VOL. XXXI February 1948
No. 2 Doctrines More or Less Important Trouble in Anglican Church Circles
THE ATTACK
of spiritual indigestion from which many of the Church of England hierarchy have been
suffering, has recently been brought to the attention of the ecclesiastical world by means
of the doctrinal controversy now raging between the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head
of the English Church, and his subordinate prelate, Dr. Barnes, the radical-minded Bishop
of Birmingham. The matter which is causing so much stir in the ranks of the orthodox is
the subject matter of a book written and published by the latter clergyman under the
title, "The Rise of Christianity." In his book Dr. Barnes expresses views of so
heretical a nature that the Primate has requested his immediate resignation from his
office of Bishop, a demand to which Dr. Barnes has replied with an unqualified refusal.
The volume to which the Archbishop objects so strongly consists, in essence, of an open
attack upon not only the cherished dogmas of the Episcopacy, but actually upon the
foundation principles of the Christian faith itself. Many of the
communicants of the Established Church have used the columns of the public press to voice
their feelings in the matter in no uncertain terms, in consequence of which, the issue has
become one of the gravest importance throughout Protestant Christendom. In this connection
it is a significant fact to note that apparently almost fifty per cent of the writers take
their stand in support of the Bishop of Birmingham, who, it must be admitted, is merely
giving expression to views long held in private by the Modernistic clergy of Christendom,
but rarely proclaimed in such outspoken language. To those in
the light of present truth the situation should occasion no great surprise. The attacks,
either open or veiled, made by the proponents of the "rationalistic" school upon
the basic doctrines of Christianity have been in almost daily progress since the
acceptance by many of the clergy of the "findings" of the exponents of the
Higher Criticism and those of its companions in error, the
evolutionists. The battle being waged by the so-called rationalists against the
supernatural phenomena of the New Testament has been duly noted by all "Bible
Students." Dr. Barnes
selects as special targets for his abuse, those doctrines of the faith which teach of the
virgin birth of our Lord and his nativity in the royal city of Bethlehem, etc. The story
of the virgin birth he carefully "explains" is based upon a mistranslation of
a Hebrew word meaning "young woman," so that in reality there was no miraculous
element about it at all. We quote his words regarding "the supernatural aspects of
Christ's life," which he informs us arose "from credulous rumor, symbolic
writing, and literary embroidery [in other
words, pure fiction] incorporated into the New Testament many years after his death."
Developing his theme the Bishop suggests that "such details as the birth at
Bethlehem, the flight to Egypt, and the return to Nazareth, were written into the Gospel
story to make it look as
if ancient prophecies had been fulfilled." He maintains that the date of
Christ's birth has been wrongly placed and that "Christ possibly lived until fifty.
But it is against the testimony of the witnesses to our Lord's resurrection that the
learned Bishop levels his particular shafts. According to the reverend gentleman, the
disciples and Mary, who went to the sepulcher and found that the Lord had risen, were
apparently victims of an optical delusion and suffered from some form of
auto-intoxication. In other words their desire to have the miracle of the resurrection
take place was so strong that they were able to convince themselves that the event had
actually occurred, something which the Bishop manifestly disbelieves entirely. In his
attack upon the credibility of such witnesses as Peter, John, and Mary, Dr. Barnes evinces
the characteristic distrust shown by many scholars of the value of the testimony of those
whom he terms "ill-educated proletariat," meaning by that, the common people of
our Lord's day. How true it is that the natural mind receiveth not the things of the
spirit. The skepticism of the Bishop closely parallels that of the rulers of Israel who
"when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were
unlearned and ignorant men marveled." (Acts 4:13.) Unlike the rulers, however, who
attributed the power of the Apostles to the fact that "they had been with
Jesus," the Bishop evidently considers the witnesses to the resurrection to have been
merely credulous fools, suffering from an over-excited state of mind. We submit that this
is,. to say the least, a strange position to be taken by one who professes to be a
Christian believer and who commands a handsome salary as a Bishop with a responsibility
for feeding the flock of God. One of the
writers referred to who criticizes Dr. Barnes, also rebukes the Archbishop for the stand
he takes in the controversy. He comments on the fact that the Primate has passed over in
silence "the most salient point in the book," namely, the clear implication by
the writer that he considers Christ to have been no more than a prophet and an ethical
philosopher, who claimed for himself no more affinity with God than any other good man
might acquire. Then he goes on to assert that "on this issue the majority of
Christians would support the church in urging Dr. Barnes to resign." But the
Archbishop has stopped short- at the point of merely disagreeing with Barnes'
conclusions that the resurrection of Christ belongs to the -sphere of religious symbolism and is not a historical fact. "In fact," says the writer,
"many orthodox Christians share this view" (that the resurrection of our Lord
is not a fact) "and that this position is approved in the report of the Commission
on Christian Doctrine." "Can it
be," he continues, "that the Archbishop feared to raise this most crucial
issue"? The meaning of the writer here becomes somewhat obscure, but he is apparently
trying to say that although the claim of the Apostles that our Lord rose from the dead is
one generally repudiated by the Modernistic clergy, the Archbishop feared to say so in as
many words. It is, indeed, a crucial issue, for it is a doctrine which has constituted the
foundation for the hopes of every Christian. The great Apostle Paul reasons in his epistle
most logically, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain, ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor. 15:17.) And then in verse 20 (1 Cor. 15:20)
he concludes exultantly, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the
first-fruits of them that slept,"' and all who have been permitted to understand the
blessed philosophy of the Atonement will take their stand with the great teacher of
Christian doctrine. Another
writer on the subject makes this truly remarkable statement: "I find no
stumbling-block to my faith in Dr. Barnes' views." It would seem pertinent to
inquire of this gentleman, "Of what faith are you speaking?" If the views
expressed by such an expositor were to be regarded as correct, then it would follow that
all Christians had been believing in cunningly devised fables for 1900 years, and that our
Lord and his Apostles have been guilty of the most flagrant falsehoods; for Jesus
predicted and the Apostles bore testimony to the fact of his resurrection, and upon
their testimony has rested the faith of every Christian throughout the Age. If the
skepticism of Dr. Barnes is an accurate reflection of the views of even a small proportion
of his communicants, how thankful we are that we do not share then. Truly the words of
Jesus are being fulfilled: "When the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the
earth?" - Luke 18:8. - J. R.
Hughes. His Word is Sure
Mathematicians
have worked out, a formula for proving the accuracy of any prediction. They call it the
law of Compound Probabilities. It runs something like this: One prediction has one chance
in two of fulfilment. An added detail weakens the chance to one- in four. Two added
details weakens the chance to one in eight. Three added details weakens the chance to one
in thirty-two. Ten added details increases the hazard to one in 1024. Twenty-five added
details makes the fulfilment practically impossible, for the hazard is increased too one
in 33,554,432. The Old
Testament Scriptures predicted that Jesus Christ would visit this world in the form of
human flesh, and from first to last they added, 109 details to this prediction.
