The Christadelphian Bible Journal
October 2004 Volume 2 Number 24
In the October 2004 issue of The Christadelphian Bible Journal, an Advocate correspondent's objection to "knowledge being the basis of resurrectional responsibility" was thoroughly addressed by our "informative web site author." Another Unamended correspondent has now written in response:
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 7:21:29 am CST
Subject: RE: Christadelphian Bible Journal
"With all do [due] respect, Brethren, the point is not proven. I too thought of responding in a similar fashion to point out that the scriptural evidence that you site [cite] could in no way be used to make a case as to raise the matter of responsibility to a test of fellowship.
"I have no quarrel with the principle of knowledge bringing responsibility. I have no quarrel with anyone who believes that Yahweh has the power and Divine right to raise an uncovenanted Gentile, but Yahweh being a God of law has determined to deal with his servants apart from the world. Noah, for example, was a preacher of righteousness, holding forth the "light" of Truth to his generation but they refused and the Word says emphatically that they all 'perished'. They will never see light.
"Granted, you say that you did not intend to provide 'exhaustive evidence', but is there "exhaustive scriptural evidence"? I have not seen it here. I have never seen anything but 'wrested scriptures' on this point after a fashion of those that would try to prove the pre-existence of Christ, or the Trinity, or other such foolishness. Recognizing this the matter of responsibility was an open question until the death of Bro. Roberts when the the extreme views of Bro. Walker and others (of whom Bro. Roberts adamantly opposed) were forced upon the household of faith.
"Brethren, if I took the same interpretation of cited scriptures, why stop at 'enlightened Gentiles', I might as well believe in a universal resurrection, for that is the only end I can see in your conclusion. While you are consistent in your interpretation of 'God's wrath' being always equal to the Bema of Christ, I believe that this is an unfortunate mistake. It is obvious that you refuse to see any connection between the sentence of condemnation God placed upon the race, excluding man from the Divine presence, and consigning him to death and woe as having any connection with the principles of Divine 'wrath' and 'judgment' that you so conveniently place at the Bema alone.
"I agree with the stand that Bro's. Roberts, Williams and Thomas took on the issue, though differing in detail as to the extent of how Yahweh would exercise His prerogative to do justice, though none making the question of 'responsibility' a test of fellowship. Bro. Williams says several times in his writings that he read "Thirteen Lectures" by Bro. Roberts and agreed with what Bro. Roberts had written on the issue of responsibility therein. I would be interested to know what you think about what Bro. Roberts wrote as well.
"In the Hope of Israel, Bro. ____ (not 'Advocate Correspondent')"
The above letter having been sent to our "informative web site" author, he now responds accordingly:
The correspondent says,"the scriptural evidence that you site [cite] could in no way be used to make a case as to raise the matter of responsibility to a test of fellowship". This is the correspondent's personal judgment. However, historical facts differ with his claim, for knowledge as the basis for resurrectional responsibility has been considered a first principle of the gospel from the earliest days of our community. Please consider the following documentation.
In 1845, brother John Thomas wrote an article entitled "The Things of the Spirit: What We Must Do to Obtain Eternal Life." In that summary list we read, "6. ...And here I would make one remark for the reflection of our Universalist friends, namely, had there been no other sentence promulgated than that in Eden, and had the word of Christ been simply and solely 'all shall be saved,' then the dogma, that to the extent in which all men die in Adam to the same extent shall all men be made alive in Christ, would have been true; but, on the assumption, that 'he that believeth,' means 'all,' there is still a sentence of condemnation pronounced against unbelieving mortals, which restricts the 'all' to a portion of mankind, and condemns the rest. 'He that believeth not (the Gospel) shall be condemned'... 7. Here then, are two sentences of condemnation, to which, if a man become obnoxious, he may be said to be doubly damned. He is condemned to the first death because he is 'born of the flesh' and he is condemned to the Second Death if he believe not the Gospel; but, let the reader bear in mind that no mortal son of Adam is obnoxious to the Second Death because he is born of the flesh; but, being born of the flesh involuntarily, he becomes liable to it by rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And this is the ground of the Second Condemnation, 'that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.' John 3:19." ("The Things of the Spirit: What We Must Do to Obtain Eternal Life," 6-7)
In 1855, brother Thomas wrote "Summary of Christianity Revealed in the Bible". Over the article he placed the words, 'He that believes and is baptized, shall he saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.' - Jesus"
During 1866, the Christadelphian Association of Detroit issued ... a treatise by brother John Thomas. It was entitled, How to Search the Scriptures for Eternal Life. This effort also featured an addenda by brother David Brown which enumerated first principles of doctrine. Although the work was not published by Dr. Thomas, he neither demurred from it nor disapproved of its distribution on both sides of the Atlantic -- ample evidence that its teachings were considered acceptable to him as well as the brotherhood at large.
