Daniel's comment “Raven is often misunderstood.” If Martin has actually read FER for himself, has he understood what he has read?
Googling "F E Raven" I notice that www.brethrenarchive.org comes up at the top of the list. Clicking on it I see quotations from the writings of Mr Raven, but others from James Taylor Senior used to prove the former a heretic. This seems a strange way - proving one person wrong by using the writings of someone else as evidence!
Was Christ a real man? Mr Raven taught this: "He is a real Man, body, soul, and spirit, but still God’s Son." (Ministry of F E Raven, New Series, volume 19, page 519.)
It has been argued elsewhere that ‘For FER the “spirit” was His own (divine) person’, but Mr Raven elsewhere explained what he meant by the "spirit" of the Son as Man, saying, "It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God." (Ibid, volume 8, page 264.)
A claim that “JT learnt from FER” needs proof; and I do not mean as based on something Mr Taylor said. Nor even from Roy Huebner, whose writings are possibly the source behind much of this. As to JT, he tried to lend support for his incarnational sonship doctrine by bringing Mr Darby’s name into it, writing, "That he [JND] held and urged the eternal sonship of Christ as an accepted truth is true, but that he was satisfied with it in his later years is more than questionable." (J. Taylor, Letters, volume 1, pages 392-395 – 25th March 1933.)
I agree that Mr Taylor might have learnt from Mr Raven, and from Mr Darby for that matter, but he certainly did not learn to deny the eternal sonship of Christ from the latter, and evidence for learning from the former is based on a letter which was not written by Mr Raven, even though it appears in his volume of letters.
There is a comment on the page in question on brethrenarchive.org in which its writer disagrees with Mr Raven’s statement, “You cannot have two personalities in one.” However, Mr Raven is quite right here, and it was not “a denial of the truth.” The error that there are two persons in Christ is called Nestorianism, and it was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.
Yet someone has denounced Mr Raven writing, “His fundamental false teachings on Christ’s manhood qualify him as an antichrist.” People need to be think before they press such serious charges on anyone, and to reach this kind of verdict. I do not maintain that everything Mr Raven ever said was correct, of course, but it would appear that some of his opponents might not be quite as sound in doctrine as they think they are.
Just one more point. Where in Mr Raven’s books of ministry is his “treatise” found in which he taught that “the Son only refers to our Lord in His incarnate form and not in eternity past” as suggested in one of the above comments? I find in the books that he used the expression “Eternal Son” numerous times, but am aware of the oft half-quoted-out-of-context sentence taken, not from page 52 of volume 1, the primary source, but from a secondary source containing, not simply the fact, but the opinion of his critic.
To answer Andrew Eden’s question in sufficient detail would take up quite a lot of time and space.
From the outset it has to be said that Mr Raven did not "create a party spirit" and he had no desire to have a following of men schooled in his own ideas.
Regarding the charge that he denied the eternal sonship of Christ, this seems to be based on one sentence, a sentence removed from its context, even at that only partly quoted, and which reads as follows:
Now, “Son of God” I understand to be the title of Christ incarnate; I should hardly use “Son of God” as referring to His eternal Person.
Those who quote this out-of-context part of the sentence, and conveniently omit the rest, state their reference as being from one of R. A. Huebner’s books, thus giving themselves away as not having done their research properly. They are not quoting the primary source in order to obtain the fact of the matter, but are using as their evidence a secondary source, thereby based on an opinion, in this case that of Mr Huebner. Worse still is that opinions based on his opinion are then published in books or put on the Internet.
To quote the whole paragraph from which it is taken:
Now, “Son of God” I understand to be the title of Christ incarnate; I should hardly use “Son of God” as referring to His eternal Person, for which “the Son” is usually employed; He is the Son in contradistinction to the Father. There are three divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In John 5 we have, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; it is one divine Person in relation to another; “What things soever the Father doeth, these things also doeth the Son likewise. When He is spoken of as the Son of God, it is according to Psalm 2: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”; He is begotten in time.
(The Ministry by F E Raven, New Series, volume 1, p. 52.)
This is not a denial by Mr Raven of the eternal sonship of Christ, but, rather, that he was explaining the distinction he drew between Christ as the Son of God begotten in time according to Psalm 2 verse 7 with Him in His eternal sonship.[1]
It is worth looking into the writings of Mr Darby with regard to this. The places to look at are in the Synopsis on Psalm 2 verse 7, the closing verses of Matthew 1, the middle part of Luke 1, and the opening verses of Hebrews 1, besides in a footnote about the end of 2 Samuel 6 going into chapter 7. Mr Darby in each of these places teaches that Christ as born into this world, having been conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, and thus to be called the Son of God, is distinguished in this aspect from what He is in His eternal sonship.
