“He is it (as well as being the true God) and I have always maintained that it is not what He has taken in becoming man, but that what He ever was in relationship with the Father and in being, morally, now gives its character, as far as it can, to manhood (eternal life is in His Son, the second Man is out of heaven) though in what is suitable in man, and hence not necessarily involving attributes proper to Deity.”
On this last J.S.O. remarks: “I think this is borne out by the Epistle of John, ‘which thing is true in Him and in you.’ What we share and possess in Christ would deify us if we do not distinguish between what is communicable and what is incommunicable.” And then in general J.S.O. says: “If F.E.R. appeals to Scripture as to eternal life being God’s purpose of blessing for man throughout eternity, and all in Christ’s own Person becoming a man, dying and entering into glory that we might have it there in Him as man, why not refute what he says by Scripture, instead of assuming without Scripture proof that a root exists ‘which positively affects the Person and glory of Christ’? It would be a service to the saints to expose both the teaching and the root, but no one does it. On the contrary, those who have left confound eternal life with Deity on the one hand, and level it down to wilderness life and earthly things on the other.”
It is needless to remark on all I have here given, as in the main it is confirmatory of all we have already noticed, although it helps us, perhaps, better to see what Mr. Raven means by “in essence.” It was always in the Son “in essence,” but now the Son is the second Man, and “the second Man is out of heaven.” No one denies the heavenly origin of the second Man, because He who was the eternal Son became the second Man, but does Mr. Raven mean that the second Man was always in heaven “in essence”? He says this of “eternal life,” and he identifies eternal life and the second Man, leading us to infer that eternal life was always in heaven “in essence” because the “second Man is out of heaven”; and since he says “the term ‘eternal life’ is always used in Scripture in reference to man,” it would follow that in 1 John 1:22(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:2) “the eternal life, which was with the Father” is used “in reference to” the second Man “in essence,” if Mr. Raven allows that this sentence speaks of what was before the incarnation, and he does tell us that eternal life is not what Christ took in becoming man, “but that what He ever was in relationship with the Father and in being, morally, now gives character, as far as it can, to manhood.” So, then, with Mr. Raven, eternal life antecedent to the incarnation was not what Christ was in His own Person, nor was it the life of the Son, but something he was in relationship and in being, morally, that is, it was not really life at all — not intrinsic life — but only a moral condition flowing from what He was, and which gives its character to the second Man. I leave the reader to judge whether this is not derogatory to His Person and glory, and based upon analyzing His Person.
Then what is said about confounding Deity and eternal life is only human reasoning on what the mind cannot analyze. We are “born of God” and partake of the divine nature, are “born of the Spirit,” and what is born thus is “spirit,” yet no one thinks of raising a difficulty here, as if being born of God involved our becoming God. Why then as to life? Life was, and is, in the Son. It is communicated, but we do not in receiving life become deified. The life subsists eternally in Him as a divine person; we have it dependently. It does not subsist in us, but we live by it, and have it in Him. It is “the commandment,” which expresses the life, that is “true in Him and in us.” It was expressed in Him in obedience and dependence as a man, and so in us.
But J.S.O. says, “If F.E.R. appeals to Scripture as to eternal life being God’s purpose of blessing for man... why not refute what he says by Scripture...?” Now, Mr. Raven has referred to 2 Timothy 1, and Titus 1, but I have seen no attempt to prove his statement by these. Let him prove by Scripture his proposition and then we will believe it. In these scriptures the purpose and promise of God are spoken of, and eternal life is spoken of, but eternal life is not defined as “God’s purpose of blessing for man,” though it be promised according to that purpose. “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,” “God, who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:9-109Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: (2 Timothy 1:9‑10)). “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:22In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (Titus 1:2)). Thus these scriptures run, and what we see is, that God promised life, and brought it to light in the gospel. What is brought to light existed eternally in the Person of Christ, not in mere purpose, but as an eternal reality. It was God’s purpose to give eternal life to us — He promised it — but what God promised to do is not a definition of what eternal life is. But I do not pursue these things further.
If the reader has attempted to follow these new developments, I would now ask, has your soul been fed with the Christ of God? Have you been led into deeper reverence for His name? Or have you not rather been fed with vain speculations and unholy reasonings, until your soul is withered up? May we indeed return to what was from the beginning, that our “fellowship” may be “with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ,” and that “our joy may be full.”
These statements we have been looking at surely are sufficiently plain to open the eyes of those who think they have seen nothing in Mr. Raven’s utterances but “sound doctrine.” And they show, too, what a terrible attack of the enemy we are having to deal with. Almost every truth is affected — new birth, eternal life, God’s righteousness, the Person of Christ. You cannot receive his words without the character of these truths being changed. If you receive what he says, the truths you held in your soul are not what they were before. He leaves a blight on all he touches. It is a Christ-dishonoring, soul-withering system, from which those who fear God and would walk with Him, must turn away. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Oh! how we need to seek the Lord’s face in this trying hour (with humbling and sorrow, indeed!) and cleave to Him whose glory the folly of man’s wisdom would obscure. We are in a conflict that may well drive us into His presence to find a refuge from the storm. May we hear His voice, “I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast that no man take thy crown.” To be “lukewarm,” to be indifferent at such a moment, can only be an unspeakable grief to the heart of the blessed Lord.
“Who is on the LORD’S side?”