My Stand: No. 1

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'.

• Many of the inquiries do not specifically relate to the stated objectives of the 'My Brethren' web site.

• Some out of brotherly concern – which I appreciate – others apparently out of curiosity have inquired as to my personal position in the present confused state.

• A few seem intent on convincing me to accept doctrinal views or ecclesiastical positions which I concluded were unscriptural many years ago.
  • Replies to such may seem to conflict with the Correspondence Policy that "A message … will not be posted or acknowledged if it … is merely promoting personal prejudices or partisan views rather than an objective view of the Holy Scriptures and the history of the assembly …"

  • For the present, I accept that the correspondents answered here have genuine exercises which rise above "promoting personal prejudices or partisan views".

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

• The names and messages of others are withheld to shield them from possible unwelcome e-mail.

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

• and to render, sometimes lengthy, replies to similar inquiries unnecessary.

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

• My objection to using divisive adjectives with the honoured name of 'brethren' remains unchanged.

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

• will understand if they are referred to this page and receive somewhat briefer replies than they might have otherwise expected.

• Inquiries relating to new matters will receive due attention, and replies will be posted here for the information of all.

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

• leading to a clearer and less biased understanding of the holy matter of the Sonship of the Lord Jesus, and how it is presented in the Scriptures.

• Alas, it now appears that – for the time being at least – this is not possible.

• I say this because in the interval it came to my attention that on January 13 – one day before your hopeful reply to me – a message from you had been posted on another web site.

• That message displays – if possible – a more rigid posture than your first e-mail to me of January 11.

• It casts grave doubt – in my mind – on the genuineness of your inquiry as to how I "could resolve this difficulty" – as to the apparent consequences of the sayings of certain servants –
  • and the value of further contacts while this attitude is maintained.

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:

• You say, "I think it would have been just if you had mentioned also in your web site that there are several hints that CAC abandoned the denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ (before He became flesh) shortly before his death."

• Note: The reunion in fact took place in 1974.
• "For myself I am thankful. I would have nothing whatever to do with any who refused FER's ministry. No one has helped me as he has – as to men I speak – … I am reading and enjoying FER now in my older years more than ever before".

• However, Mr. Hughes seems unaware that FER first suggested what later became clearer as to our Lord's Sonship. See 'Letters of F. E. Raven', pages 147-48 in Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ.

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.

• "But I must confess that, after considering this subject carefully and prayerfully for 30 years, I have not been able to find one", "Letters", page 201.

• The reference to "for 30 years" goes back to 1901, two years before Mr. Raven's death in 1903.

• This indicates that CAC obtained this thought from FER – as JT explicitly affirms for himself.

• After 30 years of consideration there would be no need for CAC to be pressured into supporting it in 1929, as Mr. Hughes alleges.

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:

• "… the letter of Mr. Lucas shows the extremes to which even an enlightened and estimable brother, as he undoubtedly was, may go in an obsessive opposition to certain persons and teachings.

• "It may be assumed that the harsh and unfair treatment which was meted out to Mr. Lucas justifies – what is to me, if to no one else – the unwarranted and acrimonious manner in which he writes.
  • "Be aware, however, that many have suffered as much as Mr. Lucas – and some substantially more.

  • "While such have a judgment of what has transpired, most have come through without that corrosive and embittered spirit, which inevitably contaminates and defiles others.

• "Mr. Lucas writes dogmatically – affecting an intimate and almost infallible knowledge – even when not present or too young to be a personal witness.
  • "He presumes to read minds and does not hesitate to attribute the most spiritually corrupt and sinister motives to all with whom he disagrees.

  • "His language is unrestrained, inflammatory and intemperate, being peppered with pejorative expressions.

• "As it would be both impractical and wearisome to note all of the many questionable or unsubstantiated statements and allegations,
  • "the serious reader – and I pray that this will not fall into the hands of any merely desiring titillation – should recognize that the critical faculty must be in constant exercise in reading the letter.

  • "Direct reference to the ministry which Mr. Lucas denigrates will show that his criticisms result from misinterpretation, prejudice and an inexcusable disregard of the scope of Scriptural teaching".

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.

• This can be readily accepted because if there was "documentary evidence" it would undoubtedly have been produced triumphantly by Mr. Hughes or Mr. Lucas.

