========================================================================
  DURAND, SILAS & OLIPHANT, J.H. - LETTERS
  by Silas Oliphant Jh Durand
========================================================================

A collection of letters exchanged between Silas Durand and J.H. Oliphant, two
ministers in the Primitive Baptist tradition, discussing theological questions,
pastoral concerns, and the Christian life.

  Chapters: 3

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01 Letters on Time Salvation
    2. 02 Letter One By Silas Durand
    3. 03 Reply By Oliphant to Durrand's First Letter

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01 LETTERS ON TIME SALVATION
========================================================================

Letters on Time Salvation & Predestination By Silas Durand & J.H. Oliphant

LETTERS

WRITTEN BY ELDER S. H. DURRAND, OF SOUTHHAMTON, PA., AND ELDER J. H. OLIPHANT,
OF CRAWFORDSVILLE, IND.

GREENFIELD, IND D. H. GOBLE, PRINTER,

1900

PREFACE. In as much as these letters were not printed in the same paper, it is
thought proper to have them in book or pamphlet form so that the reader can
compare them together. It is this consideration that has led me to undertake the
task of offering to the public this book, hoping its perusal will be aid our
people to find the truth on this subject.

Affectionately,

J. H. Oliphant.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02 LETTER ONE BY SILAS DURAND
========================================================================

ELDER DURAND’S FIRST LETTER.SOUTHAMPTON, PA.,

Oct. 27, 1899.

Dear Brethren: The following is a private letter to a ministering brother in a
distant state. As it expresses my views on an important subject, I send a copy
for publication in the Signs. Your brother in hope, SILAS H. DURAND.

SOUTHAMPTON, PA.,

Oct. 6, 1899.

Dear Brother: I have received your letter replying to my inquiry concerning your
published statement that both Adam and Christ were put on probation or trial;
each had freedom of will, acted voluntarily, and each was biased to that which
is good. “You express the hope that if I should not approve of your position I
will yet regard you as a brother. If I did not regard you as a brother I should
not be corresponding with you upon spiritual things. If I am qualified to judge
of a work of grace, I think I have seen evidences of it in your writings. But
those evidences do not clearly appear in the letter which I have just received,
nor in some argumentative articles I have read of late from your pen. You seem
to have been so intent upon proving the existence of helplessness on account of
a sinful nature, "a deceitful heart and wretched, wandering mind," your inward
groaning and cries unto God to deliver you from your own corrupt will, and
enable you to do his will, "working in you that which is well pleasing in his
sight," and your prayers that the Lord would rule in and reign over you,
enabling you to deny yourself.

One who did not know that you have an experience of grace would think from this
letter and your published article in reply to me, that you were relying upon
your own power, freedom of will, faithfulness and diligence, for daily salvation
and spiritual benefit and comfort, and that you were not one of those poor,
weak, halting, stumbling creatures who are daily "beggars poor at mercy’s door,
" and who daily and hourly feel their need of Jesus to uphold and lead them, and
of his Spirit to guide them in the truth, and to restore their souls.

Such forgetfulness of the most important things in our life and walk before God
will occur when we engage extensively in arguments upon the letter of some point
of doctrine, especially in trying to reconcile the wisdom of God with the wisdom
of men. I think it is on this account that you have failed of late, at least in
some of the articles I have read from your pen, to bring forth the riches of
that doctrine of grace which is the only hope and comfort of those poor souls
who “can not do the things they would,” because of the lusting of the flesh
against the Spirit, and of the Spirit against the flesh. {Gal 5:16-18} You seem
to insist that they can do the things that they would, and that God has left all
spiritual advantage and comfort dependent upon their own will and work, and thus
you have bound burdens upon them "which neither we nor our, fathers were able to
bear." I do not think you have intended to bind burdens upon those who are
without strength, and you may not be conscious of having done so. But some of
them feel it, and complain of it, and suffer under it. You can not have meant to
discourage the helpless, but how could it be otherwise than discouraging to them
to insist that they are not helpless, but are given freedom of will, and are
left dependent upon themselves whether they will be happy or miserable, when
they dare not trust their own will for a moment? ’If ye walk in the Spirit,"
says the apostle, ’Ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh; " {Gal 5:16}.
They feel a longing for this, but their own will and work will not lead them
into that holy walk. It can only be as they "are led by the Spirit," {Gal 5:18},
and as Jesus walks in them, as he said, "I will dwell in them, and walk in
them."

You must remember that whenever you have felt that you were walking in the
Spirit, and were dwelling in the favor of God, with his light speakable
blessing, and you have had no thought, at the time, of taking any part of the
credit to yourself. You can not, I am sure, have ever thought that any favor you
experienced from God had been earned in any part or degree by your own
meritorious work. You can not ever have asked for his favor upon such a ground.
To the extent that there is an expectation of, or request for, favors upon the
ground that we have performed some conditional work, to the same extent the name
of Jesus is not needed by us. As in your own case the Lord alone can restore
your soul, and lead you in the paths of righteousness, you ought to present the
Lord alone to his people as their only hope and confidence. "He is the
confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the
sea;" {Psa 65:1-13}. The few that I have known of preachers who have been left
for a time to believe that their meritorious work in the performance of
conditions had secured their daily or "time salvation," and had gained them
favors in the house of God, have been, while under the power of that delusion, a
hindrance instead of a benefit to the Lord’s afflicted and poor people. For the
daily experience of the saints, as well as the Scriptures of truth, teaches them
that salvation is all of grace from first to last; that "grace all the work
shall crown." They do not find, in either the Bible or their experience, that it
takes less of grace to keep them in the way than was needed to bring them there,
because of part of the work of keeping them being now left for themselves to do;
but that it is the same grace all the way through, and always sufficient for
them. {2Co 12:9}. "By the grace of God I am what I am, said the apostle. While
he could claim for himself and the other apostles a blameless and holy life and
walk among the saints, he ascribed all to the grace of God. In regard to his own
work, he never suggests a freedom of will, or an ability on his own part, but
always speaks of the will and grace of God as the moving power, and declares
that his labor and striving are °" according to the working of Jesus, which
worketh in me mightily;" {Col 1:29}.

While obedient saints rejoice in the commendation of their own consciences in
the sight of God, and in the commendation of the brethren and churches, they
would, when spiritually minded, shrink from the use of the word praise as
applicable to them in the other sense, implying any merit in themselves ; for
they know and feel that Jesus has wrought all their works in them, {Isa 26:12},
and that to him belongs all the praise, while theirs are the blessing and
benefit. To me it is a new and strange thing to find Old Baptists claiming
praise for works of obedience, and insisting that the favor of God is
conditional, depending upon their will and choice, and therefore uncertain, and
that when it comes to them it comes as a reward for their obedience. I have
heard that kind of talk all my life from Arminians, but never before from Old
Baptists. The Lord’s people can not eat their own flesh, can not live upon their
own works. The doctrine of a conditional salvation, a salvation depending upon
their own will and power to perform some meritorious work, will not feed any
"who have seen the plague of their own hearts," for they can not trust in
themselves. "We have the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not
trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead. " Such as these must have
the flesh of Jesus to eat; upon his works alone can they live. If you preach
anything but Jesus your preaching will not satisfy the soul that hungers and
thirsts after righteousness. A conditional salvation will be of no use to them
who ’ can not do the things that they would; " who can not direct their own
steps; {Jer 10:25}, who can not walk, but have to be carried. “Even to hoar
hairs will I carry you," is one of the many sweet promises for such, but while
you are urging upon them the system of conditions, and of dependence upon
themselves, you can not minister such precious promises to them. I do not see
them referred to by you, though they are probably often in your heart in secret
before God. It is better to try to minister to others only what we have
ourselves tasted and handled. In my letter to you I referred to the words of
Jesus, "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that
sent me; " and also, "Not my will, but thine, be done," as my reason for not
agreeing with you that Christ was put upon probation or trial, and that he was
left free to do his own will. In your reply you have not referred to those
expressions of Jesus, but have written in such a way that a stranger to your
profession might easily regard your letter as a careful argument in refutation
of the Savior’s declaration that he did not come to do his own will. It is in
sincerity and kindness, and not in a captious spirit, that I call your attention
to these things.