Twenty-five of these details were connected with the
betrayal, trial, death, and burial of our Lord. Such predictions seemed absurd and
unbelievable, and were made by the Prophets over a period of 500 years, many centuries
before the advent occurred. On turning
to the records as found in the four Gospels, we find that every one of these predictions
was literally fulfilled in the space of twenty-four hours. Should any
one be sufficiently interested to apply this test further, and would take the time to
figure the hazard taken in making 109 predictions concerning the advent of Christ, he
would likely have a line of figures many yards in length, yet, the records show that every
prediction was accurately fulfilled in the space of thirty three years. - Prophecy
Monthly. The Unity of the Spirit
"Endeavoring to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace." - Eph. 4:3. THE UNITY of
all who are true believers in the shed blood of Christ as an atonement for sin, is surely
one of those very desirable objectives properly hoped and prayed for by all who love our
Lord in sincerity. Ever since Jesus himself prayed to the Father nineteen hundred years
ago, fervently requesting that his followers share in a blessed oneness with God and
himself, there have been longing hearts who have taken up the prayer in a sincere desire
to see such oneness present in the Church. And how could it be otherwise in the life of
any believer who really loved the Lord Jesus? No one who loved him could long remain a stranger
to those strong impulses of deep affection that constrained him to pray for the most
perfect unity and loving, harmony among his people. And he would surely expect to find
them equally concerned about the possible effect such love and concord would have upon
the world outside. Remembering that his Church would be in the world to carry forward a
testimony of his coming into the realms of men to save them THE WHEAT IN THE MIDST OF TARES
If Jesus
cannot be satisfied in the depths of his love for us with anything short of the oneness
set forth in his prayer -- the oneness of the divine family -- it follows then that the
actual experience of such unity among his followers must represent a wonderful possibility
of blessing, a state where the fellowship of such kindred minds would indeed be like to
that above. But as we look back over the history of the Church which has stood before the
world, and recall the discords, and the failures to measure up in any outstanding manner
to the standards of love and unity our Lord has asked for, it is not surprising to find
oneself feeling that nothing but disappointment has been the portion of the Head of the
Church in this matter. However, with the better understanding of the purposes of God which
we now enjoy, we can see that, deplorable as the records are, they are not entirely a
story of defeat and vain hopes. In the wisdom
of God there has been a ministry of evil permitted throughout this present Age, and the
Enemy has not been kept out of the field, but permitted to scatter his tares freely in
every quarter where the good seed has been sown. God's Word will enable the true Christian
to discern the difference between the Church of which Jesus is the Head, and amongst
whom alone the unity of the spirit can possibly be found, and the church which fills the
earth with its Christian name and its worldly standards and compromises. With this fact
clearly understood, we can know that notwithstanding all that history reveals of strife,
and even of bloodshed among those professing the name of Jesus, yet, after all, Jesus has
not experienced disappointment. The unity of the Spirit has never left the earth since
Pentecost, and praise be to God, it will never be permitted to depart from the earth
"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ." MANY EFFORTS MADE TO UNIFY BELIEVERS
In a general
way may it not be truthfully said that the real purpose behind many of the efforts made
toward unity in the past, and behind some present undertakings in the religious world, has been in a considerable degree honest,
and therefore to that extent commendable. If the past has witnessed frequent attempts
by ambitious men to inaugurate a unity of force, whose lording it over God's heritage has
left the deep stain of persecution on church history, surely it must be admitted that
other men have come forward' actuated by nobler motives and unselfish ideals, genuinely
striving to bring about a more harmonious fellowship in Christ. Mistaken views regarding
the unity Jesus desired, have been many. Abortive schemes to end divisions, which the
Apostle said must come that the approved might be manifested, have long been in
evidence. Creeds, written and unwritten, have flourished and have in one form or another
contained substantial and thoroughly Scriptural features, and it cannot be denied that
the prime movers in some of these very schemes were true Christians, misinformed, but
nevertheless sincere. If we today feel disposed to question any or all of these
efforts,, we should surely do so with humility, and with a proper regard for the pure
intentions of all who have given evidence of love for God and his people. Had we ourselves
proved that we had passed beyond the possibility of endeavoring to carry out proper and
well meant purposes by questionable expedients, then we might be in a position to
consider ourselves competent to sit in judgment on others of the past and present. May
it not be that the passing of even a little more time will reveal that our vision has also
been in a very real sense "through a glass darkly." Some are learning even now,
with considerable
humiliation, that greater knowledge of God's Plan of salvation, and an opportunity to
profit by the mistakes of our brethren in darker days, has not removed the possibility of
being bound, hindered, disfellowshipped; and all because of a failure on the part of many
who speak freely enough of liberty in Christ, to really understand that law of love and
liberty, and who possess so little of that wonderful carnality -- destroying vision and
power -- "the unity of the Spirit." THE UNITY RESULTING FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT
One great
difficulty in uniting believers, and the underlying cause of so many failures in the various efforts
made, has been a failure to understand the most important element essential to a true
unity of the Spirit. All along there has been, and even yet there is an oversight of the
fact that the Word of God is very exacting when treating such matters. What men might
verily believe to be the unity
of the Scriptures, might
be, and indeed often is, nothing more than the unifying of ideas and objectives congenial to any
number of people, and often largely of human origin. The Christian world is full of that
kind of union, and we freely admit its existence. We must distinguish between the
union that is possible where a few people, or a hundred, meet or fellowship together,
sharing beliefs in common, and that union of-the same number of people who meet and enjoy a unity that is
distinctly the result of the Holy Spirit's work in the inner life of each believer thus
united. It is the failure to recognize this fact that has caused so much of harm, and
caused a multitude of sects and factions to deceive themselves with the idea that they
are, regardless of the error in their doctrine, the people among whom the unity of the
Spirit is found. Our danger is equally real, in employing such tests as seeing "eye
to eye" and others similar, and these can be a snare and a delusion, and will be such
unless there be a real vital relationship to the Lord himself. The true
unity has persisted throughout the Age. God has heard the prayer of Jesus for the
unity of his devoted followers. A kinship of spirit uniting every spiritual mind, an
affinity of love inherent in every true child of God, a oneness of whole-hearted devotion
to the person of Jesus Christ, flows out from heart to heart in a blessed sense of unity
when the "unity of the Spirit" is possessed in reality. When this unity is bound
up in our affections, it will sweep away all the barriers of dogma, span the centuries of
the Age, and into the depths of the heart there will come the most blessed realization
that Jesus has not prayed in vain for the oneness of his people. UNLESS THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE
Men can, as
we have seen, produce union, yes, and produce a unity that is wonderfully adhesive and
permanent. But men cannot by any means or methods create or perpetuate the unity of the
Spirit. Only the Spirit of God can produce the unifying results, set forth in our opening
text. The "unity of the Spirit" is therefore not a matter of bringing men into
harmony with each other on matters of teaching and practice, but it is positively a matter
of bringing individuals into a personal relationship with the Lord.
The Word-does not say, "If any man believes that Jesus died for our sins, and
associates himself with others of similar faith, the same is a new creature," but "If
any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. (2 Cor. 5:17.)
Certainly not otherwise can he be such, and the "unity of the Spirit" is
peculiarly limited to new creatures in Christ. Again we read, "There is one Body,
and one Spirit, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:4, 6.)
