A Reply to the Doctrine of A. G.'s Paper,

"THE GROUNDS OF THE MONTREAL DIVISION RECONSIDERED."

(Continued from page 216.)

I turn now to another doctrine. On page 21, he writes:

"In this chapter (John 6:) the Lord publishes the Father's will ' that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have eternal life.' Almighty power undertakes to overcome the inveterate opposition of man's will in connection with new birth; for 'they shall be all taught of God'-an expression of which the significance may be seen from Isa. 54:13 and Jer. 31:33; with which Ezek. 36:25-27 may be compared. For 'except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' The natural man is incapable of receiving such divine instruction; as is indicated in 'It is written in the Prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto Me.' John 1:13 shows, in a historical way, that only born-again ones so come to the Saviour."

There is just enough truth about this to make it dangerous. I want to connect with this another paragraph which begins on page 26.

"It is as essential to the maintenance of the divine holiness and majesty, as it is to the purifying of the sinner's conscience, that confession should precede forgiveness and justification. This divine order is shown in the assurance that ' if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' But where, in Mr. Grant's doctrine, is there room for such confession, preceding forgiveness? Before ' the first moment of quickening' ? Then is it the dead work of one without faith, who, strange to say, nevertheless, pleases God; for surely, 'I have sinned' is grateful to the inclined ear of the Saviour-God!

After ' the first moment of quickening ' ? Then, according to Mr. Grant, we have the strange spectacle of one who is already in Christ, forgiven and justified, now, for the first time, confessing his sins and sinnership ! One horn of the dilemma affords no more relief to Mr. Grant than the other."

But Scripture does not require us to take either horn. The error underlying all this reasoning is, alas, too common. There are certain minds who make Scripture responsible for their own misapprehension of it. They triumphantly quote, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." They say, to repent, to believe, to come to Jesus and much more is to please God, therefore a sinner must be born again before he can repent, or believe, or come to Jesus. When they have accepted this teaching, then they begin to quarrel over which comes first, faith or repentance; some giving faith the first place, others repentance. Then new birth is made to be a sudden infusion of life by the power of God apart from the gospel or the word of God, and thus we have all the elements of the doctrine of A. G. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," is quoted as being supposed to teach the above dogmas. But it is a perversion of these scriptures.

Men, natural men, are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30). Why tell them they cannot repent until God gives them life, and thus hinder their repentance ? Sinners are told to believe. Why tell them it is an impossibility until God effects the new birth in them-and thus set them to wondering why God does not give them new birth? It is to sinners Jesus says, "Come to Me." Why hinder their hearing His voice by telling them they cannot come to Him until He quickens them? These views distort the gospel. Scripture teaches that life is by believing (John 20:30, 31). Does not the Lord complain of the Jews because they will not come to Him ? Does He not imply that if they only would come they would get life? Peter assures us that new birth is by the word of God through the gospel preached (i Pet. 1:33-25). Nowhere in Scripture is new birth spoken of as by the power of God apart from the word of God in the gospel. Nowhere are we taught that faith is a distinct and subsequent event to new birth. Life, faith and repentance are each the fruit of the word of God in the gospel impregnating the soul. These puzzles are never found in the word of God. They are the results of the reasoning of the human mind apart from Scripture. Scripture never occupies us with such questions; and if we would let our minds run in the channel of Scripture we would not be standing in the way of the blessing of souls, and of our own light.

People who hold these harmful views are great adepts at reading them into the Scriptures. A. G. says, "John 1:13 shows, in a historical way, that only born-again ones so come to the Saviour:" 1:e., first, there was new birth, and then came being taught of the Father, resulting in the reception of Christ. But the passage itself very carefully avoids saying, "Which were born before," or, "Which were already born." It was in receiving Him that they believed on His name and were born anew. These were not three distinct events; but one event is spoken of in three different ways. They received the testimony concerning Him; it impregnated their souls; faith was there, life was there, but neither the one nor the other apart from the reception of the testimony.

Three other scriptures are thought to support this theory. On pages 22 and 23, the reader will find this:

" In 1 Peter 1:2, we have brought before us:

1. Sanctification of the Spirit, unto
2. Obedience, and
3. Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, in the commission given by the Lord Jesus to His servant, the apostle Paul, be was sent (Acts 26:18),

1. To open their eyes, that
2. They may turn to God, that
3. They may receive remission of sins, by faith in Christ Jesus.
Taking the two together we have brought before us in the
foregoing portions of the word of God:

1. The initial act of the Spirit, new birth.
2. The resulting changed attitude towards God.
3. The receiving of part with Christ Jesus, by faith in Him.

But is it the purpose of the Spirit in these scriptures to tell us what is the chronological order of the work of God in the soul-to develop for us the subjective stages of that work? Is it not rather that the family of God is comprised of those whom the word of God has laid hold of by the power of the Spirit, so that now, whatever they have been before, there is a real, vital, internal connection with Christ, stamping thus His own character upon them and marking them as those to whom the sprinkling of His blood applies. Is not this the force of "through sanctification of the Spirit"? that is, by the power of the Spirit the word of God had impregnated their souls, and as thus impregnated they had been put into a new position before the eye of God, where He saw them in a vital, spiritual link with Christ, sharing in His own perfect character and partaking of the full value of His sprinkled blood. Is not this true equally of all whose souls the gospel has reached by the power of the Spirit of God ?

As to the second passage, turning to God and receiving the forgiveness of sins are the necessary accompaniment of having the eyes opened. It was through faith in the message Paul brought that they were turned to light from darkness, without any transitional stages. It was by the power of the gospel he preached that they were turned from Satan to God; and being thus turned to God, by the light he brought them, at once forgiveness of sins was theirs and they had a title to inherit with the sanctified. There is nothing here on the subject of the "historical order" in which souls come to the Saviour. The question is not at all one concerning the progress of the subjective work in the soul.

