"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment