Menu•SiteMap | Guests






My Stand: No. 1

• Gordon Rainbow     § Jeff Kuns     † Guest

• Introduction
• Sonship of Christ 1
• Sonship of Christ 2
• Sonship of Christ 3
• Sonship of Christ 4
• Authoritative Ministry
• Associations


• What Went Wrong?
  Low Spiritual State
  Repentance
  Centralism
  Use of JT's Name
  Fresh Truths
  Universal Leader



• Decline of 1950's
  Scriptural View
  Comments
  Sectarian Ground?





 



PLEASE NOTE: For the security of our readers, all @ signs have been changed to 'AT' in order to prevent unsolicited email. If you wish to contact any of our guests please remember to replace the @ sign in the address line of your email.






INTRODUCTION
"So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instruction which ye have
been taught, whether by word or by our letter", 2 Thessalonians 2: 15.

This page contains replies to inquiries which are not posted in the 'Mailbox'.


Some, but not all, correspondents request that their inquiries not be posted and some that their names be withheld, and these requests are honoured.

However my replies are my own responsibility. They are presented here in order to clarify 'My Stand' on issues raised by correspondents

The use of 'Renton', 'Open' etc. is for clarity only and is based on the correspondents' own identification of their positions.

It is hoped that guests who make inquiries which have already been answered here – in part at least –

G.A.R.

Page Top

SONSHIP OF CHRIST  1
This final part of a brief interchange is posted here to
clarify the stand of 'My Brethren' as to our Lord's Sonship.
See Studies: Vital Truths and Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ
Compare My Stand 2: Opposers of 'My Brethren'

Tue, 26 Jan 1999

Dear —
Subject: Recent Correspondence, Jan 11-18, 1999

As mentioned on January 18, the delay in replying to yours of January 14 was unavoidable but it now appears to have been divinely ordered.

At that time – based on the tone of your reply – I was quite hopeful that we might be able to have a mutual and brotherly exchange of thoughts

You will appreciate, I trust, my keen disappointment. It seems clear that hope outran experience, and that it was quite unrealistic for me to expect fairness and objectivity on this holy matter.

I have long been aware that those who so ardently advocate the view you espouse had their collective origin in the refusal and rejection of spiritual ministry,

Those who are so occupied indicting their brethren for denying a humanistic concept of our Lord's Sonship seem blinded to the fact that

As earlier, I regret having to write thus.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.


The rightness of terminating the above correspondence is confirmed – in an e-mail of Feb. 12, 1999 – by reference

The unbrotherly spirit continued – in an e-mail of April 21, 1999, to another site – which

Sadly but surely, "he kept his wrath for ever", Amos 1: 11.

Page Top

SONSHIP OF CHRIST  2

To: Name Withheld
Mon, 26 Apr 1999

Dear —
Your concern as to this matter is understandable, and so I have thought it well to review your remarks and quotations in some detail.

Concerning "A further comment about CAC and the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ – CAC is right in saying: 'if we are not clear as to the Person of the Lord we shall not be clear as to anything.', vol. 10, page 16:

Here is the statement you quote in its context:

CAC says, "It has often been said that the Lord's genealogy in Luke is traced up to Adam, but if we read it we shall see that it is traced back to God, and that makes a great and vital difference …

This, of course, does not refer to our Lord's Sonship, as such, but to the holiness and uniqueness of His Person as come into Manhood, so commonly debased by natural and unspiritual thinking. Luke 1: 35; John 1: 14; 1 Corinthians 15: 45-49; Philippians 2: 5-8.


As to the "hints", they would be dismissed as mere hearsay in a court of law.

You quote letters of two brothers – Mr. F. A. Hughes and Mr. George A. Lucas – who were in fellowship with Mr. Coates and brethren with whom he walked.


