a Comment