Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIV)

In this chapter we will continue to review Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":

"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."

"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil. The apostle Peter exhorts his brethren to "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." I Peter 2: 11. In this text we have a war, and the soul seems to be one of the parties in the conflict, and the fleshly lusts seem to be the opposite party in the war. The soul is not divided, but it seems to be all on one side. Another text says, "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would." Galatians 5: 17. The lusts of the flesh in this text must be precisely the same thing that Peter mentions which war against the soul. I simply understand that against which it is at war, in both cases, to be precisely the same thing. Paul says, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit," and Peter warns his brethren against fleshly lusts which war against the soul. Paul, again, says, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7: 25. He does not seem to serve the law of God, and the law of sin, both with the same mind. He serves one with the mind and the other with the flesh."

Both Potter and the Two Seeders, and even those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and decry Two Seedism, are confused on the nature and constitution of man and on what occurs when a man is initially saved, born again, regenerated and renewed. We need not state the errors of the Two Seeders on this area of doctrine for in previous chapters we have delineated those errors. However, Potter himself expresses an error himself on what happens when a person is born of the Spirit. He thinks that when a person is regenerated that his soul or spirit is "made entirely clear of sin." However, that is not scriptural. He says that the soul or spirit is no longer able to sin; And, since he seems to believe that "soul" and "spirit" are the same (the dichotomy view), he affirms that a regenerated man is unable to sin in his soul or spirit. So, what about the mind and the heart? How do they relate to the soul and spirit? Are they likewise "made entirely clear of sin"? 

The bible does not teach that the heart, mind, soul, or spirit is so completely and instantly transformed, or made holy, when a man is regenerated or born of the Spirit, that he cannot in his constitutional parts ever sin. Rather, the bible teaches that the new birth is the beginning of regeneration, renewal, transformation, sanctification, etc. Let us notice some scripture that shows this to be so and thus show that Potter's thesis is all wrong. 

"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1 nkjv)

If the "spirits" of the Corinthian believers were "made entirely clear of sin" so that they could never sin nor become morally filthy, then the above text is out of place. It rather shows that the cleansing of the spirit or soul is continuous in the life of the believer. So the apostle John wrote: "And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (I John 3: 3 nkjv) This purification is continuous. We see this truth also confirmed in these words of the apostle John: 

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (I John 1: 8-10 nkjv)

If what Potter says is right, there is no need for continuous cleansing of the soul and spirit after being initially regenerated because he says that it cannot sin; And, if the unregenerate part of man is incapable of doing right, or being changed for the better, then all admonitions to sin not are meaningless. James also wrote: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4: 5 kjv) I don't think that James is speaking to those who are unregenerate, for he says "us," meaning the believers to whom he is writing as well as himself. So much for the "spirit" being unable to sin. The truth is, even God's people get into a bad spirit.

"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9: 54-56 nkjv)

Oftentimes the soul or spirit of believers is often divided, contrary to what Potter says. Now let us notice the same truth stated in regard to the "soul." 

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart." (I Peter 1: 22 nkjv)

This purification of the souls of believers is progressive, and therefore shows that when a believer is first regenerated that his soul is not so made clean and holy that it no longer can sin. It is commanded of all that they love God with all their "souls" (Luke 10: 27) and what believer will say that he does this perfectly? To believers James also wrote:

"Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1: 21 nkjv)

Again, this is said to those who are already believers and thus shows that the souls of believers continually need to be saved.

What is true of the believer's soul and spirit is also true of his heart and mind. Surely Potter would not deny that the heart and mind also experienced regeneration and transformation. In fact, one of the leading texts that is generally believed to speak of regeneration says that the Lord will "take away the heart of stone" and give "a heart of flesh," to give a "new spirit," and to "write his laws in their minds." (Eze. 11: 19; 36: 26; Jer. 31: 33; Heb. 10: 16) This giving of a new heart, spirit, and mind does not mean that sin is no longer possible, nor does it mean that the creating of such is instantaneous and complete all at once. Just as we have seen where the soul or spirit of believers may still sin and need fresh cleansing, so too many scriptures say the same thing of the believer's heart and mind.

I think John Calvin was correct when he viewed "regeneration" as progressive and continuous rather than instantaneous and complete all at once. This is certainly true regarding being "renewed." 

Wrote Calvin:

“…by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form us anew in the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced in the transgression of Adam.” (Institutes, III.3.ix)

Calvin also wrote:

“This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare.” (III.3.ix)

Let us look at the passage that speaks of both regeneration and renewing. 

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 4-7 nkjv)

Some might argue that Paul speaks of salvation, washing, regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit as a completed work in the above text, occurring when a sinner was converted to Christ. However, that argument is not valid. First, because other scriptures show that salvation is continuous, affirming that the believer has been saved, is continuously being saved, and will yet be saved. (See I Cor. 1: 18) Likewise, scripture shows that cleansing from sin is continuous, as we have already seen. Likewise, scripture shows that "renewal" is continuous. Notice these texts:

"Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)

"that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 22-24 nkjv)

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Rom. 12: 2 nkjv)

"and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10 nasb)

So, if three of the four terms in Titus 3: 5 are continuous and progressive throughout the life of a believer, and not a one time instantaneous act, then why not the regeneration? In the above passage in Romans 12:2 we see where the "renewing" of the "mind" is connected with being "transformed." Is not transformation into the perfect image and likeness of God also continuous and progressive as is renewal, the washing of sanctification, and salvation? The following texts show it to be continuous:

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (II Cor. 3: 18 nkjv)

"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1: 6 niv)

The view of Potter is not much different from the view of the Two Seeders. Both would interpret the following text in the same way:

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." (I John 3: 9 nkjv)

Many "Primitive Baptists" say that John means "whatever part of a man is born again or regenerated cannot sin, not even once." The idea behind this interpretation is to say that the new nature, or divine nature, partaken of in regeneration, cannot sin, and that the old nature cannot do what is right, neither being able to be changed in the least. In the closing chapters of this lengthy series I hope to give some of my insights on this important question. I will show that the more correct biblical teaching is that the Christian’s total self is progressively being renewed and restored throughout the sanctifying process. We must also keep in mind that in regeneration the believer is changed, but it is not a change of substance, as many Hardshells teach. Instead, it is a change in direction, a change in disposition.

The question as to what occurs when one is born again or regenerated is not an easy one. One view says that in the new birth a new nature or principle is implanted in the soul or spirit so that there are then two natures, one begotten of God and one born of the flesh. It is argued that the new nature cannot sin nor produce sin and that all sin is produced by the old nature. However, it is more likely that the same nature that was corrupted by sin is what is now being changed by a participation of the divine nature, by the presence of Christ, and the presence of eternal or spiritual life. This is what, biblically speaking, is meant by being "regenerated" or "renewed." It involves restoring what was destroyed. Further, what is it that is being sanctified progressively in the life of the believer? If the new nature is already as holy as it can be, then why the need for further sanctification? If the old nature cannot be changed, then exhortations for further sanctification cannot be given in reference to it. 

