If J.T.Jr was gone, the recovery would be gone.
An elect vessel is Christ’s representative.
An elect vessel is infallible.
J.T.Jr could not fail.
An elect vessel should not be interrogated or cross-questioned.
Here is where he says that if J.T.Jr was gone, the recovery would be gone.
J. H. Symington Vol. 1 page 341-343 (Auckland, 27 Mar. 1972)
In the following four extracts, JHS claims that an elect vessel is Christ’s representative.R.C.R. When he said, 'Are you all the way with me?', that in effect would be, 'Are you all the way with Christ?', and Aberdeen was provocative really as to whether they really were.
J.H.S. 0 yes, clearly. So the test applied; the thing was an ambush. They settled their own case. See, everybody that rose up against him settled their own case.
R.C.R. "An elect vessel"; that should have been obvious if they were with him, but they would not accept appearances or what the people said.
J.H.S. So it was as clear as anything, that if he was gone—if you had any intelligent appreciation of an elect vessel—if he was gone, the recovery was gone.
. . .
L.J.C. So the issues the Lord raised in Aberdeen and New York are upon us to face. They are upon us to face? They are current?
J.H.S. Yes, He has not changed from the break-through at all; and the follow up in New York was a very, very striking thing because our beloved obviously set himself to precipitate a crisis in New York after Aberdeen.
L.J.C. To be simple and honest, that was the thing that affected this country adversely more than Aberdeen, I think.
J.H.S. Yes, but the marvel of the whole thing, if that is the right word—I am a little limited about words—but if that is the right word, the marvel of the whole thing is that he could precipitate a crisis over the same thing after it happened in Aberdeen. They professed to be clear about Aberdeen, but he was able to precipitate the thing right in New York itself.
W.S.B. In the spirit of it, was that the pattern for all the assemblies?
J.H.S. Well, that is a difficult question, but there is something in what you say. New York is the place where the Lord worked sovereignly for seventy years and I, for one, could see that if it required something that drastic in New York, it required something in every other place.
J. H. Symington Vol. 10 page 275 (Pietermaritzburg, 20 Nov. 1972)
J. H. Symington Vol. 90 page 308 (Neche, 5 June 1981)J.H.S. Well, I think so. Representation is a deeper thing than information. Information can be the same, but representation is a deeper thing, and an elect vessel is His representative.
J. H. Symington Vol. 100 page 177 (Woodlands, 27 Dec. 1981)But you can't extend Paul. That's been the error, or the diversion, or whatever you call it. I mean the presumption that we could have Paul in every place. Paul in our place. It destroys the idea of Paul's unique place. He's an elect vessel unto Me, representative of Christ.
J. H. Symington Vol. 107 page 69 (Neche, 18 June 1982)J.H.S. Well, I think so. Perfect representation is in Christ. But representation is in the idea of an elect vessel. This man is an elect vessel unto Me. Peter had to yield to Paul, great man as he was. The connection is representation. To refuse it is to invite judicial blindness.
In the next three extracts he alleges that an elect vessel is infallible.B.J.G. Would love for Paul draw me away from the world and the spirit of it?
J.H.S. Yes. But that's the representative connection. The truth is brought closer to us in a man of like passions to ourselves, and that's Paul. It's there in Christ, the full idea is in Christ, perfection is there, divine perfection in a Man is in Christ. But His chosen vessel is Paul, an elect vessel unto Me, is what He says of him. It's shocking some of the things that those who have gone out from us have said, and are saying.
J. H. Symington Vol. 32, page 50-51 (Montreal, 29/30 Aug 1975)
J. H. Symington Vol. 87 page 66 (Neche, 16 Jan. 1981)You see, what we found in the presence of the Lord's servants in the generations of the recovery, that they'd give you all you could take, and then they'd watch you, you know, they'd watch you. They knew a whole lot more than you did—at least than I did!
To write them off as having failed, it's just the stupidest kind of stupidity. It's suggesting that God could fail. God can't fail. God is God.
You might reason, well these are human beings. Well, I know they're human beings. But there's something in the idea of election that's according to divine sovereignty. To insist that it could fail is just stupid nonsense; that's all it is.
J. H. Symington Vol. 108 page 175 (Neche, 24 July 1982)J.H.S. No, certainly not. Paul knew that he'd come to visions and revelations of the Lord. He knew he'd come to it. How'd he know? He had come to something already that you couldn't question. Would that stop? Would you think, Mr. Lennox, that an elect vessel would fail?
J.H.S. You see, that's how folly has been swallowed, specially since Aberdeen, during and since Aberdeen. Even the letter that —— wrote is dreadful, absolutely dreadful. That's what he asserts, that it was all right up to a point, and then the elect vessel failed.
And finally JHS says, apparently on the basis of personal experience, that an elect vessel should not be interrogated or cross-questioned.B.A.W. How would it compare, Paul telling Timothy to entrust things to faithful men?
J.H.S. Oh well it's comparable. He didn't want things out of hand. There's a need of faithful men, that is men that will stand for the truth and stand by it. Paul is extending his control by that means. To admit of divine sovereignty and then claim that it has failed is just stupid nonsense.
It's speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do you agree, Mr. Laurie Markham?
L.R.M. Yes I do. It's needful to see that the Lord would never take up an elect vessel and let him down.
J. H. Symington Vol. 132 page 190 (Neche, 31 May 1984)
The copyright of the above extracts is claimed by J. H .Symington personally, except for volume 1.L.R.P. What has been pointed up as to the man in Christ being the man for conflict, would that be especially critical at the current time?
J.H.S. That's the way I see it, being included in it myself, perhaps as much as anybody. I've been in the circumstance of being cross-questioned, and I knew instinctively, and I knew intelligently, that if I made a single error I'd lose ground. Who has the right to interrogate anyone that the Lord has laid His hand upon?