The first letter – no date shown – is from "a well-known ministering brother" Mr. Hughes "who withdrew with his household in the early part of 1951" as noted in a 1970 historical review by Arthur G. Brown,

In a letter of October 12, 1961 – which you may not have seen – Mr. Hughes refers to "the proposal to bring Kelly-Lowe and Glanton" with which he was linked "together", adding "the whole matter was dropped through there being still a bad case of Anti-Ravenism in Kelly-Lowe circles".

Mr. Coates wrote in 1931, "If any Scripture could be adduced which attributes the title Son to Him as in absolute Deity, and with no reference to His mediatorial glory, it would settle the matter at once.


As to the second letter, dated February 7th, 1964, written by Mr. Lucas, I first saw this letter in 1973. You may be interested in the following caution I wrote in 1995 which, of course, refers to the whole letter:


Several points should be noticed:

Mr. Lucas says of CAC "there is no documentary evidence available to prove his later convictions" as to our Lord's Sonship.

Mr. Lucas portrays "poor CAC" – as he calls him – as a coward, hiding "his later convictions" from the brethren generally "because he only disclosed them verbally to trusted friends" who we must suppose would keep his dark secret from all – except from Mr. Lucas of course.

Mr. Lucas says "From these conversations" – with the anonymous 'trusted friends' – "it seems clear that he wrote JT personally, who refused to answer him. Just before he died he again wrote JT, who was then in this country, imploring him to come and see him, but his letter was again ignored".

Mr. Lucas then asserts: "Just before he died he again wrote JT, who was then in this country, imploring him to come and see him, but his letter was again ignored.


Regarding the above, I appended a note:


This story, which re-surfaces from time to time, is a classic example of the recurring effort to discredit spiritual ministry.

Paul was the victim of the same type of cowardly attack – because an anonymous attack is the the most cowardly of all – at Corinth.


As to Mr. Lucas's letter, Andrew Robertson – a faithful brother and servant of the Lord – wrote on April 4, 1995:


The following is an except from a letter of May 24, 1998. Andrew Robertson replied to a correspondent:

"One final comment on the matter of the volumes of JT Senior's letters; you will doubtless have noticed that the compilers and editors were R. W. Stollery of Summit, New Jersey …

A-w. R.


It was not my intention to weary you with this lengthy reply, but the importance of the matter as

I appreciated the even tone of your letter and trust that we can both maintain any possible further contacts on the same brotherly level.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.


Here is further confirmatory information from a guest:

From: Van Costen
Thu, 26 May 2005

Beloved Brother,
I was looking at your site again today and stumbled on the discussion that there was a difference at the end of CAC's life of his view of the Lord's sonship supported by comments from FA Hughes and GA Lucas.

First Quotation

C.A.C. You have not the mature thought of Christ in sonship till Christ was in glory. It was left to Paul, and with him you get the thought in maturity; it is not a "young and tender" thought.

Rem. So we do not get it until the return from the captivity.

C.A.C. Satan would connect His sonship with His deity. Scripture always connects Christ's sonship with His humanity and so brings us into it. None of us has the slightest apprehension of sonship till we see it in Christ. The apostles on the mount were told "THIS IS MY BELOVED SON" (Matthew 17: 5). They learnt sonship first in Christ, and we all have to learn it first in Him. And at the end of that chapter He speaks of "sons" – "Then are the sons free" (verse 26). You go, the Lord says, to the sea for a fish and give them something "for me and thee" (verse 27), that is, He puts Himself along with Peter in sonship – it is beautiful! I do not think that we apprehend sonship until we see it in Christ, and hear Him say, "For me and thee". With most of us the thought of sonship is very immature; it is undeveloped, so we are just typically where Solomon is in this chapter, though we do not need to remain there. We all have, I suppose, some thought of it. Martha had some thought of it, "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world"(John 11: 27), but very little. CAC 27a: 86.

2nd Quotation

C.A.C. … We need to let these things soak into our affections until they form us, and it is all brought about by Solomon, the son of His love, and Solomon speaks of Christ glorified. The Lord Himself speaks of the glory of Solomon (Matthew 6: 29). And it is Christ glorified who builds the house; that is, He has passed through death and glorified the Father in all that He has taken up, and now He is glorified; and He is in the bosom of the Father; that is a more intimate thought than being glorified.

