The debate was continued on the following evening before an attentive audience.
MR. ANDERSON (speaking for ten minutes) said:-
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nisbet, ladies and gentlemen, I have the privilege to again open the debate this evening. First, let me refer to the theory of the kingdom as propounded by Mr. Nisbet last night. He says that there is just one kingdom, and that that kingdom always was, and has always been the same. I don't say he has been uniform in this statement. He has repeatedly veered from it, but I think I am right in thinking that that is, in the main, his theory. If that is Mr. Nisbet's belief, he will have some difficulty in explaining away some passages in the Old and New Testaments. For instance in the second chapter of Daniel you have the dream of Nebuchadnezzer, of the four metals which are said to represent four kingdoms, and in verse 44 we read, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Now, if the kingdom always was, as Mr. Nisbet maintains, there must have been a kingdom long before that time. How then could it be set up afterwards? Last night I pointed out that the Kingdom of Heaven was preached as at hand by John the Baptist, but if the kingdom was always the same, there was no need for such preaching. But notwithstanding all this, Mr. Nisbet admitted that according to Colossians 1:13, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son," that there was a kingdom and that the apostles were in it. He also admitted that that kingdom was not in existence in the days of John the Baptist, and although he forgot to prove it, he contended that it died with the apostles. A kingdom implies a few things. It implies a king, laws, and subjects. If there was a kingdom then there was a king, and if Jesus is referred to as sitting on the throne of God, surely he is a king with angels and authorities and powers subject to Him. The power to grant salvation and the remission of sins is also in His hand. That kingdom had its beginning in the days of the apostles, and is not ended yet. From the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection the main theme of the twelve apostles was to preach the exalted Christ. Suppose we read from Acts 2:29, "Men and brethren," said Peter, "let me speak freely unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to Him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne: He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus has God raised up whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which you now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ." Is that nothing? If after Christ was raised up and exalted to God's right hand to sit there until his foes might be made his footstool, surely Jesus occupied a more exalted position after Pentecost than before it. And yet Mr. Nisbet maintains that there is no proof that he did. These passages about Christ receiving power received no attention from him last night. Let us again examine Colossians 1:13, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the Kingdom of His dear Son." Mr. Nisbet last night said the "us" only referred to Paul and Timotheus, and that the Colossians did not share in the deliverance. The next passage says, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." According to Mr. Nisbet the Colossians did not share in this either. Mr. Nisbet tried to prove his point, but at a terrible cost to the Colossians. Referring to the parable of the wheat and the tares, Mr. Anderson said the wheat and the tares, allegorically speaking, grew together at the present day, but the time would come when the separation would take place.
Speaking for ten minutes, MR. NISBET said:-
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr. Anderson's remarks this evening refer only to what took place last night, I will deal with them first. He says that Mr. Nisbet's theory is one kingdom only. He is right, one kingdom only. Not two kingdoms. One Kingdom of God, always existing, never ending.
"My kingdom hath none end at all,
It doth through ages all remain."
That is what I believe, and Mr. Anderson is right in saying that that is my theory. Then he says that Mr. Nisbet will have some difficulty in explaining away some passages in the Old and New Testaments. He says, if Mr. Nisbet says it always was the same, how could it be? But Mr. Nisbet never said that: he said the very opposite. During the course of ages God manifested himself in many diverse ways, and when Christ was on earth there was a variation. The Jews felt this when the Kingdom of God was taken away from them. There was a change in the aspect of the kingdom in the apostolic age, just as there was in the age which preceded it, but during these ages God never left his throne in Heaven or ceased to sit in judgment upon the sons of men. So that if there was any difficulty it was one of Mr. Anderson's own creation. Mr. Anderson said that Mr. Nisbet admitted a kingdom in Colossians, and that the apostles were in it; but I never said that the kingdom died with the apostles. I never used such an expression. I said that the kingdom which ceased from among men existed under David. It appeared among men again, it ceased from among men with the apostles, and does not now exist in the earth. If Mr. Anderson had the courage of his convictions he would try to prove that a Kingdom of God (implying a king, laws, and subjects) as preached at hand by John the Baptist, with Jesus on the throne, now exists on earth; and that it commenced with the apostolic age. He said that from the first Pentecost the kingdom was no longer at hand, but he failed to prove it. In Acts 2:36, Jesus was made Lord and Christ, but he was that before he suffered on Calvary, for, prior to that Thomas addressed him as "my Lord and my God." If Thomas was right, Mr. Anderson is wrong, for if God made Jesus Lord and Christ before Pentecost, when the kingdom did not exist that Mr.Anderson claims now to exist, surely that means something.