You say that Jesus was given liberty of choice, and did as he pleased, but he
himself says he did not come to do his own will, though his was the will of a
sinless man; and the apostle says, "Even Jesus pleased not himself;" {Rom 15:3}.
His will as a man could be affected by the wants and infirmities of our nature
which he had taken upon him; by sorrow, pain, hunger, weariness; so that the
doing of this will would not have accomplished the work of salvation he came to
do. He was not at any time left alone to himself until the last hour. His Father
was always with him, and did his work in him, as he does the work of his people
in them. " The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, but my Father
which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works; {John 14:10}. "The Son can do nothing
of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise; " {John 5:19}. This is why he always pleased
the Father, and not because of himself he had done some work. He did not work
alone in this sense. Even in the terrible struggle in the garden an angel was
sent from heaven to strengthen him, so that he should not fail. As it was with
the dear Savior, so it is with . his people; only as God works in them can they
ever do that which is well pleasing in his sight. Therefore the apostle says,
"For it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good
pleasure;" and he expresses his desire that "God, even our Father," would "make
them perfect to do his will, working in them that which is well pleasing in his
sight, through Christ Jesus; " {Heb 13:20-21}; and they who dwell in the land of
Judah, the gospel land, say, "Thou, Lord, wilt ordain peace for us, for thou
also hast wrought all our works in us; " {Isa 26:12}.

One brother says of the words in {Php 2:13}, just quoted, that, "Whatever they
may mean, he is sure that the brethren were called upon to do something more,
about which they exercised choice, and in which they were voluntary." And he
says concerning such Scriptures, that they must not be interpreted so as to make
it unnecessary to exhort one another to love and good works, and to "persuade
men." The language of those Scriptures concerning the working of God in us, is
not dark or equivocal, but clear as noonday, and needs no interpreting. The
teaching of the apostles will never make any gospel work unnecessary. We need
not concern ourselves about the result of the plain teaching of the Scriptures
concerning the sovereignty of God, nor try to harmonize the doctrine and things
of God with the thoughts and ways of men, for they are not alike, and never will
be. {Isa 55:8;1Co 2:1-16}. But what that -more" could be which the brethren were
called upon to do, besides what the Lord worked in them to will and to do of his
good pleasure, about which they exercised choice, and in which they were
voluntary, I can not understand. If the Lord works in them that which is well
pleasing in his sight, and if they declare by inspiration that he has wrought
all their works in them, what more outside works can there be? I do not suppose
such thoughts would occur to one except upon the supposed necessity in order to
defend a conditional salvation. In the first part of your letter you have
acknowledged and clearly proved that everything in the life of Jesus had been
determined before, and was certain. Why then should you need to speak of him as
put upon probation? All that, you refer to in the Scriptures concerning his
temptations, or trials, does not, in my view, warrant that declaration. That
form of language appears to imply some kind or degree of uncertainty, and you
evidently have that in view in speaking of him as put upon probation, for you
say that being subject to the commands of God "proves that he was situated to do
as he pleased;" and referring to his words, "I lay down my life of myself," you
say, -While his death was certain, it was not so with such a certainty as would
interfere with his liberty of doing as he pleased." It seems to me that the
terrible scene of suffering in the garden, and his words of pleading to the
Father that the cup might pass from him, if it were possible, might have made
you hesitate about writing that sentence.

You say again, "While his obedience was predestinated, it was not predestinated
like our regeneration and resurrection were predestinated." I do not find two
kinds or degrees of certainty, nor two kinds of predestination spoken of in the
Bible or elsewhere.

I do not understand that the difference you refer to between physical and moral
government and necessity applies to this subject. The government of Jesus is a
spiritual government, and does not come within the observation of men, {Luk
17:20}, and the obedience of his people is a spiritual necessity. The Father
worked in Jesus, and he works in his people. If he works in them that which is
well pleasing in his sight, can there be any uncertainty as to whether they will
all please him in his own time? Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy
power."

Both in this letter, and in your published article, you insist that the grace by
which we are born of God is not the same as that by which we obey the commands
of Jesus afterward. Where do we read in the Scriptures of different kinds of
’grace? We were raised up together with Christ, "that in the ages to come he
might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through
Christ Jesus." The exceeding riches of his grace" can not be exceeded, and that
is shown in all his kindness toward us. "For by grace ARE y e saved.’ Now look
along that road and see the same grace reaching through and manifested in all
the good works unto which they were created, and in which it was before ordained
that they should walk; {Eph 2:10}.

You say that an unconditional salvation makes exhortations and the like
unnecessary, while to my mind it is that system alone which shows them in their
true character and right place. They belong to that new and everlasting covenant
"which is ordered in all things and sure," and in which repentance and mercy are
provided for, as they can not be under a conditional system. Will the gifts
which Jesus gave to men fail till all the saints come, in the unity of the faith
and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man; unto the measure of the
stature of the fullness of Christ? {Eph 4:7-10}. The Lord "hath set the members
in the body as it pleased him," and "the Spirit divides to every man of his
gifts severally as he will." If a different measure of grace is given at any
time it is not that less is needed in some cases because part of the work is to
be done by the will of the man, without grace, or that less grace is needed
where the man voluntarily chooses to be obedient. But in this way only can I
attach any meaning to your expressions about different kinds of grace. In every
case just the measure of grace is given that is needed to be sufficient for us.
I do not myself find in my experience, nor in the Bible, a distinction as to
kinds or amounts of grace. It seems to me that I need more grace than any other
poor sinner, and my judgment tells me that if ever I need more at one time than
another it is when I am most lifted up in the joy of God’s salvation, for after
such exaltation I am most liable to be deceived and hurt by the evil
propensities of this deceitful heart, which "is still deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked.” A brother, one of the most spiritual and
tender-hearted, said at our prayer meeting yesterday , "Some talk about free
will, but it seems to me that my will is only free to do evil, so that sometimes
I seem to be all sin. But, “he said, "When I do feel some holy desires, and love
to the brethren, and some liberty of soul in spiritual things, I feel sure it is
all of grace. It is not of myself, but of the grace of God which is given me. "
And I could join and say truly, Amazing grace."

"Grace taught my soul to pray. And pardoning love to know;

’Twas grace that kept me to this day, And will not let me go."

Speaking of Christ with reference to rewards, we must remember that his reward
was with him while his work was before him. {Isa 40:10hew:10 ew:10}. You say it
is right to have a reward in view, and that we gain nothing by saying that the
reward is in the work, not for it. You say if we know that precious fruits grow
along a certain road, we understand that we must go along that road in order to
get the fruits. And still I-hold to the Bible expressions: In the keeping of
them is great reward. The other view is natural, as sure as salvation by grace
is true. I find enough of that system of selfishness in my flesh, but I hate it
in myself and others. It has never brought me any real comfort, but has given me
great disturbance and pain. It is not for some precious fruits that we go along
that road, because we can not have them unless we do go there, but for the
beauty and goodness and preciousness of the road itself. Jesus is the road, and
we never knew or desired that way till we were brought into it, and then we are
filled with wonder and love that we are there. And when a living soul is out of
that road he never has any real comfort till the Lord restores his soul, and .
brings him back again, for he can never get back by himself.