In the above passage it is doubtful that the apostle John intends to say that a certain part of a believer cannot sin, for the context is showing how it is inconsistent for a person who has been born of God and has a faith that is born of God to live in sin as he did before he was born again, i.e. he cannot habitually sin without restraint as he did before he was saved. Further, if John intended to say that the new nature or divine seed cannot sin he would have said "for it (the seed) cannot sin" rather than "whosoever" is born again "cannot sin." 

Something coming from outside a person in order to enter and indwell him, as the Two Seeders taught, cannot be what the bible calls regeneration or renewal. What is made new is the very thing that was made old, what is made alive is the same thing that died, what is regenerated is the very thing that became degenerate. Therefore, the giving of a new heart, a new mind or way of thinking, or a new spirit, is to drastically change the old heart, the old way of thinking, and the old spirit. The "new creature" or "new creation" is made from the old creation. In the coming regeneration of the heavens and earth we do not see an annihilation of the old or first heavens and earth, but such a renovation that makes them new once again. Likewise, in the resurrection of the physical body it is the same old body that is made into a new body. 

Regeneration and renewal, therefore, is not a change in the "essence" or substance of the soul or spirit, as taught by Hardshell Elder R.V. Sarrels in his book "Systematic Theology." You can see various citations from this work in several past articles of mine where he states this. (See here in particular) The qualities that make a soul a soul are still the same after regeneration as they were before, and the same spirit that is renewed is the same spirit that needed renewal. There are no new faculties given to the soul, mind, heart, or spirit in being born again. They are given a new direction and a new focus. This is what great theologians of the past have emphasized, such as Jonathan Edwards.

The fact that "renewal" is continuous and not a one time instantaneous experience shows that this is so. Does the divine nature that a believer partakes of need daily renewal? We would ask the Two Seeder whether the "inner man" (who is that eternal spiritual child of God who has come down from heaven) needs daily renewal? Does the new heart, mind, and spirit that God produces in being initially saved need continual renewal? There is a difference between physical or constitutional inability to do what is right and moral or spiritual inability. Many Calvinist writers have stressed this distinction. In this post (here) I cited from Jonathan Edwards and A.W. Pink on this question. First, I cited Pink who wrote:

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."

And,

"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things..."

Further, as stated, new birth or regeneration does not make the soul or spirit perfect in holiness, but it does place within it that which begins to transform it, like leaven being put into dough begins a process that continues until the whole is leavened. 

Potter wrote:

"If, as some have thought, the body can not do good or evil, only as prompted to do so by the soul, or as Paul says, the mind, by which he serves the law of God, then it seems to me that he might have said, "I with the mind serve the law of sin, and I with the same mind serve the law of God." I can not yet accept the idea that he meant that."

Potter is mistaken here in assuming that a renewed mind cannot ever produce a sinful thought or a sinful purpose. Potter would seem to teach that a regenerated man has "two minds," one that minds truth and righteousness and one that minds falsehood and unrighteousness. Potter seems to be saying that the mind of the believer either cannot sin or else has two minds. But, I take "mind" to denote one of man's faculties, which faculty is capable of serving the law of God or not. It may also denote one's thoughts and opinions, as when one says "you know my mind on that," meaning you know my thoughts and beliefs. So, it is more in line with scripture to see the Christian as having one mind, or one faculty for thinking, just like every unsaved man, and to see that the same mind sometimes produces holy and godly thoughts but at other times unholy and sinful thoughts and resolutions. 

The mind of the believer, like his spirit, soul, and heart was set in the right direction in conversion, but not perfectly or immutably so, for like in the other constituent parts of his non-corporeal being, the change of the mind is only begun then. That is why the believer is frequently exhorted by the new testament writers to work on perfecting their minds, to transform their thoughts, so that they more and more "have the mind of Christ" (I Cor. 2: 16). 

In being born again there is begotten in a believer a change of mind or belief, and such a change that brings about a change of direction and behavior. This is why John Calvin rightly saw regeneration as denoting basically the same thing as repentance. Though the mind is changed in conversion, yet that change is not completed all at once, but is begun and is drastic at the start. Nor is the change of mind a change in the mental faculty or the substance or essence of the mind. It is a moral or spiritual change that begins when a sinner is given revelation of theological or gospel truth, when his eyes are opened so that he sees things that make him a believer and makes him change his way of thinking, his values, his purpose for living, etc. A drastic change of belief or the experience of falling in love with a person or a beautiful object may be so dramatic and life changing as to be called "epiphanies." In "Epiphanies, Revelations and Transformations" Psychologist Dr. Saul Levine at Psychology Today says (emphasis mine): 

"Some people make major transformations after believing new truths about life." (See here) He says that "an “epiphany,” is "a dramatically new insight into the meaning of his life," and that "this usually occurs after an intense emotional experience in which a person has a revelation which brings totally new attitudes and perceptions." 

This is certainly true in the story of the prodigal son.

"But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” (Luke 15: 15-19 nkjv)

The words "but when he came to himself" are packed full of meaning and significance and relates to what I have been saying. This was an epiphany that resulted from a Eureka moment, from the moment when the prodigal son saw how unreasonable and foolish he had been in the decisions he had made. It was also the time when he "wised up" and came to realize his need for repentance and to now make the right decision. This epiphany is the cause of his change of mind and conduct, what made him a new man. This epiphany did not change the essence of his mind, heart, soul, or spirit, but changed its beliefs, and changes in belief can have profound effects on the psychology of a person. When the prodigal chose to take his inheritance and to live immorally he thought he was making a good decision, acting upon a false belief. When he came to himself and saw his error and changed his belief he then became a new man. Some translations say "but when it dawned on him." 

We have other instances in scripture where we see that a change of mind resulted from an epiphany, from having one's eyes opened, from receiving a life changing revelation, and that this change of mind was not a physical change in the mental faculty but in what we might call his "mindset." It involves reorienting the mind so that it is directed towards God and righteousness and embraces nobler values. 

We have many other examples in scripture that, like the story of the prodigal son, show where changing a person's beliefs and perspective can bring about drastic changes in the person's soul or in his psychology. We must realize too that epiphanies can also occur that have negative effects, where an event or change of beliefs makes a person a deeper dyed villain. For instance, what an epiphany occurred when Eve believed what the Serpent told her! So we read:

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." (Gen. 3: 7 nkjv)

On a positive note, we think of the conversion experience of Saul the persecutor. He was like a raving maniac in his hatred of Christ and Christians and their good news message. But, when Christ appeared to him in his glory, immediately Paul's former beliefs were smashed and he was made to believe in Christ, and this new belief had far-reaching effects, making him a new man. Further, this change in the mind of Paul was not a change in the essence of his mind, but was a change in what the mind believed.

Certainly it took an eye opening revelation and change in belief for the pagans to whom Paul preached to have "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv).

I also think of the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two and of their epiphanic experience when they realized that the one they had crucified was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. So we read:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (36-38 nkjv)

The words "they were cut to the heart" denotes the same kind of epiphany that was experienced by the prodigal son. It all resulted from believing the things that Peter had said in his discourse. At that point they were no longer the same people, for they then repented and became Christians. We see a similar epiphany by one of the Roman soldiers who took part in the crucifixion of Christ, who, upon seeing the eclipse and the earthquake occurring in conjunction with the death of Christ, said "truly this man was the Son of God." (Matt. 27: 54; etc.) 