Similarly, Mr Raven is distinguishing between Christ as the Son of God begotten in time and what He is as the Eternal Son. He is not denying the eternal sonship of Christ. Certainly, “Son of God” is a title of Christ incarnate, and in the context of the Psalm, viz. in the sense of Christ being begotten in time, that he should hardly use the title “Son of God” as referring to His eternal Person. It would seem, if based on the opening sentence of this paragraph alone, that Mr Raven is wrong regarding the title Son of God as used more generally. The point is, however, that Psalm 2 verse 7 is not about the eternal sonship of Christ.[2]
Therefore, this needs to be put into context with Mr Raven’s teaching on the sonship of Christ found elsewhere in the books of Ministry by F E Raven:
I would like to know the grace of His Person, and to maintain in my soul, at the same time, His own proper dignity and glory as the eternal Son, equal with the Father.
(Ministry by F E Raven, New Series, Volume 7, page 123.)
“In him all the fulness was pleased to dwell.” [...] The point is this – that the Son having become Man, the Spirit of God carefully maintains the glory of His Person. (Ibid.)
I have previously spoken of the “Mediator,” and of the “Son of God,” the latter as a name inherited by Christ in becoming Man. Christ is the eternal Son, who became Man and inherited a more excellent name that the angels, as stated in Hebrews. (Ibid, volume 11, page 383.)
It is God coming out in love to take up the liabilities under which man was, hence the Son of God must needs become incarnate, so that all that lay on man might be taken up in a Man, but it was the testimony of divine love. (Ministry by F E Raven, New Series, Volume 17, page 8.)
All was dependent on the Son of God becoming Man. (Ibid, page 170.)
He is always the eternal Son. He could not be anything else. The question is whether you look at Him on God’s side or on ours. On God’s side He is the eternal Son, a divine Person of the Godhead; as such we have no part in Him. On our side He is Son as man, to bring us into sonship. The point in John 5 is, the Son quickens; in chapter 6 we appropriate Him. In chapter 5 He is on the divine side; in chapter 6 He is on our side. But it is the same Person. The eternal Son was ever there, and there could be no difference between the eternal Son and the Son born in time except as to condition.
(Ministry by F E Raven, New Series, Volume 8, pages 265 - 266.)
Count how many times in this last extract Mr Raven uses the expression “eternal Son.” Is this denying the eternal sonship of Christ? Doubtless there are many more references to Christ’s eternal sonship in the ministry of Mr Raven, but this selection should more than suffice.
It might be suggested by someone that these citations come from Mr Raven’s earlier ministry, and that he later changed his mind about the sonship of Christ, and from then on denied His eternal sonship. While not giving the actual dates of the Bible readings and addresses of these extracts, they span the years from 1895 to 1902, the latter date being the year before he became ill and died.[3]
Now to letters written by Mr Raven:
All hangs on the truth of His Person. He was the Eternal Son, and the Eternal Son has become a Man. That is entirely beyond the grasp of the creature.
(From a letter on the “The Eternal Sonship of Christ.”)
The following extracts are from the volume of letters of Mr Raven:
In answer to your question I should say that if a man intended to deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ I should certainly not care to remain in fellowship with him – for “the Son” is the name that conveys the idea of the distinct personality of Christ; John 5:19,20; 1 John 4:14…
On the other hand I fear a little of speaking of the Eternal Son as ‘in relationship’ lest the thought be extended according to in which we rightly regard a son as in a position of inferiority to a father.
The eternal relationships subsisting between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are entirely beyond our knowledge.
(Letters of F E Raven, New Series, page 101.)
The statement in the first paragraph is most interesting, is it not? What lies behind the reticence for speaking of “in relationship” is unclear without access to that which prompted it. However, Mr Raven wrote of the “eternal relationships subsisting between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Surely, though these relationships are indeed eternal, they are “entirely beyond our knowledge” nevertheless.
To continue from the volume of Mr Raven’s letters:
The only thing which stuck me in any other way was that it is perhaps necessary to guard a little more carefully the proper divine relationship of the Son and the Father – for though the relationship into which in Christianity we are brought has its character from that which is eternal, it is not identical, since in order that this relationship might subsist for us the Son emptied Himself – in mind took a place lower than that of God in which He could say “My Father is greater than I” – but the taking of this place could not set aside the truth and reality of His eternal relations with the Father, hence we have “no one knows the Son but the Father” – and yet it was that emptying Himself which alone could make the relationship of sons a possibility for men.
(Letters of F E Raven, New Series, page 117 – emphasis Mr Raven.)
Notice the expressions “the proper divine relationship of the Son and the Father,” “that which is eternal,” and “the truth and reality of His eternal relations with the Father.” Is this denying the eternal sonship of Christ? Obviously not!
It is worth adding at this point an extract from an open letter by Mr A J Pollock in which he was answering C. A. Coates who supported James Taylor Senior’s then so-called “new light” denying the eternal sonship of Christ.
May I first point out that while freely criticising my remarks, you have not ventured to animadvert upon the weighty extracts from the writings of J. N. Darby, J. G. Bellett, W. Kelly, F. W. Grant and F. E. Raven? The writings of these servants of God show that they entirely refuse the views that you advocate.
(https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/eternal_son/ajp2.html.)
(Used with permission)
Please notice Mr Raven’s name as being included in this list. The matter of Christ’s sonship before incarnation, and that He was not Son until after his birth was not a big problem during the Raven years. That came in later with JT, supported by CAC and others.
