Copy of Personal Letter.
Maurice Lloyd's Censorious Comments on the writings of T. with comments upon his own superb abilities. His understanding of the post Acts Transition.
epitelesei metanoia
Dear T,
The long delay in replying to your letter of a month ago is because of misgivings about answering it at all. Your sense of responsibility as a correspondent is very defective and you do not deserve to get a reply. I do not like being treated as an Agony Aunt whose responses can be disregarded if so disposed. It is clear that you have not absorbed much of what I have in the past written to you in reply to your enquiries. But, by the grace of God we each have received blessings we have not deserved; so who am I not to give what I have to the one requesting it.
When somebody sends for your consideration and guidance a booklet, you are obliged to give it careful attention and in due course to report to them your reactions to its content. Clearly you failed to do this in respect of the one returned herewith -- as it was not I who sent it to you. But I did send you for retention in January last year "The True Basis of Fellowship" by A.E.Knoch, on which you have made no comment and the substance of which you clearly have not embraced. You should certainly refer to it now and to my letter then sent which still has relevance to your enquiry.
The understanding one may have of the truth is a matter of faith, not of adherence to a doctrine or dogma. If one does not perceive the truth the way that I do, or "does not yet agree", he may come to do so. You should therefore bear with Leslie, as we all have our own shortcomings. What you say as to his not wanting to commit himself and always wanting to leave the door open to escape is well described by you and well known to me; which is why he found himself sympathetic with Andersen's "Bible Study - a personal quest", which I critically considered in my "Bible Study or Theology ?".
As to my chronological chart, which you seem to be considering in some detail, the enclosure has some relevance. I now have reverted to my original conviction that the Sabbatic Year began in Nisan, not Tishri, though the Jubilee began then. When I have sorted out the problems with Nehemiah and Ezra, I shall make a full revision; but even now I will say that though the 62 Weeks began as shown in 408bc, the"seven sevens" were not of days but were of months. The preceding 49 months comprised four years with an intercalary month, located at Nisan in 412bc, the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis when he gave to Zerubbabel the command to build Jerusalem, see 1Esdras 4:47.to 5:6., (there is no Scripture statement with this detail).. This was the end of the 70 years of Divine Indignation, which needs to be distinguished from the 70 years Captivity ending in 418bc and the 70 years Servitude ending in 425bc, this last being the first year of Cyrus and of the first return.
It is not my opinion that anything stated in the Pastorals related to any event beyond the close of the Administration of Grace, which has its own last days apart from the last days of the present age which began in Acts. If you believe otherwise you should present a fully reasoned and detailed argument free of assumptions, like the monographs I produce. It would then be available to be critically assessed and verified by others -- and it is to be supposed you would welcome every check to ensure its validity.
I feel you are making too much of the post Acts 28 seven years, but you can correct me if you make out a demonstrated case. I accept Sellers' view in Vol.3 of The Word of Truth (which maybe you do not have), that there was a transitional period not necessarily seven years long which characterised Philippians, Titus and 1Timothy in particular you seem to suggest that the spiritual gifts were not immediately withdrawn, as several Scriptures imply and seems to be a stumbling block to Michael Phelan. Incidently, it is not a new discovery that epitelesei is Future; see S&B No.4.
I cannot offer an explanation for "the evil day" in Ephesians, but there is no seven year period to close this dispensation; the seven years are after its close and in which the restored houses of Israel and Judah will re-emerge. I do not accept that the House of Judah has not also become Lo Ammi. There are now thirteen lost tribes not merely ten. Of course God is now dealing with people of all or any nation, and being a Jew or Greek is of no significance whatsoever.
There is no need to send me copies of each new issue from Los Angeles, as I get them sent direct to me. I am afraid that Ribbens and Hettema both adhere rigidly to everything Sellers taught including much that is unsound. I do not know whether Alan Conley is amenable to adjustment. Last year I had some correspondence with Milton Hammond about metanoia and the absurd idea that it means "submit"; but it got nowhere. The chart of mine which you seem to appreciate was originally produced for the benefit of John Ribbens who had written me, but I got no further response from him.
I know nothing about this Toronto Blessing; but if I wished to know I would get my information from its source, not from some biassed ill informed and emotionally loaded list. I do know something about Gnosticism, Mesmerism and New Thought, which have nothing to do with each other or with the rest of the subjects listed. I have more then once used New Thought principles to advantage. Henry Ford used it to develop his motor plant. It was more in vogue in the 1920s, and its notable exponent was Ralph Waldo Trine in his "In tune with the infinite". Of recent years it has been the theme of the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale in "The Power of Positive Thought", a work I would criticise for confusing the spiritual and the psychological, but everyone uses these principles, notably negatively, without knowing it.
As to the New Age of Aquarius, we are all living in it now; which is why we have such things as computers and space travel. It may well be that Mr Morrison cannot sort out these differences, but I can.
It is gratifying that you end your letter by saying you "would be happy to receive any comment" I may care to make, since some of my comments are deservedly censorious.
Yours Sincerely, Maurice Lloyd 12th May 1995