BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 24TH, 1933
[p. 388] BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 24TH, 1933
Mr. P. Lyon.
Beloved Brother, — I note your reference to a letter circulated by Mr. C———. A copy came from him this week. I had some correspondence with this brother about three years ago, and I then gathered that he was satisfied with my explanations relative to the statements to which he had objected.
His letter reveals a mind moving in opposition, based mainly on orthodoxy, to a presentation of a certain feature of the truth. Almost the whole letter is taken up with what others have said, which shows that, like several that have taken part in the current controversy, his soul in regard of the truth in question is not buttressed in the word of God. In citing the ‘fathers’ he ignores that in asserting so-called eternal sonship, they also asserted (as the Creed shows) that our Lord was begotten by His Father before the worlds.
Mr. Darby stands by himself; spiritual instinct is not evidenced in linking him, as this letter does, with Athanasius, Augustine and Luther. The plane on which Mr. Darby served, as having judged as contrary to the mind of God the whole clerical system beginning with the early so-called fathers and extending to the present time, was altogether above that of those who preceded him since the apostles went to be with the Lord. Those who keep the Lord’s commandments as loving Him, regard J.N.D. in this way, valuing his ministry as marked by the energy and wisdom of the Spirit; being without an equal since apostolic times.
But there have been efforts to make his writings, directly or indirectly, equal with Scripture and this is a most serious matter; the enemy has been in it. No one would admit that he so regards Mr. Darby’s writings, but the use made of them by many, especially since 1890, conveys that they are final, and this false principle exists in several quarters. No one, I am sure, would refuse it more strenuously than the great servant himself. His writings abound with appeals to the Scriptures, as the sole divine test to all teaching.
In a sense nothing has concerned me more in presenting the truth than the plain statements in Mr. Darby’s ministry in support of eternal sonship, especially because I knew how they could be used. I have constantly owned that it was in his mind in a general way, as an accepted truth. But it is clear he was not satisfied as to it. The statement in ‘Notes and Comments’, Volume 7, page 7, is proof of this, in spite of the effort to neutralise it. Mr. Darby weighed it after writing it, fearing, as the ‘note’ shows, that it might be used to favour Sabellianism, but left it in the text notwithstanding. Without the note it would lose somewhat of its importance, for it could be said that it was a remark unpublished by the writer, but the note shows that it is his considered statement. It appears in his meditation on John 1, as he reaches verse 14 (verse 18 being also in view, as later remarks show). It is: ‘Nor do I see that in this character He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh. He is spoken of previously as the Word, etc.: now as Son’. Later (pages 8 and 9) we have what is in keeping with this: ‘There is another thing: no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son’, the subject now in treatment, ‘who is in the bosom of the Father’, that is His place, ‘He hath declared Him — this then — He is, as become flesh ... the only-begotten Son’.
These remarks have not been brought forward as a basis of what was said at Barnet, for I had not noticed them till many years after I saw more clearly the truth of our Lord’s sonship. I have thought it right to call attention to them because of the use made of J.N.D. on this point by others. But no unbiased person who carefully reads them will fail to see that Mr. Darby’s mature thoughts bore in the same direction as current teaching amongst us. His letter as to our Lord being sent into the world (Volume 3, pages 468, 469) shows this also. It is dated 1881. Mr. Darby’s remark in the ‘note’ on page 7, ‘Notes and Comments’, is not in literal agreement with the text, but obviously should not be used to discredit the latter. That the writer, after careful examination, allowed the statement to stand should deter us from weakening it. May we not fairly assume that in view of the clearer light He has afforded on the subject of His sonship, the Lord caused His servant to note down the thoughts I have quoted — so that other statements of his could not be righteously used against it?
Referring to the details of the letter I am dealing with, I would notice the strange objection to my emphasis on Luke 10: 22 (in the paper ‘Inscrutability’ ) because this scripture does not appear on the head of the tract. In ministry we must be ready to emphasise whatever the Spirit may press on our hearts.
There is a further strange objection to the remark I made in [p. 390] this tract as to attaching names to Christ as in absolute Deity — that ‘multitudes of Christians do attach names to Divine Persons in absolute Deity’. The usage of the multitudes cannot settle anything. I was referring to Christ in His pre-incarnate form, as is perfectly evident, pointing out the error of applying certain names of Christ viewed as Man to Him viewed in absolute Deity. The distinction I made was between pre-incarnate Deity and manhood; and of course this distinction could not apply to the Father or the Spirit. The Father and the Spirit remain in the form of God, and while this is inscrutably absolute, it is also relative. The titles Father and Spirit (’wind’ ) are relative. Indeed all the names taken by the Divine Persons are relative. The writer of this letter does not show by what he writes that he distinguishes between the absolute and the relative. To speak of the Deity apart from its relation to creation we must use the word absolute. The tract says, ‘The truth is to be lifted out of the hands of men and maintained in the hearts of those who love Christ’. This is wholesome and needed truth; but not so to the writer of the letter, and he ignores what the context clearly shows, that ‘men’ in my remark referred to theological leaders. The truth is, alas, in their hands for many Christians even now. I have no hesitation in saying that one who can treat the teaching of page 8 of the tract, as the writer of the letter does, is not with God, but on the contrary is refusing practical and essential truth. He is trifling with divine things in asking (in large letters), ‘Has the truth been in the hands of those who are not lovers of Christ until 1929’(Barnet Readings).
Those who took part in those readings recognise as much as the writer of this letter does, the revival of a hundred years ago, and there is not the slightest hint to the contrary in the readings. Besides, what he is objecting to is only a phase of ‘the truth’. Also it is stated in the Barnet notes that what they contain as to Christ’s sonship was learnt through Mr. Raven, who fell asleep through Jesus, many years before. We see in this question of his how the writer’s mind runs in the current of false accusation. The whole letter is of a sinister character; not only is there opposition to the truth but an evident effort to influence others against it. The Lord will surely have to say to all this, especially in one nominally (as I understand) in fellowship with us. May he recover himself from the snare of the devil.
[p. 391] I do not enlarge upon the truth of sonship, especially as it has been treated somewhat fully in current ministry; I am desirous particularly that the relation of Mr. Darby’s ministry to it might be clear.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.