APRIL 30TH, 1940
[p. 180] APRIL 30TH, 1940
Beloved Brother, — We were greatly impressed with Mr. D. R. Nichols’ letter. Mr. Ide has taken a copy for use in Great Britain, although it is likely Mr. Murchie will also have a copy. We have made some copies for use here. Mr. C———’s paper has been sent to the meetings here, and no doubt to all the meetings in U.S.A. and Canada.
Mr. C——— evidently thinks he has formed a strong weapon, but it will harm himself more than anyone, for it is marked by deception and cannot prosper. I believe God is over the circulation of it to call attention to the great truth attacked. It is an affront to the saints to assume that they would accept as truth what three unnamed professors say as against what trusted, godly men as capable as they can be — especially J.N.D. — say as to the matter in question. In all probability these men are worldly, if not unconverted. The fact that Mr. C——— ignored J.N.D.’s definition of ‘eis’ — quoted by me, and which is in accord with the other trusted authorities — in itself discredits his whole effort.
You will observe that the professors do not furnish any evidence that ‘eis’ has not the same meaning in New Testament Greek as in Classical Greek. They stress that there were two kinds of Greek and that the evangelists ‘wrote more or less’ in the spoken Hellenistic Greek of their period — ‘more or less;’ this implies, on their own admission, that to some material extent they used Classical Greek. Without knowing anything of the difference between Classical and Hellenistic Greek, one has only to look at the Englishman’s Greek Concordance and he will see that ‘eis’ is generally used in the New Testament according to its classical meaning.
But I am assured the truth is that the professors were governed in the judgment more by theology than Greek learning, this theology being that the Son was begotten of the Father before all worlds as stated in the Creed. If you can lay your hands on a Newberry Bible you will see, on the fly-leaf of the New Testament, illustrated the Greek prepositions.
Note the misleading character of Mr. C———’s paper in the first paragraph; ‘the doctrine which denies the eternity of the Son’ — there is not the slightest hint (God forbid that there should be) in the booklet ‘Names of Divine Persons’ of the non-eternity of the Son. It is stressed there that the [p. 181] One known as Son is One of the three Persons in pre-incarnate Deity. The Oxford Professor makes the same false charge — based on ‘eis’ being regarded in its ordinary meaning. But ‘Names of Divine Persons’ applies this to Christ as Man, at the same time stating the full truth of His Person as seen in John 1, that He was in the beginning with God — distinct personality — and was God. That Person “became flesh” and as in manhood, in the bosom of the Father, declared God, the Person remaining what He always was. To say that this is Arianism — which latter denies the Trinity — is the opposite of the truth.
Another misleading statement is in the last paragraph of page 5: ‘the assertion that the names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit imply graded relations, and that two of them are inferior should make any Christian pause’. The passage alluded to read — ‘The Persons are the same in the absolute as in the relative, but the latter involved graded relations taken’. This is the truth of Scripture, as John 5 and other passages show, and is amplified in the page to which our critic alludes. An unbiased person who looks at it will see at once the unfairness of the criticism.
On the same page Mr. C——— says that Mr. Raven refused the truth taught as to the Lord’s sonship, whereas it is well known that he held and spoke of it in his later ministry. It was through him that the writer first obtained the light as to it. Mr. Darby, Mr. Stoney and brethren generally had the orthodox view, but God has given light since on the great subject in question as well as other subjects.
As to the identity of Mr. C——— , he is one of a group of brethren in Newcastle who got out of fellowship some years ago through association with certain ones who made false charges against a brother there.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.