Rem. "Father … glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee" (John 17: 1).

C.A.C. "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them", the Lord says (verse 22). That is the glory of sonship, so that if we want to understand sonship, we must see Christ glorified in heaven, reposing in the love of the Father. "Who is in the bosom of the Father", John says (John 1: 18). So it is in the apprehension of the Son glorified that we see the character of the house, because it is the glorified One in the bosom of the Father who builds the house. F.E.R. used to say, 'Who can speak after the Son, and who can work after the Son?' It is finality.

The thought of the house is as precious now as when it first burst upon the hearts of His own. We must not overlook the thought of God having a footstool on earth. "Thus saith Jehovah: The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what is the house that ye will build unto me? and what is the place of my rest?" (Isaiah 66: 1). So the assembly is His footstool and therefore conditions are provided in God's house on earth that are restful for Him, and they are all provided by One in the enjoyment of the most intimate affection, by One in the bosom of the Father – because He is there this minute! Everything adverse to Christ is going to be turned into a restful footstool for Him. His very enemies will have been turned into His footstool, so that everything adverse has been banished.

Rem. It would show that it is important to be following the teaching of sonship and the house and the service of God that is given in these days.

C.A.C. Yes, most important. We cannot be too thankful for the light that has been thrown upon the sonship of Christ in order that we should understand the character of the house. It took its character from Solomon. Scripture says, "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18); and that was written sixty or seventy years after the ascension of Christ. That is, the declaration of God comes out from that Man glorified. CAC 27a: 132-33.

I have pondered why there would be this suggestion that CAC changed his mind. I think it may be that those that say this see value in CAC's ministry and want to prove that CAC really never believed what he taught, therefore freeing his ministry to be read. There is no doubt in my mind that CAC never changed his mind.

Most affectionately in the Lord, Van.


From: Van Costen
Tue, 31 May 2005

Beloved Brother,
There has been an attempt to also promote the view that there was hidden conflict and bad feelings between CAC and JTSr.

First Quotation

"J.T. (Senior) said some years ago (New Series Vol. 37 p. 538) that he thought the Lord saw the assembly in His disciples. It was before Him as a concrete reality in certain persons; He saw it in those persons and loved them. It was not a mere abstract conception that He loved; certain persons were given to Him of the Father and were so attractive that He loved them. I thought it a very happy suggestion", CAC 26: 71.

2nd Quotation

"'Iniquity" is 'unrighteousness' – what is not right. This is a very important scripture, because it defines our position. 'The Lord knows those that are his' – J.T. has called this objective knowledge (cf. 'I know him' [Abraham], Genesis 18:19, i.e. I know how he will carry on; and, 'I know them' [my sheep] in John 10:27). He recognises what is of Himself. Lots of people pretend to be His, but He says He does not know them. It is not enough to say, I know the Lord. Does He know me and see features in me that are of Himself? Nothing else is built into His house. The way to begin the day is to say, 'Something of Christ is to be in my heart and under His eye which is of Himself', and at the end of the day take stock of how much has been of that character, and then have it all out with the Lord", CAC 33: 54.

3rd Quotation

"What has already reached us of the ministry fills us with thankfulness that the universal prayers were answered, and we await fuller notes in confidence that they will prove to be profitable and stimulating. The Lord's faithful love in furnishing such ministry ought to affect our hearts deeply. I trust that in some measure we are conscious how great is the favour that sustains such a ministry in freshness and power amongst us. It is now for us all to see that we get the full profit of it, and do not allow the enemy by any means to divert us from what is manifestly of the Spirit. May we have grace and fixedness of heart to work it out to completion!" CAC Letters: 278, referring to Sydney meetings in 1939 with JTSr, New Series 48: 1-101.