There seems to prevail in the mind of some brethren, the worldly view that a
hope of reward or a fear of punishment is necessary to compel obedience. They
forget or overlook in their own experience, and in the Bible, that the Lord has
used other and far different motive powers. Will any offered reward cause one to
seek righteousness as he does who hungers for it? Will any fear of punishment
turn one away from evil as effectually as a hatred of evil felt in the heart?
"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil," and that is what the Lord puts in the
hearts of his people, "that they shall not depart from him;" {Jer 32:40}.

“Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;" {2Co 5:11}. The
apostle is not here speaking of terror of some punishment which is threatened if
men sin, but of the terror of the Lord’s presence to the one who loves him, but
is found in transgression; the terror of sin itself to those who have a spirit
which causes them to love purity, and to desire "rather to be absent from the
body and present with the Lord. " It is the terror of being found of the Lord in
a fleshly, sinful walk, which he hates, and which his Spirit causes us to hate.
The terror of being found in crime by one dearly loved would be greater than to
be thus found by one who could punish us. Those who are here persuaded are those
whose exercises and desires are described in this chapter, whose only delight is
the felt favor of the Lord, and whose greatest terror is the withdrawal of his
face. These are they whom "the love of Christ constraineth" in all their work,
whose desire is to live not unto themselves, but unto him who died for them and
rose again." These are not seeking, in what they do, their own peace and
comfort, as a reward, but the honor of God. Their reward is in the work. The
principle now so much advocated of doing works of obedience for the reward which
shall be given them, I decidedly distrust and oppose in myself or another. It is
of the flesh. It is not spiritual nor true. In such a case the worker may not
love the work, nor care to obey, but only does it because the reward of peace
and joy lies in that direction. If they could not get the reward would they
still do the work? If they were to go into darkness and distress, as a
consequence of the obedience, would they obey? The principle which God gives as
the true incentive to obedience is his own love. Do the good work because it is
right, no matter what follows, and avoid the evil because it is wrong, and not
because it will subject us to punishment. The true principle says, "Though he
slay me, yet will I trust in him.” I am tired and sick of this self, self; this
seeking something for self in all we do. My nature is full of it, but I hate it.
I do not want to be controlled by it, nor do I want to see it taught as the
right principle by yourself and so many others. I know it is all wrong.

Gospel rewards are of grace, not of debt, and do not pander to that selfish
principle of the flesh. They are infinitely higher and holier. They are the
honor and glory of God. When we are spiritually led his glory is what we seek.
“Do all to the glory of God." He himself is our "exceeding great reward.”

I do not understand, as you assert, that the word "if," as used in the New
Testament, implies a condition. It is never used as expressing a dependence upon
the will. of the creature, as it is in the Old Testament. The Savior and his
apostles do not say, "If you will," but, "If you do,’ "If you are," expressing
not an act that may or may not be done. But a state or condition of mind. The
Savior never said, ’If you believe,’ but "If you do believe.’ He did not say,
"If a man will keep my commandments he shall abide in my love," but, "If a man
keep my commandments. " The form of expression in the New Testament never leaves
the result as depending upon the will and choice of man, but on the will and
power of God. The form of new covenant expressions always is such as shows that
man can do nothing of himself toward his own salvation; that "without God he can
do nothing. " The Savior did not say, “,If you will come unto me, all ye that
labor and are heavey laden, I will give you rest. If you will take my yoke upon
you and learn of me, you shall find rest to your souls." In commenting on this
you say the Savior addresses his people as parents say to their children, if you
will obey me in this matter I will give you a toy, or give you my approval.
“Again you say, “He presents motives, as it he would say, You need rest, you are
laboring and heavy laden, and need rest. He plainly encourages them to obedience
by promising rest in case they obey. “I do not understand it so at all. There
would be no power in such entreaties. "Where the word of a king is there is
power." This Scripture has been very precious to me for thirty-five years, but I
never understood it in that way. It is not an invitation nor an encouragement.
The Savior’s words are more and better than that. He never invites. The word
"invite" is never used by him, nor concerning him, in the Scriptures. He calls,
and his call is always obeyed. He speaks, not to the ear, but to the heart, and
his word never returns to him void, but accomplishes his will; {Isa 55:11}. He
describes those whom he calls as they are, "laboring and heavy laden," unable to
do any part of the work of satisfying the law, which presses them down under its
condemning power, while they struggle under it, unable to rise. They can not go
from sin to holiness, from the powers of darkness to him. But his call brings
them. As Lazarus did not know that Jesus had called him till he stood at the
mouth of the grave alive, so no laboring and heavy laden soul can know that
Jesus has called him till he feels that sacred rest. The peace of God which he
feels passeth understanding. This call of the Son is the revelation of the
Father by him. He has just said,, "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him; {Mat 11:27}. Then he reveals him. In his
own good time these words, which "are spirit and life," reach every soul that
has labored in vain to fulfill the law, and has fallen down helpless under its
righteous power, and brings that soul away from the law, freed from every
demand, washed from all sin, into his own gospel rest, where they are enabled to
say, "Abba, Father," through the name of Jesus, his only begotten Son. Yes, when
Jesus calls, they come. No one ever failed to come whom Jesus called. "My sheep
hear my voice, and they follow me. "

It is thought by some that if one can not do good he is not to blame for not
doing it. This would remove blame from those to whom the Lord says, "Can the
Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good
that are accustomed to do evil;" {Jer 13:23}. We must remember that the cause of
blame was before we were born. We were children of wrath by nature, dead in
sins. {Eph 2:1-5}. When made alive it was not in Adam, but in Christ, and only
in him can we live before God, or do good works. It is by his life, and his
will, and by his grace, not of ourselves, that we obey the Lord. When Paul
speaks of himself as laboring more abundantly than all the others, he says,
apparently correcting any wrong impression his words might give, "Yet not I, but
the grace of God which was with me;" {1Co 15:10}.

I exhort to obedience, and admonish those liable to wander, and warn the unruly,
when I feel it needed, though feeling to need the exhortations and admonitions
so much myself, and feeling unworthy to admonish others, but it is never with
the thought that the desired effect will depend upon the faithfulness, wisdom
and power of my work. It all depends upon the faithfulness, wisdom and power of
God. I do, or wish to do, what the Lord directs me to do, because he commands
it. It is for him to make the work effectual. I could neither preach nor exhort
if I thought the benefit depended upon my ability ; I am too weak. "The lot is
cast into the lap; the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." "We have this
treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and
not of us." °’In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine
hand; for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, this or that, or whether they
both shall be alike good ; "{Ec 11:6}. The faith of those ministered unto shall
stand, not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God ; " {1Co 2:5}.