I have labored this point because it is important for understanding where the Two Seeders and even Potter himself went astray in their beliefs about the change that occurs when a person is converted to Christ. 

Potter wrote

"It seems to be sin that dwells in Paul, and not Paul himself that sins. It is sin that dwells in him that does the work, and this sin is in the body, and not in the soul. "If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live." It does not say if you through the spirit mortify the deeds of the soul, or spirit, you shall live. Again the apostle says, "If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness." The spirit in this text must be the spirit of man, for it is set over against the body. The body is dead, and the spirit is alive. Sin is in the body, but if there is any sin in the renewed soul, I do not remember the text, at this time, that says so."

Here again we see where Potter repeats his premise and which is one which the scriptures do not teach. He again says that there is no sin "in the renewed soul." There is no doubt that Paul says that all sin in the life of a believer may be traced to an internal cause and that all righteous acts are likewise traced to an internal cause. But, saying this is a far cry from saying that the heart, soul, mind, or spirit of a believer is incapable of sinning. 

When James said "out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing" and "these things ought not so to be" (James 3: 10) he shows that he does not reason as did Potter and some other bible teachers. Just as the same mouth may produce blessing and cursing so too may the same heart, soul, mind, and spirit of a believer give birth to sin or to righteousness. A believer does not have two hearts, two minds, two souls, two spirits, etc. He has within his singular heart, mind, soul, or spirit that which is good, but he also has in those entities that which is bad. This is why Paul urged believers to "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3: 12) 

In chapter eight titled "Is Man Changed in the New Birth?" Potter wrote:

"We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me, seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to me." 

It is ironic, however, that Potter's view, and the view that many "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace at the end of the 19th century, also sees very little change in those who are born again or regenerated. In Hardshell Baptist Tom Hagler's work titled "Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth" (2006) we have this view clearly affirmed. Hagler wrote (as cited by me in this post here):

"God has many children who are not Christians since they do not publicly acknowledge Christ. They may have heard the gospel, but have rejected it. The ones that rejected the gospel may have chosen to follow other religious orders, as with the Jews or other eastern religions. In this case, these children of God are regenerate, but they have not been converted to a knowledge of the truth. They are not Christians, but they are still God’s children. Some may have even been Christians at one time, but have backslidden and fallen away from the truth to other religions or to no religion." (pg. 154)

In other postings I cite from the "Systematic Theology" of Elder R.V. Sarrels who wrote (as cited by me in this post here):

"The disappointing end to which this view directs us is clearly shown by the following statement by Dr. Shedd.  "In this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the righteousness of God from which we fell in Adam" (Dogmatic Theology, II, 492)  This makes regeneration to be a restoration to a former state, instead of a resurrection to a new and higher state.  According to this view, as Dr. Strong states it, regeneration "is not a change in the substance of either body or soul" (Systematic Theology, 823).  Certainly this whole concept is in direct conflict with such Scriptures as Titus 3: 5; Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 8: 29."  (pg. 339)

"Regeneration is the regenesis of the soul substance (pg. 340).

The view of Sarrels says that in regeneration there is no change of beliefs, no change of behavior, but only a change in the "substance" of the soul. So he said further:

“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it. . .God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian." (page 349)

So, today's Hardshell view is that regeneration does not change a person's beliefs about God and does not convert him from paganism. 

Potter wrote:

"The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again."

This description of Two Seed views on regeneration is almost identical to what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe, as the citations above from Hagler and Sarrels show. So, though they think that they have cast off Two Seedism, yet we still see remnants of it in their theology. In the next chapter we will continue to review the works of Potter against Two Seedism.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LIII)

In this chapter we will put on record what else Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in connection with Two Seedism, which had caused so much trouble in the ranks of the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists. Primitive Baptists, with few exceptions, claim that they have thrown away the heresies of Two Seedism and yet they still retain remnants of Two Seedism. Historian and Professor John G. Crowley, author of "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999), himself a "Primitive Baptist" of a Georgian faction that still believes that the word of God is a means in saving sinners, said that one may still find remnants of Two-Seed doctrines expounded by today's Primitive Baptists "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) If you have followed me through this series on Two Seedism, its beliefs and history, you too will see the remnants of Two Seedism if you listen to their sermons.

In this chapter we will look at some other things Potter said in some scraps of his writings that should be included before I close this part of our series dealing with what Potter wrote about Two Seedism.

We will return to Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare" which you can read at the web site of the Primitive Baptist Library (here). We have already cited much about Potter's views on "regeneration" in the other two writings we have cited from, from "Life and Travels of Lemuel Potter," and from his1880 pamphlet "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh."

In chapter four under "No Souler" Potter wrote in his treatise on regeneration (highlighting mine):

"He challenged for the proof that any of his brethren believed anything of the sort. And yet when a text is given him with the word soul in it, to give a distinction of soul and body, he will squirm under it and say "Soul in that text means life." Give him another, and he will say, "Soul in that text means simply the man." Then give him the case of the rich man and Lazarus, and he will ask if you believe that circumstance just as it reads. Then ask him if he believes that the body of Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, and he will say, "I believe that Lazarus went there; the book says it was Lazarus, not his soul, or a part of him." In speaking of the rich man he makes about the same turn, and yet he says he believes men have souls, and thinks hard of being called a No Souler. Ask him what he thinks of the idea of a man out of the body, and he will try to make it appear that he was simply not out of the body, but in such a strain of mind, or so transported, that for the time being, he had forgotten himself. Everything he says goes in the direction of denying that man possesses a soul, distinct from the body, and that it helps to make up the man, yet he thinks hard of being called a No Souler."

Potter speaks of the Two Seeder who, when under scrutiny and being challenged with reasoned questions, would predictably "squirm under it and say..." Recall that Elder Watson spoke of how Two Seeders were serpentine, slippery, and hard to nail down, acting like weasels. That seems to be what Potter was also saying. It also reminds us of what Elder Grigg Thompson wrote about the serpentine ways of many of the Two Seeders.

Next he mentions the teaching regarding "the rich man and Lazarus" and gives it as his belief that it taught what happens to people when they die and go to Hades or the place of the dead. In chapter forty six of this series I gave some citations from some leading Hardshells about what they believe about the story of the rich man and Lazarus, showing that the older leaders who debated the Universalists, like Potter, all taught the common orthodox opinion that it is talking about where saved and lost people go when they die. I showed, however, that it was common for the Two Seeders to deny the orthodox teaching and give it a parabolic non-literal interpretation which denies that it is teaching what happens when the body dies. I showed how many in my lifetime wanted to declare non-fellowship for you if you didn't take the Two Seed view. I told of how it was asked in two ordination services in the Bear Creek Association (NC) when I was a young elder in that association. I was asked my views on it in my ordination and I gave the orthodox view and was surprised that I was still ordained.