The addenda to the book first examines the importance of comprehending first principles. Under the heading, "The Principles of Doctrine," the writer states: "...the following definitions of the faith that has come, as the First Principles of the doctrine of the Christ...the exact knowledge of them, according to the Scriptures, with the heart and the understanding also, is a prerequisite for the obedience of a saving faith -- 'the washing of water by the word,' to obtain the one baptism, without which no one can stand in God's salvation, or become a partaker with all them who, through faith and patience, inherit the promise."
In the list of first principles which follows, the fifth deals with responsibility. It reads: "That the Resurrection has effect only in regard to those individuals of the human race who have been brought into such connection with revealed truth, that they incur the responsibility of its rejection or its unworthy profession, and that the judgment upon them has been committed to the Son, as the Father's representative in the work of Adamic regeneration, and the residue of the dead remain in the dust to rise up no more."
Here the basis of resurrectional responsibility is plainly stated. Those who lay themselves open to the responsibility of rejecting the Truth can only be of the enlightened non-covenanted group. And those who run the chance of an unworthy profession are without a doubt of the enlightened covenanted group.
The sixth first principle reveals the destiny of the resurrected. It declares: "That the resurrected spring to light, flesh and blood, or mortal men and women, to report their former selves to the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, at his appearing and kingdom; and such of them as shall be counted the righteous Seed, will be raised to a spiritual nature by a spirit-birth in the fullness of the Christhead, that they may inherit the kingdom; and the others, unworthy of eternal life, will be thrust out of the kingdom to suffer their many or few stripes, and then to utterly perish in their own corruption."
With regard to this work of brethren Thomas and Brown, bro. Roberts published the following in The Ambassador of August 1866, "The cooperation of the brethren is earnestly requested in the circulation of this excellent pamphlet, which is well got up in every respect" (see Bible Journal, January, 2003).
In 1869, brother Thomas issued through brother Roberts, The Revealed Mystery, a booklet wherein the following appeared under the heading, "A Summary of Christianity Revealed in the Bible" :
THE WICKED shall be turned into SHEOL; all the Gentiles that "forget God." The wicked are those "who know not God, and obey not the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." Of these there are three classes: first, sinners that never heard of the one true God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the gospel; and others who are physically incapable of faith and obedience; second, those who have come to an understanding of the gospel, but have rejected it; and third, those who have obeyed it, but do not hold fast the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end, nor walk according to its precepts, but after the flesh. The first class dies and perishes as the beasts; the second also dies, but comes forth from the grave again to encounter the burning indignation of Christ, the Judge of the living and the dead, at his appearing and kingdom; and the third also comes forth to be judged, and to undergo, in condemnation, "a sorer punishment" in the fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. PROOF: Psa. 9:17; 11:6; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; Psa. 49:12, 20; Isa. 26:14; Eccl. 3:17-20; Acts 14:16; 17:30; John 5:29; Matt. 25:41,46; Luke 13:28; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:2, 8; 10:27-29; Rom. 8: 13; Gal. 6:7-8.
In 1870, brother Thomas wrote, "Sir, -- In No. 181 of your bi-weekly, you inform your readers that a correspondent is anxious to have information on this new sect (the Christadelphians) and their place of worship in London. Having, then, had perfect understanding of all things from the very first most surely believed and taught by their recognized scribes and their literature, I will, with your permission, proceed as briefly as possible to relieve your correspondent of his anxiety... 10. The things subjective of the 'one faith' and the 'one hope' they regard as 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,' believed by the Samaritans when Philip 'preached Christ' to them (Acts 8:12), in harmony with the 'law of faith,' which saith 'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned... 14. They teach that it is knowledge that makes responsible; so that 'man that is in honour and understandeth not, is as the beasts that perish.' - (Psalms 49:12,20.)" ("Concerning This New Sect the Christadelphians," The Christadelphian 1870, a 24 point statement of the Christadelphian faith by John Thomas, Intro, 10, 14) A First Principle in the Statement of Faith
1. In the original Birmingham Statement of Faith issued in 1873 and reprinted in 1877, clause 15D refers to the gathering of "servants" for judgment as a matter of fellowship and lists the following Scriptures in support: 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5-6, 16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 11:18. However, it is clause 31 that refers to the basis for resurrection: "...the resurrection being restricted to those who are responsible to the divine law." The upholding verses listed are: Job 3:13-32; 10:18, 19; 14:10-12; Isa. 26:13-14; Jer. 51:39, 57; Prov. 21:16; Rom. 2:12; Psa. 49:6-30; John 3:19; 12:48; 15:22-24. Virtually all of these passages either imply or directly teach that knowledge of the revealed will of God is the basis for responsibility. Neither covenant-making nor baptism is specifically mentioned. (Bible Journal, January 2003.)