Mr Raven on the Manhood of Christ
In response to one of the above comments, I find it very strange that the writings of James Taylor on the manhood of Christ are supplied as evidence against Mr Raven. As to whether Christ had, or has, a human spirit, or not, he wrote:
He is a real Man, body, soul, and spirit, but still God’s Son.
(The Ministry of F E Raven, New Series, volume 19, page 519.)
It has been stated that ‘For FER the “spirit” was His own (divine) person.’ From the statement above as standing alone, that could be an inference if someone wanted to force that meaning into it. However, it should be understood in the light of that found elsewhere:
“Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God. (Ibid, volume 8, page 264.)
Notice: “It was the spirit of a man.” If the Son of God as a real man had “the spirit of a man” then, despite the charge brought against Mr Raven, what is this other than that Christ has a human spirit?
To write of Mr Raven, “His fundamental false teachings on Christ's manhood qualify him as an antichrist,” is a very serious matter; but it is evidence of the party spirit which marked “brethren” at the time, and sadly, evidently, still does.
Mark Best
[1] I am not inclined to agree with Mr Raven when he says that he should hardly use “Son of God” as referring to His eternal Person, but in keeping with the context, it is that aspect of His sonship according to Psalm 2 verse 7 which is the basis for its application to Christians which follows on from this in his address.
[2] I do not comment on the use of ‘title’ here. In reality ‘Son of God’ is His name. Mr J N Darby wrote:
So I see this title, Son of God, applies to the three several estates of Christ: Son of God, Creator, in Colossians, in Hebrews, and in other passages which allude to it; Son of God, as born in the world; and declared Son of God with power as risen again from the dead.
(J N Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, volume 1, page 121.)
Notice the word “title” that Mr Darby used.
[3] 16th August 1903.
There are those who think that the various divisions were of the Lord as acts in His name and must therefore be maintained ad infinitum. On the other hand, there have been “reunions” once those who were at the cause of the divisions have passed on. The so-called Kelly-Lowe-Glanton reunion was one such, but only to divide again in a little over twenty years. The main concern was the reception of those unable to affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Books were advertised, some set out, and though maintaining Christ’s eternal sonship, they were pressing doctrines which were not in themselves sound, and which would not be helpful in the way intended.
If “brethren” were to read Mr Darby in the Synopsis on Psalm 2 verse 7, the latter part of Matthew 1, the middle of Luke 1, the opening verses of Hebrews 1, they would be helped. Similarly, F W Grant on Psalm 2 and Luke 1 in the Numerical Bible. On doctrine concerning Christ, Hamilton Smith wrote an excellent booklet bearing the title The Son of God: His Deity, Incarnation, and Manhood. It is obvious that the reading on Hebrews 1 and 2 at Quemerford in 1895 with Mr Raven and T H Reynolds in attendance greatly influenced Mr Smith’s understanding of these matters.
In fact, if Mr Raven did not hold to Christ as being the Eternal Son, then his argument that there was no change as to His Person when He became a man would fall to the ground. Indeed, A J Pollock quotes Mr Raven against JT Snr and CAC:
F E Raven wrote, “The fourth Gospel is given to us to afford full light as His Person, that is ‘The Son,’ and this respect He is seen in three aspects, namely as ETERNALLY WITH THE FATHER, as come into the world, and as gong back to the Father, that same Person, unchanged and unchangeable.” The Person of the Christ. You no longer agree with Mr Raven’s teaching as here stated. (https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/various/eternal_son/ajp2.html. Used with permission. Emphasis AJP's.)
Nevertheless, JT Snr maintained that he got his doctrine of non-eternal sonship from Mr Raven. He wrote:
I have read F.E.R.’s remarks – had read them before you sent the paper – and they represent what he held at the time, of course, indeed, what was, and is, generally held; but as a matter of fact, it was Mr Raven who first mentioned the questionableness of the application I have mentioned. This was in my hearing – when he was in America in 1902. The remarks were not published, as far as I know, but they are well known to many. I heard of a letter of his lately as to the same effect, and while J.N.D. like F.E.R. treats sonship in the ordinary, or accepted way, in “Notes and Comments,” Vol. 7, page 7, he (speaking of John 1:14) says, “Nor do I see that in this character He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh.” He guards his statements afterwards with a “note” lest bad use should be made of them, but they remain in the text – hence we can see what was in his mind, although not pressed. (Letters of James Taylor, page 260.)
It is interesting that https://www.brethrenarchive.org/archive/later-exclusivism/raven-section/taylorites/notes-of-a-meeting-in-connection-with-stow-hill-depot/ on page 33 mentions a letter to Mr S J B Carter. In this letter, in similar words to those in the one just quoted, JT writes:
What I expressed has been in my mind for at least twenty-five years; and it came to me through F.E.R. when he was in America in 1902. It came out in a Reading but was not in the printed notes. (Ibid, page 263, emphasis JT.) Then is immediately added: J.N.D. evidently had the same thought, although like F.E.R. he generally treated the subject as commonly accepted; Mr Raven had the thought later, I think. I refer to “Notes and Comments,” Vol. 7, page 7: “nor do I see,” he says, “that in this character (John 1:14) He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh.” He guards this afterwards with a note, but the text remains. (Ibid.)
