BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 25TH, 1933
[p. 392] BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 25TH, 1933
Beloved Brother, — I thank you for your letter and enclosures — the latter are sorrowful reading.
The pamphlet from Ayr, which you sent, advances the principle that the ministry of a previous generation is the test of a current one. What has the stamp of a ministry of the Spirit at any time will, of course, agree generally with such ministry at other times, but to make the teaching of uninspired men a standard is false and pernicious, as placing it on the level of Scripture, the only true standard. No one would admit that he regards such teaching in this way, but while not formally stated, evil is implied in the manner in which the earlier ministry is used. Quotations from Scripture are meagre, whole pamphlets being almost made up of quotations from servants who ministered to a past generation. Were one inconversant with Christianity, to read most of the papers I am referring to, he could not but assume that its late teachers are regarded as more authoritative than those of the beginning.
As you will know, I am not questioning that the ministry of the servants mentioned in the main, was of the Spirit. I am writing of the use made of it. For instance, this pamphlet from Ayr has 22 pages, and in only three of them is there any attempt made to bring in the direct teaching of the Scriptures. I have no hesitation in saying that one who premises mainly on writings other than Scripture is disqualified to deal with divine things and has no moral right to address the people of God. He is not speaking “as oracles of God”.
Another feature marking some of the papers dealing with the Lord’s sonship is the placing of Mr. Darby along with Mr. W. Kelly and Mr. F. W. Grant. It is well known that J.N.D. had serious conflict with the former and that he refused the views of the latter as to the Spirit and eternal life. There is a moral defect shown in grouping the servant whom God so honoured and who continued faithful to the end, with men who divided the saints in turning away from the truth. We also find Mr. Raven quoted as supporting ‘eternal sonship’ although the writers, as having read the Barnet Notes, must be aware that in his later ministry he refused it. Thus a moral defect in them appears here also.
The effort to make the ministry of a past generation the standard of what has followed is a notable trait of current evil.
[p. 393] Those active in it, doubtless, do not mean to weaken Scripture; they assert that Scripture alone is authoritative, but the constant profuse citation of writings other than Scripture, overshadowing the latter, is, by implication, leaven which works in the minds of credulous readers, and the authority of the inspired word is weakened. The enemy is unmistakably in this. The statement (often given out of its contextual meaning) of an honoured servant is accepted as final and thus the soul is robbed of the gain of arriving at the truth, as seeking prayerfully the direct teaching of Scripture as to the subject in question. His soul would be tested by the word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword; he would not only acquire a clear view of the truth in question, but also an increased knowledge of God.
I need not say that I am far from discrediting the previous delivering and constructive ministry of the last century. I owe too much to it under God to do this. It marked a great movement of the Spirit; but this movement continues, and so the word is, “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”. Those working with God today will gladly own the distinction God gave Mr. Darby and others of an earlier day, but they will not, cannot, admit that the ministry of the last century was final, or that the Holy Spirit has ceased to speak. Indeed no one would refuse more vehemently than Mr. Darby any such suggestion.
As regards ministry, the most advanced and honoured of those who have part in it would never abandon the learning attitude; and so constant adjustment goes on. Thus a servant’s later ministry may in detail vary from what he presented earlier. This may be seen in Mr. Darby’s writings. That he held and urged the eternal sonship of Christ as an accepted truth is true, but that he was satisfied with it in his later years is more than questionable. ‘Notes and Comments’, Volume 7, page 7, affords undoubted proof of this. Great efforts have been made to neutralise it, but his statement, ‘Nor do I see that in this character He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh’ stands. The ‘note’ makes this statement specially important, for it shows that the writer reconsidered it fearing that it might be used to favour Sabellianism, as like statements today are alleged to do. The note indicates that Mr. Darby had not committed himself to the full significance of the text, but that he left the latter unaltered [p. 394] shows how his mind was moving. Sabellianism, it may be remarked, was not simply the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ, but His eternal distinct Personality — dreadful error. Hence the unfairness of those who seek to fasten this error on others and myself now, seeing we assert the eternal Personality of our Lord in the strongest possible terms. The statement of J.N.D.’s referred to above is enhanced as we follow his meditation on John 1. He develops sonship in the saints from the sonship of Christ as seen in verses 14 and 18. He says, ‘This, then ... He is as become flesh, (page 11). If we look at it simply in His divinity all this is lost’.
As to Mr. Raven — whom the Ayr paper quotes in support of eternal sonship — it is well known that his mind became altered as to it. Besides myself, there are many witnesses to his refusal of it, say from 1898 to the end of his service. It is also a fact that Mr. Reid in a magazine article in 1878 — four years before Mr. Darby’s death — questioned the scripturalness of eternal sonship. There is no evidence that it was denounced as an error. These remarks are not made merely to support the truth as I understand it, but to show the misleading character of the current profuse reproduction of the writings of the Lord’s servants no longer with us.
Mr. Coates’ earlier ministry is adduced as opposed to what he holds now. This proves nothing save that Mr. Coates has clearer light now on the subject in question than he had earlier. To say that he was right then in following unquestioningly what was generally accepted and wrong now, is just ‘begging the question’.
As to myself, the excerpts furnished in page 5 of the Ayr pamphlet to show that I held earlier as to sonship the opposite of what I hold now fails of the object intended. In using the designation “Son” in the older ones I simply meant to convey the Person. In using a title or name applying to our Lord as Man to designate Him before He became Man I followed scriptural example: e.g., “Christ Jesus; who, subsisting in the form of God”. It is over thirty years since the Scriptural untenableness of the term ‘eternal sonship’ became fixed in my mind, and while the truth of the Lord’s sonship is much clearer to me now than it was then, I cannot find that I have said or written anything inconsistent with what I held.
What has been asserted as to the original of the preposition “in” in John 1: 18 is the well-known fact that it implies motion towards, and no ‘scholar’ (Ayr pamphlet, page 12) will deny this. The Holy Spirit used it in this most important verse knowing well how Greek readers would understand it. The passages quoted from Mark do not ignore this meaning. If the Spirit meant to convey that the Lord had always been in the Father’s bosom as Son, He would, according to the general usage, have used ‘en’ as in John 3: 13, “in heaven”.
I am grieved because of the brother whose letter you enclosed. He is affected undoubtedly by the unbalanced quotations to which I have referred. If he searches the Scriptures daily as subject to the teaching of the Holy Spirit he will, I am assured, find with many of his brethren that they (the Scriptures) do not apply the relation of sonship to Christ viewed as in absolute Deity — that is before incarnation.
In the foregoing not the faintest thought to discredit the ministry of the last century is intended to be conveyed. I am sure I value it as much as anyone. I use it constantly, but as provided of God to help — to edify, confirm, and sustain us in the truth — not as a basis of my faith. What I have written is to show the misuse of it currently made, and how those who fall in with this are being drawn (unconsciously no doubt) from the infallible ground of “the law and the testimony” to a lower plane. I do not go into the subject of sonship now, as what is already in circulation from me conveys my mind pretty fully.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.