Ten minutes questions by Mr. Anderson:-
Q. - You admit, Mr. Nisbet, that Christ is on the throne of God?
A. - He is sitting on the right hand of the throne.
Q. - With all the power of heaven?
A. - With all what power?
Q. - You deny all power then?
A. - I don't, but I want to know what power you include.
Q. - You will please not interrupt me by putting questions. If you would stop quibbling we would get on much faster. Do you deny that Christ has all the power of heaven?
A. - All what power?
Q. - Over men and angels?
A. - No, but I maintain that -
Q. - Suppose you just hold your tongue while I put my questions. You said last night that David was king?
A. - David was king of Israel.
Q. - And Jesus now sits on the throne of God?
A. - I said distinctly that he was sitting at the right hand of the throne of God.
Q. - And possesses all power in heaven and on earth?
A. - You decline to let me answer that question my own way.
Q. - Is the Lord king of all the earth?
A. - As prince of the apostle age -.
Q. - Does he rule as a king?
A. - As a king or priest unto God His Father.
Q. - Then he no longer rules?
A. - He ruled as prince of the kings of the earth. You have my meaning in Revelation 1:4: John to the Seven Churches.
Q. - The Christ is only a prince?
A. - He is a good deal more than a prince. He is a prince giving redemption. He acts in the capacity of a captain under a sovereign.
Q. - Then he holds power, but does not rule anyone?
A. - He just rules in the same way as a captain rules.
Q. - Then he is a king and yet not a king?
A. - No. I say that he is -.
Q. - If he was a king then why is he not a king now?
A. - He is a king without a kingdom. He has got a kingdom, but it is not here yet.
Q. - In Acts 5:31, you find, "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Can he exercise the divine rule now?
A. - What do you mean by the divine rule?
Q. - You hold that God is highest?
A. - There is none higher.
Q. - And although Jesus is seated on the throne of God - ?
A. - I deny that. You are repeatedly putting words into my mouth. I admit Jesus had all power in heaven and on earth, but he is not on the throne of God.
Q. - If he has all power in heaven and on earth, what power has he not?
A. - I will explain that in my speech. You will not allow me to answer questions in my own way.
Q. - If Christ is seated on the right hand of His Father, why has he not power to exercise the highest rule?
A. - He has the right to exercise it when God's time comes.
Ten minutes questions by Mr. Nisbet:-
Q. - In Colossians 1:13, you say that I referred to Paul and Timotheus as sharing forgiveness, but not the Colossians. Do you believe I excluded the Colossians?
A. - I put the question to you if verse 14 applied to the apostles also, and you said yes, but you said the Colossians did not receive the forgiveness of sins.
Q. - Did I say that the Colossians had not received the forgiveness of sins?
A. - You said that that verse referred to the apostles and the apostles only.
Q. - Did I say that the Colossians were not included?
A. - I understood from what you said that the Colossians were not included.
Q. - Did I say they were not included?
A. - I understood you to say that.
Mr. Nisbet appealed to his chairman to get Mr. Anderson to answer the question more directly, and the chairman said that Mr. Anderson had interpreted his words as they struck him at the time. Mr. Nisbet - It simply means that Mr. Anderson is not prepared to answer my question.
Q. - Are the Colossians distinguished here from the apostles?
A. - Sometimes.
Q. - Do you admit that the eighth verse includes them?
A. - It does not exclude them.
Q. - In the ninth verse does the "you" mean the Colossians?
A. - Yes.
Q. - And the tenth verse still includes them?
A. - Yes.
Q. - The twelfth verse says, "Giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." Does that include the Colossians?
A. - It is us giving thanks.
Q. - Does the "us giving thanks" mean the Colossians?
A. - Yes.
Q. - Then take the thirteenth verse, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son." Whom does the "us" mean there?
A. - You must take the context.
Q. - Well, you have alleged that in the twelfth verse the "us giving thanks" are the Colossians. Does it mean that the "us" have been delivered from the power of darkness, and have been translated into the kingdom of His dear Son?
A. - That is not denied.
Q. - Then these verses only refer to the Colossians?
A. - They don't necessarily refer to them only.
Q. - Do you think that Christ has authority to grant the remission of sins?
A. - That is not denied.
Q. - Now take 1st Corinthians 15:23, "every man in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." Do you admit that between his coming and the "then," when the kingdom shall be delivered up, that there is a period of 1,000 years?
A. - I admit no such thing.