It was a common practice, as Watson testified, for the Two Seeders to "allegorize" literal events in the bible, give a figurative or symbolic interpretation to literal things like the resurrection of the physically dead. On the other hand, they would take some things hyper literally, such as the term "seed" or "children of the Devil." There is simply something terribly wrong with how the Two Seeders handled scripture, the kind of bible interpreters Paul spoke of who "handled the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) It is what Peter called "twisting" or "distorting," like a contortionist, or wrestler, the holy scriptures, interpreting them according to their own whims. (II Peter 3: 16)

Many Two Seeders did deny that the Devil's people had souls, much like many Southerners thought about the black people they enslaved, and believing this made them feel little guilt for treating them as animals without human souls. However, many Two Seeders chose not to say "there is no soul" but simply fought all attempts to define it as given by others. 

In chapter six titled "The Soul Born Again" Potter wrote:

"This verse certainly does teach that our Savior recognized the idea that the soul lived separate from the body. We see two points in this text; one is that there is a distinction of soul and body; and the other is that the soul lives after the body dies. I know of nothing else mentioned in the Scriptures pertaining to man that survives the body, except the soul, or spirit, and when I read of a person going into heaven at the death of the body, even if it should be called by the name of the person, as in the case of Lazarus, I understand it to be the soul; or if he goes to hell, as in the case of the rich man, for I know of nothing that dies as they did only the body, and I know of nothing that lives after the body dies, except the soul, or spirit. I do not believe that the dead body of Lazarus was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, but I believe his soul was. I might not have thought about it being his soul, if the Savior had not told me that the soul survived the body. I do not believe that the dead body of the rich man lifted up its eyes in hell, being in torment; but I do believe that something that was called the rich man did, and I believe it was his soul, in all this agony, while his body was dead in the grave. The reason I believe it was his soul, is because the Savior has already taught me that the body might be dead, and the soul yet alive. Our Savior said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I do not believe his body went to paradise that day, but I believe it died, for the Scriptures say so. Men killed his body, who were not able to kill the soul. At the death of the body, the soul went to paradise. Paul says, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Philippians 1: 21. I do not understand what he would gain by dying, if there is to be no more of him until the resurrection."

So, we can add Potter to the list of those "Primitive Baptist" leaders who taught the traditional orthodox view on the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Also, we notice once again how Potter contends that a denial of the orthodox view came from Universalists and from some Two Seeders. Recall that in earlier chapters when we were examining what Two Seeder Elder Thomas P. Dudley said about man having a soul, that his beliefs were characterized as the "two souls" doctrine, one soul of the elect being that eternal child of God that was begotten in eternity and one soul coming from Adam. However, that is how others described Dudley's view. For himself he would always challenge his opponents by asking "what is the soul?" 

Potter continued:

"If you mention the "inner man" to him, to prove that man has a soul, or something internal, that is called "inner man," in the Bible, he will tell you that the "inner man" is Christ, and that the unrenewed sinner has no "inner man."

Recall what Two Seed apologists Gilbert Beebe and Thomas Dudley taught about the "inner man." They believed this was that eternal seed or seminal child that was begotten in Christ before the world began and comes down from heaven, enters the physical form of man (the "Adam man"), and dwells there for awhile and engages in battle with the "outer man" (the physical or fleshly man), and then at death the "inner man" or "new man" returns to heaven and the outer man goes back to dust ever to stay dust. For the above no-souler to say that the "inner man" is Christ is a kind of dodge for he believes that the eternal child is divine in origin, being the very emanation or mystical body of Christ from eternity.

Potter continued:

"If you quote the language of Jesus, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," and tell him that this text is so plain a distinction of soul and body that he can not very well say that it is man's life, or that it is man himself, and as we know that it is not the body, he will say, "I do not know what that means." Yet he says he believes that man has a soul, distinct from the body, and he thinks hard if he is accused of not believing it. The truth is he does not believe it. He does not believe that man's body will die, and the soul still live, and he is afraid of any text, or construction of a text, that means that when the bodies of the saints die, that their souls leave the body, and go to heaven. They, some of them, make very strange at the thought, that when the body dies, any part of the man still lives. Whether it is the proper name for them or not, I call all such No Soulers," and I charge them with believing and preaching heresy. It is not warranted in the Bible, and it antagonizes the Primitive Baptist doctrine. Those who deny the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body have become so intolerant in some localities, that with them a man jeopardizes his standing, if he says soul and body. I heard one brother, with whom I am well acquainted, in referring to one of his brethren, who believed as I do, stigmatize him "Doctor of Divinity," with quite a sarcastic air. I think that was a bad spirit."

Heretical cults have certain spirits connected with them. So the apostle John indicated when he wrote:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (I John 4: 1-3 nkjv)

Here we see that false teaching on fundamental doctrine is connected with false spirits. The word "spirit" in the above text is the same in meaning as seen in these verses:

"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9: 54-56 nkjv) 

James and John thinking that Christ would want the cities who did not receive him to be instantly destroyed were thinking wrongly and were acting out of a bad spirit. I have seen such spirits manifesting themselves in various cults with whom I have interacted. The "Church of Christ" (aka "Campbellites") have a spirit that is like Alexander Campbell, one of their leading founders. The "Primitive Baptists" (aka "Hardshells") likewise have a unique spirit, the very kind that characterized many in the anti-mission movement that spawned their sect. The Two Seeders likewise had a "familiar spirit." They could be intolerant, stubborn, cantankerous, schismatic, and have a "holier than you" or "more orthodox than you" attitude towards all other Christian churches. Recall that Elder John M. Watson in his book "The Old Baptist Test" bore witness to the spirit of Two Seeders, saying their ways were "serpentine." Potter in the above citation also reveals something of this evil spirit, speaking of the intolerant spirit of the Two Seeders and of their sarcastic air. The very label "Hardshell" expresses the fact that many Christians judged the "spirit" of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists as being stubborn and recalcitrant. 

Potter wrote further under the same section:

"I now want my readers to know that the reason I am saying so much on this subject is that there are some who do not believe that man is changed in the new birth, but just a new principle is put into him, and the same old principle that was in him before regeneration, is still in him, and that makes the warfare, and that the whole man, soul, body and spirit, some of them say, is born of God in time, and that the same man, all of him, soul, body and spirit, will die, and remain dead until the resurrection. They make strange of the idea that any part of man goes to heaven at the death of the body. They believe that man is not changed until the resurrection."

The two extremes of the Two Seeders on the change that occurs to a person in being born again are expressed by two labels as we saw in previous chapters. One view came to be known as the "hollow log" doctrine and the other came to be known as the "whole man" doctrine. We also saw how the Two Seed idea of spiritual birth stated that something came down from heaven and was "planted" within a person but did not change the person but simply dwelt inside the person, like a parasite or virus. In fact, even among today's "Primitive Baptists" who claim not to be Two Seeders one can still hear them describe the new birth as denoting something being "implanted" within a person. Thus, Christ is implanted, faith is implanted, spiritual life is implanted, etc. Other Two Seeders spoke of the "whole man" being born of the Spirit or regenerated because they denied that man had a soul. In an upcoming chapter we will hear Hardshell leader elder C.H. Cayce comment on these two doctrines.

It is ironic however that today's "Primitive Baptists" carry a Two Seed view of regeneration or rebirth. They do not believe that being born again makes a person a believer in the one true God nor in Jesus Christ. That is why most of them teach that many heathen people who worship false gods have been regenerated and born again. It is also why they speak of regeneration being something done on the sub-conscious level, a person being born again but does not know it. 

