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

"THE GROUNDS OF THE MONTREAL DIVISION RECONSIDERED."

The apostle John tells us the children of God do not need the teaching of men. Even the very babes among them possess in the teaching of the Spirit of God what is entirely sufficient for abiding in the truth. The teaching of God by His Spirit, then, is the test to which all teaching may be brought. Whatever answers to it, is in agreement with it, may be unquestionably received; but whatever does not agree with it may be rejected without the least hesitation. We do not have to stop to inquire the name of those who bring the teaching. The human instrumentality is nothing, so far as the authority of the teaching is concerned. The stamp of authority -divine authority-is on the teaching of God, and on that alone.

In a tract by A. G., entitled, "The Grounds of the Montreal Division Reconsidered," there are some doctrines which have a strange sound. I propose bringing them to the test of the teaching of the Spirit of God in the Scriptures. If they prove to be what He has taught us, then every child of God is responsible to receive them; but if they are not the doctrines of the Spirit of God, they lack the stamp of His authority; we are not to receive them, then, but on the contrary must refuse them.

One of these strange doctrines is that the Old Testament saints, while they had faith in God, did not have faith in Christ. On page 17 of A. G's. tract, the reader will find it stated thus:

"In the past dispensation there was faith in God, but not faith in Christ; for the Son was yet secluded in Deity."

Does the Spirit teach this? It is simple to ask the question. It is just as simple to find the answer. It is not difficult to apply the test. A. G. does not appeal to Scripture; and no wonder, for the doctrine is not there. His one argument for it is, "for the Son was yet secluded in Deity." This he seems to think quite sufficient. But is it? Was there no testimony in the past dispensation to Christ? Who would dare say there was not in the face of Christ's own declaration, "Moses wrote of Me." When in Luke 24:44, He says, "Which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me," does He not affirm that He is, at least, the principle subject of testimony in the Old Testament? Do I need to make any further quotations? I leave it with the reader to look them up.

"The Son was yet secluded in Deity" is a most unhappy expression. The New Testament tells us of things that were secluded in Deity, hid in God, not revealed to the sons of men-was Christ one of these things? These were secrets from the beginning of the world, but Christ was not one of them. Some things concerning Him were not revealed, but that does not imply that there was no revelation at all about Him.

It may be said, perhaps, A. G. means that Christ was not manifested, and that He could not be the object of faith until He was manifested. Very well. God was not manifested. How then was He the object of faith? If it be said, What is intended is that He had not been sent into the world and presented to men as the Son:this will not avail either, for God had not been proclaimed as the Father. If Christ could not be the object of faith until He came and proclaimed Himself the Son, how could God be the object of faith before He was proclaimed the Father? It will be said that it was as Jehovah that He was the object of faith. But the title Jehovah belongs equally to the three persons of the Godhead. There are numerous passages in the Old Testament in which that title applies to the Second Person. There are passages, too, in which it is Himself that is the speaker (Isa. 6:8; 41:14; Ex. 3:7, 8, and many more).

Faith gathered a doctrine of the trinity from the Old Testament. It was a belief of the Jews that one of the trinity would appear among them as a man. They were expecting an incarnation. They did not deny incarnation. They did not reject Jesus because they did not believe in incarnation, but because they would not believe He was the incarnate One they expected. Nathanael knew from the Old Testament that Israel's King would be both God and man. On discovering that Jesus was God, he not only confessed Him as being a divine Person, but was convinced that He was the King they were waiting for, and at once acknowledged it:"Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel" are the words in which he expressed the faith that was in him (John 1:49). So, too, Peter. His Old Testament taught him that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16, 17). It was there he found the Father's voice in testimony to Christ. All this shows that Christ was a very distinct object of faith in the past dispensation.

Again, in the conduct of the men of faith in Old Testament times we see that Christ was the object of their faith. For example, take Abel. From what God had revealed in connection with the promise of the woman's Seed and the clothing of Adam and Eve with coats of skin, Abel judged that the only way of escape from the death to which he was exposed, was by another-the woman's Seed-taking that death for him. So he puts before God the symbol of the death of Christ. His own sacrifice was not the object of his faith:it was merely the witness that he trusted in the provision God had given testimony to. So it was all along down the whole length of the past dispensation. God was witnessing to Christ. Faith had the One God testified to as its object. Faith looked deeper than the ritual it was so careful to observe, and saw in it not the provision of God, but the symbol of it, and in the use of the symbol proclaimed its faith in the Christ it witnessed to.

A. G's. doctrine, then, that '' in the past dispensation there was faith in God, but not faith in Christ" is clearly disproved by Scripture. It is not the doctrine of the Spirit of God. It must therefore be refused.

When a person puts forth an unscriptural doctrine he must have some reason for doing so. The doctrine is essential to some purpose, grows out of some need. We have not to look far for what manifests the need of the doctrine we have been considering. A. G. has another doctrine which fills an important place in his system:it is necessary to establish it. Out of this necessity the doctrine that Old Testament saints did not have faith in Christ originated. A. G. is very anxious to show that there are now two classes of believers-one comprised of those who have faith in God, another of those who have "gone on to faith in Christ."