I can say to any living soul, -Your peace of mind, and the manifest favor of
God, depend upon your obedience, or at least you can not have them while walking
in disobedience." But how can I say, "They depend upon your own choice and
will?" That would be telling them that they are their own keepers, and are able
to direct their own steps, which is contrary to the Scriptures and to their own
experience. When I have given the urgent exhortation, admonition or reproof, in
love and with tender anxiety, I must remind them, and must myself remember, that
the Lord only can work in them the needed will, give them his holy Spirit to
lead them, and-restore their souls. We all agree that he only can give us the
spirit of prayer and lead us in the paths of righteousness. He only can give us
true obedience in our hearts. Could you say to the Lord in prayer, "We know our
obedience and our comfort are left to ourselves, and are not brought about by
the same grace which brought us from death to life?” No, before you were half
through with such a prayer you would be choked up with the surging cry, "God be
merciful to me, a sinner." The prayer of our hearts, when wrought upon us by the
Spirit, is, "Keep me from evil that it may not grieve me." [Not that I may not
suffer punishment.] "Lead me in the paths of righteousness for thy name’s sake."
The word "if" does not in my view imply anywhere in the new covenant a condition
which may or may not be performed, and upon the performance of which, by us,
according to our will, depends our experience of the favors and blessings of
God. That was the form of the legal covenant, and the conditional expressions
made under the covenant are correctly quoted by you and others, but I have
wondered why spiritually instructed men should try to apply them to gospel
things, which are all made new, The conditional system never availed for
salvation. That was not its use and purpose, but to show that salvation was
beyond the sinner’s power, and to stop every mouth. In the gospel, salvation
stands "from all conditions clear." Those who live after the flesh shall die,
and those who through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, shall live.
But only through the Spirit can a spiritual work of any kind be done by any man.

Believing that God works all things after the counsel of his own will, we can
with confidence do each his portion of work, as the Lord directs to it, and in
it, knowing that he "will perfect that which concerneth us," and will cause his
own gifts to his church to result in her good and his own glory. In {1Pe 3:10},
I do not see that conditional salvation and comfort are any more taught than in
any other of this and the other apostles’ sweet and tender exhortations. He
appeals to that holy _delight in spiritual things which is in the soul of every
one who has been born of God, and which is the only true incentive to
self-denial and a holy life. Paul appeals to the same spiritual fountain and
source of right action when he says, If there be any consolation in Christ, any
comfort of love, any fellowship of the Spirit, etc., fulfill ye my joy, etc.
{Php 2:1}. But neither of the apostles present these exhortations as conditions
uncertain of fulfillment, unsettling the sure covenant of grace. None of them
ever flatter the vanity of the flesh by intimating that the Lord depends upon
the will of the flesh for the fulfillment of his wishes. No! As Peter said on
the day of Pentecost that they who crucified Jesus with wicked hands, had not
prevented, but fulfilled "the determinate counsel of God," so he and all the
other inspired men assure us that no one can by any act of his change or affect
the, counsel of God’s will, only to fulfill it.

Faith will enable the child of God to say, in the Lord’s time, But he is in one
mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For
he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with
him; " {Job 23:13-14}.

What has our will to do with our love, or with our belief? We can not of
ourselves will to do either, neither is it of our will that we keep the
commandments. "He that believeth hath everlasting life," not "If you will
believe you shall have everlasting life." °’He that loveth hath fulfilled the
law." What comfort to the poor and helpless there is in the teachings of Jesus
and the apostles upon this subject of the commandments and how they are kept.
Suppose they had said, "Do you not want to abide in the love of God? Well, if
you will keep his commandments you may. It depends upon yourself. " How the
natural man, who neither knows nor cares, for the love of God, would have been
inflated with pride and self-confidence, while the spiritual man would sink down
to the borders of despair, realizing how unable he is to keep one commandment.
But . in the Lord’s own time this poor soul will be made to know that the sweet
love which he feels in his heart, and which is his only comfort, is a sure
evidence that the righteousness of the law has been fulfilled IN him, and that
this love is itself the keeping of the commandments. He is taught that by the
token of this love he is in Christ, and Christ in him. The commandments have
been written in his heart. Love to God is there, and love to his brethren, and a
strong desire and earnest prayer that the Lord would enable him to ever walk in
that love, and to work it out in his life and conversation. Your brother in the
love of the gospel, SILAS H. DURAND.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03 REPLY BY OLIPHANT TO DURRAND'S FIRST LETTER
========================================================================

REPLY TO ELDER DURAND’S FIRST LETTER. By J.H. OLIPHANT

Elder S. F. Cayce; Dear Brother: I send you herewith my reply to an article by
Elder Durand, in the Signs of the Times, of December 1. 1899. Please examine
this reply carefully, and if approved, publish in your columns. But unless you
endorse it fully, be SURE not to publish it, and oblige yours, affectionately in
the gospel,

J. H. OLIPHANT.

CRAWFORDSVILLE, IND.

Dear Brother Durand: I notice your letter to me is published in the Signs of the
Times of December 1st. I suppose, from what you wrote me, that the Signs of the
Times would not be willing to publish my views, and so I will reply to you
through Elder Cayce’s paper, if agreeable to him. I will not complain of the
Signs of the Times for publishing your letter in answer to mine without giving
me some notice or opportunity to reply, but will try to review some things found
in your letter. In the first two pages you consider the question whether my
writing indicates that I am a Christian. This is an important question to me,
and has been for many years. Taking all you say on this subject, I understand
you to believe that I am a Christian, and I am glad that you have this opinion.

I understand you, in this part of your letter, that at such times as I am in a
proper frame and "walking in the Spirit" I am most likely to agree with you; and
also I understand you that the fact that I differ with you is evidence that I am
’forgetful of the most important things in my life and walk before God.’ On the
whole, you seem to judge of one’s spiritual condition by his agreement or
disagreement with yourself. You say, The few that I have known of preachers who
have been left for a time to believe that their meritorious work, in the
performance of conditions, had secured their daily or ’time’ salvation, have
been, while under the power of that delusion, a hindrance instead of a benefit
to the Lord’s afflicted and poor people."

I understand you in this to set forth the sentiments that we hold, as you
understand it, and so you judge a man to be "left for a time" if he fails to see
with you on the subject in hand. You regard him as I, under the power of that
delusion" so long as he differs with you relative to this matter. When you say,
"As in your own case the Lord alone can restore your soul." etc.. your mind
seems to be that I am now, while differing with you, wholly given over to an
evil influence, and nothing but the Spirit of God can restore me to the right
paths.

Now, my dear brother, I have given you the impression that this part of your
letter made on my mind, but I will not make any reply to it.

You say, "You seem to insist that they can do the things that they would, and
that God has left all spiritual advantage and comfort dependent on their own
will and work. " If I wrote this to you I regret it. This is one disadvantage to
me in the Signs of the Times publishing your review of my letter without
printing the letter itself. I certainly do not think that " all spiritual
advantage and comfort is dependent on their will and work." But I suppose the
readers of the Signs of the Times will so understand me to believe. In the
Monitor of October you say, "In the beginning of my ministry I sometimes spoke
of a "conditional" salvation inside the church, referring to the fact that only
when we are walking in obedience to the commands of Jesus can we enjoy the power
and comfort of that salvation." In my letter to you I do not think I contended
for more or less than is contained in this quotation. Had you not shifted your
position you would have the hearty endorsement of our brethren now. I do not
think you intentionally misrepresented me, but I would be far from endorsing the
sentiment you have attributed to me. You say, "To me it is a new and strange
thing to find Old Baptists claiming praise for works of obedience," etc. Elder
Cayce and those of his views are not occupying "new and strange ground" to you.
They only stand where you first stood, and when you changed your attitude they
did not see fit to go with you to your newfound position.

