*This article has been in our hands some time. We were waiting in hope, with others, that the pamphlet in question would be withdrawn, as it had been strongly objected to with both its author and its publisher. As this has not been done, we now feel quite free to publish this criticism.-[ED*.
Editor of Help and Food:
In a pamphlet by J. Boyd, which has come to my notice, he says:
"But our blessed Lord not only speaks of seeing the kingdom but of entering into it. For this, water and the Spirit are the means used. I am persuaded this carries us into Christianity. To enter into the kingdom is to enter into the practice of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17). Now in order to produce righteousness one must be indwelt by the Spirit (Rom. 8:4-10). Therefore it seems to me that while fitness for seeing the kingdom maybe produced by the simplest element of truth, a full gospel is necessary for entering into it."
This teaching tells us that one may see the kingdom without entering into it:that it is only necessary to receive "The simplest element of truth" in order to see the kingdom, but those only who know the gospel in its fulness enter into it! What new doctrine is this ? And what are the writer's grounds for such statements ? He speaks of his being "persuaded." Where in Scripture does Mr. B. find warrant for any such "persuasion?" Does he mean that he is persuaded that some believers (those who know but the "simplest element of truth") only see the kingdom, while others (the comparatively few) who receive a "full gospel" get further and enter into it ? As for myself, I am " persuaded," and for scripture reasons (Col. i:13), that one is either under the "power of darkness" or has been translated " into the kingdom of God's dear Son." Can there be an intermediate place between these two distinct conditions, where the soul only sees the kingdom, not yet into it, and yet delivered from the power of darkness ?
The writer completes his confused paragraph by remarking, "It is not for no purpose the Divine Teacher passes from seeing to speak of entering into the kingdom." Yes, but it does not follow that it is the purpose Mr. B. reads into it:that of dividing up believers of the present time into two distinct classes, one outside (though seeing it) and the other safely landed within the kingdom. That entering into the kingdom is an advanced thought on seeing it no one would question, but to say that two distinct classes or grades of believers are meant is to pervert its meaning entirely.
As an example of Mr. B.'s unwarranted assertions I take the following:"Now in order to produce righteousness one must be indwelt by the Spirit." Standing alone, no fault whatever could be found with this statement. But when it is borne in mind that the same writer holds that some believers, those only born again, :have not the Spirit, it follows that such cannot produce righteousness. But i John 5:4 assures us that those born of God overcome the world, and practical righteousness is never ascribed exclusively to the possession of the Spirit, i John 5:1-5 makes it the result of faith and new birth. And did not the Old Testament saints "produce righteousness " ? Most assuredly. But how could they, according to Mr. B., since they had not the indwelling Spirit? Heb. n:33 tells us it was "through faith." So his confident assertion stands flatly contradicted by the clear, unmistakable statement of the word of God.
Another sample assertion from the same pamphlet will show how unsafe this teaching is on those lines. Speaking of eternal life he says:"To possess it the believer must appropriate His death (John 6:53-56)." Note this:the believer, he says, must do this in order to possess eternal life. So according to this teaching one may be a believer and not yet be in the possession of eternal life. Who is right, Mr. B., or the Lord Jesus Christ? Read John 6:47.