He says, in immediate connection with what we have been looking at:

"May there not to-day be found faith in God in those who yet are only on their way to Christ? " (Italics mine).

A little further on in the same paragraph he says:

"Does Scripture teach that there is an invariable, instantaneous transition from being dead in sins to being in Christ; or does it on the other hand, evidence that God has left Himself free to quicken a soul before, and on the way to, trust in Christ?"

In the next paragraph we read:

"Man reckons the beginning of his own life from the moment of birth; but was all that preceded only death? Is there not a pre-natal condition involving the commencement of life-a condition from which the status of life is rightly withheld ? Need we then be surprised if God has been pleased to deal in like manner with the beginning of spiritual life, if room be left in Scripture for what may conveniently be termed an underground, vital work of God in the soul; not yet life in its recognized status, but that which is nevertheless foreign to the dead condition of the mere child of Adam?"

Now here we have the doctrine clearly. He is distinguishing between quickening and birth. There is the "beginning of life enveloped in obscurity"- a "pre-natal" life, which is "an underground, vital work of God in the soul." This is quickening. Old Testament saints were thus quickened, and there is a class of believers to-day who are in the same condition. There is also a "status of life"-a condition which those who only believe in God have not reached, though they are on the way to it and will get it when they believe in Christ. This "recognized status" of life is new birth, or at all events is the possession of those who are born again. Then the Old Testament saints were not born again. They were only quickened. They had pre-natal life, but the "status of life" is "rightly withheld" from them. What they had, and what a class to-day have, is just the beginning of life.

Reader, is this your doctrine? Is it the doctrine you have been taught? Is it the doctrine of Mr. Darby, Mr. Kelly and many others whose names we all revere as men taught of God? It has a strange sound, has it not? It does not sound like Scripture. It is simply the doctrine of A. G.

We shall expect him to consistently maintain it. We have tried honestly to fairly represent the doctrine. We do not think we have misrepresented it or exaggerated it. We have given it a straightforward interpretation. But how surprised we are to find that A. G. does not consistently maintain it! In the very next paragraph on page 20, he writes:

"We know that the Old Testament saints were born again; nevertheless, in so far as the writer knows, Scripture nowhere speaks of them as having had life, which, in its recognized status, awaited as a fitting honor the coming of the Son of God, the revealed object of faith and accomplisher of redemption."

So, then, there is some mystery about it after all that has not been fully explained. A. G's. carefully drawn statement needs some modification; at least enough to allow the Old Testament saints to have had something more than the mere beginning of life -pre-natal life. But the modification must not permit us to say they had "life in its recognized status." That could not be until "the coming of the Son of God and the accomplishment of redemption." Is there, then, three conditions of life-pre-natal life, new birth, and life in its recognized status? Or is there some confusion in A. G's. teaching? When he says, "We know the Old Testament saints were born again," was it a slip of the pen? Was it the result of a life-long habit? Either supposition will explain the confusion, but if it is not permitted us to thus account for it our only alternative is to charge inconsistency.

But further, we have seen that he says, "May there not to-day be found faith in God in those who yet are only on their way to Christ?" Well, what kind of life do they have? Just the mere beginning of life-simple pre-natal life? He says the Old Testament saints had faith in God and that they were born again. Consistently, then, these (the saints of to-day who only have faith in God) must be admitted to be born again. Still we must believe that even so they are in a condition of life "from which the status of life is rightly withheld." A newborn babe not in the status of life! Our answer is, This is not the truth in connection with natural life, and we lack scripture for believing it true in spiritual life. But whatever way you put it there is confusion.

But perhaps A. G. will straighten it out for us. Let the reader turn to page 19 to find the following:

"In chap. 6:53, of John's Gospel, we have the Lord's deeply affecting statement, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Sou of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." The disciples, who probably heard these words, did not understand them; and could not then so eat and drink. Who indeed was there that had appropriated a Saviour who had passed through death and judgment? Was the Lord the alone living one in a scene of universal death? On the contrary, there were the eleven and doubtless other disciples; and in all probability numbers of other quickened souls, within or without the land, still on Old Testament ground; Christ not yet having been presented or preached to them. Did the Lord intend to deny the work of God existing in those souls? Surely not. Yet the language is strongly exclusive-' ye have no life in you.'"

Here we are told that the Lord was not the only living one in the scene of death. What kind of life did He have? He does not tell us. We are not informed whether it was "life in its recognized status " or not. But there were others who had life if He was not the only living one-the eleven and numbers of others. Was their life the same kind as His? It surely must have been if He was not alone in having life, yet they could not have had life in its "recognized status."It was too early for that. Well they were "still on Old Testament ground."Then their life was pre-natal life-or perhaps they had new birth. At any rate he thinks they had life in some sense, and that the Lord did not intend to deny it. Then he proceeds to make the Lord say, "Ye have no life in you."Reader can you fit his statements together? There is here wretched confusion. Had he been consistent he would have put into the Lord's mouth the weeds, "no recognized status of life." He does not do this, but makes the Lord say they have no life at all. Somehow, Scripture does not lend itself to wrong doctrine. Men who bring doctrines of their own, which they have not learned from God have to wrest the Scriptures.