  • Please note phrases that Mr. Coates uses – "such a ministry in freshness and power amongst us" and "manifestly of the Spirit" – not words to be used if you thought a brother to be teaching error or involved in something immoral! Once again this quote is from the last 5 years of CAC's life.

4th Quotation

"C.A.C. Yes, much like our stops. It is important we should not overlook them. Hymn 2 verse 2 is spoiled by the full stop at the end of the fourth line which should be a comma. What has struck many of us in dear Mr. Taylor's ministry is what attention he pays to details. Sometimes the most striking thing he says turns on one detail, perhaps a word or letter; 'And to thy seed' – not seeds,(Galatians 3:16); the Spirit of God reasons on one letter. Some will not believe the Bible is inspired verbally but it is!" CAC 28: 45.

  • The last quote is most informative as it occurred sometime in 1940-1943 – once again close to the death of CAC. I am convinced in my own mind that there were no bad feelings between CAC and JTSr. No one that I have spoken to, that knew both, was aware of any such problem.

  • I am not saying these things to make much over Mr. Coates or Mr. Taylor but as a defense of truth as these malicious rumors must be seen for what they are!

Most affectionately in the Lord, Van Costen.

Page Top

SONSHIP OF CHRIST  3

To: Name Withheld
(the same brother as above)
Mon, 29 May 2000

Dear — ,
I regret that you find it necessary to say,

Yes, I have shown your name on occasion to acknowledge your valued contribution of references and information, the same courtesy extended to all guests of MB.

I accept that you do not want your name associated with MB because it upholds the ministry of CAC and JT on our Lord's Sonship as divinely given truth.

You also say, "I didn't find a word in your web-site where you admit that all of the known older Brethren – JND, CHM, JGB … – rejected this teaching ..."

Thank you for the quotations from CHM. We cannot question him personally as to his meaning but, as many others, his cryptic remarks seems to link the concept of 'eternal' sonship with our Lord's Deity.

Let me add, I respect and honour all those who have served the saints in ministry, some being more distinguished than others.

With such feelings as you have regarding MB, I find it "astonishing" – your word – that your name appears on a contribution on the 'Exclusive Brethren Information' web site, with which MB has a reciprocal link.

You ask, "Are you aware of Present Truth Publishers ...?" Yes, I am.

Because of the importance of the issues involved this letter will be posted on 'My Stand'. Of course, your name will not be shown.

I regret that our correspondence has taken such a turn, and would reiterate my thanks for your previous help with references.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

SONSHIP OF CHRIST  4
On Sun, 7 Oct. 2001 Tobias Wagner wrote: "Before I read your notes on the Sonship of Christ I was battling with this subject because the commonly held belief of the eternal sonship implies inferiority of the Saviour. I need to continue to search 'the scriptures if these things were so' but so far your articles on this vital truth seem to be in accordance with Scripture. Your position certainly exalts Christ!"


Sat, 27 Oct, 2001,
Dear Tobias,
Your positive interest in our Lord's Sonship is refreshing.

Email of Tue., 23 Oct. 2001:
Please allow me a few questions regarding the Sonship of our Lord Jesus. The Father "sent His Son into the world", John 3: 17. Why does it not indicate that there was a Father-Son relationship before the Father sent Him into the world? Does it not imply that Christ was Son before He was sent forth? John 3: 17, Galatian 4: 4; 1 John 4: 9.


The common view as to these and other scriptures is that "sent" must be from heaven, and that "the world" means the earth.

There was in fact the relationship of Father and Son – but consequent on the incarnation – and before the Son – having been owned as Son and commissioned at His baptism – was sent into the world of men. But this is not the imagined 'eternal' relationship held by many.


Would it be acceptable to respond and say that since Jesus Christ revealed Himself to us as Son, it is not surprising that He is referred to in Scripture as Son as He was sent forth.

Let me explain that by an analogy:

When I show someone the wedding-picture of my parents, I will tell him, that this is my father and my mother though they have not been father and mother then (when the picture was taken). Besides that the Scriptures above deal with the sending of Christ and not to the eternal relationship.

