BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 9TH, 1922
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 9TH, 1922
Mr. W. G. Hardwick.
My Dear Brother, — Your letter of February 15th was received in due time and I thank you for writing. The brethren at Berkeley are much on my mind in view of what has developed among them and I am much cast on the Lord as to you all.
I have seen the paper Mr. W. Edwards has sent out, but I have not been able to go over it critically. I have no copy of it now so I cannot refer to it in detail. I have also seen Mr. Gill’s letter to W. Edwards, for which I am most thankful. I have no doubt H. G.’s words shall have more weight than any I could write.
The question that arises in my mind in considering what W.E. has written is this — has he the Father and the Son? I do not doubt that he is a Christian. I refer to what he professes to hold. I use the word ‘professes’, for I doubt that he really believes in his heart that God will cease to be Father in eternity or that Christ will cease to be Son. Possibly W.E. would object to the word ‘cease’, but this is what his paper implies, as I understand it. We are told that the Son shall be placed in subjection to God, having delivered up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father. What relation shall Christ be in to God then? Obviously He remains a Man, for He shall be in subjection — is W.E.’s thought that He is just a Man (divine, however) but having no other relationship? Is God just God to Him, having given up the relationship of Father? If I go by Scripture the Son is to be in subjection, and the kingdom is given up to Him who is God and Father. Mr. Edwards’ thought is in direct variance with 1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28.
[p. 192] It seems as if the passage was written to rebuke such an error as Mr. Edwards’.
But to view the matter in a broader way, Mr. Edwards’ thought sets the revelation of God in its most blessed bearing and eternal import aside. The scriptural presentation of revelation is that God, in shining out in His attributes, is seen in the relationship of Father to Man in Christ and to believers through redemption. This relationship was the subject of counsel before the world was, and so was no after-thought with God (Ephesians 1: 4 - 6). In it we are before Him in love in Christ, as associated with Him, as His brethren. As foreknown we were predestinated to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Romans 8: 29) — “so that”, as it is said, “he should be the firstborn among many brethren”. Mr. Edwards would, I understand by his paper, make all this a matter of ‘recovery;’ recovery is involved, as the less in the greater; the greater is that we are brought into what men even in innocency did not have — which was, as I said, the subject of eternal counsel. For Mr. Edwards this precious blessing and favour that believers are brought into in Christ shall itself terminate, whereas, the Christian normally cherishes it as his greatest privilege, and this is how Scripture presents it. Besides, Mr. Edwards would deny to God throughout eternity what He must cherish supremely — the affections of a Father reciprocated in the Son and the sons associated with Him.
May God deliver our brother from his errors, and may He enable you all at Berkeley to help the erring one. With love in Christ to you all, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.
My wife also sends Christian love.