What Is Meant by "Signified" in Rev. 1?

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Rev. 1: 1-3 nkjv)

Many people, especially those who are Amillennial, are intent to take very little of the Book of Revelation literally, and want to affirm that it is nearly all figurative or symbolic, and say that "apocalyptic" writings have this characteristic as its genre. They will argue that the word "signified" in the above opening words of the Book affirms this. I totally reject that view and will show why. First, however, let me affirm what it means.

By "signifying" the things John saw and heard simply means that he saw and heard things and wrote them down. He saw literal things but when he wrote down what he saw, we are not ourselves seeing those things but descriptions of those things, much like when we watch a video of an occurrence. We are not watching the actual occurrence but a representation of that occurrence. The same is true of looking at a photograph of someone. When we look at the picture we are not seeing the actual person but a symbol or representation of that person. So, what John saw was like seeing motion pictures. Or, we may say that John was transported in time to see future events, and his description of those things are what it means that the angel signified them. He paints a portrait of future literal events, and the portrait signifies those events. 

The verb “signified” in Revelation 1:1 is translated from the Greek verb “semaino.” This Greek verb is also employed five other times throughout the New Testament, and in every one of those times it is translated by some form of the English verb “signify.” Here are those instances:

John 12:32-33 – “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.  This he said, signifying what death he should die.”

John 18:31-32 – “Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.”

John 21:18-19 – “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”

Acts 11:28 – “And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.”

Acts 25:27 – “For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.”

None of these instances denotes “a communication of information through symbolism.” Rather, in every one of these five cases, the verb means “a communication of information through description.” So, although the prophetic utterances of the book of the Revelation may indeed include some symbolism, the use of this verb in Revelation 1:1 does not mean that the prophetic scenes described are not literal. Jesus was literally "lifted up" on the cross, although those words could mean most anything. But they "signified" that he would die by crucifixion. The word "signified" may denote "this is what that means." 

The word "tree" is a way to signify an actual tree, the word itself not being the tree, but it does point to or describe a literal tree. The word "signature" is derived from the word "signify" and etymologically alludes to a person's "signet" or "seal." A signature is a representation, but what it represents is literal.

If I say "it rained cats and dogs" it is understood that this is not literal. However, there is a literal truth conveyed by that language. People know it means that it is pouring down rain, being a common idiom. Likewise, when people are called animal names, we know that those people are not literally the animals they are likened to, such as when it is said "he is a dog," or "he is a fox," etc. 

We are told that it was Christ's personal messenger (angel) who was given the task of bringing to John's eyes the scenes of the Apocalypse. "He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John."

Dr. J.A. Seiss, author of many good books, and of his famous book on the Apocalypse, said the following in his lecture on the opening words of the Apocalypse (emphasis mine):

"The proper explanation of the office of the angel is to be found in the words signified and saw. The word rendered signified, taken in connection with the fact that the things signified were matters of contemplation by means of the eyes, can denote nothing else than an actual picturing of those scenes—a making of them pass before the view the same as if they were really transpiring. The office of the angel, then, as I take it, was, to form the connection between John’s senses or imagination and the things which he was to describe, making to pass in review before him what was only afterwards to take place in fact. How this was done, I cannot say: but as the devil could take Jesus to a high mountain, and show him at one view “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,” I am sure that it falls sufficiently within the sphere of angelic natures thus to picture things to man; and that when commissioned of the Lord for the purpose, no good angel is wanting in ability to be the instrument in making John see whatever visions he describes in this book." 

The angel "signified" the scenes of the Apocalypse by giving to the apostle John a vision of coming events. Of course, Christ himself appeared to John and spoke to him, dictating to him what to write, including what to write to the angels of the seven churches of Asia Minor. They were "signified" to John by bringing him to see things with his eyes. So the text says of him: "who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw." In fact the words "saw" or "see" are frequent in the Apocalypse. Notice these examples:

“What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia" (vs. 11), And "Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw" (vs. 12), And, "when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead" (vs. 17) And, "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."

This is only what is in the first chapter of the Book. We see those same words many times throughout the Book. The things he saw were literal things. He actually did see beasts with seven heads, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, a Lamb before heaven's throne, a rainbow round the throne, etc. Of course the beast with seven heads and the horns thereof are not literal, but they are well known symbols of what is literal. We know that the four living creatures in Nebuchadnezzar's dream represented four present and future world empires. The seven good cows and the seven ill cows in the dream of Joseph "signified" that there would be seven good years of fruitfulness and seven years of famine, which are literal events. Of course there are symbols, figures, similes, or "similitudes" to reveal literal things. So God said:

“I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.” (Hosea 12: 10 kjv)

"If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." (Numb. 12: 6 kjv) 

A dream or vision given by God may make use of symbols, as we see in the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel, but those symbols represent literal things. However, some dreams and visions may have no symbols, and some may have a mixture of the two. Those symbols signify literal events. 

So, beware of those who say that the word "signified" in the opening verses of the Book of Revelation means that the it is all symbolic, having nothing that is literal, for they will keep you from understanding that inspired Book. The new heavens and earth are literal. The New Jerusalem is literal. 

Further, the symbols in the Book of Revelation are such as are easily understood, so that what they signify is not left to the whim of the interpreter. The other parts of the Bible inform us of what those symbols stand for and represent. 

I believe that too many people, especially within certain denominations, take very little literally in the Book of Revelation, believing that what is literal in the Book of Revelation is non-literal, or symbolic or figurative. What then happens in far too many cases is that they 1) give up trying to figure out what each symbol or figure or vision in the Apocalypse represents and study it not, or else 2) to every Apocalyptic scene or occurrence in the Apocalypse they give wing to fanciful or far-fetched interpretations, giving their own private interpretations, or 3) put faith in what they are told to believe about the Book of Revelation by some pastor or teacher without testing those interpretations. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XL)

Two areas of theology that were involved in the Two Seed controversy dealt with the nature of man and with whether Christ was a man from eternity. We will now look at what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote on these two subjects. Potter first gives us what the Two Seeders said and he gives the following article from Martin Ellis titled "WHAT IS MAN?" (Hardinsburg, Ind., January 27, 1879) This article is given in Potter's 1880 pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." Potter wrote the following, giving us what the Two Seeder wrote in response to a previous article by Potter titled "What Is Man" (emphasis mine):

"Noticing an article in the Church Advocate, of December 16, 1878, on the subject of "What is Man," I, by your permission, wish to present your readers a few thoughts on the same subject, but refer you to a different text, which you will find in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, 15th chap. and 47th verse. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." I wish to be understood that when Paul penned the text, he was moved by the Holy Spirit and wrote the truth. Then there is a man from heaven and a man of earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven. Paul says to the church at Rome, 5th chapter and 14th verse, that the earthly man is the figure of Him that was to come. In the 15th chapter and 45th verse of 1st Corinthians, Paul calls this heavenly man and this earthly both Adam, bearing the same name."

"The question is, is there any relationship between the two men. I take the ground there is. What is it? says one. The prophet Isaiah says to Israel "Look to the rock from whence you were hewn; which rock is Christ. Now anything hewn from out of anything must be of the same substance as that from which it is hewn. I will tell you what Paul says about it. He says to the Church "ye are of his body, of his flesh and of his bones," I will here say that all that stood in Adam, when God blessed him were the children of God, and fell in transgression in Adam, in the character of a seed. David says in the 22nd Psalm, 30th verse, "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation." Now, as we have come to this point, I ask did David have reference to the Adam family when he was talking about a seed to serve the Lord? I say yes; that is just what he calls a generation. Paul called Christ a seed in writing to the Galatian Church, 3rd chapter, 16th verse. He says, "Not unto seeds, as of many, but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ." Now this is the woman's seed which bruised the serpent's head. When we speak of seed it is that (if it is a good seed) which will produce."

