"9. - "God's throne and footstool are eternal; and create does not mean, in scripture, what men think it does." - Samuel Clark, in Herald of Truth, Vol. 1, No. 1."
On this article Potter wrote:
"9. The Lord has said, "Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool," and the idea that the earth is eternal, and that create in the Bible does not mean what men think it does, is only a foundation for an argument that God's children are as old as eternity itself. Our readers will see our views on that subject in "What is man?" The two last we have already replied to in another place, and it is not necessary to make a reply now."
In chapters following we will give what Potter wrote in his article titled "What is man?" The idea that what is created may be without a beginning is indeed a fable, an absurdity, a fantastic concoction. In the previous chapters we have seen how many Two Seeders spoke of Christ being "made" or "begotten" in order to "become" the Son of God or Mediator, thus denoting what on the one hand speaks of creation, and then speak of Christ being such from eternity on the other hand. This involves the absurdity of something being created and yet without beginning. To believe in "eternal children" denies that the children were created or begotten. As we saw in previous chapters, Elder Beebe tried to say that he did not believe in eternal children, and yet this is what he believed. He believed that the children of God existed seminally in Christ, and if Christ has always existed, so too has his seed. Beebe would say that Christ being "made" or "begotten" occurred in the eternal past, being the time when he was "set up from everlasting" (Prov. 8: 23). The words "set up" seems to indicate a time when something was done, but the words "from everlasting" seems to indicate something that had no beginning point in time.
The next tenet of Two Seedism that Potter gave in his list is this:
"10. - "Then there is a man from heaven and a man from earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven." - Martin Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."
This tenet reminds us of the tenet I have cited in former chapters of the article of faith of the Bear Creek Association of North Carolina (1832), one which I was once a part of. Article number two says:
"We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity."
Who is the "man from heaven" and who is "the man from earth"? Clearly the Two Seeders meant that Christ the Son of God and Mediator was the man from Heaven, or "second Adam," and that Adam was the man from earth, or "first Adam." Are the Two Seeders denying that Christ was an earthly man? Are the Two Seeders affirming that Christ existed as a man before his incarnation by means of the virgin Mary? We have already seen how Two Seedism is connected with a denial of the orthodox view concerning Christ being from eternity the only begotten of the Father and was a proof of his deity and equality with the Father. We have seen that it adopted the views of Joseph Hussey, et al, that said that Christ had a human soul and nature before the world began, and that the only thing he got through Mary was his human flesh. Some even went further and said that the human flesh and blood of Christ existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem. We will address this further later, and so too will Potter. However, I have previously observed how this paradigm makes Christ to be the first Adam and the first Adam to be the second Adam, contrary to the teaching of the apostle Paul.
Potter then gives us the final tenet in his list, which says:
"11. - "Then I ask the question: which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age." - Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."
If Christ is eternal without beginning, then so too is the bride of Christ (the elect). As we saw in previous chapters the Two Seeders said that the elect were "in" Christ in the same way all men were in Adam when Adam was created. However, as we have shown, opposers of Two Seedism said that one is not in Christ until he is united to Christ via the new birth and faith. They would cite Paul's statement that some were "in Christ" before he was (Rom. 16:7) in order to show the fallacy of the Two Seeders.
Potter wrote further:
"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. The first and fifth contradict each other so pointedly that we cannot believe both, and we wish to be excused from the belief of both those items. The first says, the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, but that every seed produces its own body. The fifth says, the devil's seed partook of their humanity by means of the creation that God had made. Instead of every seed producing its own body, as per first item, the fifth says, God multiplied the conception of His creation, and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed. He also says, the serpent's seed are equally human beings with the children of the creation."
Potter wrote further:
"The third and fourth contradict each other. The third says, "those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do." The fourth says, "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."
Potter wrote further:
"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."
"When we come to examine the family of Adam, we find them all to be sinners, and not one of them righteous - none of them entitled to the love and mercy of God for what they do or are. To say that the people of God once lived in heaven, and that they came down from heaven into this world, in consequence of which they were eternally heirs of God, and for that reason they will be saved, destroys every idea of mercy. It is not an act of mercy to give a man what he is legitimately and justly entitled to."
This is very true. So, why did it take Potter so many years to finally come to that conclusion? He was himself a Two Seeder in sentiment for many years, as he confessed.
