AUGUST 28TH, 1918
AUGUST 28TH, 1918
Mr. D. L. Higgins.
My Dear Brother, — Your letter of August 1st and enclosure did not reach me till the 22nd inst. Your paper condemning the article in Mutual Comfort of July, 1915, came as a surprise, especially because you went so far back in your criticism. Your letter indicates that you did not read the article at the time it appeared, but I would remind you that the line of thought in it came before us at the conference at Kennington in 1914; you were present on that occasion, and, as far as I remember, you raised no objection; nor, indeed, did anyone else. If you have a copy of the Notes printed of these meetings at Kennington, please look at pages 5 and 11. Having to return to America immediately, I had no part in the revision of these Notes. I do not mention all this as justifying what you criticise; I do so to call attention to a moral feature for you to consider.
Since receiving your letter I have looked over the article you refer to, and I am assured that there is nothing in it contrary to sound doctrine, and that it was sincerely intended to help the Lord’s people. I believe too (and I trust I say this in a humble spirit) that it was helpful generally to those who read it. There has been nothing said about it but what was commendatory save by one brother (whose name I forget) who objected to the interpretation placed on the word ‘abroad’ [p. 165] in Romans 5. I pointed out to him that the best authorities (J.N.D. and the late revisers as well as the authorised version) give “shed abroad” (differing from Titus 3: 6), and that I thought it safer to follow them than one whose critical knowledge of the original text was uncertain. One of the latest and most exhaustive concordances gives “shed abroad” as a meaning of the word. But the matter is of minor importance, and I am not assured as to it. That the Holy Spirit has been given to the Gentiles is true, thank God.
Turning now to your paper, I will seek to examine it as well as the article in question in the light of Scripture. I am prepared, I trust, for what there may be to learn or unlearn.
First, I note that while you condemn the idea of a bond, as applying to the Christian, in the article, you accept it as taught in Romans 7 (page 4). You affirm, therefore, as the truth of Scripture, what you deny to be true in what another says. Your explanation that this is a marriage bond is of no value in this respect; if it is a bond in which a Christian has part (and the marriage figure certainly involves this, as you say) then your paper fails in its object — it asserts what it condemns. As a matter of fact, Romans 7: 5, 6 teaches the very thing that the article was intended to impress the saints with — nearness to God and to Christ in intelligent affection, service in “newness” of spirit and fruit for God. The reference in the passage (Romans 7) is to Exodus 19 - Exodus 20. The article, however, did not treat the latter chapters as presenting the law itself as the first husband; it was viewed according to ‘the spirit’. God would have the people near Him in a definite known relationship, which is referred to in the prophets as the marriage bond (compare Jeremiah 2; Ezekiel 16).
But I return to the earlier part of your paper, and I will quote what you write as expressing the matter to be considered: ‘The question is on what principle the scripture places the fulfilment of these (Christian) responsibilities, whether that is, it is by the Spirit on the ground of pure grace and faith, where the God, whose love has reached us when we were yet sinners, is alone and ever before the soul, or whether it is on the ground of a contract or covenant, which a Christian has undertaken as one party to it, the other being the blessed God Himself’. What I would remark first is that the subject of the paper is ‘Covenant relationships and family relationships’. Relationship, in the sense in which it is treated in the paper, means a [p. 166] position in which persons are set; each has part in it. The point in the article is that the Christian should recognise this, and seek on his side, to enter into the blessed relationships in which it has pleased God to set him with Himself This is surely an important matter; any effort, however imperfect, to induce the saints to draw near to God is of Him and will be blessed of Him. The use of the words ‘bond’, ‘contract’, ‘covenant’ was simply to enforce the main thought in the reading, as mentioned above. I quote from the article: ‘God’s thought is that, as delivered, there should be an understanding between Him and us, and not only so, but a definite bond to which He has committed Himself to begin with, and to which we also have to commit ourselves, because it is in the committal to it that the conscience is brought into play. This chapter (Romans 7) shows, in the experience of at least one man, Paul, that he had found it a profitable bond’ (pages 171, 172). Laying aside the principle of legal requirement (which the article does, as you admit), is this not a just statement of the matter — at least in Paul’s case? Was there not with him a definite understanding with God — an apprehension of the relationship in which God had set him and an acceptance of the consequent obligations? Surely there was. At his conversion he enquired, “What shall I do, Lord?” This question was not rebuked, but carefully answered by the Lord. He was to learn in Damascus what he was to do. This question was the acknowledgement of the convert’s allegiance to Christ — a fact abundantly testified to in after years. It arose from the heart of one who afterwards said he delighted in the law of God after the inward man, with the mind served it, and, having received the Holy Spirit, fulfilled its righteous requirements. Was he under bondage to the law in a legal sense? Far from it, he was happy in his soul as in known relationship with God and with Christ and as “legitimately subject”, as he says, “to Christ”.
To enlarge on this somewhat I will refer to Romans. The connection between Romans 5, Romans 6 and Romans 7 and Exodus 19 is quite obvious. The quotation I have made from your paper says that the fulfilment of Christian responsibility is by the Spirit on the ground of pure grace and faith, where God is alone and ever before the soul. This is so far true, but it is not the whole truth. It leaves out the exercise in the believer which leads him to accept his obligations to God, as revealed to him — his obedience “from the heart” of the form of doctrine delivered to him.