Yes, the analogy is quite acceptable, and should be intelligible to all, as long as it is understood that the "sent forth" was not from heaven but as on earth on receiving His Father's approval.


Another question: Arthur G. Brown writes in his letter at February 29, 1972 – Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ:

  • "... Hebrews 1: 2 is not past eternity but the beginning of the economy which commenced with creation and so is Colossians 2. These Scriptures show that our Lord acted mediatorially then and might justify attaching the relationship implied by that name to the mediatorial position He occupied at the beginning of the economy ..."

  • Is Arthur G. Brown saying that our Lord was the Son already at creation? If so, how would it be consistent with your statement? You write in Studies: Vital Truths: The Sonship of Christ: "There is, however, absolutely no Scriptural basis for saying that He was the Son before the incarnation." How does Colossians 2 relate to this issue?


No, I do not think AGB is "saying that our Lord was the Son already at creation". He said "might justify" not that it would establish. I believe he was only being careful not to ignore Hebrews 1: 2.

The high view of God in 2 Timothy 6: 14-17 and John 1:18 is commonly overlooked.

Such a high and holy view means that the gulf between God and all else necessitates that God act mediatorially in creation and in his contacts with men.

This reply has become quite long but it was necessary to examine matters carefully and in detail. I trust that it will be of some use to you, and would be glad to receive your comments.

News of you and your wife, and your contacts, will always be welcome.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.


From: Tobias Wagner
Mon, 10 Dec 2001

Dear Gordon,
I must confess I did not write back to you as soon as I wished. Certain reasons kept me from mailing back.

I think the correct understanding of Galatians 4: 4 is very crucial to that:

If the birth of our Lord – come of a woman, come under law – was before the sending of the Son, the supporters of the 'eternal sonship' lose their main argument.

The arguments of those who argue for the 'eternal sonship' do not seem to be very convincing.

Be assured that your reply is of interest, use and value to me and certainly to others as well.

Yours, with love in the Lord Jesus, Tobias.

Page Top

AUTHORITATIVE  MINISTRY

From Daniel Soukoreff,
Sat, Apr 10 1999.

In reading through some of your posted articles I came across the stress on "authoritative ministry". I thought the 'Zurich Papers' shed some light on this.

Apparently the 'Zurich Letters' – March 15 – May 3, 1955 –
reviewing certain happenings in Britain 1954-55 and an
ensuing division in Zurich following a visit of Mr. A. E. Myles.

Tue, Apr 27 1999

Dear Daniel,
You note my "stress on 'authoritative ministry' ". The 'Zurich Papers' – if we have the same items in mind – seem to reflect an abuse or misuse of the term by some.

The word 'authoritative' has two senses. It can mean "having the power to demand or command".

The second meaning is "coming from such a source as to ensure belief". This is the the sense in which I use it and the way I understand it is alluded to in the Scriptures.

But some may say that was the Lord, or the apostle Paul. Certainly it was, but the principle remains.

For ministry to be called 'authoritative', i.e., trustworthy, reliable, believable and worthy of being followed, I understand that it must be

  1. based on, and in accord with, the divinely inspired Scriptures,

  2. ministered in the power of the Holy Spirit,

  3. by bondmen – subject to the Lord – whose lives are in moral accord with the truth they minister.

Such ministry, and such ministry alone, is 'authoritative'. There has been ministry of that character from the beginning of the revival, from which we have greatly benefited.

Compare Ministry: J. Taylor 1: Authority in Doctrine and Fellowship

The rejection of authority – in the sense I have spoken of it – is the exercise of self will, as it is said,

That there have been – and still are, and will be yet – false apostles and teachers who claim divinely given authority for their own ends is without doubt.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.


Thu, 29 Apr 1999

Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your well thought out reply. Yes, in some measure the past abuse of authoritative ministry has made me doubtful of any pressing the concept today.