"Then I reckon no one will try to deny that Christ is a good seed. Then he is productive, and produced Adam. And when Adam was produced he was "good and very good." Now we go to the 13th chapter of Matthew, 37th verse; Christ there says, "He that sowed the good seed is the Son of Man." In the next verse he says, "the field is the world," the good seed are the "children of the kingdom." The tares are "the children of the wicked one." The enemy that sowed them is the devil. There are two generations brought to view in the scriptures. There is the generation of Jesus Christ and the generation of vipers."

"He took one of his ribs and made it a woman, and Adam says, "this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." We there find her first existence in her husband, and she existed in substance as soon as her head, and husband existed."

"Then the heavenly man is the husband of the earthly man. Then, as this is true, Christ is bound for her debt, by law. To pay the debt he died on the tree of the cross. There is no man that has a wife that contracts a debt, but the law holds her husband responsible for the payment of it. Now did the bride of Christ exist in Christ before the world began? I will tell you what Paul says, Eph. 1st chapter, 4th verse, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world."

"Paul says in Corinthians, 15th chapter and 21st verse. "For as in Adam all die." Then the bride of Christ, or Lamb's wife died in earthly Adam. Then as sin did not destroy the flesh and bone relation, nor could not, it still remains. Then if sin could not destroy the relation, it cannot be destroyed. Then this being true, the flesh and bone relation between Christ and his bride is not destroyed. Then I ask the question which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age."

In these citations we see where the basic Two Seed tenets are affirmed. First, Christ as a man existed from eternity, as a mediator, as a husband of the elect or church, and Second, the church existed in him or in his seed from eternity, and Third, after being deposited in Adam, they sinned and fell in Adam, but this did not destroy their relationship to God, did not separate them from God, did not bring them under wrath or degenerate them. The doctrine of "eternal children" is affirmed for the Two Seeder says that Christ and his bride are of the same age. 

The doctrine of unconditional election, or election by grace, is also denied, for the Two Seed apologist (Ellis) says that Christ was obligated in law to pay the debt of sin that his wife incurred. In this paradigm it is affirmed that Christ was already the "last Adam" before the "first Adam" was created, and that Adam the first was created, body, soul, and spirit after the image of the human Christ. These tenets are but cunningly devised fables. Recall that I cited from the articles of faith of the Bear Creek Association (1832), and which remains present in them to this day, and shows that the association was infected with Two Seedism from the start, a fact that Elder Hosea Preslar testified to when he returned from Tennessee and lived once again in the bounds of that association. That article said:

Art. 2. We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity.

You can read Elder Hosea Preslar's words on Two Seedism in the Bear Creek Association in these posts: (here, here, here here, here). Recall also that I have shown in previous chapters how they make Christ the first Adam or first man, and yet Adam, the husband of Eve, was called the first man or first Adam.

Now let us notice what Potter said in rebuttal. Potter wrote:

"We propose to make the Bible our umpire, and hope that we have no desire to appeal from its decisions on any subject that may come before us. Brother Ellis tells us that Adam, the earthly man, was made in the image, and after the likeness of the man from heaven. This is the first information we have had that Adam was made in the image and after the likeness of a man at all. The Bible says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." Gen. i. 27. From what Elder Ellis says, we suppose he must reckon God to be the man from heaven. We, however, are not ready to accept the position yet, until we can get it from better authority. We shall still adhere to the Bible on the subject, that Adam was made in the image of God and not man."

The claim of Ellis and the Two Seeders that "Adam, the earthly man, was made in the image, and after the likeness of the man from heaven" is exactly what the Bear Creek article of faith says. This is, as I have also stated in previous chapters, very close to what Mormons teach. According to Doctrine and Covenants 130:22, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” They also teach that the only begotten Son of God had a body before the world began and Adam was made with a body in the likeness of the bodies of the Father and Son.

Potter wrote further:

"Then the apostle truly says, "We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." Not that we are of his body, in a sense that we were produced by his body of flesh and bones. What text of scripture says we were made of Christ. We read that he was made of a woman - that he was of the seed of David according to the flesh - that the Virgin Mary brought him forth, that our Lord sprang out of Judah, etc. But that Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, we do not learn from the Bible."

Albert Barnes in his commentary on Ephesians 5: 30, where Paul says of believers that they are "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," rightly says:

"Of his flesh, and of his bones - There is an allusion here evidently to the language which Adam used respecting Eve. "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;" Genesis 2:23. It is language which is employed to denote the closeness of the marriage relation, and which Paul applies to the connection between Christ and his people. Of course, it cannot be understood "literally." It is not true literally that our bones are a part of the bones of Christ, or our flesh of his flesh; nor should language ever be used that would imply a miraculous union. It is not a physical union, but a union of attachment; of feeling; of love. If we avoid the notion of a "physical" union, however, it is scarcely possible to use too strong language in describing the union of believers with the Lord Jesus."

Of course, in the case of Adam and Eve, it was literally true that Eve was bone of Adam's bone and flesh of Adam's flesh. But, it is not true of every other marriage. I cannot say of my wife what Adam said of his wife. Paul uses that language to denote the union of believers with Christ, and the "body" of which they are members is not a physical body, but a group of people, an assembly or congregation of believers. 

John Gill in his commentary wrote:

"For we are members of his body,...Not of his natural body, for this would make Christ's human nature monstrous; Christ, as man, is of our flesh and of our bones, or a partaker of the same flesh and blood with us; or otherwise, his incarnation would have been of no service to us; and had our human nature been from Christ, it would not have been corrupted; but our bodies, flesh, and bones, are from the first, and not the second Adam, and so corrupt and sinful...Of his flesh and of his bones: for so the church may be called, his own flesh, his flesh and bones, on account of the marriage relation she stands in to him, and that spiritual union there is between them, which these phrases are expressive of; and which the near relation of man and wife is an emblem of..."

This is an excellent response to the Two Seeder view. The Bible is clear in affirming that Christ is a descendant of Adam, getting his body from him, and not vise versa. So Paul wrote:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same" (Heb. 2: 14 kjv). 

As we saw in previous chapters, this was a verse much used by Elder Beebe to prove his Two Seed views. His view was that both Christ and his children preexisted and then took part of flesh and blood, each becoming incarnate or coming down from heaven. However, for the view of the Two Seeders to be correct, the text should rather read as follows:

"Therefore, because Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood from before the world began, the children likewise partake of flesh and blood." 

The words of Paul indicate that the children were first being partakers of flesh and blood, and Christ then took part of flesh and blood. Who does Paul indicate first partook of flesh and blood? Christ or his children?

Some who believe as do the Roman Catholics that the bread and wine of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper become the literal flesh and blood of Christ will say that believers do partake of the literal body of Christ. But, if this is true, what about his bones? How would such a view of the Supper make it true that the communicants become "bone of his bone"? The truth is, we do partake of Christ in the Supper, and in feasting upon him and his sacrifice, but this is not so literally or physically, but spiritually and mentally. This is what Paul means when he says: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast..." (I Cor. 5: 7-8 nkjv) Priests in the old testament were to eat of the burnt sacrifice of the Passover, and today we do so by faith and through our joyful meditations upon that sacrifice.  

Potter wrote:

"If Adam is the natural product of the humanity of Christ, then he did not make Adam any more than we make our children. Yet we find that man was created, which means he was brought into being; and this fact contradicts the idea that he eternally had a being."

He also wrote:

"There is no text in the Bible that proves the pre-existence of the seed of Abraham." 

Of course, Two Seeders would dispute this claim. Granted, there is no text that explicitly says that the elect actually preexisted before their conception in the womb of their mothers, but the Two Seeders would try to prove it by inference, as we have seen. They believed that Eve being in some sense in Adam before she had an actual developed existence or creation out of Adam's rib and say that this shows that the bride of Christ was also in Christ before she was in time created in the womb. 

