Infallible Elect Vessels, Representatives of Christ

Forum rules
Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at
Post Reply
Ian McKay
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am

Infallible Elect Vessels, Representatives of Christ

Post by Ian McKay » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:07 pm

J. H. Symington on Elect Vessels

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)
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.
In the following four extracts, JHS claims that an elect vessel is Christ’s representative.
J. H. Symington Vol. 10 page 275 (Pietermaritzburg, 20 Nov. 1972)
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. 90 page 308 (Neche, 5 June 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. 100 page 177 (Woodlands, 27 Dec. 1981)
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.
J. H. Symington Vol. 107 page 69 (Neche, 18 June 1982)
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.
In the next three extracts he alleges that an elect vessel is infallible.
J. H. Symington Vol. 32, page 50-51 (Montreal, 29/30 Aug 1975)
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. 87 page 66 (Neche, 16 Jan. 1981)
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.D.L. No.
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.
J. H. Symington Vol. 108 page 175 (Neche, 24 July 1982)
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.
And finally JHS says, apparently on the basis of personal experience, that an elect vessel should not be interrogated or cross-questioned.
J. H. Symington Vol. 132 page 190 (Neche, 31 May 1984)
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?
The copyright of the above extracts is claimed by J. H .Symington personally, except for volume 1.

Posts: 2829
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Infallible Elect Vessels, Representatives of Christ

Post by fisherman » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:03 pm

So let me see...if you tell a big enough lie ,and tell it loud enough and often enough,then maybe you can 'fool some of the people all of the time'

Nice try at intimidation though,too bad I'm not scared( I was once,not any more,now I'm angry at them for daring to teach FALSE DOCTRINE and treat the brethren as they are treating them) ..and yes,I WILL 'dare to interrogate them' ...don't mind if I do as a matter of fact,it's our DUTY to VERIFY whatever we are told ,you don't just swallow everything down for one simple reason,scripture TELLS us to 'search the scriptures to see if these things are so'.and if they WEREN'T ,then they LIED to us ,and that leaves no other conclusion than its HERETICAL doctrine and according to 'Pauls ministry' we are to REJECT them,to have NOTHING to do with them...not to go into their house,not to socialise with them,not to even eat with them...Titus 3:10 ....we are 'clear' on that aren't we?

Post Reply