Accordingly, just in so far as a company of people may be made up of individuals living in
this vital relationship to Christ, and indwelt by the Father, just to that degree
can there be a unity of the Spirit. Sine it must be confessed that the proportion of those
thus indwelt is small, it follows that considerable variation must be expected in groups
who meet together, or who
may be met with from day
to day. It is seen then that Paul is not merely expressing a desire for uniformity of any
superficial kind, but he is laying down principles which concern those only who are
walking worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called, and who are earnest in their
desire to attain "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT
That there
is a work to be performed in us by the Holy
Spirit, there can be no doubt. That it was expedient that Jesus go away in order that
the Spirit might come and do in us what he himself could not have
done had he remained with us, is also clearly stated in the Scriptures. And that the work
of the Spirit is such as to need no mechanical innovations of ours to give
effect to its operations, or to meet peculiar situations in the Church, or to attract the
eyes of the world, has long been recognized by godly men. That the Lord's assurance that
"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit" has been the recognized basis of
all successful evangelism throughout the Age, may be known by all who will take the time
to familiarize themselves with church history. How strange it is then, in view of the
facts just stated, facts universally approved by most Christians, that- we hear so
little emphasis being placed on the work of the spirit. Theoretically all the above
mentioned facts are professedly embraced in the teachings of the majority of
believers, and yet when the real verities of the Scriptural teachings regarding the work
of the spirit in a fully surrendered life are emphasized, there seems to be a decided
barrier raised against such emphasis. This is all the more difficult to understand when it
is, observed that the same Christians seem utterly immune to any thought that their own
works could be other
than successful if all hindrances were removed from their path. Under these circumstances
how could we expect to find any very large number enjoying the "unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace"? Many men of many minds must inevitably find themselves
separated by personal preferences, ideas, and policies, while at the same time "the
Church which is his Body," moving along amongst the mixed multitude, continues to
sing, "My goal is Christ and Christ alone," and perpetuates within their deepest
affections the unity of the Spirit. THE PRIMARY FOUNDATION FOR UNITY
What then is
the work of the Holy Spirit by and through which true Christian unity may be definitely
experienced? In answer to such a question it would seem necessary to give emphasis to the
words of Jesus regarding a very important feature of the Spirit's work. Among other,
things Jesus said that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, and that through the
Spirit whatsoever things he had said would be brought to our remembrance. And we cannot
forget that our Lord also said on the basis of Peter's declaration, "Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God," that "On this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." Oh! that this statement of Jesus had been indelibly stamped on the
innermost chambers of every Christian's heart; and oh! that all believers past and present
had .remembered or would now remember Paul's equally emphatic statement, ."Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11.)
Had these great truths been always remembered, oh how much less of discord there would
have been. Then the oneness for which Jesus prayed would have been a blessed reality
in the Church, and it would today destroy numberless hindrances to the well-being of
that Body, which by God's unchangeable law, is built up by that which every single part
supplies. And this is
exactly what the Holy Spirit will do in us if it is permitted to take the words of Jesus
and reveal them unto us. The promise that we would be guided into all truth cannot mean
that we will be so completely informed that every vestige of truth will have been
compassed by us, for this would be contradicted by Paul's statement "now we know in
part." What the promise of Jesus assures us is that we will be enlightened up to the fullest
possible measure of our capacity to receive of the spirit. This promise must not be
claimed in any exclusive way by those of us who are now favored with clearer light on
times and seasons of the Divine Plan. The early Church could claim this precious promise
as fully and as gladly as we can, and that some of them realized its deepest meaning is
clearly revealed in the records. They caught the depth of the. Master's words, "I am the Truth," and they experienced so complete a
transformation of mind that all prejudices, religious and national, were swept away, and
"all one in Christ became a fixed principle of life. JESUS' PRAYER HEARD BY THE FATHER
The work of
the Holy Spirit is to bring together in a
''unity of the faith" all who love the Lord in sincerity -- yes, and to cause us to
love all who have thus loved him. Its work will be to break down all the barriers that our
inherent tendency to forbid all who walk not with us have raised, until it is realized that
in Christ Jesus "There is neither Jew nor Greek, their is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28.) Therefore, whoever forgets this fact
and proceeds to make such distinctions in the Body of Christ, does so in violation of the Word of God. And,
as we have just seen, this unity of the faith of which our text treats cannot mean the
complete understanding of all details of truth, neither does it demand a uniformity of belief on anything but
the clearly stated fundamentals of the faith. It must therefore follow that all believers
in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ whose characters give evidence of a living union
with him must be embraced by us in the unity of the Spirit. To insist on a more exclusive
application of these Scriptures, and to conclude that whatever of dispensational time
features some of us may now understand would be a test of membership in the Church or a
determining proof of one's being in the Little Flock, would seem to be carrying matters
much too far, and it would be an ignoring of same plain facts of Scripture which are
abundantly confirmed in the lives of godly men and women. Again, we say, the prayer of Jesus for the oneness of his Church has been heard by the Father, and that
Church "which is his Body" has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy the
"unity of the Spirit," as a blessed sense of relationship to all true saints
past and present. "This
is the work of God," said Jesus, "that ye believe on him whom he hath
sent." The written Word is all built up around the Living Word, around the person and
sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and therefore, whoever he be, and whatever his work in the
edification of the saints may be, if this fact stands out pre-eminently in his life and
service, such an one is on the foundation, other than which none can be laid. Blessed
indeed, therefore is the heart prepared to receive into full fellowship all such, as
sharers together with us of the grace of God. Someone has suggested that "All roads
over which human limitations hold sway, lead to Rome, but all roads: where the Spirit is
permitted leadership will lead to the person of Jesus Christ." No argument is
necessary to prove that this is so. There will be no more of anything like "I am
of Paul," "I am of Cephas," etc., when the work of the Spirit has taught us
God's unifying fundamentals of the truth as it is in Christ our common Lord. - J. J. Blackburn. (To be continued) Cooperation in the Ministry(Installment No. 4) In the
January, February, and April 1947 issues of this journal, we published, under the above
caption, a number of letters which had passed between the Dawn Bible Students Association
and our Institute. Since then there has been a further exchange of correspondence, as
follows: May 20, 1947 PASTORAL
BIBLE INSTITUTE Dear
Brethren: Christian
love and greetings in our Redeemer's name! Your letter
of February 12 received, and we thank you for it. In reply we wish first to confirm the
arrangements for a meeting of our Trustees with your Board of Directors on the evening
of June 9. 11, it is agreeable we will be glad to come to 177 Prospect Place for the
meeting, and will endeavor to be there by 7:30 o'clock. In your
letter you have set forth a fairly comprehensive outline of your viewpoint, and
the reasons for it; and in order that we may have both sides before us in our cording
conference, we wish now, in reply to your letter, to set forth our understanding of the
Lord's will as it applies to the work of the Dawn Bible Students Association. In this way
we will have something definite to consider when we meet. The gist of
your letter indicates that the real difference between our viewpoints is in the matter
of what constitutes qualifications for teachers to serve the Church. We agree that this is
the fundamental difference between us. If we' understand your viewpoint correctly, you
seem to make no distinction between doctrinal standards for general fellowship among the
brethren and qualifications for teachers. We hold, on the other hand, that the Scriptures
reveal that the doctrinal standard for general fellowship is not necessarily the same as
for teachers in the Church. An
impressive Scriptural example of this is found in the Book of Hebrews. In chapter 3, verse
1, the Apostle addresses those to whom lie is writing as "holy brethren, partakers of
the heavenly calling." There is no question, therefore, about their standing in the
Church as brethren, but in chapter 5, verse 12, the Apostle makes it plain that these
"holy brethren" were not qualified to be teachers, although they had been in the
truth long enough to have attained such qualifications. We think you will agree with us
that the Apostle was not intolerant, nor restricting Christian liberty, in pointing this
fact out to the Hebrew Christians. Instead of
these "holy brethren" being qualified to teach, they required that solve one
teach them again what constituted the first principles of the oracles of God. These first
principles as outlined by the Apostle himself in chapter 6, verses 1-6, include all the
points of doctrine you brethren have set forth as qualifications for teachers, and more.