"If any of our readers should believe in the doctrine of eternal children, and consequently eternal heirs, allow us for a moment to call to mind your experience. What had you been engaged in all your life? Will you not agree with the apostle that you were dead in trespasses and sins? Were you not walking according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience? Why are you not pursuing the same course yet? Many others are still going the same way yet."
I don't think this was the best way to argue against Two Seedism. Using what his readers experienced in their conversions is no proof. Yet, this is a common tactic with Hardshell Baptists who will often say that such and such is true because it is biblical AND agrees with a convert's experience. We interpret our experiences by the bible and not the other way around.
Potter is arguing that the very persons who were spiritually dead in sin are the same ones who were raised to spiritual life in regeneration. But, this was denied by many Two Seeders. In previous chapters we cited from Elders T. P. Dudley and Gilbert Beebe who said that they did not believe that the "Adam man" was regenerated, for they said that God does not renovate or remodel the "old man," but rather implants in the Adam man the "new man" which is that eternal child of God that existed in Christ from eternity. This new man, however, never sinned and so never needed to be regenerated. But, the argument by Potter was not very convincing to Two Seeders like Dudley and Beebe, for they would say that the experience of walking in sin was what their old man was doing and would continue to do.
Potter wrote about Ephesians 2: 1-3:
"Let us make a remark that there seems to be some misunderstanding among some of our brethren on this expression of Scripture, one taking the position that the text means that all are the children of the devil in a state of nature, and others denying that the elect ever were the children of the devil, and hence they deny that the text means that all alike are the children of the devil. If wrath in the text means devil, then they are all alike children of the devil. But we do not think that the term wrath could be properly read devil in this text; but we do believe that it teaches that they were, like others, exposed to God's wrath for their sins. It has been said that God's people were never exposed to wrath. If that be true, then as a natural consequence, they have never been saved from wrath; but the text does say they were the children of wrath, and if being the children of wrath does not mean the children of the devil, and the doctrine be true that the elect were never exposed to wrath, please tell us what the text does mean."
Not all Two Seeders affirmed that the preexisting children of God were never under God's wrath. Many did, however, and it is these that Potter addresses. I don't know why Potter is reluctant to say that being under God's wrath and spiritually dead in sin means that one is a child of the Devil. Elder Joshua Lawrence, as we saw in previous chapters, taught that all were children of the Devil until they were adopted into God's family or born of the Spirit. It seems that Potter still, in 1880, retains elements of Two Seed philosophy. We have already seen this to be the case when it comes to his denying that the preaching of the gospel and word of God are means in the salvation of sinners and in his agreeing with the Two Seed tenet that says that no one goes to heaven for anything he does in his life.
Potter wrote:
"From the above we might be able to assign a reason why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. It was because he made Jacob and did not Esau. But if he did not make Esau, and yet has no partnership with the devil, neither makes bodies for the devil or his children, and the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, how is it that Jacob and Esau are twin brothers? Some men seem to think that the belief of the above is a good test for the soundness of an Old Baptist. If it is, we presume there are very few sound ones among us. If God did make Jacob and Esau both, then the editor above quoted affirms the unconditional election of Esau as well as Jacob. If God loved Jacob because he made him, and hated Esau because he did not make him, and one of them was the offspring of God, and the other the offspring of the devil, then the choice between the two was not unconditional."
In Romans chapter nine Paul makes it very clear that Jacob and Esau were both the offspring of Isaac and Rebecca. He says that both Jacob and Esau were "conceived by one man, Isaac." (Rom. 9: 10) So, both had the same mother and father, and therefore if one was elect and the other not, then the choice could not have been made based upon a difference in the flesh. It is possible that a woman could be pregnant with twins and one of them be from a different father. This would occur when two men had intercourse with the woman one after the other, and then the sperm of one becomes the father of one and the sperm of the other man becomes the father of the other twin. This occurs when the twins are the result of two eggs of the mother being fertilized and not in cases where there is one egg that divides. But, Paul is very clear to say that this is not what happened, saying "even by one man Isaac." This is why we have those who are called "Two Seed in the spirit predestinarian Baptists" and "Two Seed in the flesh predestinarian Baptists." There was a difference in the two children even when in Rebecca's womb, as Moses wrote:
"But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25: 22-23 nkjv)
The difference between Jacob and Esau while in the womb was not because one was a birth child of the Devil and the other was a birth child of God. Yes, one was chosen and the other rejected, but that was not based upon their pedigree or ancestry. It was not even based upon one being the firstborn, for the firstborn was rejected. As Potter said, both Jacob and Esau were humans created by God.