I have read enough to know that Mr Darby held strongly to the eternal sonship of Christ all his life and condemned any denial of it. JT has completely misunderstood, not to mention misrepresented, Mr Darby on this part quoted out-of-context sentence. So how reliable is the testimony of JT concerning Mr Raven?
Mark,
I am not aware that FER’s sentence “I should hardly use ‘Son of God’ as referring to His eternal Person” was widely used to prove that FER denied the eternal Sonship of Christ. R. A. Huebner is an exception (and, I think, G. W. Zellers who probably used Huebner). Huebner’s enmity against FER, sometimes, prevented a calm and unprejudiced view. But this is no proof that FER ever clung to the Eternal Sonship of Christ. That he abandoned this in later years (about 1900) becomes more and more clear. But even if FER held to Eternal Sonship up to his death he was certainly heterodox in other fields, as I have shown above and here.
And it seems that you did not fully understand what FER really implied in what he wrote in the text you quoted. FER is making a distinction between two expressions, namely
No. 1 “Son of God” and
No. 2. “the Son”.
According to FER, No 1 (“Son of God”) refers to Christ as man (incarnate) and no. 2 (“the Son”) to his eternal Person. That this was really the opinion of FER is clear from a letter he wrote in 1894: “We find as a rule that when He is spoken of as Son of God it refers to Him as Man, and when it is 'the Son' it is His eternal Sonship.” (Letters of FER, p. 232).
Another proof is in vol. 12 of FER’s Ministry. Here we get the following conversation:
R.S.S. I do not think that we got all that we might as to the difference between the Son and the Son of God. It was apprehending a little of that which we have in Matthew 11:25, and the following verses, that helped me very much on that subject.
F.E.R. Well, I think 'the Son' presents Christ in distinctness of person but in relation with the Father, and I think 'Son of God' presents Him more in relation to man and the universe. You have ‘The Father loves the Son’ and kindred expressions. 'The Son' is presented as Man. One verse proves that (John 5:26), ‘For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself’. That is the position of the Son in relation to the Father. 'The Son' connects Him with the Father. On the other hand, 'Son of God' puts Him more in relation to man.”
(Ministry of FER, vol. 12, page 119. In Ministry, vol. 8, page 267, FER only spoke of “a shade of distinction”.)
Thus FER did not (at least in 1894) deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ - but he was already confused about the terms.
Novelties as these are abundant in FER’s writings. W. Kelly already answered in 1901: “The alleged difference between ‘the Son’ and ‘the Son of God’ is rash and wrong, being even refuted by the text itself. That ‘Son of God’ is (in Ps. 2 and elsewhere as John 1: 49, as well as Luke 1: 35) said of Christ as the King of Israel is true; yet the generalisation made in page 109 is a dangerous falsehood, as is made certain by such texts as 1 John 3: 8, 1 John 4: 10, 14, 1 John 5: 5, 9, 10, 20. But if one desire a single distinct disproof of its folly, one could not have a more decisive one than 1 John 5: 12: ‘He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.’ In this case the emphasis is rather the opposite way, as every spiritual mind must feel.” (The Bible Treasury, New series 3, p. 379, left column; also in F. E. R. Heterodox on Life Eternal, p. 36)
By the way: FER's curious distinction between “Son of God” and “the Son” has even been repeated by others.
Two examples:
a) “Whenever He is viewed in scripture as having taken upon Him the condition of man, His personal and distinctive title is the ‘Son of God’, The title Son of God does not describe Him as a divine Person in eternal relationship with the Father; it describes that same divine Person as a Man down here, as a Man born in time, for when He was brought into this world the Father salutes Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee’.” (The Closing Ministry of J. Pellatt , p. 89-90)
b) For my second example I have only a German translation. It is from L. H. Farrell’s book “Fellowship”. I try an English re-translation (in my German edition on page 9): “He was always the eternal Son in the bosom of the Father, but the designation ‘Son of God’ describes His relation to God as a man in time.” (German: “stets war Er der ewige Sohn im Schoße des Vaters, doch die Bezeichnung ‚Sohn Gottes‘ beschreibt Seine Beziehung zu Gott als Mensch in der Zeitlichkeit.“
Martin
Martin
Only a few moments ago I commented again on the page concerning Miss Stoney, but more with regard to the teachings of James Taylor.
I think the part citation you mention generally comes from Roy Huebner via Zeller and Showers - at least as far as I have observed on the Internet. The sentence from which this part citation is extracted is in the context of the well known verse, 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee' (Ps 2:7).
This verse is explained by Mr Darby in the "Synopsis" as well as being referred to by him in Matthew 1, Luke 1, Hebrews 1. He draws a distinction between Christ as the Son of God born in time and His eternal sonship. Many other leading teachers among "brethren" take the same view as he does in contrast to those who explain Psalm 2 verse 7 in terms of the "eternal generation" of the Son.