Again, he says:

"In Rom. 8:30, we have mention of successive links in a golden chain of divine blessing:for 'whom He did predestinate,

1. Them He also called; and whom He called,
2. Them He also justified; and whom He justified,
3. Them He also glorified.' "

He comments thus:

"The call is beyond question the effectual, life-giving call of the Spirit, which involves new birth. It is, as a separate and subsequent divine act, marked off from predestination which preceded (before time began) by the phrase ' them He also,' in the same way that being glorified (in the eternity to come) is separated and marked off from being justified. Exactly the same divisive and distinguishing phrase comes between the call of the Spirit (involving new birth), and the succeeding divine act of justification. "Whom He called, them He also justified.' "

This is a new interpretation indeed! The chronological order of the work of God in the soul! The apostle is speaking of the purpose of God. The purpose of God embraces our calling, our justification and our glorification. It is God's side altogether the apostle is occupied with here, and the subjective work in us is not in question. It is not the work of the Spirit in the soul,-the stages of that work, the order in which the soul progresses,-but the purpose of God which cannot be thwarted, whatever befalls us. All things but further the blessing of those who are embraced in this purpose. A. G. 's use of this passage illustrates the result of the effort to make everything subjective.

The paragraph on the parable of the prodigal son, on pages 24, 25, and 26, is too long to quote. When A. G. says, "The exercise so touchingly depicted in the case of the prodigal is distinctly an individual thing. Why, then, cannot the precious activities of the happy God (i Tim. 1:ii), indicated in the father's running to meet, embracing and robing the repentant one, be accepted as having their delightful exercise towards each individual believer." I answer, I agree; but for this very reason I cannot agree when he says, "In this lovely parable the Lord Jesus is generally understood to have portrayed a progressive, divine activity in grace towards the individual soul." Or again, "In the father's running to meet the prodigal, embracing him and bestowing the best robe, the Lord Jesus seems unquestionably to present to our adoring gaze corresponding precious, delightful, divine activities towards the repentant one; which actually occur in the very sequence and order shown." (italics in the last two quotations are mine.) I make one more quotation from this paragraph:'' But we have here, have we not? present divine activities meeting at the suited moment, and thus responding to progressive exercise in one quickened some time before." Against all this one must protest. A. G. spoils the parable. He says, " It was not the commencement, but the conclusion of the long, toilsome journey which furnished the occasion for the father's gracious reception, which doubtless encouraged the repentant one to proceed to his confession." Now there are two errors in this statement. We read, " But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." There is no room here for a "long, toilsome journey " before the occasion arises for the father to show the gracious activities of his heart towards him. This condemns A. G. "s conception of the parable. But again, we read that his confession was in connection with his coming to himself. He did not need to be encouraged to confess to his father. It is true when his father met him he said, "Father I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son;" but I ask, when we shall find ourselves in our eternal home enjoying its blessedness, will we not still say, Father we are not worthy of it? Will not "worthy is the Lamb" in our lips mean that then? Will we need encouragement to say it ? No more did the prodigal need the father's gracious activity to encourage him to confess what he had already confessed when he came to himself. What he found was that he had not fully measured his father's gracious activity. What repenting sinner does? The parable, then, does not support the doctrine that there may be to-day some in whom there is faith towards God, but lack faith in Christ-some who have only believed the testimony of God concerning Himself and need to go on to believe the testimony of God concerning His Son -having "pre-natal life" and new birth, but not "life in its recognized status." How manifest this last expression is a purely human invention-a term not born of the truth of God, but specially devised to further the interests of a theory. What a convenient term it is! How well it serves the purpose for which it is invented! But, alas, how it shows an animus in opposition to the simple truth of Scripture!

On page 27 the case of Cornelius is referred to, and on page 22 allusion is made to the disciples at Ephesus, mentioned in Acts 19:These cases are supposed to present "insurmountable difficulties." If the difficulties supposed are imaginary, there will be no need of surmounting them. The remedy is, not to let the imagination work where it ought not to work. The difficulties imported into these cases all arise from inattention to the facts. It is forgotten that these cases all occurred during a transitional period between two dispensations. When the dispensation of the Spirit was being introduced, there were Jewish believers, Samaritan believers, Gentile believers, and believers on the ground of John the Baptist-distinct and separate companies. Now it was necessary that the unity of believers under the dispensation of the Spirit should be clearly demonstrated. The book of Acts does this, and thus we have these various companies successively brought on to the new ground, and in a suited manner in each case. Now, neither the Epistle to the Galatians nor that to the Romans was written in this transitional period. When the dispensation of the Spirit has been introduced and established, the believers of these various companies brought together, and all believers, are thus on common ground; there no more existed such companies of believers – none could be found in these various conditions. The Epistles to the Galatians and Romans fully establish this. In Gal. 4:1-5, we learn that under law God treated His children there as infants or minors, but under the dispensation of the Spirit He puts them in the dignity and place of sons. In ver. 6, the apostle turns to the Gentiles. In the Acts, as we have seen, God has put the Gentile believers there too, and to this fact the apostle appeals to assure them that they have the Spirit. Romans is usually thought to have been written still later than the Galatians. In the eighth chapter, ver. 9, we read, " Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His." The gospel preached by the Spirit sent down from heaven does not form different companies of believers. All who now are born of God by the gospel are participators in the place of sons, which is the characteristic blessing under the dispensation of the Spirit. Where, then, are the insurmountable difficulties? Every expression used in the Acts of these various companies of believers is perfectly intelligible when looked at in the light of the truth. They are difficult and unexplainable only when the light, by which it is sought to explain them, is darkness. C. Crain.

(To be continued.)