In the next chapter we will continue to look at what Potter wrote against the Two Seed idea of the preexisting humanity of Christ.

Hardshell Damnable Heresy

In "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" (2006) by Tom Hagler (See here) we find a poor attempt to give a defense of Hardshell Hyper Calvinism. Elder Fralick years ago wrote on Hagler's writing and showed it to be heretical and poorly written. (See these posts by Elder Fralick: here, here, here, here) I want to cite these words from Hagler which clearly states the belief proposition of today's "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists, with few exceptions, that people who reject Christ may still be saved. (emphasis mine)

"As noted above, not all of God’s regenerate children will become disciples of Christ, or as they are called, Christians. Predestination is not involved. 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)

Anyone who has read the Bible knows how such a view is shocking, something unheard of in Christian circles. The Bible is so clear in its declaration that all unbelievers in the God of the Bible and in the Messiah are not saved and that Hell is their eternal destiny. I invite every Hardshell Baptist who believes the proposition of Hagler to come here and defend it by the Bible. I invite them to deny the proposition I just stated, that all who live and die as unbelievers will go to Hell.

Let me just give a few of the many Bible passages which prove that all unbelievers in the one true God and in his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit are not saved and will go to Hell forever to be tormented. First, we cite the following text:

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev. 21: 8 nkjv)

Notice how clear and straightforward are the inspired words of this text. All unbelievers and those who worship false gods, being idolaters, will spend eternity in the lake of fire and experience the second death. A Hardshell Sophist may try to pervert the text in some cunning way to deceive the simple minded and the careless, but an honest heart and an open mind will confess the truth of what the text says.

Next, let us notice these words of the apostle Paul:

"and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed." (II Thess. 1: 7-10 nkjv)

Again, Hagler and his Hardshell Brethren do not agree with the apostle. They do not believe that all those who "know not God" and who "obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" will be "punished with everlasting destruction."

Now, I could give an avalanche of such texts. But, what use would it be to multiply texts to close minded Hardshells who refuse to see what is clearly taught in these texts?

Let them tell us where the texts are that say that unbelievers will be saved, and that worshipers of false gods will be saved. They will not because they cannot. There are no verses that teach such a doctrine.

Finally, let me respond to the Hardshell view of Hagler that says that one does not have to be a disciple or follower of Christ to be saved.

"I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own...My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."  (John 10: 14, 27 nkjv)

A disciple is a follower. Jesus says that all the sheep, all the elect, all saved and regenerated and born again people will know him, follow him, recognize and obey his voice, and thus have eternal life and never perish. This directly contradicts Hardshell teaching, and it is a destructive heresy of the worst kind. In the same discourse, Jesus said: "Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (vs. 5) Hagler says that many of the sheep believe in other "strange" gods and even reject Jesus! To contradict Christ and the apostles in this manner manifests diabolical enmity.

Not even the forefathers of today's Hardshell churches believed this nonsense.

Children of Hell or Heaven?

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." (Matt. 23: 15 NKJV)

The Greek word for "hell" in the above text is "Gehenna," one of three Greek words for hell, Hades and Tartarus being the other two. Also, though some translations give "child" of Hell, others correctly give "son" (Grk. huion) of Hell. With that as a preface, I want to talk about those who are the sons or children of Heaven against those who are the sons or children of Hell. In a recent post I showed how some people are children or sons of darkness while others are children or sons light, or children of the day versus children of the night. I showed that the genitives are adjectives (i.e. "day children", "night children" etc.) were to be understood in a moral, ethical, or spiritual sense, dealing with people being either good or evil, wicked or righteous, lawless or law abiding, etc.

So too are the descriptive terms "children of Heaven" or "children of Hell." Or, we might speak as do the scriptures of "Zion's children," or "children of God," as opposed to "children of the Devil," or "children of this age" (Luke 16: 8) versus "children of the age to come." (Luke 20: 34-36) We also read of "cursed children" (II Peter 2: 14) as opposed to "blessed children" (Matt. 5: 9), "children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3), "children of the kingdom" (Matt. 8: 12), "children of disobedience" (Eph. 2: 2), etc.

A "child of Hell" is even more descriptive of the moral and spiritual condition of depraved men and women who are in a morally unregenerate state. "Gehenna" was the name for the trash dump where people of a town or city took their garbage and dead animal carcasses. It was always burning and produced an awful odor as one can imagine. It was a fitting picture of the place of torment for wicked impenitent men and women in the afterlife. However, it is not the same as Hades, for Hades is the place where the bodyless soul or spirit of the wicked now go and remain until the day of judgment, and being temporary it is more comparable to a jail. Gehenna on the other hand is the permanent place for those same wicked men, and is therefore more like a prison, and is a place where the wicked will exist in both body and soul (or spirit). As prisons generally hold the most "hardened" criminals, so too are the children of the prison of Gehenna the most ungodly.

So, "sons of Gehenna" denotes sons of immorality, sons of corruption, sons of moral garbage. Hell, whether Hades, Gehenna, or Tartarus, is not only a literal place but is also a symbol of everything that is evil and depraved. To be a "son of Hell" is therefore to be most vile, most devilish and diabolical, most wicked, most destructive, etc.

A person therefore who is "twice as much a son of Hell" is doubly wicked in every way. This makes me think of the time when the Lord Jesus exorcised a demon out of a man. Jesus then said this of that demon:

"Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there" (Matt. 12: 45 nkjv)

Some are two fold more the sons of Hell than others, more wicked than others.

Heaven's Children

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal. 4: 26 kjv)

Jesus spoke of those who were "children of the kingdom" of God and Heaven. (Matt 8: 12) So, just as there are children or sons of Gehenna Hell, so too are there children or sons of Heaven. The apostle Paul said: "For our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil. 3: 20 kjv). Citizens of Heaven! Heaven is the home of every child of God who is born from above, and who seeks those things which are above. (John 3: 3; Col. 3: 1)

Just as being a child or son of Hell denotes those who are "double dyed" wicked and immoral persons, or villains, so being a child or son of Heaven denotes being a godly, moral, righteous, obedient, law abiding, person.

All those who are children of the Father in heaven (Matt. 5: 45), born of God, will behave as children of Heaven. So the apostle John testified, saying -- "And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (I John 3: 3 nkjv) Yes, they sin, for "there is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not." (Eccl. 7: 20) But, a heaven born child is regularly purifying himself, is becoming more and more godly in his or her life. 

Godliness is a chief characteristic of God's heaven born children, just as ungodliness is characteristic of the children of Hell. Jude describes the latter this way: "...all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Jude 1: 15 nkjv) It is as if Jude could not use that word "ungodly" enough! He uses that word as a noun, adjective, and adverb. This is a description of Hell's sons and daughters.

Heaven's children however are godly. Said the Psalmist: "But know that the LORD has set apart for Himself him who is godly" (Psa. 4: 3 nkjv) They are a "godly seed" (Mal. 2: 15).

Every child of Heaven was once a child of Hell. It is your choice to decide which you want to be. To become a child of Heaven, you "must be born again" as Jesus said. So, how do you become a child of God, born of God? Wrote Paul: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26 nkjv) The apostle John wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXIX)

There are several tenets of Two Seedism that are surely heretical, for they are surely false teachings on major fundamental doctrines of the Bible and the Christian faith. These tenets are heterodox in areas of theology dealing with the nature and works of God, such as the Trinity, or in several points in soteriology dealing with election, the means of faith and repentance, and the means of the word of God or Gospel, etc. In the previous chapters we have been examining what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote against Two Seedism in 1880. We have reviewed the eleven tenets of Two Seedism that Potter listed and rebuttal comments made by Potter against them. Now we will begin to cite what else Potter said about Two Seedism. 