• Mr. Lucas continues "because he only disclosed them verbally to trusted friends".

• Mr. Hughes says CAC "agreed with me that John 17: 24-25 settled beyond doubt the question of the Son's eternal relationship with the Father". This is an ambiguous statement that proves nothing.

• It is not clear whether Mr. Hughes is claiming to be one of the "trusted friends"; if Mr. Lucas was one, he doubtless would have said so but if not how then did he come to know so much.

• After all, we are left with the inadmissible testimony of anonymous "trusted friends".

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.

• Can any who have read and profited from the ministry of CAC – who wrote so cogently and powerfully on our Lord's Sonship – believe Mr. Lucas's weak and miserable portrayal of this beloved servant? Certainly I cannot.

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".

• How did Mr. Lucas know JT "refused to answer him"? Did he learn this from JT personally? Or are we to believe that JT publicized that he "refused to answer" CAC?

• Even if – and this point has not been established – CAC actually wrote it is quite possible, even probable, that either his letter did not arrive or JT's reply did not arrive.
  • Did Mr. Lucas forget that it was war time and that many ships were sunk on the Atlantic crossing and mail – the least important of the losses – was lost.

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.

• "It was at this time he expressed his deep regrets to some close friends that he had ever allowed himself to be involved in the 'Sonship' controversy …

• "JT and his wife, who were in this country when CAC died, were invited to be at his burial, but did not come. When someone asked Mrs. JT why, she replied that it would have meant missing a meeting!"

Regarding the above, I appended a note:

• "Mr. Coates died Lord's Day, Oct. 7, 1945, in his 83rd year. Whether attending the burial at Teignmouth on Thursday, Oct. 11, – with the necessary travel – 'would have meant missing a meeting' – hearsay at best – is not clear,
  • "but 'Ministry by J. Taylor', 56, 57, 60, 93, 100 show how heavily committed JT – himself an old man in his 76th year – was to service in the UK in Sept.-Nov. 1945, his first visit since before the war.

  • "He had just served in three meetings each day on Oct. 4-5 at Croydon. On the day of CAC's death, JT was at Cranleigh. He suggested 1 Sam. 16: 11-13; 25: 1-3 for the reading, saying,

• " 'The thought is to see how when occurrences arise affecting the saints, tending to sadden, and perhaps to weaken our faith, the Spirit of God brings Christ and the assembly before us … David is on the scene, Samuel yet alive and serving, but … his death was pending, his service was well-nigh finished …

• " 'I hope the brethren will understand … its application; for the Lord would surely be with us in view of our loss;' [ death of CAC ] 'and yet we would not be thinking unduly of it but would understand the full position that "Christ is everything and in all", Col. 3: 11', JT 93: 370.

• "The allusion to Samuel's death honours CAC, who would undoubtedly desire that Christ and the assembly should be before the saints as a result of his ministry".

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

• First the minister – JT in this instance – is discredited by an anonymous report and the way the report – even if it has a tenuous basis in fact – is worded.

• If the minister can be discredited through his alleged actions or inactions, then it is just a short step to discredit his ministry,
  • for many will reject the ministry – no matter whether it is Scriptural or not – simply because the reputation of the minister has been besmirched.

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

• Paul exposes the tactics of his accuser in 2 Cor. 10: 10; "because his letters, he" i.e., the anonymous accuser "says, are weighty and strong, but his presence in the body weak, and his speech naught".

• The attempt was to discredit Paul personally, and thus to discredit his ministry.

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

• "the statements to which referred last night seem to manage to besmirch the reputations of both of these servants" CAC and JT
  • "although, perhaps, in the main being used by him in his efforts to undermine the ministry of JT Senior by attacking the man personally, a by-no-means unusual ploy in such situations".

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

• "Regarding what you write about wondering why Mr. JT Senior did not write 'any letter' to Mr. CAC during the last several years of his life – CAC's –

• "you are assuming that this is so just because there is none printed in the volumes of JT's letters after that of February 16, 1938, 'Letters of JT' 2: 116.

• "However, it is very obvious – or should be – that every letter that JT Senior wrote is not in these volumes, particularly when we consider that these were not printed until three years after his death and that the brethren were asked to send in such letters to the compilers for possible inclusion in these two volumes.
  • "Photostats were not available then as now so that copies of all letters sent were not kept.

