1 JOHN 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
TRY THE SPIRITS
This excellent rule has long since fallen into desuetude, because antichrist is now paramount. The controversy about Jesus coming in "the flesh" has been decided against the apostles; and he that affirms with them that the body of Jesus was no better flesh than the "flesh of sin" common to all Adam's race, is denounced for a heretic.
As to ascertaining who is and who is not of God, by the hearing or not hearing what the apostles say, such a thing is scarcely thought of. The criterion now is, "the sentiments of all Christendom." If you speak in accordance with these, then you are of God, and the world heareth you; if in opposition to them, then you are of the devil, and the world heareth you not! Such is the rule in the nineteenth century, which has supplanted that of the apostles in the first!
The spirit of error and the spirit of the antichrist being the same spirit, and this opposed to the doctrine of the apostles, it is not difficult to discern it; and discerning it, to detect the Antichrist.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Nov 1857
A paper from J.C.H., reverting to the subject of the Holy Spirit, concerning which he insists that though the Scriptures are the work of men moved by the Holy Spirit, they can only be discerned by the "Divine Spirit in ourselves (in degree more or less)."
We are sorry we cannot agree. We only wish the state of modern facts admitted of it. We have no "Divine Spirit in ourselves" in the sense of a directly illuminating "dynamic energy." Those who claim to have this show the complete disproof of their claim by their rejection of what the Holy Spirit has taught by prophet and apostle.
"Granted," says J.C.H.: "We have to try the spirits."—By what? By the written word. If so, the written word is practically made the only authoritative form of the Spirit in our age. A working of "the Divine Spirit in ourselves," that has to be rejected if out of harmony with the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, is obviously of no practical power or consideration.
To contend for it is to contend for words—It would be an unspeakable comfort to have the Comforter as the first century believers had, but it is worse than vain to imagine the possession of it in its manifest absence.
God will yet pour floods upon the thirsty ground, but meanwhile the ground is parched.
TC 02/1887
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The Antichrist is a combination of persons and power, not a single man.
There will, doubtless, be a last man of the power, through whom that power will find expression; but it does not, therefore, follow that the Antichrist power does not exist till that last man is enthroned. Spirit precedes matter.
The spirit of the thing exists as the germ thereof previous to its manifestation. Hence, the spirit of Antichrist worked in the apostolic age, in which there were many Antichrists—1 Jno., 2:18; and by which it was then known that it was "the last hour" of the Mosaic dispensation.
The spirit of Antichrist was the denial that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, that is, that he had immaculate flesh, a holier flesh than falls to the common lot of man—1 John 4:3.
This spirit has become material or corporate in "the church" termed "Christendom," but properly Antichristendom, or the Dominion of Antichrist, and has inspired the late decree affirming the Immaculate Conception of the mother of Jesus, that a clean nature, or something else than "the flesh" might be born of her!
We see, then, that Antichrist exists, for the co-apostolic spirit thereof is in vigorous and corporate activity in "the powers that be." Antichrist, however, we admit readily, has not attained to his full manifestation. His power awaits its consolidation in the giving of the power and strength of the ten-horn kingdoms to the eighth head of the beast (Rev. 17:13–17) which will be the development of "the devil and his angels" in full.
This is a future event, and must, of course, occur under the sovereignty of some one man who may then happen to be enthroned. This one man is not the Antichrist, but the representative, for the time being, of the power which already exists, and has existed for ages, in the world.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Oct 1857
The brazen serpent, the high priest offering for his own sins under the law, and the filthy garments, and the change of raiment, exhibited in connection with the typical Joshua, the high priest (Zech. 3.), all point to the same thing. Christ was in reality what the sin-bearing high priests under the law were only in name, shadow, and type. The real trouble was in the flesh, to overcome which Christ came in the flesh; to confess which is to confess the truth; but to deny which is antichrist (1 John 4:2, 3).
Since John makes this so essential a feature of the antichrist, we must needs look to Papal Rome for the thing to which John refers as possessing an initial existence in his days: suppose we look, what is there that at all answers to it in the Papal system except the doctrine of the immaculate conception? for as a matter of fact, the papacy does not deny that Christ appeared in literal flesh; but by their dogma of the immaculate conception, they at least deny that Christ came in the flesh of sin.
This, then, is evidently the denial to which John refers. That the Popes should decree Mary immaculate as well as Jesus is only consistent; for believing Christ's flesh to be clean, and without taint of sin, the question arises,
"how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" (Job 14:4.)
