Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIV)

Having in the immediate preceding chapters focused on what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote about Two Seedism in his 1880 pamphlet "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) I wish now to examine some things he said about Two Seedism in his autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" (1894). He wrote the following in chapter thirteen (See here). Following that we will also look at what he wrote in his 1895 work "A TREATISE ON REGENERATION AND CHRISTIAN WARFARE" for it also has things to say about Two Seed views. In his book on his life, or his labors and travels, he writes (emphasis mine):

"After I commenced taking the care of churches, and baptizing and administering The Supper, it seemed like things were going along very smoothly except once in a while a brother would seem to criticize the doctrine of the resurrection. There was an old minister living in the country whose name was William Trainer, and who had been preaching in that country for many years before I was grown. He used to preach at my father's house when I was a boy. I held him in very high esteem as a man and a minister for some years after I commenced trying to preach. When I began to go out among the brethren, I would sometimes hear remarks made concerning him, that he did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. He was occasionally accused of saying that he did not believe that anything would ever go to heaven that did not first come down from heaven." 

In earlier chapters we listed the various errors or heresies that are part of Two Seedism and a denial of the resurrection of the body was one of those errors, although not all Two Seeders denied it. Elder John M. Watson, from whose writings we cited in earlier chapters, stated that many of the Two Seeders in his area of middle Tennessee did deny a bodily resurrection. When I was a young "Primitive Baptist" minister I sometimes heard someone say of another "Primitive Baptist" minister that he denied the resurrection. I often said -- "I don't see how anyone can get that out of the Bible." I also would hear someone say of some Hardshell minister that he was a "no-Heller." These two denials spring from Two Seedism. We might even say that those who are known as "Primitive Baptist Universalists" came from Two Seedism. These would say that all of Adam's race would be saved, but would deny that all men are of Adam's race, those not of the race were the Devil's seed. 

In earlier chapters we stated that it was a basic premise of Two Seedism to say that nothing would go to heaven but what first came down from heaven and Potter says that very thing in the above citation. This premise or proposition was not derived from scripture, but one that was invented outside of scripture and then taken to the scriptures, and the scriptures twisted so as to make them agree with their man-made proposition. The Hardshells have invented other such propositions, ones that they think are inspired and are used to make the scriptures to square with them. Another one says this:

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

I wrote about this in this post (here). The above words were written by Elder David Montgomery, a minister I met years ago. I also met Elder Richards years ago when I was preaching in Texas. You see the man-made proposition in the above, a proposition that is not stated in scripture but invented and then taken to the scriptures and one which takes priority over the scriptures and one which all scripture is interpreted or misinterpreted in order to square with it. The invention of such unbiblical propositions is a case of people being what Paul called "inventors of evil things." (Rom. 1: 30) I wrote upon this in this post (here), even citing Dr. John Gill who also applied this to invented false doctrines. The Hardshell proposition that says that any time salvation in the Bible is conditioned upon faith, repentance, etc., then it must be a mere time salvation, but any salvation text that mentions no such condition is a text dealing with eternal salvation, is of course, clearly unbiblical. This is true with the Two Seed proposition stated by Potter. 

Recall how Potter said that it was also a proposition of Two Seedism to say that nothing a person does in life is a reason for either going to heaven or hell. The proposition of Richards echoes this Two Seed proposition. 

When I was a young Hardshell minister I heard this motto and even heard one of the arguments or texts of scripture used to uphold it, which was taken from Revelation chapter twenty one where John sees the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God. Interpreting "new Jerusalem" as synonymous with "children of God" they argued that the children of God were once in heaven before they came down from heaven, which is a ridiculous interpretation. 

Potter continued:

"It was hard for me to believe but that he was all right, and I thought that some of the other ministers were jealous of him, and that that was the reason they found fault with his preaching. I was very fond of him, and I watched very closely after I had heard him accused, and I finally became satisfied that he did not believe in the salvation of the Adam man. He believed that the body—the earthly body—was no part of a child of God. After I became convinced that this was his faith, I said nothing for awhile, because I was young, and felt that I might be mistaken about the matter, until one time he preached at a school house a few miles from where I lived and I went to hear him." 