The Hebrew Christians had not qualified as teachers, because they had never progressed
beyond these first principles -- they had not gone on to perfection. Regardless of -what
we may understand the Apostle to mean by "going on to perfection" the point is
clearly established that those whom we may properly recognize as "holy
brethren" may not necessarily be doctrinally qualified to teach in the Church. Again, the
very fact that Paul takes the trouble to set forth qualifications for elders proves, we
believe, that it is Scriptural to make a distinction between fellowship and eldership,
and that it is not a curtailment of Christian liberty to do so. In the
qualifications, set forth by this inspired writer the, statement "apt to
teach" is, we think, very significant. We hold that this implies more, much more,
than merely the ability to impart knowledge to others. A person might be highly gifted
with the ability to impart information, but first he must possess .the information
himself. A professor of mathematics is apt to teach mathematics only because he
understands mathematics. So it is in
the Church. Aptness to teach in the Church involves the necessity of clearness in the
truth which is essential for the people of God to know, for how can one be apt to teach
the truth if he is not himself clear in the truth? This, it seems to us, is so obvious
that it needs no further clarification. Nevertheless the Apostle does clarify the point
further by saying that a bishop (elder) should not be a novice-margin, "one newly
come to the faith." One new in the truth is not likely to have all the points of the
truth clear, nor has he had the necessary background of experience to make him a safe
teacher in the Church. Is there not
even a greater danger of making one a teacher who, once knowing the truth, has departed
from some important phases of it? The novice is not qualified because he has not yet
proved his stability, but a brother who has departed from some phases of the truth has
demonstrated that he is indeed one who can be blown about by every wind of doctrine. The
novice may some day become sable, but the erring brother has become unstable, hence
disqualified as a teacher. And Paul
continues his lesson of what it means to be a faithful teacher in the Church. In the
opening of the 4th chapter of 1 Timothy he says that in the latter times "some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." He
then enumerates some of the errors, and in the 6th verse adds, "If thou put the
brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,
nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast
attained." Could the
Apostle have stated more clearly that to be a good minister of Jesus Christ one should be
well nourished and built up in the faith and in the doctrines, and be able and willing to
"put the brethren in remembrance" of the fact that some are departing from
the faith, and to warn the Lord's people against seducing spirits? We think not. The
climax of this lesson comes in the statement, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the
doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and then
that hear thee." That Paul's
use of the term "doctrine" applies to more than godly living is clear in his
second epistle to Timothy, where he writes further to this young servant of the Church,
saying, "Study to skew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the Word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15.) It is well for all of the
Lord's people to take heed to this counsel, for we are all "workmen" for the
Lord: but its first application was to Timothy, an elder in the Church, showing him
that if he was to be a servant or workman approved by God it was essential for him to
rightly divide the Word of Truth. The importance of rightly dividing the Word of truth
appears three verses later in this chapter, where Paul writes that some had erred,
"saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
The Scriptures clearly teach the doctrine of the resurrection, but failing to rightly
divide the Word of truth, some were putting the resurrection in the wrong place,
chronologically. And these errors, Paul says, were eating like a cancer, which is the
effect of all error. Paul then
admonishes Timothy to be faithful in combating error, but in doing so, to be gentle,
avoiding foolish and unlearned questions which engender strife, and then adds, "apt
to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God
peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy
2:24, 25.) Here, then, is an inspired viewpoint of what a teacher in the Church should
be and do. And how different it is than the idea that because some one has a different
understanding of certain doctrines, those doctrines become controversial, hence should be
ignored in order to have peace in the Church. And to us it seems still worse to set up
as teachers those who are unsound in the truth, thus encouraging them to introduce their
errors which will eat as a canker among the Lord's people, causing a breakdown of faith in
the verities of the truth and confusion in the ecclesias. In Titus
1:9, Paul sets forth as one of the qualifications of teachers the ability "by sound
doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Here again "aptness to
teach" the truth is seen to include soundness in the truth. And to be pleasing to the
Lord such a one must be willing to uphold the doctrines, not remain silent about them. The
foregoing are a few Scriptural reasons why we believe that teachers iii the Church should
be sound in the truth, and zealous for its promotion. We are happy to recognize many as
brethren in the Lord whom we feel do not measure up to this doctrinal standard for
teachers. If one should come into our meetings and state simply that he believed in the
blood of Jesus and was devoted to the service of God, we would not say to such; "You
are not a Christian." He might believe in
eternal torture and the trinity, but still we would not disfellowship him. We would
welcome him at our meetings, hoping thus to have an opportunity to help him see the truth
more clearly. We believe,
however, you will agree with us that there is a vast difference between taking this
liberal viewpoint of all professing Christians and the possible sponsoring of them as
teachers. This distinction being so obvious, it then remains only to determine where to
make the difference. But wherever we draw the line, we think it should be apparent that to
do so is not in itself unscriptural, nor the suppression of Christian liberty. We think it
is important to recognize, however, that wherever we do draw the line, we can do so only
for ourselves, and not, for others. The Dawn Bible Students Association has no Scriptural
authority to tell an ecclesia what its standard for teachers should be. However, we do
have the right and the responsibility to have such a standard as a service organization,
and it is with the hope that we can agree on what a proper standard should be that we
are glad to continue these discussions. Coming now
to some of the details of your correspondence, we will take the liberty of making a few
observations. In kindness we say that we feel you have made too much of the expression
"confession of faith," as though, we have, or are attempting to establish, a
written creed for the brethren, especially the Pilgrim brethren. We do not feel that
this is necessary. We become sufficiently well acquainted with brethren to know their
views, to know their rejoicing in the truth and their zeal for all of its doctrines,
before we ask them to serve. We believe this is the proper method. To send an unknown
brother out in the Pilgrim service simply because
he might be willing to sign a "confession of faith," as you put it, would be
exceedingly unwise, as we see it. But let us
not be misunderstood. We see nothing wrong, when circumstances require it, for any
brother to sign a statement of where he stands on matters of truth. We have in mind at
the moment the custom of some ecclesias to send such a statement to brethren appointed to serve them as
Pilgrims. We think this is eminently proper. In many instance ecclesias have no other way
of determining the doctrinal qualifications of a brother, and as a servant of the Lord
and the truth, any brother under such circumstances should be happy to let an ecclesia he