My point is that Mr Raven was not denying the eternal sonship of Christ in that sentence, and in many places he fully affirmed it. Evidence that he later questioned it at least is now being presented on this website, but such men as James McBroom, A J Pollock, and Hamilton Smith, who all esteemed Mr Raven, and who all maintained Christ's eternal sonship as the truth, wrote to James Taylor, C A Coates, and others of that persuasion, but were ignored. The reason according to Mr Taylor was that it was "a subject requiring the most mature spiritual judgement," and by implication therefore, something which these "Glanton" brethren did not possess.
As to what Mr Raven actually said, and what he meant by what he said, unless there is written evidence or as established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, it remains somewhat obscure.
That Mr Taylor claimed non-eternal sonship came to him through FER, and that JND evidently had the same thought, I take with a pinch of salt.
Nick,
You forget that FER presents his thoughts as a “rule”. That is: He thinks that it is always true. But W. Kelly has already given some verses in 1Joh where FER’s definition does not hold water. Jonathan also rightly hints at Heb 7:1-3. Or think of Joh 3:18: “. . . he that believes not has been already judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” The word “only-begotten” shows Him to be a person of the Godhead, the eternal Word; and he is called “Son of God” in this verse, not “the Son”.
Even if your (and AR’s?) though on 1Joh 5:12 were true this does not prove FER’s thought to be a “rule” (in all other cases).
But I am not convinced by your interpretation of 1Joh 5:12. This verse contrasts (as John and especially 1John often does) the only two possible cases:
(1) he that has the Son (he has life) and
(2) he that hath not the Son of God (he has not life).
Case (1) speaks of a believer (and this could be the reason why it simply says “the Son”; of course, the believer knows who this "Son" is and needs no further explanation). Case (2) is the saddest possible case: Someone who does not have the Son. Would it not be appropriate to remind him in solemn and serious terms that such an unbeliever is not resisting a man, but that it is a person of the Godhead with whom he has to do?
Compare a similar case in Joh 3:36 “He that believes on the Son has life eternal, and he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of” whom? a man? no: of “God abides upon him.”
Martin
Nick,
thank you for your correction and clarification about the English term "as a rule". Please excuse my poor English!
So FER was only talking about something that was (as he thought) normally so. But I think FER is still incorrect even in the majority of cases (and WK has provided several counter-examples) nor do I think that FER gives the right criterion to make a difference. I think that "the Son" and "Son of God" often have only a very slight nuance (difference) in meaning. I would be very cautious about mechanical separation of terms. It seems to me that we need to pay close attention to the context of a verse to decide whether "Son" here means the eternal Sonship (I will call it the “divine Sonship”) or the Sonship of Jesus Christ as man (“human Sonship”). In several passages you will find the human and the divine Sonship of Christ put side by side. Take, once again, the beginning of Heb 7. These verses were not written to give us a detailed treatise on sonship. Nevertheless we get the King of Salem who was, as a type, made like the Son of God:
(1) He was like the Son of God as King of righteousness.
(2) He was like the Son of God as King of Salem (= King of peace).
(3) He was like the Son of God without father, without mother, without genealogy.
(4) He the like Son of God as having neither beginning of days nor end of life.
(To clarify: I think we agree that (3) and (4) are not true of the historical king of Salem but refer to his presentation in Scripture in Gen 14: No parents and no genealogy is given there; therefore the antitype had no father etc. But that is not my point now.)
No (1) and (2) stress the human side of Christ’s being Son of God. But (3) and (4) show the divine side of His being Son of God: As man he had a father (Joseph) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (Mat 1 and Luk 3) and a “beginning of days” (Mat 1 and Luk 2). Thus, these typical attributes can refer only to His divine Sonship where he had no (human) parents and no “beginning of days” because he was eternally the Son of God.
Martin
Mark,
you wrote:
> My point is that Mr Raven was not denying
> the eternal sonship of Christ in that sentence,
I think that nobody here has questioned this.
> As to what Mr Raven actually said, and
> what he meant by what he said, unless
> there is written evidence or as established
> by the mouth of two or three witnesses,
> it remains somewhat obscure.
I think we have at least two witnesses of what FER said: J. Taylor and J. S. Allen. (JT was an admirer and JSA an intimate friend of FER.) Both men were present at meetings of FER in America. I don’t think that J. McBroom, A. J. Pollock, or H. Smith were present in America while FER spoke. They could rely only on written evidence of FER - and we agree that FER held Eternal Sonship at least until the midst of the 1890th and that there seems to be no clear denial of the Eternal Sonship in FER’s later writings.
You cannot put JT’s attitude towards FER and towards JND on the same level because
1) JT never heard JND on this theme and
2) Although JT tried to belittle the difference between his and JND's view of eternal sonship, he had to admit that JND held to eternal sonship until his departure. (Letters of JT, vol. 2, p. 42 and letters vol. 3, page 312 [new editions by BGT]).