In a future chapter I will talk more in depth about how many Two Seeders denied the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust. At that time we will cite more from Elder Watson and his book against Two Seedism titled "The Old Baptist Test." The idea that "the Adam man" was "no part of a child of God" reflects the chief idea of Two Seedism, which says that in being "born of God" a preexisting soul or spirit comes down from heaven and enters into the Adam man and does not change the Adam man, a view that came to be known as the "hollow log" doctrine, which metaphor says that the children of God come down from heaven and enter the "Adam man" like a rabbit enters into a hollow log, and where the entrance of the rabbit into it does not change the log. Recall also that this entrance of the eternal child into the Adam man is called a "birth," but the "begetting" preceded the birth, occurring in past eternity when Christ was begotten. The "birth" was simply for the purpose of "developing" the eternally begotten spiritual child, and so, when the development is completed, the "Adam man" dies and the eternal child returns to God fully matured. 

It is hard to believe that when Potter saw the error of denying the bodily resurrection that he "said nothing for awhile," saying it was "because he was young and might be mistaken about the matter." How could he keep quiet? Was it because, as he said, that he rather favored Two Seedism when he began to preach? How could he be mistaken about such a fundamental element of the Christian faith? Does this confession of Potter not show how extensive Two Seedism and a denial of bodily resurrection were in Illinois in the 19th century? I can tell you this, I too was once a young minister among the Hardshells and I did not hesitate to call out the heresies and wrongdoings of some of them.  

Potter continued:

"His appointment had been published the Sunday before, and on that Sunday I went to my father's in company with some others for dinner, and as we were about separating, I overheard my father and another brother, in conversation, speak of Elder Trainer's appointment. They both expressed a desire to go and hear him, saying that if he had ever denied the resurrection of the body, they had never heard him. I said nothing, but thought that I had heard him. I went to hear him on this occasion, and when I got there these brethren were there, and when he arose to preach, he stated that some people were mistaken as to who the child of God is, or else he was. He said some thought that the lady and gentleman were the children of God, but that he did not believe that. When he made use of that expression I thought, "they hear it now." I know now, and did then, that if the lady or gentleman is not the child of God, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not a true doctrine. Elder Trainer, at that time was on his way to Little Wabash Church, in White county, and I concluded to make the trip with him, which I did. I rode with him all day, during which time he talked a great deal, for he was a great talker. He satisfied me that he did not believe in the resurrection of the body for he said it in so many words. His preaching among the churches in that part of the country caused a great deal of wrangling and considerable hardness among the brethren, and the exclusion of some good men from the church. This was rather embarrassing for me, to go among brethren who differed, and yet seemed to be good brethren. Matters went on in this way for some two or three years, before a final separation came on account of the non-resurrection doctrine."

This is a part of the history of many of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and yet they want to sweep it under the rug as much as possible. So, why did Potter, who came to be such a great champion debater, not challenge Elder Trainer? As we will see, he did later have a debate with a Two Seeder on the issue of the resurrection of the bodies of the dead. 

Potter wrote further:

"In the winter of 1868, I was called to the care of Grayville church, and moved down into the neighborhood of that church. After I had been there about a year, it seemed that the non-resurrection doctrine advocated by Elder Trainer and others was causing more and more trouble all the time, and the feeling was getting very high, until finally the church at Little Wabash called a council from several of the churches around, to advise them what to do, which council advised all our churches to shut the anti-resurrection doctrine out of their houses. This most of the churches did throughout the Skillet Fork Association."

This denial of bodily resurrection is a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology.

Potter wrote:

"While I am on the subject of the trouble concerning the non-resurrection doctrine, I will state that in the year 1869, the church at Little Wabash, White county, Illinois, at the request of her pastor, Elder David Stuart, called for the council mentioned in the preceding chapter. The council was to meet in February. Some of Elder Trainer's friends notified him of the meeting, and he and another preacher by the name of Enoch Tabor attended the meeting. On their way to that meeting, they had an appointment at my church at Grayville, for Tabor to preach on Friday night. I had never seen Elder Tabor, but he was said to be a very able man. Being in company with Elder Trainer, it was natural to suppose that he would be in sympathy with him on that doctrine. I went out to hear him preach, and he took for his text, “It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." For about an hour and a half, I thought he made as able a defense of the doctrine of salvation by grace, without creature conditions or merits, and against the charges on the part of conditionalists, as I ever heard a man make. I could not help but be pleased with his ability and the masterly and powerful manner in which he defended the doctrine of salvation as being by grace alone, through the Lord Jesus Christ. At the end of that time he began to inquire, “But who is it that is saved? Is it the Adam man, or any of his posterity?” and for another hour and a half, I do not think I have ever heard a man give his own people, claiming the Baptists as his people, more abuse for believing the doctrine of the resurrection, and the salvation of the Adamic sinner than he did. He said he had been in good standing with the Baptist people ever since the year 1827, and that he had opportunities to know what the Baptist doctrine was, and he wanted no better evidence that a man was a Pharisee than for him to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. He said that if a man had his name written in letters of gold upon his forehead, whose brilliancy would outshine the sun, “Pharisee,” it would be no better evidence to him that he was a Pharisee than for him to say he believed in the resurrection of the just and the unjust. While he was preaching, I looked over my congregation and saw that the house was full of people, and that the majority of them were unacquainted with what the Baptists really did believe upon the question of the resurrection. All my responsibilities began to bear heavily upon my mind. Should I, young, weak and timid as I was, presume so much as to tell this intelligent and thinking audience that I did not believe or endorse this man's preaching on the question of the resurrection? If I undertake to argue against him the people will think I am foolish. If I let matters go and say nothing about it, I do injustice to my own cause. I am the pastor of this church, and have read in scripture the obligations resting upon a watchman who sees the foe coming and does give the alarm, I made up my mind, however, that I would not say a word until after Elder Trainer had said what he had to say." 