You complain of me, saying, "You can not have meant to discourage the helpless,
but how could it be otherwise than’ discouraging to them to insist that they are
not helpless, but are given freedom of will and are left dependent upon
themselves whether they will be happy or miserable?" etc. Relative to the
"helpless" ones you refer to, if they are too helpless and poor to be "willing,"
I will retract. I think you will admit that, poor as they are, they are willing.
They are not too poor to ° ° desire. " The man at the pool, {John 5:6}, although
too "poor" and "helpless" to get into the pool, yet he was not too poor to be
willing. If you have poor ones there that are so poor they can’t "desire the
sincere milk of the word," I confess I am due an apology, but I am sure the
Lord’s dear ones are not too helpless to be willing. Now, the best evidence that
a man has the liberty to do a thing, is the fact that he does it. If the dear
brethren you refer to are willing, if our Savior were to say to them, " Wilt
thou be be made whole?" and they could answer in the affirmative, then they have
all the liberty of will I have ever contended for at any time. In this last
quotation you say, "But are given freedom of will and are dependent upon
themselves whether they will be happy or miserable." In this you certainly place
a strained interpretation on my words. I hold that our enjoyment is, in some
degree, dependent on our obedience. Read my article in the October Momitor. In
that article I say, "We are liable to extremes on both sides. If we urge that
the work and presence of’ the Spirit is necessary to obedience, just as it is to
regeneration, we are not voluntary; for, in regeneration, we are not voluntary,
and so regeneration is not a virtue on our part, and if the Spirit’s power and
presence is exerted in our obedience, just as in our regeneration, then there is
no duty in obedience, as we perform no duty in regeneration; and so on the other
side, we are liable to forget that we must have grace whereby we may serve God
acceptably, " etc. If we take one extreme we take away all vice or virtue from
the conduct of God’s people, and if we take the other we substitute cold
formality for the spiritual worship of God. Now, here I insist that we must have
grace. and that we can not serve God acceptably without it. I do not, as you
say, hold °that they are dependent upon themselves," etc. Our Savior, {John
1:13}, speaking relative to regeneration, says. "Nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man," but he nowhere tells us that our obedience is
independent of our will. The meaning of the word requires that it be dependent,
or resultant from the will, and voluntary; so nothing but a willing service is
acceptable. I hold just the views you did before you changed to your present
position. So far as I can understand you, you quote the dear. brother at your
prayer meeting as saying "Some talk about free will, but it seems to me that my
will is only free to do evil." To will, is to choose; so his choice is only free
to do evil. His words, if quoted rightly, denote that he only chooses to do
evil, or they denote that his will is only free to do evil. I do not think he
means that he only chooses to do evil, because he adds, " when I do feel some
holy desires, " showing that there are times when he does not choose to do evil.
You say of yourself, "I do, or wish to do, what the Lord directs me to do. " I
think the brother meant about what you say of yourself, and if so, he now
possesses all the liberty of will contended for in my book entitled "Thoughts On
the Will." If the brother meant that his will is "only free to do evil, " then
he believes in freedom of will while doing evil. But his first words indicate
that he does not believe in freedom of will at all in any sense. So I must think
you either misquoted him, or he failed to express just his true case.

I will notice your words, “It is better to minister only what we have tasted,"
etc. I endorse this, and I am sure that while I can not be happy just any moment
I wish, yet I find that if I do the things I esteem as duty I enjoy myself
better than in the neglect of those things.

You quote the words, “I came down from heaven not to do my will, but the will of
him that sent me; “Not my will, but thine be done. " You refer to these words to
show that Christ was not situated to do as he pleased." As I wrote to you, I
understand these texts to teach that Christ dreaded death and its pains, and not
that he was unwilling to obey his Father. If death had no pains for him, it
would be no evidence of love for him to die for us. But he at no time betrayed
disloyalty to God.

I will try again to prove that he was situated to do as he pleased in all he did
and suffered for us. He "Became obedient unto death;" {Php 2:8}. Obedience is
voluntary, and to act voluntarily is to do as one chooses. Jesus says, {John
10:18}, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." "No
man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. " Paul says, "Who gave
himself for our sins;’ {Gal 1:4}. If he gave himself" surely he did as he chose
in the matter, and if he did as he pleased he must have been situated to do as
he pleased," as I wrote you. But you say, "That kind of language appears to
imply some kind or degree of uncertainty." Now this depends on the faithfulness
of Christ. If there is any unfaithfulness in him, it would make the matter
uncertain for him to be "situated to do as he pleased," for a good mother to be
situated to do as she pleases will not endanger the wellbeing of the child. When
Jesus was confronted by the terrible scene of suffering in the garden and on the
cross, there was joy in his view, so that he was obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross; and if the word "obedient" means here what it does in other
places, he did as he pleased, and so was situated to do as he pleased, as I
wrote to you. But why should it make everything uncertain for him to be situated
to do as he pleased? Suppose one should be unwilling for you to be situated to
do as you pleased about taking his goods would not this show a want of
confidence in you? So, when you express the idea that all would be uncertainty
if he should be situated to do as he pleased, it seems that in order to defend
this newfound notion of yours, it is necessary to hold that it would be
exceedingly hazardous for Jesus to be situated to do as he pleased.

If I should express the thought, with tongue or pen, that it would make matters
uncertain for Jesus to be situated to do as he pleased, I think I would retract
at once; and if I held to any sentiment making it necessary for me to defend
such a notion, I would abandon it.

I grant that his obedience was predestinated, but if it was predestinated just
as the resurrection of the dead was predestinated, this would destroy the idea
of obedience. In regeneration we are passive, but in obedience we are active.
Resurrecticn is a physical act of God, but obedience is a willing, moral act of
Jesus or his people. So there is a distinction between God’s decrees touching
our obedience and our regeneration.

You will admit that God’s people are tried, and yet the final salvation of every
one of them is certain. Now if this be true, how is it inconsistent to hold,
too, that Christ was tried and yet certainty attended his whole history? If you
deny that Christ was tried, you must also deny that we are tried, or admit the
possibility of apostasy.

You say, "I do not find two kinds of predestination spoken of in the Bible. You
certainly admit that predestination is efficacious, causative, respecting our
regeneration, creation; etc. So, if you know of but one.kind of predestination,
you would hold that sin is also efficaciously predestinated. In your article in
the Church Advocate, October, 1896, you say, "Can we think that he predestinated
salvation, and all the times and ways of its experience, * * and ’did not
predestinate that which made it necessary? * * Did the Lord predestinate the
rainbow and not the dark cloud in which he set it to display its glorious
beauty?" From these and many of your expressions we would understand you to hold
that God is as much the cause of evil as he is of good: and what is this but to
destroy the distinction between right and wrong?

You quote the text "For thou also hast wrought all our works in us. " What do
you understand by the words " all our works?" Did God work David’s works in his
behavior with Uriah and his wife, in him. Did he work Peter’s conduct in denying
his Lord, in him:? You complain of a heart deceitful and desperately wicked. Did
God work all this deceitfulness in you? You quote this text several times as if
it were your main reliance. If all our sins and wickedness are wrought in us by
the Lord, then wherein does right differ from wrong? You also quote {Heb
13:20-21}, "Working in them that which is well pleasing in his sight." Is there
anything in or about God’s people that is not well pleasing in his sight? Paul
mentions some, {1Co 10:5}, “With many of them God was not well pleased." If
every work was wrought in them, how does it occur that God was not well pleased
with them? In {Heb 13:16}, "With such sacrifices God is well pleased." But if
God is pleased with all our conduct and all our ways, why mention that "With
such sacrifices God is well pleased?"