Potter wrote:
"But some one is ready to ask, Do you not believe in the doctrine of two seeds? We answer, we do, most assuredly believe that the Bible speaks of two seeds; but we want it according to the Bible, instead of the imaginations of ourself (sic), or any other man, or set of men. We are not willing to foster the idea of two seeds to the extent that we will gulp down anything that men see fit to hand us, simply because they wrap it up with the name two seed. We believe that God eternally loved his people, and that there never was a beginning of that love; and that in consequence of his immutable love for them, he chose them in Christ before the world began. In the covenant made in eternity, the objects of God's love were given to Christ, and they have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since. They did not sustain a spiritual, or fleshly relationship to Christ from eternity, but they were in the covenant, and God has known them as his from all eternity. They belong to Christ in the covenant by gift, and not because he was an eternal seed and naturally produced them, as the seed of vegetation produces the plant. He says, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me." John xvii, 6. "Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me." Heb. ii, 13. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." John vi, 37. They are his now by gift, and not only were they given to him before the world began, but he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world to be their Redeemer, but was manifest in these last times."
Here Potter gives the standard Calvinistic view on how and why sinners may be deemed "children of God" prior to being born of God. They are chosen and predestined to become the children of God but are not actually so until they are born of the Spirit. We see this in the case of Isaac. He was a promised and chosen child or heir even before he was born. But, he was not an actual son of Abraham until he was conceived in the womb of Sarah via the seed of Abraham. So too are those who are chosen to salvation by God, before the world began a gift of the Father to his Son. That is clear from the texts cited by Potter. So Abraham could have said - "the son that God gave to me in his covenant promise will be born to me."
Potter wrote:
"Then in the work of regeneration, or new birth, they partake of his spirit, and from that birth there is a spiritual relationship between them that never existed before. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is one seed that we believe the Bible sets forth clearly. They are the Lord's all the time, even from eternity, and will ultimately all be made spiritual. They are men and women of Adam's family, and never had any actual being till Adam was made of the dust of the ground. This seed is often spoken of in both the Old and New Testament as the sheep of the Lord. They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state. See Ezekiel 34 and John 10. This seed were unconditionally chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, not because they were holy, or that they naturally possessed any of the nature of God that others did not possess, for that would have been a conditional choice. The choice would be controlled by that nature, in which there would have been no sovereignty of God; no mercy, and no grace. These people we can only know when they are manifested in the work of the new birth. God knows them as His just as well before regeneration as he does afterward. "In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil." As to the devil's seed, we do not realize a great deal of comfort from talking about them, and will not have space here to give them a very extended notice."
Notice that Potter, unlike other "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists prior to him and in his day, believed that "regeneration" and the "new birth" were the same thing. Most of the first generation of Hardshells believed that regeneration was the begetting, or conception, and was followed by the birth, oftentimes many days, weeks, months, or years later. I have written some on this in previous chapters. Beebe and Trott believed this, as did the majority of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. The Two Seeders would respond to what Potter says by saying that the "birthing" of the child is not the beginning of the child, for the born child was already a child by being previously "begotten" in the womb. So they would say that the birth of the Spirit only brought forth, delivered, or manifested the previously begotten child, and they would say that the begetting took place in eternity past when Christ was begotten as a Son of God and made a Mediator. In the scriptures, however, a person is said to become a child of his parents when that child is born. In being born of God there is no begetting that is separate from a birthing.
In the above words of Potter he says that being a sheep does not necessarily denote a regenerated person, but may denote a chosen person who has not yet been regenerated or born again. Potter said: "They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state." This is not, however, what he argued in his debates on whether the gospel is a means in regeneration. I write about this in two posts. In chapter 85 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I wrote the following (See here):
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10: 16 KJV)
Some Hardshell debaters and apologists, like Elder Lemuel Potter, have used this verse to uphold their "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," their aberrant "born again before and apart from faith" view.Elder Potter argued, in his debate with Elder W. P. Throgmorton, that this verse proved that sinners are "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith, that heathen who had not yet heard the word and truth of God, and who were worshipping false deities, were nevertheless "born again."He cited the words of Christ in John 10 to show that people who had not yet been "brought" were "sheep," and that the fact that they were "sheep" before they were "brought" proves that they were "regenerated" before they were "brought," before they heard the truth of the gospel and were brought to faith and converted."
