BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 12TH, 1917
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 12TH, 1917
Mr. J. S. Giles.
My Dear Brother, — Your letter in answer to mine came this week. On reading it over I felt that we were as far apart as ever as to the matter in question, but as I proceeded I found that you state what I have been seeking to maintain. On page 5 You say, ‘The measure in which responsibility is fulfilled God will recognise’. This sentence implies what almost the whole of your letter inveighs against — viz. ‘fulfilled responsibility’. It is true that the words are in the reverse order but this does not alter the fact that their value is the same as they would be if transposed. You may reply that the word ‘measure’ makes a difference, but here difficulty (from the standpoint of your letter) would increase, for on page 6 you will not allow the idea of ‘in measure’ to be connected with ‘fulfilled responsibility’. You say: ‘If you add to’ fulfilled responsibility ‘’ not completely of course ‘then you show your expression is wrong, for if it is fulfilled it is fulfilled’. The fact is, dear brother, that you know the truth so well that you cannot help stating it, but having allowed your mind to run in a line of thought that is not according to the truth you fall into inevitable inconsistencies. But the evident presence of the truth in your soul is what encourages me in spite of the many things in your letter (and other papers) with which I cannot agree; so I ask you to bear with me in the same brotherly spirit that you have shown heretofore as I restate my exercises as to these things.
First, as regards the word ‘faithfulness’, what I commented on as far as I remember (I have not a copy of my letter) was the respective meanings of the English words ‘faithfulness’ and ‘responsibility’ — neither of which is found in the New Testament — the former not in Scripture. You will therefore see, that your remarks as to the Greek word translated faithful are beside the mark. As to the English word ‘faithful’ the ordinary meaning is that one is trustworthy and true in the fulfilment of duty. In this I say again that faithfulness is seen in the carrying out of a given responsibility. The word has minor meanings, it is true, but the above is the general one. Hence in view of the ordinary meaning of the English words it is quite wrong to deny that faithfulness is the measure in which duty, or obligation, is fulfilled. I agree that the word translated ‘faithful’ is from the word translated ‘faith’, and that it sometimes means that one has faith, etc.; but I cannot agree that it is the general meaning of the word in the Scriptures. It is generally used according to the ordinary meaning of the word ‘faithful’ in English. It is so used of God, Christ and the saints.
On page 3 you say: ‘You quote Moses being spoken of as faithful as though it could only be said of him and a few others’. I have no recollection of limiting faithfulness to Moses and a few others, and I have no such thought; for I know that whole companies of saints are addressed as “faithful in Christ”. I spoke of Moses’ faithfulness as set down alongside that of the Lord Jesus — “as also Moses”. This is worthy of note. God honours His servant in this reference to Him, but your remarks cast a shadow on this; they also ignore that some are called faithful in the New Testament because they are specially marked by fidelity to Christ and the truth. “Faithful men” (2 Timothy 2) means something more than that all saints may be regarded as faithful.
On this same page you quote from a letter of mine: ‘The church did fulfil its responsibility at the beginning’, and then proceed to say, ‘The first word that the Spirit has to say to the church set up in responsibility is: “Thou art fallen”’. The first word spoken of the church according to Scripture contains this commendatory tribute: “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2: 42), also the remaining verse of the chapter. This is a very different word from “Thou art fallen”. It is simply futile to say this was not the church in responsibility; it was the church in responsibility. The Spirit records these things of the saints. They were responsible to continue in the apostles’ doctrine, for instance, and they did. They were so according to the mind of God in their ways that the Lord added such as should be saved to them — the assembly. What you say as to God demonstrating His presence by the Spirit as He had done in the tabernacle is blessedly true: but there is more than this presented to us in Acts 2 — the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” was there in principle in the saints. The subjective effect of the presence of the Spirit consequent on redemption is in evidence. All was in the power of the Holy Spirit (the only and all-sufficient power for the fulfilment of Christian responsibility) but what is presented is accredited to the saints. The church as set up in the power of the Spirit, as the responsible witness for Christ, is before us. The light, for the time at least, was undimmed. To say, as you do, that speaking of the church thus is exalting her instead of her Builder is as unfair as it can be. It glorifies Him, for she is His handiwork. The sin of Ananias was serious but it is not presented as the failure of the church in its responsibility. It was an attack of Satan on the Holy Spirit as in the church, but it was summarily dealt with — the holiness of God’s house was maintained. It is quite clear that latent evil shall [p. 128] exist in the millennium; the outbreak at the end proves this, a sinner may be there (Isaiah 65: 20); these things do not show that Christ’s kingdom fails. Your remarks legitimately followed would imply the opposite, and would make Judas’ failure reflect on the Lord Himself.