There is as much difference between right and wrong as there is between heaven
and hell, and yet you do not make a distinction, that I can see. ’Only one kind
of predestination, etc."

Now, in relation to the words, "Work out your own salvation, for it is God that
worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure;" {Php 2:13}. What
does this text teach that God works in them? To will. First, when he blesses his
people with a new nature and heart they are willing. So the will to do is of the
Lord to work in them to doto incline them to do, to prompt them to do; so now
those who have been prompted or inclined to obey should obey this text. If this
text teaches that all the works necessary were included in the words, It is God
that worketh in you," why does he say, "Work out your salvation?" There should
be some distinction made between God’s unconditional act in working in us, and
our duty to him as a result thereof. Your position seems to be, that, when our
Savior said of regeneration, "Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man," he should have said the same of all our duties. The Savior denies that
regeneration is in any sense dependent on the will, while you seem to deny that
obedience is in any sense dependent on the will. The word "obedience" denotes
that the will is essential to it. So, when Elder Thompson insisted that the
brethren were called on to "work out their salvation," there was something they
were to do besides the act of God in working in them the will, etc.: not that
they were to do something not required, or something besides what they were
inclined to do by the grace of God; but there was a duty on their part requireda
salvation for them to work out and no twisting of this text can destroy the
sentiment and truth that these brethren were exhorted to work out a salvation.
The fact that God has worked in them to will and to do does not destroy the fact
that something yet remained to be done, and that that something was to work out
their salvation. All that God had done in them and for them did not destroy the
fact that they were yet called on to obey and to work out their own salvation;
and as obedience must be a willing obedience, or it is no obedience at all, so
these people were called on to obey willingly. I am willing to admit that
regeneration is independent of the will, but I deny that obedience is
independent of will. So I hold that the will is ever connected with obedience
and essential to it; that men who serve God CHOOSE to do so.

You say, ’ “Neither is it of our will {or choice} that we keep the
commandments." If you are right in this, there is no such thing as obedience, if
we pay any attention to the meaning of the word "obedience." If you pay any
attention to the meaning of the word "obedience," you make a sad blunder when
you say, "Neither is it of our will," etc. On your plan God’s government of his
people is like the boy’s government of his marbles : you may say, ’Neither is it
of the will of the marble that it is in the right place." Your theory requires a
new dictionary, made expressly to suit your doctrine. You quote, ’If ye be led
by the Spirit," etc ; {Gal 5:18}. The word "lead’ or ’pled" implies that those
led are willing to be led. If the party led is not willing and active, then it
would be "drag." So this word "lead" is fatal to your position that the will is
not concerned in our obedience.

"If any man will do his will; " {John 7:17}. So here again the will is concerned
in doing God’s will. Numberless places could be found showing the will to be
concerned in obedience. Duty would mean nothing, obedience would mean nothing,
if we exclude the will from them. Vice, virtue, right, or wrong, might be
excluded from every language under heaven, and man is reduced in his conduct to
the level of a watch or a clock.

What I intended by the distinction in the act of God in our regeneration, or the
raising of Lazarus from the dead, and the act of God in leading us into the path
of obedience, is, that we should make some distinction here. The raising of
Lazarus was a physical act, and one wholly independent of his will; while in
leading us, we are, and must be, voluntary. The fact is, when you deny the will
of man being concerned in his obedience, you deny that man is a moral being. The
planets obey the laws they are under, but not willinglythey are not moral
beings. And so I understand you to deny man to be a moral being. The words obey,
disobey, vice, virtue, leads, led, duty, rewardall these words denote a
dependence on the will, and I understand you to change the meaning of all these
words to suit your notion of things. And so the word if." But I will notice this
later on.

You say, "There seems to prevail in the mind of some the worldly view that a
hope of reward or a fear of punishment is necessary to compel obedience." Now, I
want to show you that you are in love with this worldly view as much as those
you oppose. You say:

No. 1. "It is not for some precious fruits that we go along that road, but for
the beauty of the road itself." In this you set a reward before the mind as
truly as any one has done; and you use the word "for" instead of “in. "

No. 2. "Will any offered reward cause one to seek righteousness as he does who
hungers for it? "

No. 3. ’ 1 Will any fear of punishment turn one away from evil as effectually as
a hatred of evil ? "

No. 4. The apostle is not speaking of terror of some punishment, but of the
terror of the Lord’s presence to one who loves him, but is found in
transgression." In this you place the worldly view you complain of as fully as I
have seen it done by any one.

No. 5. "It is the terror of being found of the Lord in a fleshly, sinful walk."
In this last you seem disposed to terrify them into obedience.

No. 6. “The terror of being found in crime by one dearly loved would be greater
than to be thus found by one who could punish us. " You despise urging men to
obey from fear of punishment, and yet you name a terror worse than punishment as
a motive.

No. 7. "Their reward is in the work."

No. 8. "When we are spiritually led, his glory is what we seek."

No.’ 9. "He himself is our exceeding great reward. " In all these nine places
you set forth the hope of reward as fully as our brethren care to have it done,
and then, after in these nine times you do this, you say, “I am tired and sick
of this self, self," etc.

I know of none among us who contend for more "self" than is set forth in these
sentences. Read carefully the following sentence from your pen {No. 10:} "Keep
me from evil, that it may not grieve me: not that I may not suffer punishment."
In this you seem to think that grief is no punishment: so you would exhort men
to dread grief, but not to fear punishment. Now, why find fault with the
brethren for contending for the same things you urge yourself in these
sentences? You say, "If they could not get the reward, would they do the work?
If they were to go into darkness as a consequence of obedience, would they
obey?" 1 believe the words "The soul that would to Jesus press, Must fix this
firm and sure That tribulations, more or less, It must and shall endure."

I believe with Peter, "Though now for a season, if need be ye are in heaviness,
that the trial of your faith," etc. Trials will come: we must feel our hearts
ache. The path of duty lies in sorrow, often, but in the midst of all there is
something sweet and precious. The millions of martyrs who went into the flames
were happier than they would have been to have fled from punishment. In fact,
their punishment would have been greater had they denied their Lord.

What is a good conscience worth? Who of us would engage in the arduous task of
the ministry if our conscience would be easy? So, where men have gone into the
fires of persecution, they have had the sweetest and best of all rewardsa good
conscience. When the prophet felt that he was left alone and that he was in an
enemy’s land, his conscience was a rich reward to him. Paul says, "Herein do I
exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and
toward men. " So Paul labored always to have a good conscience. This is all the
“self" we contend for, and these sentiments may make you " sick," but a good
conscience was the end the apostle aimed at.

See also {Rom 13:5}, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but
also for conscience sake." Also {1Ti 1:19}, "Holding faith and a good
conscience, which some having put away have made shipwreck." The Bible
abundantly teaches that holy men of old prized a good conscience as of greater
reward than gold. Who can have a good conscience in sin? What Christian has not
learned that obedience only keeps a good conscience? I hesitate not to say that
a good conscience is conditionally enjoyed. ""If ye keep my commandments ye
shall abide in my love." A dear sister, in opposing the idea that we should hope
for reward, said she understood us that money was the reward we aimed at. I
asked her if she found any advantage in obedience. She said, "Yes; she felt a
good conscience." "Well," said I, "that is your reward." Now, dear brother, this
will satisfy me. Let us insist that obedience is better than disobedience; let
us insist that the path of duty has more to cheer than the path of disobedience.
You quote the words, "Where the word of a king is, there is power." Your remarks
about this indicate that you hold that God’s commands are always obeyed. You
say, "In every case just the measure of grace is given that is needed to be
sufficient for us." If this is true, how is it that you say, "I need more grace
than any other poor sinner?" If in every case all that is needed is given, I can
’t understand how you need more at any time than you have. Again, if all his
commands are obeyed, you seem unwilling to admit that the Savior invites, or
entreats, or persuades. You say, "He calls, and his call is always obeyed. "
Now, if his commands are always obeyed, how can you say, "I do, or wish to do,
what the Lord directs me to do, because he commands it? " If his commands are
always obeyed, how is it that you sometimes only WISH to obey ?