It would not eliminate all problems if it could be proven conclusively that FER held to Eternal Sonship until the last day before his death. FER had other points where he taught heresy that he is definitely not reliable and sometimes his false teachings concern fundamental points about the person of the Lord Jesus. I have written on this website about FER’s denial of the Lord’s real manhood. His rejection of the Lord as the eternal Word (λόγος) could be added.
Martin
Martin
I can only refer you to the things I have already said as to the sonship of Christ and His manhood, and which are found above.
The point is that if a Google search is made of "F E Raven" at present, one of your comments comes up at the top. Hence the whole world will assume that FER denied "the Lord's real manhood."
Yet he said of Christ, "He is a real Man, body, soul, and spirit, but still God’s Son." Further, regarding "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,” he also said, "It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God." Is this denying the Lord's real manhood?
Called into question by him were the things which some were teaching with regard to the Incarnation. I have mentioned elsewhere the attempts they made to explain it and shown that the Scriptures say nothing of the sort. One brother even wrote of the Incarnation, "It is inexplicable," but still went ahead with his explanation of it nevertheless!
I only add, though it be addressed to Nick Fleet, that 1 John 5 verse 12 is referred to as based on a correct quotation, then "the saddest possible case" is mentioned. However, to write, "Someone who does not have the Son," is to misquote the verse, or at least stopping short of the words 'of God', they being particularly relevant. That "it is a person of the Godhead with whom he has to do" is not exactly what this verse directly in itself is saying. John 3 verse 36 would be a more suitable text, which, in fact, is then in part correctly quoted, but broken into towards the end with a question, a question to which a wrong answer is then supplied.
In that verse, the person believing on the Son has life eternal. The person not subject to Him will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. It is not the wrath of the Son abiding on him. The verse does not say, nor does it imply, "the Son of God" as though the genitive tou theou - "of God" - at this point here in it applies to the Son. The verse says that it is 'the wrath of God' that abides on that person. The Son is God of course, but it is not the Son's wrath. Also worth pointing out is that it does not say the wrath "of the Father" since that would not be in keeping with the name of Father, His name being connected with grace especially in John's Gospel.
Syd
The line of sucession Darby, Stoney, Raven, Taylor Senior, Taylor Junior, which is the current notion among the PBCC, perhaps came about in the thinking of the "London" brethren in the later Taylor Senior years. Hence Taylor Junior eventually stepping into his father's shoes.
I do not think that FER had any desire to be "another Darby," nor that such an idea as an "elect vessel" or "universal leader" was ever in his mind, a notion doubtless he would have refused. That, I suggest, is a rewriting of history on the part of the Taylorites.
Regarding the question, "But why would so many godly, eminently gifted Bible teachers spontaneously rise up against Raven's teachings?"
It is not that I agree with everything FER said. His statement, "Becoming a man, he becomes the Logos," I admit is completely erroneous. But then similarly is Mr Kelly's statement of Christ that "He emptied Himself of His deity" when He took the form of a servant, when He does become a man. I do not accept W J Hocking's excuse that it is preceded by the word "if" since it is the premise from which the conclusion that "He humbles Himself and becomes obedient as far as death" is deduced.
However, there is a context. Similarly with FER. I have written more than enough to show that Mr Raven's critics were not always right, some of them indeed quite in error; but it is against the backgound of things being said and written by his opponents at the time, and in response to them, that many of his statements were made, and are thus to be understood. Indeed, on this very page, if the comments of others are not read, the relevance of mine will be missed.
Syd
I am not really wanting to carry on with this debate. I do not think that this is exactly the place for it.
William Kelly did not believe that Christ ceased to be God when He became Man. Of that I am quite sure. Nevertheless, the sentence to which I have referred as it stands is plainly wrong, seriously erroneous. Philippians 2 verse 7 does not say what Christ emptied Himself of, but it was certainly not His deity.
The point is that anyone can put out a statement which on the face of it is perilously flawed. The sad thing is that Mr Kelly wrote a book against Mr Raven in which the words and phrases that he used against him were excessive to say the least.
That aside, my exercise has been to consider statements made by Mr Raven in their context.
Mark,
I am persuaded that FER denied the Lord's real humanity though nobody asserted that FER denied the Lord’s real manhood in every sentences he ever wrote. In Fact at several occasions FER confesses the biblical terms but when you look closer you will see that his terminology is not used as scripture does but is filled with new and unscriptural ideas.
It is your exercise to consider statements made by FER in their context. Well, let’s do this.
Your first quotation of FER is this: "He is a real Man, body, soul, and spirit, but still God’s Son." Now, what did FER write immediately in the next sentence? Here it is: “If you carry the thought of the incarnation beyond the scriptural limit, that is, form (that of a servant) and condition (flesh and blood), you cannot avoid, that I can see, reaching distinct personality, and so making two personalities in Christ, a divine and a human.“ So incarnation is limited by FER to “form” and “condition”; to say more would be, according to FER, “beyond the scriptural limit”. On the other hand FER says that he believes in “a real Man, body, soul, and spirit”. So, according to FER, the human Body, soul and sprit of the Lord is only (yes: only! He says that it would go beyond the scriptural limit so say more) a form or a condition.