Keep in mind that Potter was well versed in it. He lived in Illinois (before moving to Indiana) where Daniel Parker first published his books promoting Two Seedism and a state where Two Seedism was embraced by a seeming majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. He has also said that in his early years in the ministry (late 1860s into the 1870s) that he "rather favored" Two Seedism, though he says he did so without investigating the matter first. He also had at his disposal in 1880 two previous lengthy writings against Two Seedism, the first by Elder Grigg Thompson (1860-61), and the second by a brother minister in Illinois, Elder George Y. Stipp (1826-1886), who published his treatise in 1879. You can read that treatise by Stipp at the web site of the Primitive Baptist Library (here). He no doubt was well read in the debate about Two Seedism that was carried on in the various Hardshell periodicals from the days of Gilbert Beebe and Joshua Lawrence (1830s).

In previous chapters we have been citing from Elder Potter's small pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can also be read at the above web page (See here). In this chapter we will cite further from this same work. Following this we will look at some things Potter said about Two Seedism in some of his other published works.

Potter wrote:

"But we wish to notice the origin of man a little farther. We are frequently told that Adam was a figure of Christ, and that as Adam possessed Eve, his bride, in himself, so the church of Christ, or his bride stood in him, before the world began. If Adam and Eve are ever mentioned in scripture as being a figure of Christ and the church, we have failed to see it. So, such a foundation as that for the doctrine of eternal children is unwarranted in the scripture."

And,

"We sometimes hear it said, that as Adam was the figure of Christ, and that when he was first formed out of the dust of the ground Eve was in him, that Eve is also the figure of the church. On this it is claimed that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church. We have been wonderfully surprised at the universal acceptation of this idea among our brethren. But as we must be allowed to believe for ourself, regardless of the numbers that are against us, we now take the liberty to say, that there is not a solitary text in the whole volume of God's word that proves Eve to be a figure of the church more than any other lawful wife."

And,

"After assuming the positions that Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and the church, then, the next thing is to show that Adam's wife was in him before she was developed, so the bride of Christ, in order to be a true antitype of Adam and Eve, must have been in him before she was developed. In this state she existed in Christ in heaven before the world began, and grace was given her in Christ before the world began. There is only one text in the Bible that says Adam was the figure of Christ, and that has no allusion to the relation between Christ and the church. The apostle is merely showing the manner of the introduction of sin and death into the world. He is not speaking of Adam in any other sense only to show that by his transgression, he involved his posterity in sin and death. The sin and transgression of Adam proved as effectual in bringing condemnation upon his family, as the obedience and righteousness of Christ would be in bringing justification and salvation, and eternal life upon his. Each one represented his own people; the act of Adam effected all his people because he represented them; so the act of Christ effected all his people because he represented them. This is the matter, and the only sense in which Adam was a figure of Christ, and Eve is not mentioned in the whole connection. Hence it is unreasonable as well as unjust to draw such conclusions as many do from such premises as this. Let us always limit our conclusions to what the Bible says, on the subject we treat on, and if we are taking a position that is not at all sustained by the Bible, we had better give up the idea than to misconstrue scriptures."

Two Seed apologists relied heavily on Adam and Eve being symbols of Christ and the church, as Potter indicates. In previous chapters we have cited from Beebe and others on this argumentation by the Two Seeders. Potter does a fairly good job in stating the reasons why their view on the supposed symbolism of Adam and Eve are not right. However, he should have agreed that it is not denied that the union of Adam and Eve is a type of the union of Christ and the church, but not more than all wives and husbands. So Paul said:

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her... 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5: 22, 28-32 nkjv)

The church was not the wife of the Lord Jesus from eternity past. The Lord "foreknew" his people's existence, and in his decrees concerning those who he intended to create he chose every believer to salvation, to be one of his people, to be a member of his social, spiritual, or ecclesiastical body, to be married to the Lord Jesus Christ. She was not the wife of the Lord before the world began. A believer does not become united to Christ, or married to him, until he exists, and until he chooses to marry the Lord. In support of this we cite the following words of the same apostle who wrote the above Ephesian epistle:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7: 4 nkjv)

The words "that you may be married to another" show that believers were not married in eternity past. They are married when they say "I do" in being united to Christ by an act of faith. Paul, writing to the believers in Corinth, wrote: "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2 nkjv) If the believers were already Christ's wife from before the world was made, the above language of the apostle is a falsehood. Why does he need to betroth, espouse (kjv), or engage them if they were already the wife of the Lord? Paul also wrote to the Corinthian believers and said: "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (I Cor. 6: 17 nasb)

Eve was once a part of Adam, having been made from a rib taken from his side. But, no other wife was ever a part of her husband nor had her origin in him. Two Seeders who use this fact to affirm that as Eve was in Adam before she was created and joined to Adam as his wife so too was each believer (or chosen one) in Christ before he or she was created and joined to Christ by an act of choice (betrothal) and faith. So, Potter is correct to say that Eve is not especially a picture of the bride of Christ. He should have stated, however, that in saying that Eve was such a type of the church one should be careful not to read too much into that. The same is true with Adam who, though being "a figure of him who was to come" (or Christ; Rom. 5: 14) is not like Christ in every way imaginable. Adam sinned, but Jesus the second Adam never sinned. The first Adam was of the earth, the second Adam was the Lord from heaven. 

Remember the words of Paul who said: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (I Tim. 2: 13 kjv) This text alone destroys the whole argumentation of the Two Seeders, for they say that Eve was as old as Adam, since she was created in Adam and existed in him from the moment of his creation. Paul says, however, that Adam existed by himself alone before Eve came into existence. In fact, God said "it is not good for man (Adam) to be alone" (Gen. 2: 18). But, if Eve was always present in Adam, then he was not really alone. 

Potter wrote:

"Those people were given to Christ in the covenant, and have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since; or from all eternity. They are his by gift, not that they are his because they were in him as the plant is in the seed, and have emanated from him in that sense."

The Two Seeders would say that the giving of the elect to Christ through the covenant made between the Father and Son implies that the elect existed, for how can one give to another what does not exist? They make the same argument from another popular text of theirs, the one where Paul wrote:

"Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." (II Tim. 1: 9 nkjv)

If grace was given to believers before time began, argued the Two Seeders, then they must have existed, for how can God give a gift to people who existed not? Two replies to this were made by those who opposed the Two Seeders. First, they were given grace by giving it to the Son of God who was appointed to be the head and representative of the elect by a covenant agreement. Second, it is a case where things not yet existing or occurring are spoken of as having already existed or already occurred. So Paul wrote:

"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom. 4: 17 kjv)

God spoke in the past perfect tense to Abraham when he said "I have made you a father of many nations." At that time however Abraham was not yet the father of many nations, those nations not yet being in existence. Paul explains this by saying that this is a case where God "calls those things which be not as though they were." Isaiah also wrote this oracle of God:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 10 kjv)

In the movie "Back To The Future" the characters in the movie went into the future and came back in time and then related what they saw. In describing that future they would use the present tense saying "you are put in jail." That is what is called the "futuristic present tense." This is where simple present or present continuous verbs describe future events that are scheduled, fixed, or already arranged, often implying high certainty or immediacy. Common examples include -- "The train is leaving at 5 p.m," meaning it is scheduled to leave at 5 p.m, even though the present tense words "is leaving" are used. 