Love to all, Daniel.


From: Daniel Soukoreff
Wed, 15 Mar 2006

Dear Gordon,
Some while back we discussed my unease with the phrase "authoritative ministry". I think JND puts it best in his Synopsis on 2 Timothy 4, which has recently been brought to my attention, which I submit for your consideration.

Yours in Christ, Daniel.

Does this perfect and supreme authority of the scriptures set aside ministry? By no means; it is the foundation of the ministry of the word. One is a minister of the word; one proclaims the word - resting on the written word - which is authority for all, and the warrant for all that a minister says, and imparting to his words the authority of God over the conscience of those whom he teaches or exhorts. There is, in addition to this, the activity of love in the heart of him who exercises this ministry (if it be real), and the powerful action of the Spirit, if he be filled with the Holy Ghost. But that which the word says silences all opposition in the heart or mind of the believer.

It was thus that the Lord answered Satan, and Satan himself was reduced to silence.

He who does not submit to the words of God thereby shews himself to be a rebel against God The rule given of God is in the scriptures; the energetic action of His Spirit is in ministry, although God can equally act upon the heart immediately by the word itself. Nevertheless ministry, since the revelations of God were completed, could not be an authority, or there would be two authorities; and if two, one must be a needless repetition of the other, or else, if they differed, no authority at all.         JND, Synopsis on 2 Timothy 4.

To: Daniel Soukoreff
Wed, 15 Mar 2006

Dear Daniel,
Thanks for the interesting JND extract. If I read it correctly it is maintaining the same position as stated in my earlier reply to you.

Regarding his last sentence, I find no disagreement. Making ministry an authority on its own, as the legal sect we have left has done, is surely wrong.

Always glad to hear from you on such vital issues.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

ASSOCIATIONS

From Daniel Soukoreff,
Sat, Apr 10 1999.

In your 'My Stand' papers I was left unsure as to your stand in relation to professional assocations.


Tue, Apr 27 1999,

Dear Daniel,
As to you being "left unsure as to my stand in relation to professional associations", I regret this. No doubt it was because of my remarks as to the issue in the Edinburgh division.

The union matter generally seems clear cut, but "association" and "membership" and such terms are used in many different situations, with many shades of meaning and substance –

Because of the rigid legal line under which brethren have existed, and to which they have for years yielded their own personal responsibility, there seems to have developed a mindset with many

It also appears that some had not really judged the roots of the legal system – the Aberdeen division being based on a single shocking issue –

I am not sure whether this clarifies my stand for you. Please let me have your thoughts.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.


Thu, 29 Apr 1999

Hi Gordon,
As to associations, memberships etc. it was a lack of discernment in this area which partly was our reason for leaving the brethren we once were with.

Love to all, Daniel.

Page Top

WHAT  WENT  WRONG?
This is in response to a brother who had just left the JTJr
sect and did not want his e-mail to appear on 'My Brethren'.
An August 1999 report says he is now with an 'open' meeting.

Wed, 14 Apr 1999

Dear —
Be assured that you have not offended me by touching on points on which you suspect we might differ. There may not be as many of these as you suspect.

It is good – especially in the early stage of any exercise – to refrain from being adamant, which could possibly be disastrous.

That JTJr's behavior in 1970 – and earlier – is not being emulated in or outside the meetings of the sect is not unexpected or without precedent.

Leaving such a system in which we found all our companionship and support, willingly or unwillingly, is an extremely traumatic experience.

Rather than attempting to comment on each item you bring forward – I will comment specifically on some of them – I'm going to make some general remarks which I believe apply to a number of your points.

Low Spiritual State

There is no doubt that the root of the current situation in the sect, of JTJr's outrageous behavior in 1970 and earlier and also the excesses and persecutions of the 1960's goes back to 1959 at least.

In this connection please see a paper written in 1960 by Mr. Charles Nunnerley.

