Copy of Personal Letter.
Maurice Lloyd's Comment on Transition Periods,
I should begin by apologising for the long delay In replying to your letter, even though you sent me two Christmas cards. It has taken me two months to recover fully from the 'flu I had In November and having to make numerous visits to the dentist in inclement weather. Apart from this I had to deal with research in connection with a legal matter, then to reply to a correspondent in Australia, and then in America to John Ribbens.
It takes considerable time to decipher his hand-writing, which is not a problem with your letters where the time has to be given to understanding what your meaning may be. I still cannot decide if you meant to censure Les Green or to praise him. Your term "frustration" seems to be out of place in so far as my understanding of the word goes.
I have only just realised that in "God's Plan for Mankind" the comments were added by you. Ribbens sent me another copy over stamped DRAFT In Red, so evidently he is not satisfied with it. There is so much wrong with it that I limited my suggestions to his accepting that Sellers was wrong as to the Weeks of Daniel and that the Seventy began with the baptism of Messiah.
[Continued July 25th 1999
I return the cassette mentioned and enclose also copy of reply to John Ribbens, "Bible Study or Theology ?" (seen by Ribbons but not you), amended chronological chart and copy of letter of 17th October 1998 which amplifies both "Chronology Rectified" and "Talmud or Torah ?". Also enclosed is a further copy of Knoch's "The True Basis of Fellowship"; this was originally sent with "Placing the Pastorals" and ML/DA extract with my letter of 19th January 1994 which you do not list. It was acknowledged by you disdainfully and somewhat sarcastically, but evidently not considered in the depth it deserved seeing that it gave my comments which you had asked for in your own letter of 11th December 1993.
The delay In replying to you is not only that my physical and mental energy is at a premium - and I will be 83 In two weeks time, but I find your letters highly problematic to deal with. You write some appreciative words and then Intersperse them with derogatory or unjust remarks about what I am supposed to have said, or even thought. You refer to a letter of mine as "pointed comments upon my way of expressing my thoughts regarding Biblical Studies"; and this applies to your letter as no doubt to this one also.
It Is probable that I fall to understand things you say, but it is certain you make wrong assessments about what I believe and hold. Certainly I myself am one of those "who depend only upon their own intellect for understanding", as it is necessary to know what a statement says and means before it can be believed. Consider this example: In John 10.30. Jesus tells the Jews. "I and my Father are one"; this statement cannot be believed until it is clear just what it is saying, and that requires consideration by the intellect of its context in that chapter as well as chapters 14 and 17. If this is not done it can be made to mean anything, as Sellers and his devotees have shown.
It Is unjustified to say I "readily point out" Sellers' deviations, and it seems I am more in agreement with him that you are. As I recommend so much of his ministry to others it is with reluctance that I feel the need to do so, not readiness. In fact I have done so only three times, of which you are aware of two, the first being to himself regarding S & B No.60.
If as you claim "I sometimes leap between scripture statements using an opinion" that would be a fault needing to be put right; and rather than make such an assertion the obligation is yours to correct me by setting out fully the details that should be rectified, and no expression of opinion will ever do this, only the application of God's Word positively expressed. I am never "frustrated" with mere opinions; I disregard them. I am not that concerned with opinions of others and don't expect them to be much interested In mine.
The findings of scripture are a different matter; and if such cannot be expressed with certainty and attested evidence they are theological opinion. If the reader/hearer fails to verify them they are to him just opinion: If he does check them out for himself and believes what scripture states they become his findings, not anyone's opinion. You may observe that I commonly invite the reader to check what I assert, for I claim no infallibility and if I am wrong I want to be corrected, but mere opinion will not do this.
When you say you are sure I recognise my "understanding is faulted" it seems you are accusing me of insincerity, which would be a serious defect If it were true. But maybe you did not mean that, and I admit that I have in the past had mistaken beliefs that have since been corrected, e.g. that the seven weeks of Daniel 9 were of days but proved to have been of months.
It now becomes clear to me that I have been misled by enquiries of yours purporting to be seeking help on a subject, when you had already made up your mind and were wanting a bolster for your predetermined opinion. Your idea of a seven year term designated The Evil Day is by no means supported by my chart. Your claim that Timothy would not know that the future Last Days related not to the present age but to the "Administration of God which is by faith" [1Tim 1:4 NAS] depends on first proving the second letter to be pre Acts 28, which you have not done.[This is an erroneous interpretation of my statement...T]
You seemingly are not aware that at the Sunningdale conferences in the 1950s it was held that only Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon were post Acts 28.28. Leslie Green could have informed you, and I suppose Rowland Wickes still could. I dissociated myself from them over this matter; not that I would not have considered it but they declined my contention that its importance demanded it be issued as a fully biblically attested treatise so that it could be critically assessed, rather than being left in the air as an unproven theory. It seems to have died a natural death sometime afterwards as clearly Les was not later holding it - if he ever did.
In like manner I would dissociate myself from your similar ideas. So I cannot undertake to deal with your letters and I ask you not to write again. My time and effort nowadays is at a premium and has to be limited to issues I regard as having priority. You have much material to consider in earlier letters to you. I shall not be sending a list of items issued by me or invite you to apply for any.
It was very wrong of you to transcribe my material on to your newsletter without permission. Please refrain from doing this in future; you are however at liberty to photocopy any of my writing to pass to others.
Yours Sincerely Maurice Lloyd 16th February 1999