You refer to the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2 as the ‘first word’ of the Spirit to the church in responsibility. Surely you do not mean to assert that Paul’s letter to the saints at Ephesus was later, or that this letter did not regard the church in responsibility. To say either would be utterly false. The epistles to the Corinthians regard the church in responsibility, as indeed do all the epistles. I will not give expression to my feelings but your remarks are inconsistent with the plain teaching and facts of Scripture. Even if it were admitted (which is impossible) that the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2 is the first communication of the Spirit to the church in responsibility, the first word is not “Thou art fallen;” the first word as to herself is commendation, as is well known. Besides the sense of the passage is not exactly “Thou art fallen”, but “from whence thou art fallen”. The candlestick is still there, though it would be removed if there were not repentance.
On page 4 you speak of the saints’ righteousnesses — that these are produced in them through the service of Christ and their walking in the Spirit while they are here in responsibility; and that thus the Lord can, in grace, speak as though they had entirely done with themselves. Here again you show how the truth is really in your heart, for this is just what I understand to be the teaching of the word as to Christian responsibility. But you turn aside immediately to say that ‘responsibility in Scripture stands in contrast to preservation by God in His sovereignty through a condition being maintained which is the result of a divinely given state’. You had been remarking about God triumphing on the ‘responsible line’, and that things done by the saints here in responsibility are credited to them. If the saints work righteousness by God’s grace through the Spirit on the responsible line what is this but that they are preserved by Him in a ‘divinely given state’. This is indeed the truth. We are created by Him in Christ Jesus for good works which were ordained that we should walk in them. We are preserved by Him and kept by His power, He working in us for His own will and pleasure. According to your remarks at the bottom of page 4, responsibility is in contrast to all this,
[p. 129] whereas responsibility is bound up with it according to what you say in the former part. There is some truth in your remarks as to the angels who fell and those who did not, but the whole truth is not there; certainly if you carry the thought forward you will arrive at the error; you will suggest that the Lord, being elect, was not tested in responsibility. You clearly imply that the elect angels are not tested, for you set responsibility in contrast to their being preserved sovereignly. I am not prepared to say much as to the elect angels, but certainly the solemn charge to Timothy before them as to his responsibility would show that they know what it is to be under a charge. I believe, too, that they were tested and stood (compare Jude 9) being preserved by God, as you say. And it is quite certain that elect among men are tested in responsibility. The elect are seen as responsible in Colossians 3. As regards ‘no responsibility in Christ’, you will please remember what I have remarked many times to you that my exercise was to preserve the authority of Scripture as to it. It is of all importance to let Scripture speak for itself. It speaks of living godly in Christ Jesus, created in Christ Jesus for good works, approved in Christ, etc., so that I accept the expression only in a modified way. Scripture is wiser than we are, and if we bow to it we shall be preserved from dogmatism. There is a region in which all things are of God — where ‘one’ did not know whether he was in the body or out of it; here responsibility has no place. But as here on earth I am in Christ, and my responsibility flows from this. As J.N.D. says, ‘Christian responsibility is the responsibility of being a Christian, that is, of walking, because we are in Christ, as Christ walked, through Christ dwelling in us’ (Collected Writings, Volume 17, p. 452).