• "Furthermore, the volume of CAC's letters printed after his death by WMB contains no letter whatever to JT Senior or, indeed, any reference to JT at all throughout its pages;

• "does this mean that CAC never wrote to JT Senior? Of course not, as the letter from JT to CAC shows. 'Letters of JT' 2: 398.

• "Does it mean that CAC had no respect for JT Senior? Of course not, but that you or I should be 'wondering' or 'thinking it strange' is evidence of the effect of such unfounded and unsubstantiated reports upon us.

• "This is why the anonymity should be stripped from these 'accusers' still around at the present time, so that light may shine not darkness prevail.

"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 …

• "and JT Junior regarding whom I need to tell you nothing except that he was not at all well disposed towards CAC or his ministry in the year or two prior to his – JT Junior's – death in October 1970 and may, indeed, have harboured such feelings earlier – although unknown to brethren generally – so that he might well have 'edited out' or omitted letters between his father and CAC

• "I do not say that he did, but merely point out that it was not unlikely that this might have been so, although he and Stollery would have been dependent on CAC's executors – of his estate – to provide letters from JT Senior to CAC which might still have existed".

A-w. R.

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

• reflecting on the integrity of two honoured servants and the reliability of their ministry demanded the matter be examined fully.

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.

• I have heard all of the stories about CAC changing his mind at the end of his life regarding what he had taught about the Lord's sonship. I do not believe it!!!

• There are several quotations in his very late writings (1942) [CAC died in 1945] that tell me this is probably untrue. If anything his statements are stronger in 1942 then they were earlier. They are:

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.

• Of course, this will immediately open up the charge that the ministry that has been printed by KBT in later years has been tampered with by the Bible Trust.

• This is not true either as Mr. Frank Frost [a KBT trustee] showed me several photocopies of some of the then lately discovered CAC notes in the early 80s and they were not tampered with.

• I was just interested in reading the discussion of this issue on the website and thought I would comment.

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.

• I made serious inquiries about this very subject in 1976-1980 and Aunt Mina (Taylor) and Uncle Phil (Hamilton) both assured me that they never heard JT make one bad remark about CAC and they, for all intents and purposes, lived with him.

• CAC, on the other hand, makes some very interesting comments in his ministry regarding JT and I thought it might be helpful to put these rumors to rest with documentation. CAC said:

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,

• "I was quite astonished to find that you put some of my remarks on your web-site and also that you mentioned my name in some places. I am not fond of this".

• Because I realize that some may have valid reasons for their names or messages not to be posted, particular attention is directed on the home page to Guests: Policies: Anonymity – Correspondence – Site Standards – which I suggest you check.

• It is clearly indicated that names and correspondence may be posted, unless a specific request is made otherwise.

• This matter was also reviewed in detail in Guests: My Stand 2: Privacy in which the right to post replies from MB is maintained.

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.

• In one instance regarding Mr. Coates and our Lord's Sonship, I posted my reply only and without your name, as you said you wanted to write "privately".

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.

• Therefore, any references to your name on MB will be deleted as soon as it is practical.

• But let me assure you that you are not alone in desiring to uphold the honour of the Lord Jesus.

• Without any doubt and with great thankfulness I can say, with you and all who love Him, that "the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed me with His precious blood".

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 ..."

• Please check the Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ: Introduction, which you may have overlooked. That matter is openly considered there.

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.

• I, and others, have absolutely no doubt as to our Lord's full Deity.

• But it is exactly that assurance which convinces and convicts that the idea of 'eternal' sonship – inherited from the creeds – is derogatory to the glory of Christ and demeaning to the greatness of His holy Person.

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

• It was Mr. Darby's ministry on 2 Timothy 2 that convicted me as a young man to withdraw from an 'open' meeting. I have learned much from him and many others.
  • But all their ministry must be tested by the Scriptures.

• I have no doubt, having reviewed the ministry of the last 170 years in detail, that all the truth was not made clear immediately to our honoured brethren at the beginning of the recovery.

• The Spirit has served patiently over the years to bring out the great treasures in the Scriptures, long hidden since the apostles' day.