Responsibility and Repentance

Whatever the causes of departure, it is vital that we who now have a judgment of what has happened take our full share in the responsibility of the past and in present repentance.

Whether "the pure thread of the recovery" – if there is such – can be found is a question. Many groups claim to be in it.

Centralism

Whether "centralism" marked FER's era, I doubt. Of course, certain groups which originated in the 1890's still complain about the influence of Park Street in JND's days.

Use of JT's Name

That JT's name has been used in support of the continuing legal pronouncements and practices – as it has been since 1959 at least –

Just as the scribes and Pharisees used Moses' name to support their fanciful ideas, so these 20th-century successors – JTJr, JHS and JSH – to the scribes and Pharisees use JT's name because they lack personal moral and spiritual authority.

Paul warned the elders of Ephesus that "after my departure … from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them", Acts 20: 29-30.

Peter warned of "false teachers, who shall bring in by the bye destructive heresies … through whom the way of the truth shall be blasphemed. And through covetousness, with well-turned words, will they make merchandise of you", 2 Peter 2: 1-3.

John spoke of a Diotrephes said "who loves to have the first place … neither does himself receive the brethren; and those who would he prevents, and casts them out of the assembly", 3 John 9-10.

Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John could be blamed for these matters.

Servants such as JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and many others have served the Lord and the brethren long and faithfully.

Fresh Truths

I have reviewed JT New Series 68: 82,89, and 48: 113-123 The Temple of God and the Scriptures.

In volume 68, he did not say 'that there were fresh truths now that the New Testament writers didn't know about'

His address, 'The Temple of God and the Scriptures', is quite balanced and stresses the authority of the Scriptures.

Ministry: J. Taylor: The Temple of God and the Scriptures

His remarks in New Series 60: 10, 435-6, 492 are quite enlightening.

Universal Leader

If there has been at desire for a "universal leader" – as there seems to have been since JND's day – it is the fault of the people not those used in true leadership.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

THE  DECLINE  OF  THE  1950's

To: Phil Gasston
rgasstonATihug.co.nz
Kerikeri, Bay of Islands, New Zealand
Subject: E-mail, Sat, 18 Sep 1999
Fri, 01 Oct 1999

Dear Phil,
You pose a very interesting and important question:

All the evidence should be weighed carefully before coming to a conclusion.

Scriptural Viewpoint

The Scriptures give indications of how and when decline comes in.

Judges, which typifies the public history of the assembly, chronicles repeated decline and recovery. This is summed up in 2: 14-23 and highlighted in constant refrain,

It seems right to conclude that decline comes following victory or times of prosperity and peace, when there is a feeling of complacency, ease and self-satisfaction.

Comments of Others

In History: The First 50 Years: Our Conduct, CHM indicates that despite – and possibly because of – an increase in numbers 1850-75,

In an MB correspondent's private paper – which I cannot quote but hope eventually to be allowed to publish –

Mr. C. L. Nunnerley confirms the above in his 1960 paper History: Decline and Departure: Recent Developments. To save repetition, please review the whole paper.

My personal knowledge of those times is limited by age and experience.

Sectarian Ground before 1959 ?

As to your being "convinced that brethren were on sectarian ground sometime before 1959" as a result of reading the 'Zurich Letters', I cannot find enough evidence to agree with you.

Were the brethren completely and universally leavened "sometime before 1959"? This would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove

I have no doubt that before 1959 there were many unconscionable and unrighteous individual and local actions by zealots –

It is not clear what the zealots thought to accomplish except to purge those who refused and opposed the recognition of the Spirit in prayer and worship.

It is perhaps less clear why those who refused and opposed the recognition of the Spirit in prayer and worship remained or what they thought, or hoped, might happen.

I am not sure I have adequately addressed all your points, having written this in a busy time – and I would be glad to have any comments you care to make.

In view of the importance of your question I plan to post this reply on the 'My Stand' page

With love in the Lord Jesus to you and Ruth and family,

Gordon.

Your guest entries and messages will show that
the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.

Page Top