desires to serve know clearly, definitely, and fully, where he stands on all the doctrines
of present truth as they are understood generally by the brethren. To us it would seem a
wrong spirit on the part of a brother to resent furnishing such information. We should
always remember that we are merely servants of the Lord's people, not their overlords; and
it is always becoming for servants to furnish those they serve with their credentials for
service, if such be required. In your
letter you state definitely that you would not knowingly send a brother into the pilgrim
service who was not doctrinally in harmony with the outline of truth, "To Us the
Scriptures Clearly Teach." You must know that this is going considerably beyond
your own outline of a doctrinal standard for teachers which calls merely for belief in
God, in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and a profession of consecration. We are glad
that you are willing to go this one step farther. You mention
the V. D. M. Questions. We are glad you did, for it reminds us that Brother Russell did
not hesitate, when he deemed it necessary, to establish a definite doctrinal standard --
and a written one, too -- for teachers in the Church. To us this means that Brother
Russell did not consider that simple statement of truth, "To Us the Scriptures
Clearly Teach, as a suitable doctrinal standard for teachers in the Church. Certainly
Brother Russell believed that the Scriptures clearly taught many fundamental truths which
are not mentioned in that outline, as the V. D. M. Questions indicate. You say that
in the list of V. D. M. Questions prepared by Brother Russell, no questions are asked
concerning the Second Presence of Christ, the Covenants, and the Sin-offering. We remind
you, however, that Question 20 reads, "Have you read thoroughly and carefully the
six volumes of Studies
in the Scriptures?" and that Question 21 reads:
"Have you derived much enlightenment and benefit therefrom?" Do you honestly
think that a brother who, in reply to these questions, would explain that he did not
accept the teachings of -the Volumes on the matter of Christ's Second Presence,
nor agree with their presentation of the Covenants and the Sin offering, would have been
approved by Brother Russell as a Pilgrim or an elder? We are fully convinced that he would
not. The reason for this conclusion is Brother Russell's advice in the very article in
which he published the V. D. M. Questions. We quote the following from that article: "Repeatedly
Bible Students write us that their elders try to hinder them from the use of the Watch.
Tower Society's publications as textbooks in Bible we study. Some of these elders go so far as to tell the s classes that they
are out of harmony with many of the things in these textbooks. Sometimes, as rulers, t
they forbid the use of these in the classes. We are asked what should be done under such
circumstances. We reply, Let those who wish to follow such leaders do so -- that is their
right. We shall wish them well. But let us not follow with them nor submit for a moment to
such arrangements. . . . We recommend that such classes vote to dismiss such an elder from
his position of service."
- Reprints, page
R5982, column 1. In view of this clear-cut statement appearing in the articles which
serves as a preamble to the V. D. M. Questions, we believe the, fact is well established
that Brother Russell considered many important doctrinal points well taken care of in
the two questions, pertaining to the study and appreciation of Studies in the Scriptures. The matter
of clearness in the truth and in the understanding of the Divine Plan of the Ages is mentioned many times by
Brother Russell as an essential qualification for eldership. On the Chart of the Ages
depicting the Divine Plan, the Second Presence of Christ is clearly illustrated, together with the harvest
at the end of the Age. Obviously, then, the "Divine Plan," to Brother Russell,
included the fact of Christ's Second Presence. While the
above observations are what we believe Brother Russell's viewpoint to have been on the questions at issue, it is not
with the thought of definitely deciding the matter on this basis, that we have made
them. That is why the main body of this letter deals with the Scriptural presentation of
proper qualifications for teachers, and the fact, above all, that the Scriptures do make
a difference between fellowship and eldership. This, more than any other single
difference of viewpoint, is what keeps us, apart. Not only is it Scriptural to have a more
rigid. doctrinal standard for teachers in the Church than is required merely to
acknowledge one as a brother, but it is logical, and in keeping with the spirit of a sound
mind. We are glad
to know that your present Directors all believe in the Second Presence of Christ.
Believing it, you must certainly recognize the important place this inspiring truth
holds in the Divine Plan. Why should we think it necessary to relegate this great truth to
a minor place in our meetings simply in order to give those who have lost faith in it an opportunity to teach? You may say
that your Pilgrims-who - do not believe in the
Second Presence of Christ do not preach their unbelief from the platform. Perhaps not,
but certainly they are in no position to strengthen the brethren
on this subject who may need strengthening. You say it
is a controversial doctrine, hence should not be made a test of eldership. This is not a
sound argument, for there isn't a truth taught in the Bible that is not controversial in
the opinion of some. The resurrection of Jesus was a controversial doctrine in the early
Church, and Paul reveals that there were those in the Corinthian Church who did not
believe in it. That the wages of sin is death is controversial in the minds of some.
There are millions of sincere men and women who do not agree with us on this point. Shall
we say, then, that just because some of our brethren have chosen to change their minds on
certain doctrines of "present truth," these doctrines are not important, and
should not be made tests of eldership? To follow such a policy to its logical end would
mean the death of the truth in the earth in a very short time. To us this
viewpoint is turning things upside down, reasoning in reverse from the Apostle when he
exhorted the elders at Ephesus to take heed to the flock in Order to protect them against
teachers of false doctrine who would rise up from among themselves. Paul did not advise
that when these unsound brethren did manifest themselves they should be made teachers in
the Church on the ground that to do otherwise would be intolerant. Trusting
that these few thoughts may help you understand our viewpoint better, and looking
forward to our meeting together, on June 9, we remain Yours in the
blessed hope, DAWN BIBLE
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION. W. N.
Wooddworth, Secretary PS. -
Answering your inquiry concerning how one becomes a member of the Dawn Bible Students
Association, we quote the By-law regarding this point, which reads: "Members. The membership may be increased by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire membership for any one nominated by two (2) members. Said vote may be made either in person or bye mail. The
conference planned for June 9, 1947 was not held, owing to the inability of the Institute
brethren to accomplish full Board representation. However, an informal discussion took
place in St. Louis, July 12, 1947, between Brothers W. N. Woodworth of the Dawn and P. L.
Read of the Institute. August 29,
1947 DAWN BIBLE
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION, Dear Brethren: We
understand that recently in St. Louis Brother W. N. Woodworth and Brother P. L. Read found
opportunity to discuss the question of a date for the next Dawn-Institute conference. Our
Directors agree with your Trustees as to the desirability of as full a representation on
both sides as possible, but have thus far been unable to arrange a date when all seven of
our Directors could be present. Brother Woodworth's suggestion conveyed to Brother Read
that possibly a majority of our Board could arrange to meet with is majority of your
Trustees, appeals to us as a practical solution of the problem. Accordingly we will plan
to have four of our Directors (Brothers J. C. Jordan; J. T. Read, P. L. Read, and P. E.