Recognising this as a matter of natural impossibility, they have acted accordingly. The fact that Christ was made of a woman (or out of a woman, as some like to render it, more according to the literal Greek), is a fact that tells us in unmistakable language that it was a matter of design, and therefore a matter required by the circumstances of the case, that Christ should be born in the channel of the race he came to deliver.
In being so born, he was necessarily born of a mortal sinful woman; for what is true of man is not less true of woman, for, says Solomon,
"there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not."
Now it could have been no accident, that Christ should thus have been "born in sin and shapen in iniquity." It was manifestly just what had been predetermined in the eternal counsels. Because if no such association with the human race were necessary, God could just as well have made another Adam direct from the ground; but an Adam outside the channel of the first sinning Adam's descendants, would not have answered the objects in view, else no doubt he would have thus come into existence.
The law must be magnified and made honourable in the very nature, and under the very circumstances (thus secured) under which it had been disobeyed. There was a divine philosophy in this, which is altogether absent from any other view.
Other views present us in this connection with personally preexistent Sonship; the doctrine of a free life, of views that deny Christ any will of his own separate from the Father, like the Monothelites (or one-will-ites) of the seventh century, and views that in effect rob him of his moral glory, and take the chief virtue out of his example, and give us instead a Christ that appeals less to the heart than the head; a Christ like the mountain that might not be touched; a Christ practically untouched by the feeling of our infirmities; an untempted and untemptable Christ; and therefore not a Christ such as the apostle describes as "in all points tempted like as we are." The temptation in the wilderness is an illustration to the point;
Bro. F. R. Shuttleworth
The Christadelphian, Sept 1889
"Renunciationist" is not a nickname' but a literal designation of those who have made themselves distinct from the brethren by performing the act of renunciation in relation to one of the elements of the truth, saying, "I hereby renounce," and being re-immersed.
They must be distinguished in some way, for convenience of discourse; and it is fitter to designate them with reference to their origin, than by reference to any man's name. Doubtless, it is objectionable to those who have to be so distinguished; but the cause of this is with themselves. We would deliver them from it if we could.
We suppose in your own case, you really think you believe in Christ the Sin-bearer; but you cannot seriously expect us to admit your claim. You would not admit that the Pope believes in the kingdom of God, though he says he does. You would say he denies it, and you would disregard his protest against your allegation. So must we disregard your protest against our statement that the Renunciationists reject Christ the Sin-bearer.
As to proving our statements, we have done it often, and are doing it as often as need requires. We prove it this month indirectly.
The Christadelphian March 1875
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Shall we admit that profession and principle are the same? That a man has the Holy Spirit in his heart because he talks piously, while he is ignorant of the apostles' doctrine, and consequently without true faith, and disobedient?
We do not believe in the holiness of a spirit that dwells in such hearts. The Holy Spirit dwells not in those who "get religion" apart from the word of reconciliation ministered in the writings of prophets and apostles.
The religion they get in this way comes not from the Spirit of God, but from the spirit of error, which reigns in the schools, colleges, and "sacred desks" of Anti-Christendom—the phrenal sentiments, mesmerically excited by the traditions of the Apostasy
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Dec 1856
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
"God is love;" but not "all love." He is also "light," "jealous," "a Man of war," "a Consuming Fire," &c... Mr. P. presuming that "God is all love," and confounding what God permits with what he wills and approves; and being unacquainted with his purpose and plan; and supposing also that the present is a finality—jumps to the conclusion, that God has been overreached, as it were, or frustrated. But, he says, his reasoning "may be sophistry."
Doubtless, it is, for the reasonings of the flesh in ignorance of the system of truth the Bible teaches, are always sophistic; for right reason is only that which brings the mind to conclusions in harmony with the written testimony of God.
"To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."—Isai.8:20.
This is as true of logicians, as it is of all the "Spirituals," whether they be clergymen, or the rapping-ghosts and hobgoblins of "the Spirit-world."
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, June 1857.
Now, it is written that " God is love " (1st John iv. 8.) This attribute of the Father was perfected fully in the Son of God, for He gave himself for his fellows. He was God-like in his manifestation of the love of God and in the harmony which existed between the deeds
of God and the activities of Jesus Anointed. Thus :
All things the Father has done, or is doing, are for the benefit of His children. So also all things that Jesus did were for the welfare of mankind. All things the Father has revealed or said are for the benefit of His children. So also all the words spoken by Jesus were for the same end.
The Father never ceases to work for the accomplishment of His gracious purpose in which
the highest blessings must come upon the human race. So also Jesus did not at any time slacken his hand for the same object.
The Father has declared that He will not give His glory to another. So also the Son always
ascribed precedence to his Father.
The Temple of Ezekiel's Prophecy 5.2.3.