In chapter five under the title"The Body Not Born Again in Time" Potter said:

"So, I will start out by saying that when a man is born of God, he is born of an incorruptible seed. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." I Peter 1: 23. To carry out the rule, given by the Savior to Nicodemus, which is, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," so, that which is born of corruptible seed is corruptible, and that which is born of incorruptible seed is incorruptible, we would necessarily have to admit that our bodies, after being born of incorruptible seed, are incorruptible, and I do not see any way for a man who believes the body is born of God in time, to escape the conclusion that the body is incorruptible. But the apostles recognize the body as corruptible, mortal, vile and natural, and they no where allude to the body as immortal, spiritual or incorruptible. On account of these facts I have always denied, and do yet deny, that the body is regenerated in time."

I do not understand how the Two Seeders could believe that the physical body was regenerated or born of the Spirit. Again, we see how this idea falls under the label "whole man" doctrine. It is true that when the spirit of a man is reborn, it becomes the place where Christ sits enthroned, in the place where the ego or self once ruled, and from then on that experiential fact will take control of the body, for the mind controls much of what the body does.

Potter wrote further:

"I presume no one will claim that in regeneration the body is cleansed and sanctified. Then it is not born again. But I have been often told by good people that the body must be born again, for the Savior said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." They claim that he did not say a part of him, nor he did not say that his soul or spirit must be born again, but he, Nicodemus, must be born again. Let me ask, did he tell Nicodemus that his body must be born again? But "no soulers" claim that the body is born again, for it is the body that weeps and cries and feels badly and condemned. I doubt very seriously that the arrow of conviction ever touched the body, even if the body did cry and weep on account of sin, the pain and ache that caused those tears were not pains and aches of the body. But I have often been told that when the sinner is born again, the body turns its course, and begins to act differently from what it did formerly. They talk this way: "It was I that felt like I was a great sinner, and that God's holy law had been broken by me, the greatest sinner in the world. I mourned and grieved and prayed the Lord to forgive my sins. It was I, and not something in me that had sinned, and it was me that was made to hate sin, the very thing that I had loved before. I tried all the good things that I could do to drive the trouble away, and I finally concluded I must die and be lost, for there was no mercy for such a sinner as I was; and when Jesus revealed himself to me as my Savior, I felt like I was the beneficiary of his mercy, and it seemed that it was me all the time. While it was I that mourned, it was I that afterwards rejoiced, not something in me, but me. I do not wish to divide the man up, I do not want to dissect man. I believe I am the man, both soul and body, that is born of God, in the work of regeneration, in time."

Potter ought to have been a little more careful and precise when he said that no one claims that the body is cleansed or sanctified. That is because the bible does speak of the body being ceremonially cleaned and sanctified. Notice these texts:

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 22 kjv)

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1 nkjv)

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 nkjv)

Being made holy does not necessarily mean that the physical substance is changed. In the old testament there were holy utensils such as forks and bowls. These sanctified utensils did not experience a change in their physical makeup, but were simply "set apart" for divine service. So Paul wrote:

"I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 19 nkjv)

By "members" he means the parts of the body, or human faculties. The Christian should make sure that his hands, feet, etc., are employed in doing the will of God. The whole body is to become a holy living sacrifice to the service of God.

Potter wrote further:

"But I have often been told that the body is certainly affected in the new birth. We are not talking about what is affected by the new birth, but what is born again. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus, "Ye must be affected." He did not say "Except a man be affected he can not see the kingdom of God." The man, then, must be born again, not affected. So, I see nothing to convince me that the body is born of God, in time. I claim that it will be born again in the resurrection. You will find my argument on that in another part of this little work."

Potter makes an important distinction between what is born again and what is affected by the spirit of a man being renewed.

In chapter six titled "The Soul Born Again" Potter wrote:

"It seems to me, from all that I have heard men say on the subject, that it is a hard matter for any of them, no matter what their views may be on the subject, to just simply admit that man has no soul. After an admission that man had a soul, and that it was distinct from the body, by one of those men who denied the separation of soul and body at death, I asked him where the soul went when the body died? He answered me that if I would tell him where the light went to when I blew out the lamp, he would tell me. He was not a Soul Sleeper. He did not believe in the existence of the soul separate from the body, neither did he believe that the soul existed in the body after the body died. He believed that all that pertained to man, or all that constituted man died."

Recall in earlier chapters where Elder T. P. Dudley, one of the foremost apologists for Two Seedism, likewise seemed to be a "no souler." In chapter fourteen I cited these words of Dudley:

"It is contended by some, yea, many professors of religion, that the soul is regenerated. We confess we know but little about the soul...If the soul were regenerated, would it not be as wholly devoted to God, subsequently, as it had been to sin, antecedently to the new birth? 

We also looked at how Dudley's Two Seed views led others to charge him with believing that man had "Two Souls." 

Potter wrote:

"I will first try to prove, then, that man has a soul, distinct from the body. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10: 28. The soul in this text can not be said to mean simply the man, for if it is the man, then there is a man without a body, for we here have a soul without a body. Soul, in this text certainly does not mean the breath of life, for the very idea of killing a man's breath is a grand absurdity."

A man has to be very stubborn to resist such plain teachings about the distinction between body and soul. It is bewildering how anyone could deny that man has a soul distinct from the body.

In the next chapter we will continue to review what Potter wrote in "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare."

The Divine Library (10)

"And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter." (vs. 8-10 kjv)

In this chapter we are still talking about one of the most mysterious books in God's library, the seven sealed book of the Apocalypse, the legal instrument that authorizes the Redeemer to execute the terms of that instrument, which includes taking possession of all that was lost by sin and removing all liens and encumbrances upon fallen man's title to the heavens and earth, and by kicking out the foreigners and invaders, which includes all who have rejected God and his word, and the Messiah, and casting out of the world "that old serpent the Devil." It is the time when the weeds (tares) will be removed from among the wheat so that only wheat remains as Jesus taught in the parable of the wheat and tares. (Matt. 13)

In the last chapter we took notice of what is recorded in the first part of Revelation chapter ten where a "mighty angel" (who is none other than Christ) holds the seven sealed scroll in his hand and who, by its authority, carries out the things specified in the writing that is on the inside of that document, which things all have to deal with "the redemption of the purchased possession" (Eph. 1: 14) and with "the restitution of all things" (Acts 3: 21). What an important book this is to us!

The Lord Jesus in the form of a "mighty angel" takes the scroll and gives it to the apostle John and tells him to eat it and of the effects that John experiences as a result.

Wrote Seiss:

"The ultimate disposal made of this document is also such as to correspond with the character I have assigned to it, and to identify it as the same that was taken by the Lamb from the hand of sovereign majesty. John says, “The voice which I heard out of the heaven [I heard] again speaking with me, and saying, Go, take the book [or roll] which is opened in the hand of the Angel who standeth upon the sea and upon the land. And I went to the Angel, saying to him, Give me the little book. And he saith to me, Take, and eat it. And I took the little book [or roll] out of the hand of the Angel, and ate it.” Thus the history of this Βιβλιον terminated. And for what does our blessed Redeemer take the book out of the right hand of eternal sovereignty? Why does he appear in the court of heaven as a once slain Lamb that he may be accounted worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof?"