2. The 1877 Birmingham Statement of Faith says, "That at the appearing of Christ, his servants, faithful and unfaithful, dead and living of both classes, will be summoned before his judgment seat to 'be judged according to their works;' 'and receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad;' that the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and 'the second death."
3. The Ecclesial Guide of 1883 (still 9 years before the Responsibility Controversy) changed the wording to "the responsible, (faithful and unfaithful)". If any were to argue prior to this change that "servants" meant saints (which is in fact an invention popularized after the 1898 split), the change to "the responsible" closed that argument down. We ask readers to note that both The Ecclesial Guide and The Birmingham Statement of Faith "raise the matter of responsibility to a test of fellowship."
4. The Statement of Faith which J.J. Andrew met under, prior to his changed views, explicitly raised the matter of responsibility to a test of fellowship: "The Rules and Statement of the First Principles of Scripture Truth constituting the beliefs and basis of fellowship of The North London Ecclesia of Christadelphians...That Resurrection affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will; that all these, whether just or unjust, faithful or unfaithful, will be raised from the dead at the Second Appearing of Jesus Christ, and will, with the living, appear in a corruptible nature, before the judgment-seat of Christ....." Brother J.J. Andrew's North London, Statement of Faith, January 1887, states: "That the Resurrection affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will; that all these, whether just or unjust, faithful or unfaithful, will be raised from the dead at the Second Appearing of Jesus Christ, and will, with the living, appear in a corruptible nature, before the judgment-seat of Christ, to give an account of themselves, and to receive in body according to that which they have done whether it be good or bad. Acts 24:15; Rom. 5:13; Isa. 26:13-14; Rev. 11:18; 2 Tim 4:1; Rom 14:10-12; 2 or. 5:10."
It should be noted that brother J.J. Andrew bore responsibility for the wording of this statement which is not surprising considering the prominent role he took in The Christadelphian magazine, in lecturing and teaching as early as the 1860's. Brother Roberts' comment on Andrew's 1887 Statement of Faith: "This contention goes directly in the teeth of the printed basis of the ecclesia -- a basis which was drawn up as a whole or in part by brother Andrew himself. Consequently, the issue cannot be ignored, particularly as the doctrine hitherto recognised as the truth was now denounced by him as error, and assailed by him in an elaborate pamphlet, recently published, to which, in compliance with urgent solicitation, I published the reply announced last month, viz., The Resurrection to Condemnation... (The Christdelphian, 1894, p.200.)
5. Ecclesial Intelligence and various articles in The Christadelphian magazine, one of which was 8 years prior to the Responsibility Controversy, demonstrate how serious brethren took the matter:
a. The Christadelphian, 1883 (still well prior to the Responsibility Controversy), p. 241; withdrawal "from ten who are not able to see that unbaptised and knowing rejecters of the truth are responsible" (1884, p. 190), and this action upheld by brother Roberts (1884, p. 382).
b. "Islington Temperance Hall, Church Passage, Upper Street, N., April, 1894.--At a business meeting on April 15th, the Islington Ecclesia refused to re-affirm its basis of fellowship against the false theories introduced by brother J. J. Andrew, which are embodied in his pamphlet entitled 'The Blood of the Covenant.' We, therefore, who maintain the truth as it has hitherto been held and taught in the London meeting, have withdrawn from the meeting at Barnsbury Hall [at Islington]. We invite you to meet with us upon the old basis of fellowship, which is explained in the following proposition:--'That we re-affirm our belief that knowledge is the basis of responsibility to God, and that enlightened rejecters are amenable to Resurrection and Judgment, and that we, in accordance with Rule 3, withdraw from those who deny this.'" (The Christadelphian : Volume 31. The Christadelphian, Volume 31. electronic ed. Logos Library System, Vol. 31, Page 245. Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001, c1894.