It also needs to be said that the above texts that speak of the Father gifting the elect, church, or body of believers, to the Son of God, do not only imply that the elect then existed when they were gifted but also do not imply that Christ as a man then existed. Two Seeders, as we have seen, not only affirmed that the elect existed from eternity but so too did the humanity of Christ exist from eternity. When the gift was given, the Son of God had not yet become a man, though he, like the angels, could appear in human form in old testament times. So we read where the apostle John said that "the Word," or the "Logos," the one who created all things and who was both with God and was God himself, "became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1: 14) So we also read where he who was "in the form of God" from all eternity did in time, via the incarnation, take upon himself the "form of a servant." (Phil. 2: 6-8) 

Potter wrote:

"There are only two sides to the issue. They eternally possessed the spiritual nature of Christ, or it is given to them in time. If the former, they need not to be born again to possess it; if the latter, then it must begin when they are born again."

The life that is given to believers is eternal, without beginning, but that does not mean that they possessed it from eternity. Beebe and the Two Seeders argued that the children of God existed in that eternal life fr all eternity, which is a fable.

TDS or MBDS?

 

TDS is known as "Trump Derangement Syndrome." It manifests itself in several ways, one of which is to be against anything that President Trump is for, and to be for anything that Trump is against. If Trump is for peace, those with TDS are for war, and vise versa, just as king David said: "I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." (Psa. 120: 7 kjv) In this post I want to speak of MBDS, or "Missionary Baptist Derangement Syndrome," a disease that many Hardshell Baptists have. This causes them to be against anything that Missionary Baptists are for, and for anything that Missionary Baptists are against. To prove this I will begin by citing the following from Elder Lemuel Potter's autobiography titled "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter" wherein he wrote the following in chapter twenty six (See here; emphasis mine):

"I have always claimed that if the Methodists had anything good, I wanted it. If the Missionary Baptists have anything good, or if any other people have anything good, I think we ought to have it, and I never saw any good reason for rejecting anything simply because somebody else, of a different denomination, had it. I have heard good songs many times, that are found in the hymn books of other denominations and that are sung by almost every denomination, and some of them are sung by most of our people, but to some people among the Old Baptists such songs are very much out of place. I have spoken of or recommended a song many times, and have been answered by this remark: “I have heard that song sung so much by the Methodists that I do not like to hear it sung,” or “The Methodists sing that song,” or “That song belongs to the Methodists;” as if Baptists must not sing it, if the Methodists do. I have thought that if we are never to do anything that other people do, we will have to quit preaching, praying, and going to church, for other people do all these things." 

I recall this occurring in Hardshell churches I visited during the several years I preached among them. On one occasion a sister called out a selection and another brother got irritated and said "there she goes again calling out that song." I think she did it to irritate him. There was nothing wrong with the song, but the old brother did not want to sing it because the Arminians sang it. Even my beloved father was a little this way. For many years he was a Missionary Baptist before he became a Hardshell Baptist, and he did not like to sing some songs that the Missionary Baptists sang. 

Potter wrote further:

"Besides all those good things that other people have, we had first; and we should not give them up."

That is certainly not true, however.

Potter wrote further:

"We should never refuse to use a good thing religiously simply because the Methodists or any other people use it. I have been told many times that such and such things were not Baptist usage and I have almost always replied that Baptist usage is not a standard. When we come to quote Baptist usage on anything religiously, we find ourselves lost, for there is no one church that can be a standard for other churches. Each Baptist church is an independent organization of its own, and each one has rules and usages of its own. I have seen things practiced in some churches that I am satisfied would be very bitterly opposed in other churches, of the Old Baptist order. I believe if one church can practice a thing and be good Baptists, any other church may practice the same thing and be good Baptists. I also believe that if one church can do without that practice and be a good Baptist church, any other church may do the same; but the fact that my church never practiced such a thing, is no reason that your church should not. If a church is pursuing a course that is contrary to the Scriptures, either in doctrine or practice, she should quit it, and no Baptist church should give countenance to the doctrine or practice. I have seen a great many Baptist churches of our faith and order who at their meetings, took up public collections from their congregations just like the Arminians and other denominations in this country by passing the hat. The Baptists of the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations of Virginia, and perhaps all other Baptists in the east, have that practice among them. I visited Elder Chick's church in Washington City and they took up a public collection, and I am told that all the Baptists in the east and northeast practice that course. If the Baptists in this country should undertake such a thing, there would be very serious objections raised to it; but I think those eastern people are good Baptists and they have that practice. If they were going to quote Baptist usage, they would be in favor of public collections, but if we were going to quote Baptist usage, we would simply quote what we are used to here. In no case can we take usage as a standard for all Baptists everywhere, neither should we say that people who do those things or do them not, are not Baptists. We have no right to say that. I mention the subject of public collections as an example, because there are many other things in which churches differ from each other as to their customs, that are too numerous to mention here."

It is a shame that Potter did not feel the same way about Baptists who supported paying their preachers, or theological education through seminaries and Sunday Schools, or mission societies, etc. In chapter one of my long series (or book) "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I wrote:

"Actually, the Hardshells, do just about everything they can to be unlike the Missionary Baptists. They work hard to oppose whatever the Missionaries and Arminians believe and do. It has gotten to be absurd and the source of much difficulty." (See here)

Other Hardshell Baptists have likewise said the same thing.

More On Forgiveness Being Conditional

This is a short follow up to my recent post titled "What Does It Mean To Forgive Others?" (here) That post was a follow up to others I have written on over the years on the question whether it is the will of God that we forgive all unconditionally, in cases where the one who did us wrong did not repent, express sorrow or regret, or did not confess his wrong. I mentioned the prayer of Christ when on the cross, who  cried out to his Father saying -- "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23: 34 kjv) I asked whether this requested forgiveness for the sin of murdering Christ was to be given to all the guilty ones unconditionally. I don't think so. Here is why. We see how this forgiveness for the murder of Christ was not forgiven by noticing what the first sermon, following the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by the apostle Peter, said to these murderous Jews. Writes Luke the physician and historian:

"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." (Acts 2: 36-38 nkjv)

Peter addresses the same ones that Jesus prayed for while on the cross. Peter addresses the Jews ("all the house of Israel") who were guilty of the crucifixion ("whom you crucified") and when they realized that they were guilty, they cried out to Peter and the brethren, saying "what shall we do?" Peter does not say, you don't need to do anything, for Christ prayed for your forgiveness when he was on the cross and the Father granted it, and so you are already forgiven. He rather says "repent...for the forgiveness (remission) of sins." Obviously then the forgiveness Christ prayed for was for any who would confess his sin and repent of it and turn to Christ. Notice also these words of the apostle Paul:

"For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thess. 2: 14-16 nkjv)

These words surely do not view the Jews as having been unconditionally forgiven by the Father.

Sins of Ignorance

Christ's prayer for the forgiveness of his murderers was couched in the words "for they know not what they do." Does this mean that he forgives sins committed in ignorance unconditionally but does not forgive unconditionally those sins which are not done in ignorance? In line with this prayer of Christ we have these words of Saul the Christian persecuting Jew (who became Paul the apostle):

"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." (I Tim. 1: 12-13 nkjv)

Surely Paul was a result of the prayer of Christ uttered on the cross. But, does Paul's assertion that he obtained mercy (and forgiveness?) because of ignorance mean that he was not guilty of sins done in ignorance? And if so, does it mean that all are only condemned for sins done in ignorance? The learned Dr. Albert Barnes says this on this point in his commentary on this passage (emphasis mine):

"But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief - compare notes on Luke 23:34. The ignorance and unbelief of Paul were not such excuses for what he did that they would wholly free him from blame, nor did he regard them as such - for what he did was with a violent and wicked spirit - but they were mitigating circumstances. They served to modify his guilt, and were among the reasons why God had mercy on him. What is said here, therefore, accords with what the Saviour said in his prayer for his murderers; "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is undoubtedly true that persons who sin ignorantly, and who regard themselves as right in what they do, are much more likely to obtain mercy than those who do wrong designedly.