But let us examine further his teaching in this passage. He says the disciples '' could not then so eat and drink." And further on he tells us very solemnly that we need to know "the divine thought" in order to understand "the divine utterance." We will ask him to give us the divine thought. His answer is as follows:

"The Lord is bringing life and incorruptibility to light. It is life out of death, His own anticipated sacrificial death, and its nature which He is revealing. When the mighty work of redemption should be accomplished, when ' the Lord of life in death had lain ' then would it be possible for the disciples and other quickened souls to eat His flesh and drink His blood. When, in the exercise of this determinative function, the life should be evidenced, it would be owned." (The italics are mine.)

This, then, is "the divine thought," according to A. G.; and "the divine utterance," therefore, is that the Old Testament saints, not only, but even the eleven and the numbers of quickened souls of the days of our Lord's life, could not eat His flesh and drink His blood. We are supposed to have this chapter fully illuminated now! But have all the difficulties been satisfactorily cleared up ? Does the wonderful light that now shines on this chapter clear away all the mist and explain all the mystery ? Let us see. In ver. 47 of this same chapter (Jno. 6:) our Lord says, '' He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." This we suppose must be "life in its recognized status." Believers had it then. Ver. 64 confirms this :'' But there are some of you that believe not." Evidently there were two classes then, believers and unbelievers. The believers had everlasting life. But A. G's. doctrine is that the Lord is teaching that they did not have it:and more, that they could not possibly have it until after His sacrificial death. Somehow there is darkness in our light! It does not clear up the chapter. There is mist still. Perhaps the Lord did not say, '' Except ye eat," but " Until ye eat." Or, perhaps the Spirit, whose office is to bring to remembrance all things whatsoever the Lord said, in this one instance forgot just what He did say. But we are not prepared to admit either of these suggestions. Are we forced, then, to accept the light offered us, even if it does not accredit itself as truth ? No; by that fact, we know it has not the stamp of divine authority. It is a doctrine of man, and not of God.

He says, "Who indeed was there that had appropriated a Saviour who had passed through death and judgment?" By the italics it is plain that we are expected to regard this as an unanswerable argument! But there is a defect in it fatal to its value. Because none had appropriated a Saviour who had passed through death and judgment, it is assumed none had appropriated a Saviour who would pass through death and judgment. But the assumption is contrary to Scripture. We have already seen that Abel did so. Numerous other cases might be cited; but I pass on to another point.

"Alongside of this solemnly divisive scripture may be placed a kindred passage from John's Epistle, namely, 'He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.' Again the Spirit of God fixes our attention on the broad distinction between the two fully contrasted classes of the living and the dead. To introduce here what is merely transitional would only detract from the force and impressiveness of the Spirit's style. Instruction upon that point belongs to another line of ministry, and must be looked for elsewhere in Scripture " (page 20).

Where elsewhere ? We are not told. If there is a special line of ministry in Scripture on '' what is
merely transitional " between the classes of the living and the dead, it ought to be easily pointed out. Let us see if we can find it. According to Scripture, mere natural men are in a condition, belong to the class, of the dead. In Eph. 2:4, 5, we read, " But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." There is no place in Eph. 2:for A. G.'s "transitional" things -no place for pre-natal life, or new birth; for we suppose he holds that quickening with Christ is "life in its recognized status." Pre-natal life and even new birth are " foreign to the dead condition of the mere child of Adam," but there is no room for them here. Or, are we to suppose that one who has these transitional things is still dead, is still in the condition of death in trespasses in sins ? We are not sure whether A. G. thinks so or not:but in vers. 2 and 3 of this same chapter we find this condition described, and we are told who are in it. "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Is this a description of a condition in which we have what is "foreign to the dead condition of a mere child of Adam "? Has a child of wrath prenatal life ? Is one born again a child of wrath ? It is when we were children of wrath-in the condition of death-that we were "quickened with Christ." Does not this show that quickening, new birth, and quickening with Christ, now are identical ? It also shows that Scripture does teach "that there is an invariable transition" (I will not say with A. G. "instantaneous" transition, because quickening is a moral and spiritual process) "from being dead in sins to being in Christ, forgiven and justified." In this connection, Col. 2:13 may be quoted:"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

A. G. undertook to show that "quickening can be apart from faith in Christ." He has not done so. Nowhere in all the scriptures to which he has referred us has such a doctrine appeared. It is on the supposition that quickening is apart from faith in Christ that he bases his charge that " the connection of justification with quickening, as an invariable present accompaniment," is false, and that it is "erroneous" to "include" with quickening "the being in Christ and forgiven." Failing to establish the foundation on which he was to rear his building, the structure which he purposed to erect never becomes an actuality; the "distinct issue" he has "raised" collapses. C. Crain.

(To be continued.)