Thomson) meet with your representatives. We understand the date, Monday, October 27,
1947, will be satisfactory to you, and suggest the hour and place as 2 P.M. at the Dawn office, Rutherford, N. J. (or such other hour
Land place as you may prefer). We would
appreciate your early confirmation of these arrangements, that our brethren may plan
accordingly. Will you
please accept this as a formal acknowledgment of your letter of May 20, 1947, already
acknowledged by telephone. Some of the points you make will doubtless be further discussed
at the conference. Sincerely in
His joyous service, PASTORAL
BIBLE INSTITUTE, INC. P. E.
Thomson, Secretary September 3,
1947. PASTORAL
BIBLE INSTITUTE, Dear
Brethren: Your letter
of August 29 received, and in reply we wish to say that the date and time you have
suggested (October 27, 2 P.M.) for a conference will be satisfactory to us. At least, it
will be so, as far as we can foresee at the present time. Should any unexpected
contingency arise to make it impractical, we will advise you in ample time. Yours in the
blessed hope, DAWN BIBLE
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION. W. N.
Woodworth, Secretary The
conference planned for Oct. 27, 1947 was not held, owing to the inability of the Institute
brethren to arrange for four of its brethren to attend. October 28,
1947 PASTORAL
BIBLE INSTITUTE, Dear
Brethren: Christian
love and greetings! Confirming a
recent telephone conversation with Brother Thomson, and on behalf of our Board of
Trustees, with whom I have since met, I am now writing to express our regret that it was
not possible for a majority representation of your Board of Directors to meet with us on
Monday afternoon, October 27, as had been arranged. We all felt that a meeting with a
minority of your Directors, who would not be able to reach a definite decision on behalf
of the Board, would not serve materially to attain the end which we are all seeking,
namely, a harmonious cooperation in the ministry of present truth. Our Board -of Trustees
has authorized me to say that we are prepared to meet with your Board of Directors, as a
Board, at any time and place which you may find possible to arrange. When you find that
such a meeting is possible, let us know a few weeks in advance, and we will be happy
to accommodate ourselves to your convenience. Very
sincerely yours in the blessed hope, October 30,
1947. Mr. Norman
Woodworth, DAWN BIBLE
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Dear Brother
Norman: Your letter
of the 28th came to hand yesterday. In this same mail I am inquiring of our Directors as
to whether they can be present for a second meeting as you proposed in connection with
the Chicago Convention which will be held November 15 and 16. It is not probable there
would be any time for meeting during the time of the Convention unless it should be that
there are no Sunday night meetings. In that case they could possibly meet on Sunday night
if your Board also found that date a possible one for their attendance. They will be letting me know by return mail as to
whether they could attend a meeting the 14th, 16-th, or 17th. I am sure this is too
short notice for you, but realize there is a bare possibility of our being able to make
such arrangements. Those who
will be present, according to present plans on that occasion are: Brothers B. F.
Hollister, H. E. Hollister, J. T. Read, P. L. Read, W. J. Siekman, and P. E. Thomson. With warmest
Christian love, Your brother
by His abounding grace,
October 31,
1947. Mr. Paul
Thomson, PASTORAL
BIBLE INSTITUTE Dear Brother
Paul: Yours of
October 30 received today. I am replying at once, because tomorrow I am leaving for a
trip to the West Coast. You are right in suspecting that the notice is a little too short
to be able to meet with you brethren in Chicago as" you suggested. I regret that this
is so, as I feel that there would be a possibility that one or more of our trustees from the West Coast could
possibly come as far as Chicago for a meeting. Possibly,
however, you brethren while you are all together, might consider it worth while to study
our letter to you of May 20, and let us know your reactions. If the next
time you find that a majority of your Board can be together you can give us four to six weeks notice, I am quite
sure we will be able to arrange to meet with you. Yours in the
blessed hope, December 27, 1947 DAWN BIBLE
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Dear
Brethren: You will be
interested to learn that our full Board of seven brethren found opportunity to meet in
Chicago November 16, 1947, at which time we considered the correspondence recently
passing between your organization and ours, particularly your last four letters dated,
respectively, May 20, 1947, September 3, 1.947, October 28, 1947, and October 31, 1947.
We noted, especially, the request in yours of October 31, 1947, that we let you know our
reactions to your letter of May 20, 1947. These are submitted in the following
paragraphs: From your
letter of May 20, 1947, taken in connection with our earlier exchange of correspondence,
one point clearly emerges: There is at present one (and only one) real difference between
our viewpoints. It relates to the qualifications we should expect brethren to possess
whom we invite to share in the ministry of our respective associations. We hope
before these discussions are concluded that this one difference will be largely, if not
entirely, resolved. (As a contribution to this end we will later in this letter offer some
comments bearing on certain paragraphs in your May 20, 1947 letter.) But realizing that
this desirable outcome may not be attained immediately, the question remains: What
degree of cooperation, if any, may we achieve now, notwithstanding our one difference? In seeking
an answer to this question, we note, with satisfaction, your own words: "We
think it is important to recognize, however, that wherever we do draw the line, we can
do so only for ourselves, and not for others. The Dawn Bible Students Association has no
Scriptural authority to tell any ecclesia what its standard for teachers should be.