Yet we cannot but regard Paul's "ignorance in unbelief" as, in itself, a grievous sin, He had abundant means of knowing the truth had he been disposed to inquire with patience and candor. His great abilities and excellent education are a further aggravation of the crime. It is, therefore, impossible to acquiesce in any solution of this clause which seems to make criminal ignorance a ground of mercy. The author, however, intends nothing of this kind, nor would it be fair to put such construction on his words. Yet, a little more fullness had been desirable on a subject of this nature. It is certain, that, independent of the nature of the ignorance, whether willful or otherwise, the character of crime is affected by it. He who should oppose truth, knowing it to be such, is more guilty than he who opposes it in ignorance, or under the conviction that it is not truth, but falsehood. In a certain sense, too, this ignorance, may be regarded as a reason why mercy is bestowed on such as sin desperately or blasphemously under it. Rather, it is a reason why they are not excluded from mercy. It shows why persons so guilty are not beyond its pale. This is, we think, the true key both to the passage, and that in Luke 23:34."

I believe this is a correct view of what Paul means when he says he obtained mercy because he sinned because he did not know any better. Commented John Gill in his commentary:

"...moreover, all sins spring from ignorance, and are aggravated by unbelief: but this phrase describes the apostle's state and condition; he was a poor, blind, ignorant bigot, an unbelieving and hardened creature, and so an object of mercy, pity, and compassion; and he who has compassion on the ignorant, and them that are out of the way, had compassion on him."

The apostle Peter, when preaching to his fellow Jews and informing them of their heinous sin in crucifying the Messiah, said: “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers." (Acts 3: 17 nkjv) 

In summation we say that the scriptures do not teach that God forgives unconditionally all sins committed through ignorance, although greater leniency will be shown to such. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XXXVIII)

Surely Two Seed doctrine, or "Parkerism," is an unsound, unhealthy, unwholesome doctrine. It is a fable, the very kind the apostle warned about in the above text. Several new testament texts speak of such fables. In I Timothy 1: 4 the same apostle exhorted Timothy not to "give heed to fables" which raises questions rather than answering them, causing disputes rather than edifying. In I Timothy 4: 7 Paul mentions "profane and old wives fables." To Titus Paul warns about "giving heed to Jewish fables." The apostle Peter similarly speaks of "cunningly devised fables." (II Peter 1: 16) 

In this chapter we will continue to examine what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote in 1880 against the Two Seed heresy that had been rampant among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School," "Hardshell," or "Old Regular" Baptists. In that treatise he gave eleven tenets of Two Seedism, citing from statements by Two Seeders, mostly from "The Herald of Truth." We have already addressed what were the first eight tenets, and given Potter's comments upon them, as well as our own thoughts. Before we do that I want to cite the following words from Elder J. T. Oliphant, a recognized leader of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, taken from his book "Principles and Practices of Regular Baptists" (you can read it here) in that section dealing with unconditional election. Wrote Oliphant (emphasis mine):

"Note: - We think that the doctrine of the two seeds, as taught by Parker, and also the doctrine of eternal vital union, as held by others, are opposed to the doctrine of election as taught by the bible, and that they are equally as objectionable as the doctrine of election as taught by Wesley. Each of these views finds the reasons of one's election in himself. Wesley ascribes our election to our obedience, which is at war with grace. Parker and others find a difference in the origin of men that accounts for the election of some and the reprobation of others, while the bible puts it upon the sovereignty of God. Eld. Lemuel Potter has recently published a pamphlet in which this subject is fully investigated, in which he has shown that all these views are open to the same objections: These pamphlets can yet be had by addressing Eld. Lemuel Potter, Cynthiana, Posey county, Indiana."

It is interesting that Oliphant (1841-1925) and Potter (1841-1897) were both from Indiana and were born in the same year, although Potter was first a resident of Illinois. It is also interesting that Oliphant does not mention the previous work of Elder Grigg Thompson. Perhaps it is because it was no longer in print when Oliphant wrote his book in 1883. It is also interesting that Oliphant does not mention the book written by Elder George Y. Stipp who wrote a treatise against Two Seedism in 1879 and who was a resident of Illinois. You can read that work (here), and we will examine it later after we have finished examining the writing of Potter against Two Seedism. Was Stipp's book not available in 1883? Also, I don't think that Potter quite "fully investigated" the tenets of Two Seedism. 

Potter wrote further and gave us article number nine in the eleven articles of faith of the Two Seeders:

"9. - "God's throne and footstool are eternal; and create does not mean, in scripture, what men think it does." - Samuel Clark, in Herald of Truth, Vol. 1, No. 1."

On this article Potter wrote:

"9. The Lord has said, "Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool," and the idea that the earth is eternal, and that create in the Bible does not mean what men think it does, is only a foundation for an argument that God's children are as old as eternity itself. Our readers will see our views on that subject in "What is man?" The two last we have already replied to in another place, and it is not necessary to make a reply now."

In chapters following we will give what Potter wrote in his article titled "What is man?" The idea that what is created may be without a beginning is indeed a fable, an absurdity, a fantastic concoction. In the previous chapters we have seen how many Two Seeders spoke of Christ being "made" or "begotten" in order to "become" the Son of God or Mediator, thus denoting what on the one hand speaks of creation, and then speak of Christ being such from eternity on the other hand. This involves the absurdity of something being created and yet without beginning. To believe in "eternal children" denies that the children were created or begotten. As we saw in previous chapters, Elder Beebe tried to say that he did not believe in eternal children, and yet this is what he believed. He believed that the children of God existed seminally in Christ, and if Christ has always existed, so too has his seed. Beebe would say that Christ being "made" or "begotten" occurred in the eternal past, being the time when he was "set up from everlasting" (Prov. 8: 23). The words "set up" seems to indicate a time when something was done, but the words "from everlasting" seems to indicate something that had no beginning point in time.

The next tenet of Two Seedism that Potter gave in his list is this:

"10. - "Then there is a man from heaven and a man from earth, and the earthly man is made in the image and after the likeness of the man from heaven." - Martin Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."

This tenet reminds us of the tenet I have cited in former chapters of the article of faith of the Bear Creek Association of North Carolina (1832), one which I was once a part of. Article number two says:

"We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity."

Who is the "man from heaven" and who is "the man from earth"? Clearly the Two Seeders meant that Christ the Son of God and Mediator was the man from Heaven, or "second Adam," and that Adam was the man from earth, or "first Adam." Are the Two Seeders denying that Christ was an earthly man? Are the Two Seeders affirming that Christ existed as a man before his incarnation by means of the virgin Mary? We have already seen how Two Seedism is connected with a denial of the orthodox view concerning Christ being from eternity the only begotten of the Father and was a proof of his deity and equality with the Father. We have seen that it adopted the views of Joseph Hussey, et al, that said that Christ had a human soul and nature before the world began, and that the only thing he got through Mary was his human flesh. Some even went further and said that the human flesh and blood of Christ existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem. We will address this further later, and so too will Potter. However, I have previously observed how this paradigm makes Christ to be the first Adam and the first Adam to be the second Adam, contrary to the teaching of the apostle Paul. 

Potter then gives us the final tenet in his list, which says:

"11. - "Then I ask the question: which is the oldest in substance, Christ or his bride? If the figure that Paul uses in the earthly Adam shows anything, it shows they were the same age." - Ellis, in Advocate, March 1, 1879."

If Christ is eternal without beginning, then so too is the bride of Christ (the elect). As we saw in previous chapters the Two Seeders said that the elect were "in" Christ in the same way all men were in Adam when Adam was created. However, as we have shown, opposers of Two Seedism said that one is not in Christ until he is united to Christ via the new birth and faith. They would cite Paul's statement that some were "in Christ" before he was (Rom. 16:7) in order to show the fallacy of the Two Seeders. 