In chapter 62 of the same series (See here) I wrote:
Elder Potter continues arguing such in his debate with Elder Yates (Presbyterian), saying:
"Now, I want to make an argument upon the sheep. John x. 14—16 is the language of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Now notice, he says “other sheep I have.” Hence when he speaks of the sheep, he does not mean his people among the Jews exclusively, but he speaks of those among the Gentiles—among the heathen. He says, I have them, they are mine, I must bring them—that is what I am here for, that is my mission in the world, and I must bring them. According to the covenant, I am under obligation to bring them; they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold. Isaiah lvi. 8: “The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.” It is evident from these passages that the Lord has sheep among the heathen."
In these two debates Potter interprets the term "sheep" to denote regenerated elect, but in the above citation from his writing against Two Seedism he says that the sheep were such even while in their unregenerate state.
Potter wrote:
"But some one may be ready to inquire, "Do you not think the children of God, and the non-elect are men and women?" We do most certainly think they are men and women of Adam's race, but their natural birth is not what makes them heirs of glory, but it is being born of God. The divine nature is implanted in the new birth, which they did not possess in the fleshly birth, nor in the creation. They had none of the nature of God until they partook of it in the new birth; neither did they possess anything in and of themselves that entitled them to the new birth. It is the work of grace in Christ, not in themselves. In the new birth he partakes of the good seed, and that seed remaineth in him, and by its renovating powers he will ultimately be of the same nature of the seed; soul, body and spirit. But let us examine what seed it is in him that remaineth. Is it a seed he possessed in nature? Or one of which he became possessed in the new birth? If he is born of God in consequence of his being of the good seed originally, and that the reason he does not sin now, is, because his seed remaineth in him, it is strange that the seed did not prevent him from sin before. We are told that Christ is a seed, and that being a productive seed he produced all the elect, and that on account of having been produced by him, they naturally possess the nature of the seed that produced them, that is Christ, and in consequence of that natural affinity they are the recipients of grace. If this logic be good, then the elect must be born of God twice: first, when they are first brought into being, and second, when they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and *abideth forever."
The text alluded to in these words of Potter is this:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9 kjv)
Many "Primitive" Baptists have held to the view that this text is saying that the "new man," or divine nature, received in being regenerated, did not sin, nor could it. Potter rightly argues that if this new man or "incorruptible seed," or divine nature, cannot sin, and preexisted in Christ, it could not have sinned, and if that is so, it needed no redemption. The Two Seeders who hold this view of I John 3: 9 must believe that the new man never sinned. Those who hold this view will say that it is teaching the same thing Paul taught in Romans 7: 15-23. In other words, all the sinning of a believer originates from his corrupt nature, or the "old man," and all the obedience originates from his divine nature, or the "new man." Other Calvinists believe that the text means "whosoever is born again does not practice sin," as a lifestyle, which has more in its favor than the Two Seed view. My own view is a little more nuanced than either view. I make my argument based upon the Greek word for "sin," which is from "hamartia" and means to miss the mark or fail of the goal. No born again child of God will miss the mark, fail to reach heaven as a goal. So Paul says that he "presses forward to the mark (or goal) for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 14) Whoever is born of God will not sin, not miss this mark, not fail to obtain the prize.
When he says that the Two Seeders are forced into saying that the elect must be born of God twice, this is not fully true, for as I have previously observed, they have the elect being born of God three times. The first time was sometime in eternity past when they were begotten when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. The second time is also a "begetting" or "conception" and occurs when a person is regenerated and has the seed of God implanted in him. The third time is the birth proper, associated with the time when the already existing and begotten child has been fully developed in the womb and then is delivered, brought forth, and manifested, this occurring when the regenerated and begotten child is converted by faith in Christ.
Wrote Potter:
"We do not deny that there are such men known in the Bible as children of the devil, but we do deny the doctrine that they came from the devil, or that the devil produced them. We do not believe that as a people they are the natural product of the devil. But the wicked nature that they possess is of the devil, as Elder Parker has truly said."
No comments:
Post a Comment