The gospel was for obedience of faith among the nations; it was announced “on the principle of faith to faith”. The necessity for the subjective state that answers to God is seen from the beginning, of which Paul is an illustration, as I have said. We see it also in Acts 2: 37 and 16: 30. The principle you lay down corresponds, in measure, with Romans 5, but it really ignores chapter 6. The teaching of the latter chapter is substantially what the article insists on; it is based on baptism. Baptism, although necessarily administered by another, is nevertheless, a committal of the person baptised to Christ; he is baptised to Christ, and so to His death. The Ethiopian eunuch is an illustration of the correspondence between the believer’s normal exercise and baptism. The believer undertakes it with a definite understanding of its bearing as to his path in this world. It is something to which he is committed (in principle, a bond) with which he is to be consistent. Hence “we should walk in newness of life”. But while there is the acceptance of the obligation, the soul is not in legal bondage, for the obligation is not to the law, but to God. He is a bondman (this surely involves a bond) to God, and yields his members as instruments of righteousness to God. He has his fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Then in chapter 7 the believer is absolved from the claim of the first husband through Christ’s death, to be married to another, to Him who is raised from the dead. Here is another feature of a bond — the passage supposes a definite relationship established, which in Scripture involved a bond or contract between two parties. Doubtless this refers to the Christian’s initial recognition of the marital relation between Christ and himself, but it results in fruit for God, and it lays the groundwork for the full position of the church as united to Christ. Elsewhere we are told that the saints were espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ. So that we have here clearly taught the principle which you contend against in the body of your paper, as already said, and which you admit at the end. It in no sense implies that Christian responsibilities are to be fulfilled on the principle of legal requirements; whether he is in relation of a bondman with God or, so to speak, a wife to Christ the responsibilities are carried out in the liberty of love. Romans 8,
[p. 168] I need not say, treats of the Spirit as the power by whom the believer answers to all this in his walk down here.
It may be remarked here that Christian practice goes beyond the fulfilment of the righteous requirement of the law, although this is included in it as Romans 8 teaches. He is sanctified to “the obedience ... of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1: 2). In view of this, and of what I have said previously, it is perfectly clear that the believer’s relationship with God and with Christ involves definite acceptance of obligation, which he is to fulfil by the power of the Holy Spirit. To deny that there is a bond, in this sense, between our souls and God is destructive of practical Christianity. It is pure antinomianism.
As regards Galatians, it will be quite clear from what I have said that the effort to place the article in company with the error the apostle combated there is entirely without justification. There is not the slightest evidence in the article that it was held by the speaker that the Christian’s relationship with God is on any other ground than that of faith.
This subject is not dwelt upon in the article, for in such a small space every truth cannot be included, but it is assumed, as the ‘believer‘ is before the mind; a believer is one who has faith in God.
You say, ‘The soul is seen as having died through law to the whole principle of what it can do’. What does this mean? Is there no principle of doing in Christianity? James says, “Faith without works is dead”. True, thank God! My justification and relationship with Him are on the principle of faith, but Scripture insists on good works in the Christian. These works are accomplished by faith through the Spirit (faith working by love and not by the flesh) but they are viewed as the believer’s works. Have I died to this principle of doing?
The whole of page three of your paper seems to sound well, intensive pious expressions being employed, and in the main acceptable, as far as it goes; but as usual throughout the paper, the responsible element in the believer is weakened. You say, ‘If I know anything of myself I would say, Christ is the Son of God and His love to me is an all-powerful object, and the Spirit of God is an almighty power within, but do not put me on a ground where I figure as undertaking anything, but let me remain on that of the faith of the Son of God’. If you are regarding yourself as in the flesh or merely in your own strength, you are certainly out of court as regards doing [p. 169] anything for God; but if as a professed Christian you refuse to accept obligation from God — to do His will here (by His grace and strength, of course) — you are very far from being true to your profession or consistent with your baptism. If Paul says, “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfil the law of Christ” (Galatians 6: 2), you would answer (according to your paper), ‘I cannot undertake anything in the way of doing!’ James says, “Be ye doers of the word”. You answer him in like manner! How different it is with Paul! He says, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision”. ... “Necessity” was “laid upon” him, and it would be “woe” to him if he did not accept and carry out his commission. It was a matter of obedience. There is no idea of figuring in a fleshly way as doing something. Whatever words we may use to express it, obedience to God is imperative; it was so with Adam and with Israel, but now that redemption is accomplished, Christ glorified and the Holy Spirit here in the believer, he thus being born of God, it is now a possibility in him. This, in brief, is presenting the subjective Christianity of the New Testament, and it is incumbent on each of us to see that it is maintained in him; otherwise the Lord will not be with us and the truth will slip away from us.
In conclusion I would say that I am far from contending for perfection in the expressions and form in which the truth was presented in the article in question. It was the substance of a reading at Glasgow in which, naturally, several took part; it was not revised by me, but I accept the entire responsibility of it.
I have not mentioned the thought of fellowship, which is a marked feature in Christianity. It is spoken of both as regards the apostles with the Father and the Son, and the saints with each other. I need not say that this involves a bond; sometimes the idea of partnership is conveyed. “The right hand of fellowship” is mentioned. There is nothing in the article about ‘striking’ hands as you allege — this is too familiar. There is the thought of extending the hand in the way of committal. Laying on of hands or giving the hand is a well recognised form in Scripture.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.