Potter wrote further:

"Can any one man believe all that is set forth in the above eleven extracts, in order to be considered sound in the faith? Surely that would be requiring a great deal of a man. The first and fifth contradict each other so pointedly that we cannot believe both, and we wish to be excused from the belief of both those items. The first says, the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, but that every seed produces its own body. The fifth says, the devil's seed partook of their humanity by means of the creation that God had made. Instead of every seed producing its own body, as per first item, the fifth says, God multiplied the conception of His creation, and made it capable of bringing forth the serpent's seed. He also says, the serpent's seed are equally human beings with the children of the creation."

Potter wrote further:

"The third and fourth contradict each other. The third says, "those sent to the region of endless misery will be sent there for what they are, and not for what they do." The fourth says, "and they will be justly condemned, not because they are the serpent's seed, or that God reprobated them to destruction before they were born, but because of their sins and acts of wicked rebellion against God, for they shall be judged according to their works."

Potter wrote further:

"We might go on and point out more contradictions, but we leave our readers to do that. We now propose to notice each one separately, and see how they corroborate with the Bible. We begin with the first and take them in their order, and we desire the brethren to study them carefully."

"When we come to examine the family of Adam, we find them all to be sinners, and not one of them righteous - none of them entitled to the love and mercy of God for what they do or are. To say that the people of God once lived in heaven, and that they came down from heaven into this world, in consequence of which they were eternally heirs of God, and for that reason they will be saved, destroys every idea of mercy. It is not an act of mercy to give a man what he is legitimately and justly entitled to."

This is very true. So, why did it take Potter so many years to finally come to that conclusion? He was himself a Two Seeder in sentiment for many years, as he confessed.

Potter wrote:

"If any of our readers should believe in the doctrine of eternal children, and consequently eternal heirs, allow us for a moment to call to mind your experience. What had you been engaged in all your life? Will you not agree with the apostle that you were dead in trespasses and sins? Were you not walking according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience? Why are you not pursuing the same course yet? Many others are still going the same way yet."

I don't think this was the best way to argue against Two Seedism. Using what his readers experienced in their conversions is no proof. Yet, this is a common tactic with Hardshell Baptists who will often say that such and such is true because it is biblical AND agrees with a convert's experience. We interpret our experiences by the bible and not the other way around.

Potter is arguing that the very persons who were spiritually dead in sin are the same ones who were raised to spiritual life in regeneration. But, this was denied by many Two Seeders. In previous chapters we cited from Elders T. P. Dudley and Gilbert Beebe who said that they did not believe that the "Adam man" was regenerated, for they said that God does not renovate or remodel the "old man," but rather implants in the Adam man the "new man" which is that eternal child of God that existed in Christ from eternity. This new man, however, never sinned and so never needed to be regenerated. But, the argument by Potter was not very convincing to Two Seeders like Dudley and Beebe, for they would say that the experience of walking in sin was what their old man was doing and would continue to do.

Potter wrote about Ephesians 2: 1-3:

"Let us make a remark that there seems to be some misunderstanding among some of our brethren on this expression of Scripture, one taking the position that the text means that all are the children of the devil in a state of nature, and others denying that the elect ever were the children of the devil, and hence they deny that the text means that all alike are the children of the devil. If wrath in the text means devil, then they are all alike children of the devil. But we do not think that the term wrath could be properly read devil in this text; but we do believe that it teaches that they were, like others, exposed to God's wrath for their sins. It has been said that God's people were never exposed to wrath. If that be true, then as a natural consequence, they have never been saved from wrath; but the text does say they were the children of wrath, and if being the children of wrath does not mean the children of the devil, and the doctrine be true that the elect were never exposed to wrath, please tell us what the text does mean."

Not all Two Seeders affirmed that the preexisting children of God were never under God's wrath. Many did, however, and it is these that Potter addresses. I don't know why Potter is reluctant to say that being under God's wrath and spiritually dead in sin means that one is a child of the Devil. Elder Joshua Lawrence, as we saw in previous chapters, taught that all were children of the Devil until they were adopted into God's family or born of the Spirit. It seems that Potter still, in 1880, retains elements of Two Seed philosophy. We have already seen this to be the case when it comes to his denying that the preaching of the gospel and word of God are means in the salvation of sinners and in his agreeing with the Two Seed tenet that says that no one goes to heaven for anything he does in his life.

Potter wrote:

"From the above we might be able to assign a reason why God loved Jacob and hated Esau. It was because he made Jacob and did not Esau. But if he did not make Esau, and yet has no partnership with the devil, neither makes bodies for the devil or his children, and the devil does not draw on Eve for bodies, how is it that Jacob and Esau are twin brothers? Some men seem to think that the belief of the above is a good test for the soundness of an Old Baptist. If it is, we presume there are very few sound ones among us. If God did make Jacob and Esau both, then the editor above quoted affirms the unconditional election of Esau as well as Jacob. If God loved Jacob because he made him, and hated Esau because he did not make him, and one of them was the offspring of God, and the other the offspring of the devil, then the choice between the two was not unconditional."

In Romans chapter nine Paul makes it very clear that Jacob and Esau were both the offspring of Isaac and Rebecca. He says that both Jacob and Esau were "conceived by one man, Isaac." (Rom. 9: 10) So, both had the same mother and father, and therefore if one was elect and the other not, then the choice could not have been made based upon a difference in the flesh. It is possible that a woman could be pregnant with twins and one of them be from a different father. This would occur when two men had intercourse with the woman one after the other, and then the sperm of one becomes the father of one and the sperm of the other man becomes the father of the other twin. This occurs when the twins are the result of two eggs of the mother being fertilized and not in cases where there is one egg that divides. But, Paul is very clear to say that this is not what happened, saying "even by one man Isaac." This is why we have those who are called "Two Seed in the spirit predestinarian Baptists" and "Two Seed in the flesh predestinarian Baptists." There was a difference in the two children even when in Rebecca's womb, as Moses wrote:

"But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25: 22-23 nkjv)

The difference between Jacob and Esau while in the womb was not because one was a birth child of the Devil and the other was a birth child of God. Yes, one was chosen and the other rejected, but that was not based upon their pedigree or ancestry. It was not even based upon one being the firstborn, for the firstborn was rejected. As Potter said, both Jacob and Esau were humans created by God.

Potter wrote:

"But some one is ready to ask, Do you not believe in the doctrine of two seeds? We answer, we do, most assuredly believe that the Bible speaks of two seeds; but we want it according to the Bible, instead of the imaginations of ourself (sic), or any other man, or set of men. We are not willing to foster the idea of two seeds to the extent that we will gulp down anything that men see fit to hand us, simply because they wrap it up with the name two seed. We believe that God eternally loved his people, and that there never was a beginning of that love; and that in consequence of his immutable love for them, he chose them in Christ before the world began. In the covenant made in eternity, the objects of God's love were given to Christ, and they have sustained a covenant relationship to him ever since. They did not sustain a spiritual, or fleshly relationship to Christ from eternity, but they were in the covenant, and God has known them as his from all eternity. They belong to Christ in the covenant by gift, and not because he was an eternal seed and naturally produced them, as the seed of vegetation produces the plant. He says, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me." John xvii, 6. "Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me." Heb. ii, 13. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." John vi, 37. They are his now by gift, and not only were they given to him before the world began, but he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world to be their Redeemer, but was manifest in these last times."