FER misunderstands the term “flesh” which is (in Joh 1:14) a synonym not only of the condition of His holy Body (though that is included, of course) but of his complete Humanity (Spirit, Soul, and Body) which is far more than form and condition. Joh 1:14 does not only say that since the incarnation “form” or “condition” changed but much more: The Word became (ἐγένετο) flesh.
FER is wrong when he claims that this (scriptural) view of the incarnation would be “making two personalities in Christ, a divine and a human”. But it proves that (for FER) Christ’s humanity does not belong to His person.
You also quote the following part of a sentence from FER: “It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God." Now let us see the context of this quotation, too. In Readings at Quemerford 8 (1895), p. 135 (reprinted in Ministry of FER, vol. 8, p. 264). W. T. P. Wolston asked FER: “We say of man he is a tripartite creature, body, soul and spirit. The Lord was ... you do not contend against His manhood?” FER answered: “No; but you might be near error there. You get on dangerous ground in applying such things to the Lord. He is a divine Person in manhood. In the thought of spirit I believe you get the idea of personality. ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God. ” etc.
FER said, that to apply Body, Soul, and Spirit (as men have) to the Lord is “near error” and “dangerous ground”. This denies at least that the Lord has a Body, Soul and Spirit as we have it as human beings (and the context shows that he does not mean that the Lord had no sin; that was not the point, here). Few minutes before, FER had said (in the same reading): “In Person He is God; in condition He is man.” and refused to confess that the Lord was “personally man”. I have already made comments on this some time ago.
Your quotations of FER remind me of what has been written in March 1891 from the European continent to Anstey, Stoney, and Mackintosh: “It is true that the friends of Mr. Raven take pains to prove from other letters and writings of his, that he, as regards the points of doctrine objected to, is not only thoroughly sound, but even teaches precious truths: they bring extracts which appear to state exactly the contrary of the above citations. As long, however, as these latter and the doctrines contained in them, have not been clearly and distinctly acknowledged as evil and withdrawn, we consider these efforts but a clever attempt of the enemy, to cover up the evil and to blind the eyes of the saints.” (N. L. Noel: History of the Brethren, vol. 2, p. 554)
As for John 3:36, you misunderstood me. Of course the second part of Joh 3:36 is about God. That is precisely my argument: the one who rejects faith is dealing with the highest possible being. Therefore, it is not plausible that in 1 John 5:12 the humanity of the Lord should be emphasized. It is rather His divinity which is in focus.
Martin
Martin
To respond to the comment, 'W. T. P. Wolston asked FER: “We say of man he is a tripartite creature, body, soul and spirit. The Lord was ... you do not contend against His manhood?” FER answered: “No; but you might be near error there. You get on dangerous ground in applying such things to the Lord. He is a divine Person in manhood." '
Then added in the next paragraph is, 'FER said, that to apply Body, Soul, and Spirit (as men have) to the Lord is “near error” and “dangerous ground”. This denies at least that the Lord has a Body, Soul and Spirit as we have it as human beings (and the context shows that he does not mean that the Lord had no sin; that was not the point, here).'
Read Dr Wolston's question carefully. Notice the word "creature" in it. To use the word "creature" of the Lord, even if being applied to His manhood, would indeed be a serious error. It is that to which Mr Raven was responding. He was not denying that "the Lord has a Body, Soul and Spirit as we have it as human beings." That he clearly affirms elsewhere; and I do not follow your reasoning that this was "only" a form or condition. It is rather pressing the matter beyond that intended.
As to Mr Raven's seeming evasion with regard to the question, "Why is He not personally man?" I would say unreservedly that the Lord was and still is personally a man. However, it is a matter of how the question is worded. The context to all this is that his opponents were making a man - a person - out of His manhood.
It is said, 'FER is wrong when he claims that this (scriptural) view of the incarnation would be “making two personalities in Christ, a divine and a human”. But it proves that (for FER) Christ’s humanity does not belong to His person.'
However, is this a valid proof? Humanity, like manhood, is an abstract noun. Humanity is not a person; or, put in other words, manhood is not a person. Manhood in itself is not a man, but manhood, or humanity if you prefer, "belongs" to a man. A human person has a human nature. It is that nature, manhood, which makes someone a man. There is a difference between a person having manhood, and making out manhood or human nature to be a person.
To speak of someone having a personal manhood, or a personal humanity, or a personal human nature, is nonsensical. A human being, human person, has a human nature, but to ascribe a personality to the nature itself, even with regard to Christ, was an error being taught at the time, and the background to Dr Wolston's question and that which lay behind Mr Raven's answer.
The Lord's manhood did not have a personality of its own. His manhood, humanity, human nature, was not a person in itself anymore than in you or in me, though it was impeccable of course. I suggest that it was Mr Raven's opponents such as Mr Hennessy that were in error over this, not Mr Raven.
Coming to another point, John 1 verse 14 does not mean the same as Philippians 2 verse 7 exactly. It might well be the same event, the Incarnation, but it is looked at in different ways for different reasons. In the former the word "flesh" is used, and in the latter, the word "form" in both the KJV and Darby Translation.