As to your remark that nothing connected with responsibility goes into heaven, I repeat that it is not true. As I have said, the Lord was connected with responsibility; He is in heaven; the church is connected with responsibility and she goes to heaven. You say that I do not prove J.B.S.’s statement incorrect. I do not wish to. I accept it as he meant it. I did not refer to it at all, as far as I can remember.
Concerning the judgment seat of Christ I only called attention to a remark of yours (I am speaking from memory) that God cannot judge His own work — that this did not quite tally with the facts presented. Scripture sets forth the principle of [p. 130] God passing judgment on or appraising His own work (see Genesis 1). At the judgment seat of Christ good and bad works are judged. Good works are prepared of God that we should walk in them. The King came in to see the guests. Certainly some of the apostle’s works were directly God’s works. I only refer to this point so that there might be a balance.
In conclusion I would state that I have no such thought as that anyone could fulfil his responsibility as Christ did; nor do I know anyone who has. Scripture says that “in many things we offend all” (James 3: 2). “Christ was in all points tested as we are, yet without sin”. Hence the contrast. He was infinitely perfect in everything.
My exercise has been to get an understanding of the way Scripture looks at responsibility — especially Christian responsibility. Scripture says that I “offend often” and at the same time insists that I fulfil my responsibility (see James); it is quite clear therefore that I am not disqualified for the fulfilment of responsibility, even though I offend. Paul came short of Christ’s standard as we learn from Acts, but he says, “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ”. Scripture says that Paul was a follower of Christ and so was a model for others; hence it teaches that he fulfilled responsibility in this respect. Mark failed but “afterward repented and went”. He was not disqualified by his failure for the resumption of a servant’s responsibility.
But there is a deeper consideration than isolated cases so clearly presented; the character of the dispensation is involved. Has there been a corresponding response in Christianity to the light presented by Christ? There has. To deny this is casting a shade on the mission of the Holy Spirit - to sin against Him. I have mentioned Paul, but I would cite his teaching as being more to the point (compare Romans 5: 1 - 5; Romans 8: 35 - 39; Acts 1 - Acts 4; 1 John 5: 18;1 John 3: 6).
Romans 8 is of special importance as showing the triumph of God through the gospel in regard to the law. There can be no question about the “righteous requirement of the law” involving responsibility. A ‘requirement’ is surely what is demanded as a duty or responsibility. It is fulfilled (note the word) in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. I observe your comment that it is not ‘by us’ but ‘in us’, but it does not weigh much with me, because ‘walk’ is action and hence involves ‘by’. Romans 13 enlarges on this:
“[p. 131] He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law”, verse 8. Here the fulfilment of the law is by what is done.
I am glad to have seen your tract, ‘Responsibility, Faithfulness, and Obligation’, because it contains statements, such as ‘every privilege must bring its corresponding responsibility or obligation’, which show that you really hold the truth, as I have already remarked. But one thing that strikes me as peculiar is the publication of a paper to give a definition of three English words, two of which (as far as concordances show) are not employed in the translation of the Bible, and the third not in the New Testament. You admit that the word ‘responsibility’ is not used by the Spirit, but that the thought is necessarily connected with the creature. For your idea of the ‘thought’ I must go to the English word you use. Turning to a good dictionary, I find responsibility means, 1st, ‘The state of being responsible, answerable or accountable;’ 2nd, ‘That for which one is answerable, a duty, trust or obligation’. Here I am blocked, for I cannot tell what you mean by the word you use, for you make it differ from ‘obligation’ whereas the dictionary makes obligation a meaning of responsibility. Again I find in the tract ‘responsibility or obligation’ as if you admit that the words are synonyms. This is only an example of many inconsistencies. In writing or speaking we should use words according to their ordinary meaning, otherwise we confuse our readers and hearers.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.