• Sadly, there are many who do not recognize the continuing service of the Spirit and, in my judgment, have rejected the fresh opening up of the Scriptures.

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.

• I am definitely not criticizing EBI, but wonder about the consistency of your convictions as to being identified with any who may, in your opinion, dishonour the Lord Jesus.

• If I understand correctly, EBI does not take a stand on doctrinal issues.
  • However some, at least, of its other contributors would definitely disagree with your position and would share the views expressed on MB as to our Lord's Sonship.

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

• As to such publications as 'The Eternal Relationships in the Godhead'
  • the bold presumption to define holy and unrevealed pre-incarnate relationships has been fully answered and exposed in ministry by CAC and others.

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.

• As you may suspect, most of my time is required in the updating of MB and the normal correspondence that develops.

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.

• An examination of the scriptures to which you refer and some others – in their context – will serve to bring out the truth, and will show that the common view is erroneous and fallacious.

• John 3: 17: Clearly "the world" is a moral concept and refers to men – not the earth – and the judgment of the world refers to those men who have not believed on the Son.

• Galatians 4: 4: The One referred to as the Son had already "come of a woman, come under law" – alluding to the incarnation – before being subsequently sent forth. "God sent forth" is not referring to place – certainly not heaven – but from God, which John 1: 6 following makes clear.

• John 1: 6: "There was a man sent from God, his name John". John was not sent from heaven although "sent from God". It is a moral idea. John was commissioned by God.
  • This is confirmed by the words used by Nicodemus, "Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God", John 3: 2. Nicodemus was not saying that he and others believed that Jesus came from heaven.

• John 1: 9: Again, the world is clearly the world of men. As we learn from the synoptic gospels the earth – the creation – recognized Him stilling the wind and waves etc. – even the demons recognized him. It was the men of the world in general "who knew him not" and "his own" men, the Jews, "who received him not".

• 1 John 4: 1-6, 14: Again the world is the world of men who "hears them" – the false prophets – whereas "he that knows God hears us" – the apostles.

• Besides sickness, traveling to Europe and some other urgent matters, I was waiting for some literature from KBT.

• I ordered a very helpful booklet by CAC on that important topic Remarks on a pamphlet by A. J. Pollock, entitled 'The Eternal Son'.

• Thank you so much for your extensive reply. It was really of great help.

• After reading your remarks and those of CAC and, more importantly, studying the Scriptures I am not aware of any reason to believe in an 'eternal sonship'.

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

• "but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of a woman, come under law …"

• Your comment: "The One referred to as the Son had already 'come of a woman, come under law' – alluding to the incarnation – before being subsequently sent forth. "God sent forth" is not referring to place – certainly not heaven – but from God, which John 1: 6 following makes clear".

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.

• I tried to find out the tense of 'genomenon', the Greek word used for come or beccome, derived from 'ginomai'. Unfortunately I tried in vain so far.

• Jay Green translates: "having come into being out of a woman, having come under Law," Galatians 4: 4.

• His translation – I am not sure whether he is correct in translating so – makes it clear that the coming was first and the sending forth subsequently.

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

• In your correspondence with them I could not find any good argument based on Scripture.

• And sadly, they seem to write in an unloving spirit. It certainly would be of more help if they would contribute in a constructive way.

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

• Thank you once again for your efforts, I deeply appreciate your ministry.

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.

• While I, and perhaps you, might question certain remarks, AEM's reply to Stuart Price is interesting – See Biography: A. E. Myles: Correspondence.

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

• I do not use it in that sense, which is how it has been misused by the JTJr sect who turned it into an authoritarian instrument of repression.

• The Lord Jesus alone has "the power to demand or command", although it is also said, "Obey your leaders", Heb. 13: 17.

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.

• It is also used this way commonly. For example, I have two technical books on the internet which claim to be authoritative, that is reliable and trustworthy.

• The following support this meaning.
  • "And they were astonished at His doctrine, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes", Mark 1: 22.

  • "As a man ... having left his house and given to his bondsmen the authority, and to each one his work", Mark 13: 34.

  • "Reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and laying down", Acts 17: 2-3.

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

• In Ephesians 4 the gifts are given by the ascended Christ. Have they no authority from Him?