Bible commentators are not all in agreement as to what is signified by the apostle John being told to eat the little scroll whose seals had been broken and its contents revealed and its instructions that are to be executed. Many see John as acting strictly as a representative for all the people of God, so that what he does in eating the scroll, and in what he is commanded to do, is applicable to every saved person. Seiss takes this view on John acting as such a representative person on this occasion and in other places in the Apocalypse. When John is called up to heaven in chapter four verse one by a voice from heaven, Seiss says this signifies the coming "rapture" of believers at the second coming of Christ. I disagree completely with him on that point. Later in the last verse of chapter ten the angel tells John, after his eating the scroll, "you must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings," and Seiss does not believe that John fulfilled or will fulfill this ministry himself, but in the persons he represented. Again, I firmly believe this is not correct. However, more on that shortly.

Wrote Seiss:

"There is no book like the roll which the Lamb takes from the right hand of the Sitter on the throne. It embodies in itself all the prophetic, priestly, and royal rights of Christ, in the attitude of our Goel, or Redeemer. It compasses the very spring and kernel of all sacred prophecy, all evangelic preaching, all true faith, all abiding hope. It is the eternal charter, from the right hand of eternal sovereignty, on which reposes the whole right, authority, work, kingdom, and dominion of Jesus, as the Lord and Saviour of men. And the grand intent and purpose of all that he has done in reference to that document, for which he has obtained it and freed it of its seals, and for which he holds it open in his hand as he proceeds to take possession of the earth is, that his people may have the benefit of it—that they may take it from his hand, feed on it, incorporate it with their inmost being, make it the subject of their hopes, their prophecies and their prayers, and in the strength and virtue of it live and reign with him forever. And if we have at all hit upon the nature of the document which John beheld upon the right hand of Him that sitteth upon the throne, the analogy of faith, and the whole congruity of things, come into play to establish and confirm the belief that this βιβλιον, or βιβλαριδιον, in the hand of the Angel, is the same book, and that the Angel who holds it is none other than the Lion from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, the Lamb that was slain, the blessed Jesus."

Though I agree that the benefits of the Lion Lamb being found worthy to take the scroll and to loose its seven seals extends to all the chosen people of God, yet John's eating of the book is not intended to teach the same truth. John's eating the book is for John's primary benefit and new commission. But again, more on that shortly. First, however, let me cite from John Gill on whether the little scroll of Revelation chapter ten is the same seven sealed book of chapter five. Gill agrees with Seiss that it is the same, writing the following in his commentary:

"...but the same book is here designed, which in Revelation 5:1 is represented as in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, as shut and sealed; but the lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lamb in the midst of the throne, having taken it out of his hand, unloosed its seals, and opened it; and whereas we never read of his laying this book down, or of his delivering it to any other, he may be well supposed to be this mighty angel, who held it open in his hand..."

Returning to the commentary of Seiss, we note that he said:

“And the Angel, whom I saw standing upon the sea and upon the land, lifted up his right hand into the heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for the ages of the ages, who created the heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there shall be no more delay; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall sound, the mystery of God is [to be] fulfilled, even as he preached glad tidings to his servants the prophets.”

The KJV says "time shall be no more" but that is not correct, and is why better translations have "no more delay." On that we could say much, but doing so would enlarge this chapter and we might lose some readers who will not want that much at this time. However, I will say that the second coming of Christ and all that the Apocalypse discloses as occurring in conjunction with it has been delayed now for about two millenniums, being the time of God's longsuffering. But, there will come a time when God's longsuffering and all delay of coming judgment will be ended.

Wrote Seiss:

"The Mystery of God is nothing more nor less than the final sum of all God’s revelations and doings for the reinstatement of man into his lost inheritance. The fulfilment of this mystery is the final accomplishment of the last items of the Divine administrations which make up that sum—the ultimate realization of all the foreannouncements made to and by any and every one of God’s prophets in all the ages—the Gospel of the kingdom of heaven at length merged into full and everlasting fruition of that kingdom—the consummation of all things. And concerning this consummation, sundry particulars are here observable."

The time period when the "mighty angel" or Lion Lamb takes possession of earth, sea, and sky is the time when the seals are broken, its contents revealed and its terms executed, and when "the mystery of God should be finished." By "mystery of God" being "finished" is exactly what Seiss says above.

John's Commission At The Second Coming

"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." (Rev. 9: 11- 10: 1-4 nkjv) 

When John eats the scroll as commanded, it is then said that he will prophesy again before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. Seiss again thinks that this is not true of John as an individual but is symbolic of others, which is what many other bible commentators say. However, there is absolutely no reason for doing this. Some commentators will say that John fulfilled this commission by writing the rest of the book of Revelation from this point onward, a view that I find ridiculous for several reasons. That interpretation would necessitate that he be eating the scroll as each scene of the Apocalypse occurs. I also find it ironic that Seiss, who upholds a literal interpretation of Revelation, except in cases where there is warrant to do otherwise, is quick to interpret the words of John's new commission figuratively. 

I rather am convinced that the apostle John is one of the two witnesses of the Apocalypse, described in Revelation chapter eleven. I have written on this in the past (See here and here). I also have some drafts of articles proving that John is one of these two prophets and I hope I can finish that series soon. 

John did not fulfill his new commission when he was let go from his exile on Patmos and then began to preach to the churches in Asia Minor, which some traditions say occurred. There are also some traditions that say John was martyred, or that emperor Domitian tried to boil him in oil but he was miraculously kept from harm and was not killed. Actually there is no record of John dying, although some traditions say he died an old man. We have, however, some interesting words about John in these words of the risen Christ to Peter about John and about John's commentary on the prophetic words of Christ:

"Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” (John 21: 20-23 nkv)

Consider also the fact that the scroll is not eaten by John until it is taken by Christ and unsealed it, and until he has set his feet upon the land and sea and declared that there is no more delay. Since John's eating of the scroll is therefore in the future, so too must be his prophesying to the entire human population as one of the two witnesses, described as occurring in chapter eleven following the scenes of chapter ten. We see this in the similar case of Ezekiel. 

"And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you dwell among scorpions; do not be afraid of their words or dismayed by their looks, though they are a rebellious house. You shall speak My words to them, whether they hear or whether they refuse, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Do not be rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you.” Now when I looked, there was a hand stretched out to me; and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. Then He spread it before me; and there was writing on the inside and on the outside, and written on it were lamentations and mourning and woe. Moreover He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that scroll. And He said to me, “Son of man, feed your belly, and fill your stomach with this scroll that I give you.” So I ate, and it was in my mouth like honey in sweetness. Then He said to me: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them." (Eze. 2: 6-9 - 3: 1-4 nkjv)

John's eating of the scroll of the Apocalypse was for the purpose that he might speak to everyone on earth as one of the two witness prophets who prophesy in Jerusalem for forty two months during the time of the great tribulation. Further, we see how the book written on the inside and outside in Ezekiel's vision is full of "lamentations, mourning, and woe," which is what we see occurring in the Apocalypse in conjunction with the second coming of Christ and day of judgment, and in connection with the commission of the apostle John and the other witness prophet, which is none other than Elijah the prophet.