You say, “1 could neither preach nor exhort if I thought the benefit depended on
my ability." It occurs to me that if you first explain your doctrine to your
peoplethat they can not obey till the command of God comes, and when it does
come they can not disobey; that the words in {Isa 26:12}, mean that all our good
works are performed by the Lord, and that the words in {Php 2:13}, only express
the works God does, and nothing at all for them to do; that there is no reward
for their obedience, either in time or eternity; that they can claim no more in
their obedience than they can claim in their redemption ; that they shall have
no reward in time oreternity for anything they do, either mentally or
physically; that all gospel rewards are of grace, and wholly unconditional; that
the most patient obedience for a lifetime will never secure one moment’s peace,
or the least conceivable degree of happiness, either in time or eternity; that
if one of God’s true and called ministers should entertain the thought that a
faithful life of a half century among the churches merited so much as a crust of
bread, it would be evidence that he was left of the Lord, and that he never
could get back till God brought him back; that God promises no advantage for
obedience of any kind, either here or hereafter; that the words "obedience,"
"duty," etc., denote no dependence on the will of man; that Webster, and every
other author, is in error about their meaning; that it is exceedingly doubtful
whether God’s people are moral beings at all; that his government is a spiritual
one, and hence very doubtful as to its being a moral one,I should think when all
these things are laid before the people, it would be difficult to go about an
exhortation.

You insist that the government of Jesus is spiritual, and hence you object to my
article distinguishing between the moral and physical governments of God. You
insist that the case of Lazarus being raised is parallel with the obedience of a
Christian. If this be true, then the will of man is in no sense concerned in
obedience. I grant that the will of man is excluded from regeneration, but you
go farther and insist that the will has no concern in obedience. I need not cite
the numerous places in your article in which you insist that the will of man is
unconcerned in the matter of obedience, and this is to deny that God’s
government is moral. In your effort to steer clear of Arminianism you have
landed your bark on the sands of Antinomianism. If you are correct in holding
that the choice of man is excluded from his obedience, I grant that the event of
Lazarus being raised is parallel with obedience. I will quote one sentence from
your article on this subject: "The form of expression in the New Testament never
leaves the result [obedience to God’s command] as depending upon the will and
choice of man. " I find many such sentences in your article. If a man’s
obedience to God is parallel with his having gray eyes, his will has nothing to
do with it; and so he is neither to blame nor praise for these things; but you
as effectually exclude his will from his obedience as it is from choosing the
color of his eyes. If a man’s will has no more to do with his obedience than it
has in the color of his hair, I will confess I ought not to have written about a
distinction between the moral and physical governments of God. If you can show
that the will is not concerned in our obedience, you will have convinced me that
God does not exercise moral government over his people. The planets ever obey,
but not from their own will, and you have tried to show that our . obedience is
as independent of our wills as the order and regularity of the planets is
independent of their wills, and as there is no such thing as vice, virtue,
crime, or innocence, among the planets, so on your theory these things have no
place among God’s people. You quote often the words, "Thou also hast wrought all
our works in us; {Isa 26:12}. Also "It is God that worketh in you both to will
and to do." Also "Working in them that which is well pleasing in his sight."
Your comment on these texts indicates that you think we are no more concerned in
our obedience than we are in our height or the color of our hair. We read of the
daughters of men being fair; {Gen 6:2} also that Sarah was fair. Now, while
these are good qualities, they are not moral qualities, like chastity, virtue,
obedience, etc. And I insist that in your zeal to set aside the choice of men in
the matter of obedience, you reduce the moral qualities of men to a level in
every way with their physical qualities, in regard to which they exercise no
choice whatever. You quote the words, " Even to hoar hairs will I carry you,"
and so interpret it as to deny the truth of all those texts that speak of God’s
people as walking {Mic 6:8;Gen 5:24}, etc. But does the New Testament teach, as
you insist, that the obedience of God’s people is independent of the will? You
admit that in the Old Testament obedience is dependent on the will. “If ye
forsake the Lord and serve strange gods, then He will turn and do you hurt." You
seem to admit that in this command the will is concerned. The Saviour says, “If
ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." Can you see any difference
in the form of these two commands ? And if the will is concerned in the one, how
can you say that the will is not concerned in the other? Let any one hunt out
the commands of God to Israel of old, and lay them down side by side with the
commands of God to His people now, and show how or why the will is excluded from
our conduct now and was not excluded from their conduct. I am sure the form of
expression is the same. It is the same God, and the people of God are now just
what they were then, and so now why should God’s words to His people mean one
thing in the Old Testament, and another in the New? The blessings resulting from
obedience in the Old Testament were all confined to time, and the curses for
disobedience were all confined to time, and so it is now in the church. I think
you are hard pressed if you espouse a theory that requires you to hold that the
commands of God in the Old Testament were not all obeyed, but in the New they
are all obeyed.

You quote the words, " Where the word of a king is there is power," and your
comment shows that you think the commands of Jesus are ever obeyed." You say,
"His call is always obeyed." Jesus commands his people, " Bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you. " These are his own words. {Mat 5:44}. Are
these commands always obeyed by his people? And if not, how can you hold that
his commands are always obeyed? In your effort to set aside the moral government
of God you find it essential to leave nothing in any way dependent on our wills
in the matter of obedience, and hence you must hold that his commands are always
obeyed. In the New Testament we find such commands as "Be kindly affectioned one
to another, in brotherly love preferring one another; " "Avenge not yourselves;’
&,Recompense to no man evil for evil." Are all these commands, and scores of
others, always obeyed? On what principle do you hold that all his commands are
obeyed? Perhaps you will say that love is the fulfilling of the law." I know we
are commanded to love one another, but those who do love each other are
commanded still to do other things. If to love God is all that is required of
his people, why mention scores of things required of them who already love Him,
and how can you say that all the commands of Jesus are obeyed when we love God?
Now, if we are not voluntary in our obedience, and if our choice has nothing to
do with it, I grant that I was wrong, as you complain, in distinguishing between
the moral and physical government of God, and you are correct in holding that
God’s decree should not be regarded as applying to events in two ways.

Relative to blame, you say: "The cause of blame was before we were born. " If
God’s government of His people is not a moral government, then I grant that the
cause of blame was before we were born. The cause of a tree’s bearing bad fruit
is found in the nature of its first seed, and to bear bad fruit is a fault, but
not a moral fault; but I hold that bad conduct is not such a fault as where a
tree bears bad fruit. The one is a natural evil, the other a moral evil. Sin is
not merely a physical evil, it is a moral evil and is punishable. Sin, either in
saint or sinner, is a moral evil; but if you are correct in holding that the
will is not concerned in our conduct, then you are correct in placing the cause
of blame be fore our birth, and you may say before time so far as I am
concerned.