However, we do have the right and the responsibility to have such a standard as a service
organization." Holding this
right for yourselves, and recognizing a similar right belonging to each ecclesia inviting
your cooperation in the ministry, you will, presumably,
concede it also to the Pastoral Bible Institute. If, then,
you find yourselves able to cooperate with ecclesias who may or may not share your views
as to what the doctrinal standard of its teachers should be, it should be possible for you
to cooperate also with us, notwithstanding the difference in viewpoint on this subject
which presently exists between us. Assuming
your concurrence in the foregoing, it would appear that the next thing in order would be
for us to entertain each other's recommendations as to the practical steps we might take,
to bring about the harmonious cooperation in the ministry of "present truth,"
which you were gracious enough to say (in your October 28th letter), is "the end
which we are all seeking." In regard to
the time and place for our next conference, we gather from your recent letters that
Chicago would be as satisfactory to your Board as Brooklyn or Rutherford. In our case,
while a majority of our Board could probably find it convenient to meet with you in
Brooklyn or Rutherford about the time of the Institute's annual meeting (in June), we
could arrange for a majority to attend a conference in Chicago almost any day in the
year, on reasonably short notice. Four of our brethren live in Chicago, or vicinity, while
a fifth resides in St. Louis and could also be counted on to attend. In these
circumstances, therefore, we shall be pleased to leave the time and place for you to name. We come now
to the consideration of the details of your May 20, 1947 letter. On these we offer the
following comments: (1) You
submit Hebrews 5:12 as "an impressive Scriptural example" in support of your
position that doctrinal standards (such as belief in Brother Russell's latest views on
the Covenants, Sin-offering and Lord's Second Presence), which you admit are not requisite
for fellowship "as holy brethren" (Heb. 3:1), must be required of
"teachers." It is
difficult for us to see in what way this passage supports your views. In the first place,
the three specific doctrines are not mentioned, nor can we find any implied reference to
them. In the
second place we do not find in the context any suggestion that doctrines believed by
elders are to be different from, or in advance of, or deeper than, those held by brethren
not serving as elders. As we
understand this passage, it is an exhortation to all the brethren (including the sisters)
to grow, to cease to continue as babes, but to progress to maturity. The entire company
of the consecrated ones should be able to "teach" in the sense in which the
Apostle uses that word here. Eldership, or public expounding, or teaching, is not in the
Apostle's mind at all, as we understand the passage. Commenting on this very passage,
Brother Russell, in Vol. VI, pages 257, 258 wrote: "This
implies that in a general sense, at least, the entire Church, the entire priesthood, the
members of the New Creation, should become skilful in their Father's Word to the extent
that they will be 'ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh, a reason for
the hope that is in them, with meekness and reverence.' (1 Pet. 3:15.) Thus we see again
that teaching, Scripturally considered, is not limited to a clerical class; that every
member of the New Creation is a member of the Royal Priesthood 'anointed to preach,' and
thus fully authorized to declare the good tidings to those who have ears to hear -- each
according to his ability to present it faithfully and lucidly. (2) Your
remarks on the phrase "apt to teach" and regarding a "novice" are
fully concurred in by us. We have elsewhere discussed these passages in harmony with your
views. (See, for example, the "Herald" for August 1946, pages 121, 122, and July
1947, page 108.) (3) We note
your objection to our employment of the Phrase "confession of faith," and that
by our use of it you feel that we have implied, erroneously, that you "have, or are
attempting, to establish, a written creed for the brethren, especially the Pilgrim
brethren." We certainly
did get that impression, and are most happy to learn that it was an erroneous one. It was
occasioned by a paragraph in your May 11, 1946 letter (published in the
"Herald" for January 1947, page 12) which reads as follows: "The doctrinal qualifications of
those we sponsor as teachers shall be the enlarged and detailed treatment of this brief
epitome, as set forth in 'Studies in the Scriptures' and 'Tabernacle Shadows,' and also such so-called controversial
subjects as the Lord's Second Presence, the Covenant, and the Church's shore in the
Sin-offering, as taught in these Volumes." In order
that we may be fully assured on this point, and that there may remain no room for future
misunderstanding, we would appreciate it if, when you next write, you instruct us to
disregard that paragraph. It would be helpful, additionally, both to our Board and to
the Members of our Institute, if you further informed us, in writing, that you do not
contemplate any creed, written or unwritten. Some of our members have had experience
with both written and unwritten creeds, the memories of which experiences, today, are
not pleasant. (4) Your
further words, namely, that you "become sufficiently well acquainted with brethren
to know their views . . . before you ask them to serve," appeals to us as the only
proper procedure. It is one that we, ourselves, have long followed. You may recall that in
the May 1936 "Herald," after calling attention to the general principles so ably
expressed by Brother Russell in Vol. VI, page 240, we likened the responsibility of our
Directors, in connection with the Pilgrim ministry, to that of a Convention Program
Committee, and said: "As it
is the duty of the latter to invite such speakers only as they have reason to believe will
prove generally acceptable to the conventioners, so our Directors are under a similar duty
in inviting brethren to, share in the Pilgrim ministry. However, no one would think of
holding the Convention Program Committee responsible for every point of doctrine or interpretation
to which a speaker might give expression. Provided the brother was sound in those
fundamental doctrines so well presented by Brother Russell in the Watch Tower article of
August 1, 1913, captioned, 'Doctrines More or Less Important' [which we reprint elsewhere
in this issue, and heartily endorse] full liberty of thought and utterance would
be ac corded him. Experience has shown that a Pilgrim, ministry can operate
satisfactorily only when a similar measure of liberty obtains." (5) In the
course of your letter you make reference to 1 Timothy 4:1, 2, where the Apostle warns
Timothy: "Now
the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry and commanding to
abstain from meats." and to 2
Tim. 2:16-18 which reads: "Shun
profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word
will eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth
have erred saying that the resurrection is pant, already, and overthrow the faith of some." These
Scriptures to which you have seen fit to draw our attention are very searching. However,
we are happy in the belief that they have applied to none of the brethren who have served
in the Pilgrim ministry of the Institute throughout its twenty-nine years history. We
have heard of instances, though, when they have been erroneously applied to brethren who
were above reproach, true to their own wives, temperate, self-controlled, unruffled,
hospitable, apt to teach, not given to wine, had good reputations for high moral
standards both within and without the Church, and who firmly believed the Scripture which
said, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him." These instances which we
recall, were misapplied to brethren with whom we were personally acquainted, on the sole
ground that they were not certain that "the fellowship
of His sufferings," which they most certainly shared, was typified, in Leviticus 16,
in the goat of the sin-offering. Nay, more than this, we have even known of instances
(some of your Board may possibly have heard of them) where brethren who have always held
with, Brother Russell's treatment on these subjects were (and still are)
boycotted, because they refused, and continue to refuse, to join in such mistaken attitude
towards their co-laborers in the vineyard. (6) In our
letter of Feb. 14, 1947 (See "Herald," April 1947, page 58) we referred to
Brother Russell's V. D. M. Questions and said: "Evidently
when he listed these twenty-two questions, if the three much-discussed doctrines had ever
held the place of importance in his mind which some seem to think, they no longer did So, for in these V. D. M. Questions
(originally prepared for Pilgrim brethren) they are conspicuous by their absence." In reply you
refer us to Questions 20 and 21 and to what you believe would have been Brother
Russell's probable course in the event one had differed with some of the teachings,
contained in. the six Volumes of Scripture Studies. You cite also his recommendation to
dispense with the services of elders under the circumstances mentioned in Reprints, page 5982, col. 1. (W. T. Nov. 1, 1916,
page 329.) The elders to whom Brother Russell
there referred were evidently opposing- his ministry in general, and in his judgment unlikely to prove
profitable to -the brethren. If asked Question 21: "Have you derived much
enlightenment and benefit [from the six volumes of Scripture Studies]?" they would doubtless have replied
disparagingly, in the negative. But in the case of a brother answering enthusiastically
in the affirmative, we believe Brother. . Russell would have recommended his retention in
the ministry, even t bough the brother stated his inability to
accept the teachings of the Volumes in every par i r. As a matter
of fact, in the 1916 Forewords, as you will doubtless recall, he pointed out that the
light on every subject treated in the six Volumes had grown clearer than when those
Volumes were written. In the Foreword to Vol. VI he specifically so states in
reference to the Covenants, to which he also alludes in. the Foreword to Vol. V. Again, in
Reprints, page R5950 (W. T. Sept. 1, 1916, page
264) he writes of "Our mistake respecting the harvest," which mistake would
certainly have an important bearing on the subject of our Lord's Second Presence. To
this mistake he specifically refers in the Forewords to both Volumes II and III. Moreover it
is evident that his mind must have been exorcised along such lines for some years before
those Forewords were written. For example, in December 1913 he wrote: "Suppose
that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the
'very elect' had not all been 'changed' and without {the restoration of natural Israel to
favor under the New Covenant. (Rom. 11:12, 15.) What then? Would not that prove our
chronology wrong? Yes, surely! And would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it
would! It would work irreparable wreck to the parallel dispensations and Israel's double,
and to the jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to
the epoch called 'Gentile Times' and to the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days, the latter of which
marking the beginning of the harvest so well fulfilled its prediction, 'Oh, the
blessedness of him that waiteth and cometh unto the 1335 days!' None of these would be
available longer. What a blow that would be! One of the strings of our 'harp' would be
quite broken!" -
Reprints, page R5368.