The Divine Library (9)

In the previous chapter we gave much information (though there is much more) on what is that special mysterious book in the divine library that is described in chapter five of the Apocalypse as a book or scroll with seven seals. In this follow up chapter we will see what occurs in Revelation chapter ten to this same book.  First, we will notice the book in relation to a "mighty angel" and then in relation to the apostle John. 

"And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices...And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time (delay) no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." (Rev. 10: 1-3, 5-7 kjv)

Upon this glorious scene Dr. Seiss wrote:

"John writes, “And I saw another, a mighty angel descending out of the heaven.” This person I take to be the Lord Jesus himself. He is called an Angel, but there is nothing in that to prove him a created being. Angel is a title of office, not of nature. In the Old Testament the Son of God is continually described as the Jehovah-angel. We had a somewhat corresponding vision in the first chapter; yet, he who there appeared, announced himself as the First and the Last, the Living One, who became dead and is alive forever. We had an account of an angel in the seventh chapter, and again in the eighth, whom there was reason to regard as none other than the Lord Jesus. We do know that he appears in the Apocalypse as a Lamb, as a Lion, and as an armed Warrior, and there is nothing to hinder his appearance also as an Angel."

I firmly believe this is correct and good commentary. There are three chief things to ascertain in studying this passage. First, is this "little book" or "scroll" the same as that with the seven seals? Second, who is this "mighty angel" who has possession of the little book? Third, what is this significance in what the angel does in connection with the little book?

Seiss wrote further:

"The attire of this angel indicates Deity. John beholds him “clothed about with a cloud.” Wherever clouds are connected with glorious manifestations, there we find the presence of Divinity. If there is cloud, there is mystery; and if there is mystery, there is suggestion of Deity. The Lord descended on Mount Sinai in a thick cloud. He appeared on the mercy-seat in a cloud. When Israel was delivered, “the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud.” When the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle, “a cloud covered the tent of the congregation.” When God reproached Israel for their murmurings, “the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud.” “The Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud.” The Psalmist gives it as the characteristic of the Almighty, that “clouds and darkness are round about him;” that “he maketh the clouds his chariot:” and that about him are “thick clouds.” When the King of glory cometh in his divine majesty to judge the earth, the exclamation is: “Behold, he cometh with clouds.” Clouds, therefore, belong to the attire of Deity, particularly in his manifestations toward fallen men. They indicate his unapproachableness, his infinite majesty, his consuming power toward sin, which cannot live before his uncovered glory, and yet his drawing near to communicate with the dwellers upon earth. No mere angel is ever arrayed in such drapery, and the vision is that of the glorious God-man himself, in the midst of the grand administrations of judgment."

Again, I am sure that this is correct. Seiss continued:

"He has “the rainbow on his head;” not a rainbow, but the rainbow. This is a further mark to show that he is not a created angel. We had this rainbow in the fourth chapter, where it is given as one of the grand appurtenances of the throne. It refers back to God’s ancient covenant with the earth. It was originally ordained as God’s mark in the cloud, and the sign of His, and no mere angel’s covenant. We never read of any one surrounded with the rainbow, but the person is God. The clouds are indicative of Divine judgment, and storms, and rains, and floods of wrath; and so the rainbow is indicative of Divine mercy in the midst of judgment, and a covenant of security to the believing, even though everything seem to be going to destruction. A garment of cloud, and a tiara of the iris, would, therefore, well befit the Saviour, in the administrations which we are now considering, but would in no manner of truth be suitable to a mere angel, however mighty."

As Seiss has stated, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, was known in the old testament as the "angel of the Lord" or "Malak Yahweh." In an old post in the Baptist Gadfly blog I wrote on Christ being the angel of the Lord and who was himself Yahweh. (See here) It was the angel of the Lord who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses and whose name was "I Am That I Am." Jesus is an angel by office, meaning he is the messenger of the Godhead, which is part of his activity as "the Word of God," but also specially in his dual character as both God and man. In the old testament he is revealed as the "Angel of the Covenant" (Malachi 3:1) because he is the one who establishes the covenant between God and humanity, and as the "Angel of His Presence" (Isaiah 63:9). Christ is also called "the Apostle of our confession" (Heb. 3: 1) because he is divinely sent by the Father to communicate divine messages to men. So Paul wrote earlier in the Hebrew epistle:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (1: 1-3 nkjv)

By God's Son being the person through whom God speaks to mankind he is functioning as an "angel" and as an "apostle." Further, the way Paul describes the Son of God in the above text is not only as an angel or apostle, but as possessing divine attributes and trappings. Seiss also shows that the description of this "mighty angel" has the emblems of deity. John Gill in his commentary agrees with Seiss when he wrote (emphasis mine):

"...however, a created angel is not intended: not the angel that made proclamation for the opening of the book, and unsealing it, Revelation 5:2; between which, and having the book in his right hand open, is a wide difference; nor any other, though the epithet "mighty" belongs to angels in common; and though this angel swears by the living God; and though it was an angel by whom Christ signified the things contained in this book to John; but the uncreated Angel, the Lord Jesus Christ, seems rather designed, as appears both by comparing this with Daniel 12:7; and from the power he gave to the two witnesses, Revelation 11:3; which cannot agree with a created angel; and besides, who so proper to hold the book open as he who unloosed the seals, and opened it, and to whom the epithet "mighty" may be applied in the highest sense, as God; and who as man may be said to swear by the living God, and to whom the whole description well agrees? he is sometimes called an Angel simply, Genesis 48:16; sometimes the Angel of the Lord, and who appears to be Jehovah himself, the second Person, Genesis 16:7, compared with Genesis 19:1; and sometimes the Angel of God's presence, Isaiah 63:9; and the Angel of the great council in the Septuagint on Isaiah 9:6; and the Angel, or messenger, of the covenant, Malachi 3:1; and may be so called, because he is a messenger from God as man and Mediator, being sent by him to declare his will and redeem his people...he appears now as "another" angel, distinct from the seven angels who had trumpets given them to sound..."

Wrote Seiss:

“And his face as it were the sun.” This again identifies him as the same who appeared unto John in his first vision. It is there said of Him who walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks, that his countenance was “as the sun shineth in his strength.” This luminousness of face is also one of the ascertained characteristics of Christ, in connection with the final revelation of his kingdom. Peter speaks of the appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration, as a foretaste and earnest of “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;” and yet, in that sublime picture, the record is, “his face did shine as the sun.” It was thus that he appeared unto Saul of Tarsus, on his way to Damascus. (Acts 26:13.) And from the most ancient times, the prophets were accustomed to refer to him as the outbeaming glory of God—the very Sun of Righteousness. “And his feet as it were pillars of fire.” These are manifestly the same feet beheld in the vision of the first chapter. There they dazzled the eyes of the seer, like fine brass melted and glowing in a furnace; and they were the feet of Him who was dead, but is alive forevermore, and has the keys of death and of hell. There they presented an image of terrible pureness, and here they furnish an image of steadfast and consuming majesty, which no one can encounter and live. Nothing of the kind is ever affirmed of a created angel."