The idea that salvation is without conditions on the part of people is also a direct offshoot of Two Seed ideology. That is not to say that there were not others, prior to the genesis of Two Seedism, who denied that there were conditions for salvation. 

In J.H. Spencer's history, volume two, he writes the following about the Elkhorn Baptist Association of Kentucky in chapter one, published 1886 (See here):

"In answer to a query from Tates Creek, the churches were advised to use all tenderness to re-claim persons holding the error of conditional salvation, but if they could not be reclaimed, to exclude them."

This occurred in 1785 the year the Elkhorn Association was organized. What is interesting, however, is the association's endorsement of both the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions of faith, as well as the Philadelphia Confession, which of course does teach that there are conditions for salvation. In fact, in 1793 we have this record given by Spencer:

"1793. October 12. At South Elkhorn. Grassy Lick and Flat Lick Churches had been received, in May, and now Springfield Church was received. A union was formed with the four churches which had recently seceded from South Kentucky Association, on the following terms, proposed by the seceding churches:

"We agree to receive the regular Baptist Confession of Faith; but to prevent its exerting a tyrannical power over the consciences of any, we do not mean that every person is to be bound to the strict observance of everything therein contained, yet that it holds forth the essential truths of the gospel, and that the doctrines of salvation by Jesus Christ, and free, unmerited grace alone, ought to be believed by every christian, and maintained by every minister of the gospel. And that we do believe in the doctrines relative to the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the sacred authority of the Scriptures, the universal depravity of human nature, the total inability of men to help themselves without the aid of divine grace, the necessity of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the justification of our persons entirely by the righteousness of Christ imputed, believer's baptism by immersion only; and self-denial; and that the supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be none other than the holy Scriptures, delivered by the Spirit, into which Scriptures, so delivered, our faith is finally resolved."

So, salvation is unconditional and yet faith and repentance are necessities for salvation? Obviously they felt like the term "conditional salvation" implied things that they did not believe. I write about this extensively in my series on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and in some other articles. (See here, here, here) In the latter I cite from Elder John M. Watson, who we have cited from extensively in earlier chapters, on this question. He wrote:

"Some suppose that as this doctrine includes conditions or means, the performance of, or compliance with, them determines the acts of the Lord, making His acts dependent on them of the creature; and as the subject is sometimes discussed in such a manner as to embarrass those who are otherwise sound in the faith, it may not be amiss to give scriptural exposition of conditions and means."

"The reader should be reminded that there is a difference between the conditions of the first covenant under the law, and those of the Gospel under the second, or new covenant, Heb. 8: 9, 19...The condition, do and live was performed by Christ, and the benefits of it are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with it; for by nature we are morally unable to do so." (page 355)

Next Watson cites Perkins:

"William Perkins writes equally as clear on this subject as follows: "In the covenant of grace, two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace as well as the substance." And no less in point is the following: "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and life and salvation by Him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, nourisheth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience of the truth of their faith."

"So that the subject of the conditions of the Gospel, which have been confounded by many with those of the law and have given rise to so many Arminian errors, admits of a very satisfactory exposition. The Lord did not under the first covenant, promise to give grace to the fallen sinner to enable him to keep the whole law, that being the condition of justification and life; but under the new covenant it was both promised and given." (page 356)

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14."

It is not surprising that the Two Seedism of Elder Trainer included a view that denied conditions for salvation. Recall that in a previous chapter we gave one of the propositions of Two Seedism which stated that nothing a person does in his life is a condition for going either to heaven or hell. 

In this next chapter we will continue what Potter says about Elder Trainer and Elder Tabor and their Two Seed tenets and their denial of a bodily resurrection.