(W. T. Dec. 15, 1913, page 375.) In view of
the fact that this clarification and expansion of views along all lines was taking place
in his mind, it is our conviction that, far from wishing the brethren to draw from the V.
D. M. Questions 20
and 21 the conclusion that he had especially in. view the three doctrines upon which you
brethren lay such stress, the very reverse was true. Important as those three doctrines doubtless were
to him (as indeed they are to us) they were evidently not important
enough, in his. judgment, to be included in the list of V. D. M. Questions. They are, as
we said before, and must again insist, conspicuous by their absence. As one
ponders the writings of our late beloved Pastor it becomes apparent than he was not one
who would seek to restrain the proper liberty of any. Quite to the contrary. To quote from
Vol. III, page 184: "There are various degrees of bondage. . . . Some who would indignantly resent the utter and
absolute slavery of individual conscience and judgment required by Romanism, are quite
willing to be bound-themselves, and anxious to get others bound. ... True, their chains
are lighter and Longer than those of Rome and the dark ages. . . But why wear human
shackles at all? Why bind and limit our consciences at all? Why not stand fast in the
full liberty wherewith Christ hash made us free? Why not reject all the efforts of
fallible fellow men to fetter conscience and hinder investigation? In Vol. VI, page 242, he writes:
"The real need of the Church of Christ is still more liberty -- until each
individual member shall stand free and in dependent of all human bonds, creeds,
confessions, etc. Then, too, in making recommendations in
connection with the election of elders, how careful he always was to place the
emphasis where it nightly belongs -- where the Apostles placed it on --character
qualifications. (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.) "Remember," says he
to the elders, in Reprints page R4346 (W. T. March 1, 1909, page 73), "that
the principal thing is love, in all; and, while not neglecting doctrines, give special
heed to the development of the Lord's spirit
amongst the various members of his Body." Again, in Reprints,
page R2446 (W. T. April 1, 1899, page 74): "The leading characteristic to
be looked for in every one accepted as a servant of the Church, to minister
in holy things, should be first of all the spirit of love. We do not mean (to say that
knowledge and ability should-be entirely ignored, but we do mean to say that these
should be considered of secondary and not of primary importance, as is always the
tendency." With this
"sound doctrine," (these "healthful words"), we bring this letter to a
close. Accept for each and every one of you, the sincere good wishes of out entire Board.
May the New Year find you most happy, because it finds you rejoicing in the Lord. Your
brethren by His grace, Considerable
interest in these exchanges between the Dawn and our Institute appears in correspondence
reaching our office. No doubt the friends are all remembering the matter in their prayers. Doctrines More or Less ImportantHERE are
certain features of the doctrine of Christ which are fundamental and indispensable, and
without which none would be recognized of the Lord as one of his followers. There are
other features which would seem to be useful, helpful, blessed, but not fundamental-not
essential to membership in the Body of Christ. The fundamentals have been enjoyed by
good, saintly ones from the day of Pentecost until now. We, the same
class now, have the same fundamentals, and are permitted to have other privileges,
truths, "meat in due season," for our strengthening. These latter are not
necessarily essential to our membership in the, Body of Christ; otherwise our
forefathers who did not have them would not have been members of Christ, and there would
have been no Christ Body for centuries. The
fundamental theory of the Atonement is as follows: (1) All men
-- all of Adam's children-are sinners. (2) None can be reconciled to God without a
Redeemer's sacrifice. (3) Jesus
came into the world to be that sacrifice -and later to apply that ransom-price for the
sins of the world. (4) On the
basis of faith in the Redeemer's work, the believer may consecrate himself to the divine
service, in acceptance of the divine invitation, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." (5) So
doing, the believer may -- up to the time of the completion of the elect number --
exercise full assurance of faith that his sacrifice will be accepted of the Father; and
that he will receive a share of the anointing of the Holy Spirit -- the begetting. (6) Such as
meet these conditions are to be accepted as brethren in the highest sense of the term.
This much would seem to have been always necessary, and more than this we believe is not
necessary today. But if by reason of our favorable, day we have more knowledge, we
may, also have, corresponding trials, which our greater knowledge, will offset. Our advice
to the Lord's dear people everywhere is that they put no yoke upon each other,
beyond the fundamentals specified above-that otherwise they stand free, and leave each
other free, and fellowship and agree as much as, they can with each other. If there be
a disposition to crowd each other on more than this basic faith, and if it be considered
necessary to separate, in order to the progress of either of the parties, then doubtless
rather than a continual contention a separation would be the wise course. We are not
criticizing the views of any one. Each has a perfect right to hold whatever he believes
the Bible to teach, and our views are doubtless well known 'to all of our readers. Briefly
stated, they are, as follows: (1) That the
one that sinned was Adam, and that he and all his posterity were involved. (2) That a
Redeemer was necessary, that Jesus became that Redeemer, and "gave himself a ransom
for all." (3) That God
has invited some of the redeemed sinners -- not to be the ransom-price, nor to redeem
anybody else, but -- to be associates of the Redeemer, members of his Body, his Bride. (4). The
terms and conditions upon which these may have fellowship are that Jesus as the great
Advocate shall accept them as his members -- their flesh as his flesh -- and that he shall
impute to them the share of his merit which would be coming to them as members of the
Adamic race. Then they are legally justified from all the shortcomings, weaknesses and
imperfections inherited by them; and their own wills and all their remaining powers and
talents being consecrated, their sacrifice may be acceptable to God-as part of the
Sin-offering by the great High Priest. (5) Sharing
thus in the Redeemer's death, these are privileged to share in his life, by the
First Resurrection. The Redeemer does not now make application of his merit to
the world, aside from the newly accepted and added members. He will
carry out the divine program, and sacrifice all his members before presenting, at the end
of the Age, the merit of his sacrifice on behalf of the sins of the whole world, and will
thereby seal the New Covenant for them. In our
judgment many err in attaching too much value to the Church's sacrifice; whereas other
dear brethren err, we think, in that they do not see any value in the Church's sacrifice,
nor that she is permitted a share in the Master's sacrificings at all. To us it seems
like the swing of the pendulum from one extreme to the other; whereas our view lies in the center, as we have
stated the matter. If after
fully considering these matters, a class finds that it cannot agree, and would make better
progress as two classes, we would concur in that conclusion as a wise one, as much as we
would deplore the necessity of a division. Such a separation would: not necessarily
alienate either class from the Lord's people, nor from the Society, because both
acknowledge Jesus as their Redeemer, and both acknowledge that his blood is primarily
-efficacious. - Reprints, p. R5284. (W. T. August 1, 1913.) ---------------------- "Forgive us our debts, as we
forgive. "If in my heart has been |