So, having seen clearly that this "mighty angel" cannot be a created angel but the uncreated Son of God, who in his functions and offices is a prophet, priest, king, apostle, and angel. Further, if the "little book" in the hand of this mighty angel is the same book with seven seals, then it is even more obvious that the mighty angel is none other than the Lion Lamb who is the Redeemer. That all being so, what is the significance in what this mighty angel does in connection with the book with seven seals?

Wrote Seiss:

“And he set his right foot upon the sea, but the left upon the earth.” This was a distinct and deliberate act, and is full of significance. To set one’s foot in a place, expresses a purpose to take possession of that place. Jehovah said to Israel, “Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours.” (Deut. 11:24.) Abraham could not “set his foot on” any part of Palestine in this sense, inasmuch as God gave him none inheritance in it. And when this mighty Angel deliberately sets his right foot on the sea, and the left on the land, he thereby claims possession of it, and asserts his purpose to take it as his own, and to establish his occupancy and rule over it. It is an act befitting the character and office of Christ, but hardly a created angel. He is the rightful sovereign of sea and land. His taking of the sealed book from the hand of eternal majesty, and his breaking and destroying of its seals, proved and legitimated his right to the possession of the earth; and here we have his assertion of that right, and his purpose to enforce it. Long has both sea and land been under the dominion of his enemies, but now he sets foot on each, and takes hold upon them as his own."

The little book in the hand of the glorified Lord Jesus, now with its seals broken and its contents revealed, signals the time when Christ begins to foreclose and to repossess the heavens and the earth, to remove the aliens, squatters, intruders, the proud, yea, all those who "know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" and to act as the Redeemer and Avenger, to send tribulation upon the wicked world. It is then that the meek will inherit the earth as Jesus promised. (Matt. 5: 5)

Wrote Seiss:

"And with the symbolic act, and as part of it, there is a corresponding utterance. “He cried with a great voice, even as a lion roareth.” It was not a cry of distress and fear, but a shout of power, and the herald of vengeance upon enemies and usurpers. We have already seen who it is that is called “the Lion from the tribe of Judah.” Of old it was written, “The Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake.” “The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation: he shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth. A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh, he will give them that are wicked to the sword.” (Jer. 25:29–31.) And the great voice before us connects directly with these predictions. It is not the voice of a created angel, but the cry of the almighty Judge himself. As yet he is in his cloud, like the lion in his covert. But when he comes forth to set his feet upon the earth, the shout, like of those who tread the grapes, shall be given, and the winepress of the Divine fury shall be trodden. It is the cry for and the herald of the oncoming judgments of God..."

In short, this scene conveys the idea that Christ is now claiming the right to the world, to possess it and to rule over it, to kick out the wicked ones and to give it all to his redeemed people. This is the time Paul described when he wrote:

"Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power." (I Cor. 15: 24 nkjv)

It will also be the time when "the wicked will be cut off from the earth, And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it." (Prov. 2: 22 nkjv)

Wrote Seiss:

"As the Angel proceeded to set his right foot upon the sea and his left upon the land, the Apostle saw “in his hand a little book, or roll.” This is a marked feature, and not without important significance. It is not the main thing in the vision, as Alford and some others have erroneously supposed, but it is an expressive accessory to the thrilling revelation."

Wrote Seiss further:

"The Apocalypse abounds with references to books and records of a remarkable character. The first verse of the fifth chapter disclosed to our view a very notable document, in connection with which all the interest, up to the chapter now before us, has arisen. We had a good deal to observe concerning that book, or roll, at the time. We were then constrained to look upon it as representing the title-deed of the inheritance, forfeited by man, and recovered by the Lamb. We saw it lifted by that Lion-lamb, amid the adoring shouts of eternity, and one of its seals after another broken open, followed with miraculous commotions, which shook the earth from centre to circumference, and affected even the great orbs of immensity. When the last of the seals was broken, that book was still in the hands of Him who alone, in all the universe, was found worthy to take it, break its seals, or even to look upon it."

I cannot understand why any bible interpreter would fail to see how this little book is the same book with the seven seals as it is the most obvious way to look at it.

Wrote Seiss further:

"The breaking of that seal introduced the seven trumpet-angels; and then, for the time, we lost sight of the wonderful document around which all this interest and these wonders concentre. And as this mighty Angel can be none other than the self-same Lion-lamb who took the book from the hand of eternal majesty, why may not this roll in his hand be the same identical roll lifted from the throne? Some commentators have ridiculed the thought, but I take it to be a most reasonable supposition. If the book in the hand of this Angel be not the same book which the Lamb took from the throne in heaven, then that marvellous document, after all the wonderful interest and events created by it, most strangely and ingloriously disappears, and is never heard of any more forever. Such awe and exultation at its first appearance, and such mighty occurrences attending the mere opening of its seals, beget the expectation and belief, and indeed require, that we should hear of it again; that it should not be so miserably hustled off the scene; and that it should have an end befitting its character and its introduction into these visions. But an unaccountably sorry fate does it receive, if we are not to recognize it in the roll in the hand of this Angel."

Mankind's destiny and salvation is at stake in what happens to this book. I find the reasoning of Seiss to be so cogent that I don't see how anyone can deny that he is properly interpreting the scene.

Wrote Seiss:

"It is said of the little book now before us that it was “opened.” This implies that it had been shut, sealed; and that what kept it shut, its seals, had been broken off; all of which accords precisely with what we saw of the book taken by the Lamb."

Again, these are solid arguments to prove that the little book is the same book with the seven seals.

Wrote Seiss:

"The nature of the case would also seem to call for the presence here of the same document which the Lamb had taken from the throne. The Angel is engaged in the solemn and sublime act of formally claiming the possession of the earth. He needs his warrant for such an act. Redemption proceeds on a legal foundation. Christ as our Redeemer had to be made under the law. It was necessary that he should fulfil all righteousness. All his successes, triumphs, and exaltations were achieved on the basis of having meritoriously met and answered all demands of the law. He could neither rise from the dead, ascend to the right hand of the Father, propose free forgiveness to men, or dare to repossess man of the forfeited inheritance, except as he had satisfactorily atoned for all man’s sins, and in himself meritoriously won and purchased all that he now or ever holds or claims for his redeemed. It was only as he was slain for mankind, and atoned for their unrighteousness, and thus overcame, that he was pronounced worthy to take the book, or open its seals, or act the Goel for those whose inheritance had been disponed away, and overrun by aliens. And so neither could he claim and take possession of the earth, and clear it of all foes and usurpers, except upon warrant from the law giving that right as the just due of his perfect righteousness. No man can claim land without showing that he holds his title-deed for it. No one can proceed to execute penalties even upon transgressors, without warrant from the government. And so our mighty Goel in proceeding to set his right foot on the sea, and his left on the land, claiming possession of the earth, and about to inflict extirpating punishments upon the rebels who infest it, holds in his hand the open title to it, worthily obtained from the right hand of eternal majesty, displays it to all observers as his warrant from the throne, and challenges the potencies of earth and hell to yield or perish; whilst all the thunders of Almighty power utter themselves for his support."

What a wonderful and significant scene is described in Revelation chapter ten! In the next chapter we will see what else occurs in conjunction with this glorious book in the divine library.