Here Potter gives the standard Calvinistic view on how and why sinners may be deemed "children of God" prior to being born of God. They are chosen and predestined to become the children of God but are not actually so until they are born of the Spirit. We see this in the case of Isaac. He was a promised and chosen child or heir even before he was born. But, he was not an actual son of Abraham until he was conceived in the womb of Sarah via the seed of Abraham. So too are those who are chosen to salvation by God, before the world began a gift of the Father to his Son. That is clear from the texts cited by Potter. So Abraham could have said - "the son that God gave to me in his covenant promise will be born to me."

Potter wrote:

"Then in the work of regeneration, or new birth, they partake of his spirit, and from that birth there is a spiritual relationship between them that never existed before. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is one seed that we believe the Bible sets forth clearly. They are the Lord's all the time, even from eternity, and will ultimately all be made spiritual. They are men and women of Adam's family, and never had any actual being till Adam was made of the dust of the ground. This seed is often spoken of in both the Old and New Testament as the sheep of the Lord. They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state. See Ezekiel 34 and John 10. This seed were unconditionally chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, not because they were holy, or that they naturally possessed any of the nature of God that others did not possess, for that would have been a conditional choice. The choice would be controlled by that nature, in which there would have been no sovereignty of God; no mercy, and no grace. These people we can only know when they are manifested in the work of the new birth. God knows them as His just as well before regeneration as he does afterward. "In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil." As to the devil's seed, we do not realize a great deal of comfort from talking about them, and will not have space here to give them a very extended notice."

Notice that Potter, unlike other "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists prior to him and in his day, believed that "regeneration" and the "new birth" were the same thing. Most of the first generation of Hardshells believed that regeneration was the begetting, or conception, and was followed by the birth, oftentimes many days, weeks, months, or years later. I have written some on this in previous chapters. Beebe and Trott believed this, as did the majority of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. The Two Seeders would respond to what Potter says by saying that the "birthing" of the child is not the beginning of the child, for the born child was already a child by being previously "begotten" in the womb. So they would say that the birth of the Spirit only brought forth, delivered, or manifested the previously begotten child, and they would say that the begetting took place in eternity past when Christ was begotten as a Son of God and made a Mediator. In the scriptures, however, a person is said to become a child of his parents when that child is born. In being born of God there is no begetting that is separate from a birthing.

In the above words of Potter he says that being a sheep does not necessarily denote a regenerated person, but may denote a chosen person who has not yet been regenerated or born again. Potter said: "They are called sheep, even in their lost and unregenerated state." This is not, however, what he argued in his debates on whether the gospel is a means in regeneration. I write about this in two posts. In chapter 85 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series titled "Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I wrote the following (See here):

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10: 16 KJV)

Some Hardshell debaters and apologists, like Elder Lemuel Potter, have used this verse to uphold their "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," their aberrant "born again before and apart from faith" view.

Elder Potter argued, in his debate with Elder W. P. Throgmorton, that this verse proved that sinners are "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith, that heathen who had not yet heard the word and truth of God, and who were worshipping false deities, were nevertheless "born again."

He cited the words of Christ in John 10 to show that people who had not yet been "brought" were "sheep," and that the fact that they were "sheep" before they were "brought" proves that they were "regenerated" before they were "brought," before they heard the truth of the gospel and were brought to faith and converted."

In chapter 62 of the same series (See here) I wrote:

Elder Potter continues arguing such in his debate with Elder Yates (Presbyterian), saying:

"Now, I want to make an argument upon the sheep. John x. 14—16 is the language of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Now notice, he says “other sheep I have.” Hence when he speaks of the sheep, he does not mean his people among the Jews exclusively, but he speaks of those among the Gentiles—among the heathen. He says, I have them, they are mine, I must bring them—that is what I am here for, that is my mission in the world, and I must bring them. According to the covenant, I am under obligation to bring them; they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold. Isaiah lvi. 8: “The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.” It is evident from these passages that the Lord has sheep among the heathen."

In these two debates Potter interprets the term "sheep" to denote regenerated elect, but in the above citation from his writing against Two Seedism he says that the sheep were such even while in their unregenerate state.

Potter wrote:

"But some one may be ready to inquire, "Do you not think the children of God, and the non-elect are men and women?" We do most certainly think they are men and women of Adam's race, but their natural birth is not what makes them heirs of glory, but it is being born of God. The divine nature is implanted in the new birth, which they did not possess in the fleshly birth, nor in the creation. They had none of the nature of God until they partook of it in the new birth; neither did they possess anything in and of themselves that entitled them to the new birth. It is the work of grace in Christ, not in themselves. In the new birth he partakes of the good seed, and that seed remaineth in him, and by its renovating powers he will ultimately be of the same nature of the seed; soul, body and spirit. But let us examine what seed it is in him that remaineth. Is it a seed he possessed in nature? Or one of which he became possessed in the new birth? If he is born of God in consequence of his being of the good seed originally, and that the reason he does not sin now, is, because his seed remaineth in him, it is strange that the seed did not prevent him from sin before. We are told that Christ is a seed, and that being a productive seed he produced all the elect, and that on account of having been produced by him, they naturally possess the nature of the seed that produced them, that is Christ, and in consequence of that natural affinity they are the recipients of grace. If this logic be good, then the elect must be born of God twice: first, when they are first brought into being, and second, when they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and *abideth forever."

The text alluded to in these words of Potter is this:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9 kjv)

Many "Primitive" Baptists have held to the view that this text is saying that the "new man," or divine nature, received in being regenerated, did not sin, nor could it. Potter rightly argues that if this new man or "incorruptible seed," or divine nature, cannot sin, and preexisted in Christ, it could not have sinned, and if that is so, it needed no redemption. The Two Seeders who hold this view of I John 3: 9 must believe that the new man never sinned. Those who hold this view will say that it is teaching the same thing Paul taught in Romans 7: 15-23. In other words, all the sinning of a believer originates from his corrupt nature, or the "old man," and all the obedience originates from his divine nature, or the "new man." Other Calvinists believe that the text means "whosoever is born again does not practice sin," as a lifestyle, which has more in its favor than the Two Seed view. My own view is a little more nuanced than either view. I make my argument based upon the Greek word for "sin," which is from "hamartia" and means to miss the mark or fail of the goal. No born again child of God will miss the mark, fail to reach heaven as a goal. So Paul says that he "presses forward to the mark (or goal) for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 14) Whoever is born of God will not sin, not miss this mark, not fail to obtain the prize.

When he says that the Two Seeders are forced into saying that the elect must be born of God twice, this is not fully true, for as I have previously observed, they have the elect being born of God three times. The first time was sometime in eternity past when they were begotten when Christ was begotten as the Son of God. The second time is also a "begetting" or "conception" and occurs when a person is regenerated and has the seed of God implanted in him. The third time is the birth proper, associated with the time when the already existing and begotten child has been fully developed in the womb and then is delivered, brought forth, and manifested, this occurring when the regenerated and begotten child is converted by faith in Christ. 

Wrote Potter:

"We do not deny that there are such men known in the Bible as children of the devil, but we do deny the doctrine that they came from the devil, or that the devil produced them. We do not believe that as a people they are the natural product of the devil. But the wicked nature that they possess is of the devil, as Elder Parker has truly said."

Potter will not say, as did Elder Joshua Lawrence, that the children of God were once the children of the Devil, but simply says that the Devil produced (or gave birth to) the fallen natures of the children of God. He also denies that the children of the Devil were produced by him. But in this he reflects his remaining Two Seed sentiments. He admits that the Devil has children, so how can he deny that the Devil produced them? If the Devil produced the wicked nature and that wicked nature made them his children, then he did produce or father them. It is true that the children of the Devil were once created by God and were his natural children, as we have before seen from Acts 17: 28 where Paul says of all men - "we are all his offspring." Adam was a child of God when he came pristine from God's creation of him. When he sinned he became a child of the Devil. When he was redeemed, or born again, he became a child of God again, and in a greater way, for he can no longer cease to be such.