• In 1 Corinthians 12, the "gifts … services … operations" in the body are each "the manifestation of the Spirit" and further "God has set certain in the assembly …", all pointing to divinely exercised and divinely given authority.

• And Peter adds, "If any one speak – as oracles of God", 1 Peter 4: 11.

• What is any ministry worth if it is not 'authoritative' in the sense I use the term?

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,

• "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes", Judges 17: 6, etc.

• I believe it is a divine principle – in all ages – that is set out in Judges 2: 18: "And when Jehovah raised them up judges, then Jehovah was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge".

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.

• 2 Cor. 11: 13-15; 2 Tim. 2: 16-18; Titus 1: 10-11; 2 Peter 2: 1-3; Rev. 2: 2, etc.
• We are not to be misled by such, but neither should we refuse the concept of authority in ministry. Under the Lord, it has been, and is, for our blessing.

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.

• But I do see that in the 2nd sense which you mention it is clearly scriptural. "I too am a man under authority" should be our language.

• As we submit to authority we have authority, in the home, workplace or Christian circle.

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.

• I do not believe this was ever contemplated in the ministry of JT and others, contemporary or previous.

• The adjective 'authoritative' does not imply that ministry, of whoever, is in itself 'the authority'.

• The original and ultimate authority is God, and this comes to us through the inspired Scriptures ministered in the power of the Spirit by bondmen of the Lord.

• Of course the individual who is subject to the Spirit can get the gain of this personally through prayerful reading of the Scriptures. But an uninstructed believer – as many of us are – may need, and will surely be thankful for, divinely provided help from another to understand, as did the Ethiopian eunuch. Acts 8: 26-40.

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.

• It seemed to me the union issue was a test to the blue collar worker and the professional association a test to the white collar.

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.

• In any case, there is always much to be gained by an open and frank exchange between persons who are willing to have their views, however cherished, examined in the light of the Scriptures and in dependence upon the Spirit.

• It is one of the distinguishing features of a weak system – whether governmental or religious – that any criticism, however honest and constructive, is feared above all else and therefore must be suppressed.

Low Spiritual State

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'

• but spoke of "fresh truths coming out, things that perhaps the early Christians did not touch".
• He also referred to the Lord's exhortation, "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies", Revelation 2: 7, etc.

• In view of the Lord's teaching as to the service of the Spirit in John 16: 13-14 – and as to "a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things you and old", Matthew 13: 52 – JT's remarks seem reasonable and just.

• In any case "fresh truths" are not the equivalent of new rules and regulations.

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

• But to leave matters there without the practical recognition of the Spirit's service among the saints would be to fall short of the Lord's teaching and Paul's ministry.

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

• "If we relied more on the temple of God in the place, I am sure we would get our questions answered quicker and better than by writing 3,000 miles away".

• "If we went by the Scriptures more, we should arrive at the truth quicker".

• This is a sober approach and doesn't open the door for present-day practices.

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:

• "So I am therefore interested to hear what you think regarding the leadup to not only the 1959 meetings with GRC but also the latter years of JT's life – not the ministry but the conditions amongst the saints".

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

• But sadly there is, to my knowledge at least, not a great deal of evidence. There are now few elder brethren available who could shed light on the increasing declension which characterized those years.

Scriptural Viewpoint

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,

• "Our spiritual tone, both in private life and in our public reunions, is sorrowfully low. There is that sad lack of depth and power in our assemblies. There is excessive feebleness in worship and ministry".

• This state was reflected in a satisfaction with objective truth leading to the refusal of spiritual ministry in the 1880's and resulting in four major divisions.

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

• many evidences are given of a steady growth of individual and collective pride and self-satisfaction in the periods before and after JT's death.

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.

• See also What went Wrong? : Low Spiritual State and Repentance on this page.

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

• I do know that in the early 1950's, while outwardly things were orderly, there was looseness and there were social cliques in Toronto at least – for at that time I knew little of brethren even in nearby cities.

• For some time before – and increasingly after – JT's death, there was much speculation as to who would succeed him and Corinthian-type vocal support for various servants,
  • which I do not believe that JT or any of those prominent in service before him would countenance for a moment.

• This is evidence of a low state which led up to the 1959 crisis and ultimately to the shameful events of 1970.

Sectarian Ground before 1959 ?

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

Page Top