As an aside, JT's error was to assume that the Word became the Son by incarnation, instead of seeing that it was only as incarnate that He could be beheld by the apostles 'as the only begotten of the Father' (Jn 1:14 KJV), the reason why John had just previously written, 'And the Word became flesh' (Jn 1:14 JND). Without having become flesh he could not have been beheld as the only begotten Son.
However, this is very different that which Paul is teaching in Philippians 2, the word "form" being used there. Hence the word "flesh" here as used by John. This is not playing one scripture off against another, but considering each of these words in their context.
Hence, regarding the letter in Mr Noel's History of the Brethren, there is the bringing in of scriptures which have little bearing on the doctrines in question - and there are a number refered to - mixing up different verses as though they all mean the same thing. I refrain from going into it in detail. However, to cite one but very relevant part: "As long, however, as these latter and the doctrines contained in them, have not been clearly and distinctly acknowledged as evil and withdrawn, we consider these efforts but a clever attempt of the enemy, to cover up the evil and to blind the eyes of the saints." The inference is that Mr Raven, led by Satan, taught evil doctrine, but added some bits of truth to disguise it. I suggest that this "Second Circular of the Continental Brethren" letter has not only influenced the "Continental Brethren" ever since, but stands in perpetuity as a judgement never to be rescinded.
As to Noel's History, every Brethren historian thinks their section of the Brethren the right one, and that includes not only those known as "exclusives" but also the Open Brethren. Who is right?
I just add that Quemerford in 1895 has been mentioned. The comments referred to were made during a reading on Hebrews 1 and 2. Read Hebrews 2 verse 14 in the Darby Translation, and especially the notes referring to it at the bottom of the page. Notice how Mr Darby disinguishes between 'koinoneo' and 'metecho', but it is interesting how he uses the latter when he translates it in the phrase as 'took part in the same' ie. of blood and flesh. Neither this verse, nor Philippians 2 verse 7, or John 1 verse 14, convey any notion of "union" as was being pressed by others.
You might reply if you wish, but I leave the matter now as it stands. I already said to another last evening that I do not intend to continue with this, since I do not think the arguing out of these matters here is the point of this website, but rather to provide information and evidence for research.
Mark
Al
You seem to be in a rather highly emotionally charged state. Who has given you the right to decide what should and should not be on this website? Who is behind this motivating you to take such an extreme line? It is a valuable resource for looking into both sides of the arguments that have led to those known as “brethren” now having become so sadly broken up. I would not like to see things removed from it in order to push biased and one-sided opinions with no access to facts.
The dust has long settled on many of the issues - except this one it would appear - and it can now be seen in many cases that the fault was not necessarily restricted to one side in a division, some sadly being personality clashes, some far too hastily pushed through.
Some of us have spent a great amount of time and effort looking into the history of the Brethren Movement, in my case at one time delving into the Christian Brethren Archive in the John Rylands Library at Manchester University, particularly into the troubles of the late 1840s that led to the division of the “Plymouth Brethren” into “open” and “exclusive” branches. Both sides claim to be right, so how otherwise could I have obtained the evidence needed to assess, also in the light of Scripture, where I should be?
However, whence this concerning Mr Raven now brought to our attention? "He denies the diety [sic] and humanity of Jesus." He most certainly did not deny His deity. Nor to my knowledge did he say that He is not God in the flesh. If he did, please enlighten us as to the source, and his own words precisely with book reference. His opponents might have claimed he denied the humanity of Jesus, but that depends on what they meant by humanity. From their writings it would seem they held the notion that His humanity was a person, that there was a human person in Christ.
Mr Raven’s statements not only need to be accurately quoted but also must be put into their context.
Al
I wonder what your sources of information are in order that you reach the conclusion that "frederick raven is a satanic man." This is a very serious thing to say about anyone.
It is immediately claimed that he "willfully ruined the worldwide original fellowship of assemblies." I would emphasise here the word "wilfully" as implying that this was his deliberate intention. Was it?
If "frederick raven was a tare sowed by satan to ruin the original worldwide fellowship (matthew 13)" he would have been a son of the evil one, and as such, to be cast into the furnace of fire. Again, this a statement which needs to be carefully weighed.
As to the word "jumble" already used by another, it could hardly be said that your comment contains any "facts" at all, just words and names of places having some connection with that known as the "Bexhill division." Others, such as Green Bat(t?) Hall, as pointed out, having no bearing whatsoever on the matter.
Andy Eden
Much of your latest comment is also unclear. It is assumed by the "London Street meeting" that Park Street in London is meant.
As to Napoleon Noel's use of the expression "the primitive company", every group within the Brethren Movement think they are the continuation of it, and everyone thinks are they in that! That includes Open Brethren as well as those who remained in fellowship and did not withraw from Mr Raven.
Evidence is lacking for the concept of a so-called clerical "See" as some of the problem with Mr Raven, and he cannot be blamed as to "how he handled the Glanton Assembly difficulties." The Lord had taken him several years before.