Now I will call your mind to what you say of {1Pe 3:10} and {Php 2:1}. Your
comment is "Neither of these apostles presents these exhortations as conditions
uncertain of fulfillment; unsettling the sure covenant of grace. You certainly
hold then that there was no uncertainty about their obeying. Let us notice these
exhortations : In Philippians the exhortation you refer to reads, "Fulfill ye my
joy, be like minded, being of one accord of one mind, let nothing be done
through strife or vain glory." Were these exhortations obeyed by the apostles or
early Christians, or are they obeyed by the Baptists now? Was there ever a
period of time when God’s people obeyed these exhortations entirely’? And so how
can you speak of this as not uncertain of fulfillment? I am glad you admit the
language to be conditional, as it certainly is if a conditional sentence could
be found in the English language. Turn now to {1Pe 3:10}; For he that will love
life and see good days let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that
they speak no guile," etc. Now do God’s people keep this command, and how is it
any more certain of fulfillment than commands in the Old Testament were? You
admit that some ’uncertainty attended the keeping of the commandments in that
time. You say, °That was the form of the legal covenant," "and the conditional
expressions made under that covenant are correctly quoted by you," but you
reject conditionai expressions from the new covenant on the ground that it would
involve uncertainty in New Testament blessings. But how can a man who believes
in the absolute predestination of all things hold that events are more certain
at one period of the world than another? I am glad you admit that there was a
moral government over Israel of old, even if you deny it now.

Perhaps you urge that love is all the fulfilling of the law required, but in
answer to this I urge that scores of commands are given to those who love God.
In this connection you say, Neither is it of our will that we keep the
commandments." I confess that the Ethiopian can not change his skin, etc., but
what has this to do with our obedience? The Ethiopian can not change his skin,
and this is a physical impossibility, and he is not to blame for not doing so,
and if we are no more to blame for doing wrong that a negro is for being black,
then you are right in denying the moral government of God, and right in your
article generally; and I did wrong in distinguishing between the moral and
physical government of God, and it is no more of our will that we keep the
commandments, than it is of the Ethiopian’s will that he is black.

You say, "The word invite is never used by him nor concerning him in the
Scriptures. He calls, and his call is always obeyed." Now read, "As though God
did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God."
He appeals to them in Christ’s stead. Is this always obeyed? And if our wills
are in no sense connected with obedience, why does he use the words "beseech"
and "pray"? Ifourobedience is of God, just as regeneration is of God, or just as
the raising of Lazarus was of God, how is it that Paul uses the words "beseech"
and "pray " in urging to obedience, if it is of God as regeneration is of God?
While the word °invite" is not used here, yet the words ’ beseech " and “pray "
suggest as much dependence on the will as the word invite would suggest.

I never heard you exhort a congregation. We are told to °’ exhort young men to
be sober minded." How would you do this? Certainly by putting before their minds
some reason why they should do so, some benefit or advantage. If it be to
glorify God, then this should be put before the young men as the great end they
should aim at, and when this end is attained, then the reward is attained. It is
not necessary to say, if we believe in placing rewards before the people of God,
we put a carnal or fleshly reward before them, by no means. You can not exhort
only as you present some end to be gained by the obedience you recommend, and
that end is the reward you aim at. If you exhort by telling the people that
their obedience will result in no reward of any kind, that the word "reward"
does not mean in the New Testament what it does in other books, this would be no
exhortation at all. We should exhort one another daily while it is called today.
I insist that the word exhort" suggests a dependence on the will of them
exhorted, and it also places some kind of reward before the mind as an
inducement to encourage to do the things desired. I do not know what authority
you have for saying gospel rewards are not as other rewards are; in fact I deny
your authority to change the meaning of words. It would be as wrong to take away
the meaning of a word as it would be to "take away from the words of the
prophecy of this book; " {Rev 22:18}. I know the meaning of the words reward, "
"if," obedience, " etc. Isee that they are in your way and that you must do
something to get rid of them before your theory can stand. They suggest that
God’s government of His people is moral, disciplinary, parental. They suggest
that there is some end, comfort or delight that is in some sense conditional,
aimed at by intelligent obedience, and this end, be it what it may, is the
reward to be conditionally enjoyed, or attained. The word "if" denotes
conditionality, and it is frequently used in the New Testament. You say, "The
Savior and his apostles do not say, “ If you will,” but if you do. It is never
used to show a dependence upon the will of the creature," etc. But the Savior
and his apostles do say, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine,’ etc. If some dependence is not here expressed, what sentence would
express dependence on the will? Also, "If ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts," etc.

You say, "I have wondered why spiritually instructed men should try to apply
them to gospel things which are all made new. That was the form of the
conditional covenant, and the conditional expressions are correctly quoted by
you. " In this you admit that God’s people were under a conditional ,state of
things then, but not now, because things were not as certain then as now. How
one can hold things uncertain under the old covenant, but certain now, and yet
believe in the absolute predestination of all things, I can not see. "How
spiritually taught persons can use the same form of expression touching gospel
things that were used under the law," you can ’not see.

If the Israel of old was a type of the church, will we not find some things in
the church answering to the things of Israel then? The type for the letter B
will not make X; and so, if under the type we find God to have a disciplinary
government of Israel, which you admit to be conditional, will we not find
something in the antitype answering to it, a parental government with its
chastisements and rewards? We are not made heirs or sons by performimg
conditions, but does not God deal with us as sons, and chasten us when we go
astray? You admit this order of things was in the type, and how can you deny its
being in the antitype? ,But with many of them God was not well pleased. Now
these things were our ensamples, to the intent we should not lust after evil
things as they also lusted." Read this entire 10th chapter of I Cor. Paul
applies the same principle of government that God exercised.. over Israel of old
to us and warns us to avoid their sins. You will not say he was not a
spiritually instructed man, yet he plainly does what you hold no spiritually
instructed man will do. See also {Heb 10:28}, "He that despised Moses’ law died
under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he
be thought worthy?" etc. Here Paul again shows that the conditional covenant
that Israel was under illustrates God’s discipline over His people here, now,
and shows that the antitype corresponds with the type. In conclusion I call your
attention to {Heb 2:2-3}, "For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and
every trangression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" etc. Here again Paul applies
the principle that prevailed among the Jews to the gospel, and as you admit that
to be conditional, how can you deny that there is the same parental and
disciplinary government now for us? Your theory makes the first "if " in this
text mean one thing and in the last to mean another. Paul not only applies the
same principle that prevailed in the government of Israel, but he applies it in
the same form of expression. He first described God’s government of Israel as
conditional, and in language you admit to be conditional, and then applies the
same principle to the gospel, and does it in the same form of words, and even
the same words, and he was spiritually instructed.

We may well warn our people, "If ye bite and devour one another, take heed lest
ye be consumed one of another. "

I have all my life heard Baptists affirm that regeneration is unconditional and
independent of our choice. We become sons and heirs unconditionally, but as His
sons we are under a parental or disciplinary government, which is conditional.
We may be tried and even burned, but a good conscience can only be maintained by
paying the price of its maintenance, and a good conscience is of great value. My
ownn experience is, that doing_ wrong is widely different from doing right. My
dear brother, I would have been glad for your letter and my reply to have both
been in the Signs, but you refuse to ask the Signs to print my reply, and also
you reviewed and criticised my private letter to you in the Signs, placing your
own construction on my letter to you. so that its readers will never see the
letter you review. But I will not complain of your public review of my private
letter.

I have been plain, but I have done what I esteemed as my duty in this matter.
Your brother in hope,

J. H. OLIPHANT.

CRAWFORDSVILLE, IND.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/durand-silas-oliphant-jh-letters/
========================================================================