6. In 1898, as a result of the controversy, the Birmingham Ecclesia amended their clause on responsibility. The notice of this reads, "We reaffirm Proposition XXIV.. in the following amplified terms and we fellowship only those who hold the same doctrine: '.. the responsible (namely those who know the revealed will of God and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient...' "
7. As we would expect, early Statements of Faith were formulated so that such would be harmonious with the doctrines commonly held by the community that drew up and adopted them. It is quite clear from all available documentation, including the writings of J. J. Andrew, that the majority held that 1) light brought responsibility 2) that all men called by a knowledge of the Gospel would appear at the judgment seat of Christ. It is true that early on, most brethren thought the enlightened rejecter would appear post-millennial. Ironically J.J. Andrew was one of the earliest (1868) to publish an article in The Christadelphian magazine showing that the enlightened rejecter was judged at the bema, not post-millennial. This mirrored brother Thomas's understanding at that time and brother Roberts followed shortly around 1871. From 1871 forward The Christadelphian magazine consistently presented articles and correspondence that showed the enlightened rejecter being judged at the bema. This was 21 years before the Responsibility Controversy arose. The original Birmingham Statement of Faith was based on their latter view (the rejecter being at the bema) since that is what they commonly believed at the time it was drawn up
8. That brother Andrew's latter views were not mainstream Christadelphian understanding of clause 24 is shown in the fact that the majority of the Christadelphian community endorsed the reaffirmation using amplified terms of clause 24. The ecclesias that developed out of brother Andrew's teaching in the UK fell in with the Suffolk Street fellowship and were absorbed into Central in the mid 1950's. The Unamended community also became the minority community in North America. That majorities all over the world adopted it indicates their agreement to it. The attention being called to numbers should not be misconstrued to mean that numbers establish sound doctrine. Rather the only point is that if the basis of fellowship was being changed to something brethren had not previously understood -- a new doctrine or a frivolous test of fellowship -- the majority would have rejected it. Rather, the majority saw the amplified terms as more clearly expressing what they previously understood it to say, but now that it had been challenged, it required amplification.
9. Brother Roberts was against modifying the Statement of Faith and there was certainly pressure upon him to modify it. But it was not "an open question". "We reaffirm Proposition XXIV.. in the following amplified terms and we fellowship only those who hold the same doctrine..." Let us be accurate: Brother Roberts was reluctant to disfellowship those who accepted the principle but were uncertain about its application in individual cases. There is no evidence that he was reluctant to disfellowship those who denied the basic principles involved.
10. The Statement of Faith was not modified after brother Roberts death but was done so prior thereto, with his approval, as it appears from the pages of The Christadelphian magazine. He said that some positions being taken were too extreme and therefore offered one that was explicitly reaffirmed, the doctrine that most Christadelphians already understood clause 24 to teach at the time:
"Reported resolutions in reference to this question have recently been omitted from intelligence communications appearing from various places: e.g., Barrmill, Southampton, Newbury, Heckmondwike, &c. They were forwarded to the Editor in Australia, who cannot (for reasons already given) join in refusing the fellowship of obedient believers of the Gospel who may happen to be unclear as to the amount of punishment God will mete out to those who refuse submission in these times of darkness, so long as they are prepared to admit that the ground of resurrectional responsibility is the light of knowledge (see footnote). The Editor's non-concurrence in these resolutions does not in any way invalidate them. Each ecclesia is a law to itself till the Lord come. The Editor but reserves his own responsibility in the matter. There are subtle shades in the question which call for careful discrimination. The men who admit that light is the ground of responsibility, but who are uncertain whether (yet do not deny that) the amount of light upon earth in an age so unlike the apostolic age as ours, is sufficient to subject rejecters to resurrectional condemnation, are not men to be branded by withdrawal as though they denied the truth. The resolutions (some of them) that are being adopted would have the effect of excluding such and inflicting a great wrong. There is no particular need for such resolutions, in view of the withdrawal published by the promulgators of the new doctrine from all who cannot receive it. If there are to be resolutions, let them be such as, while professing scriptural doctrine, will do no injustice to enlightened and obedient servants of God, whose hesitations on this subject are not without reason. Such a resolution as the following would meet the case:--
"That we reject the doctrine recently introduced to the effect that men must be baptised before they can come under the condemnation of the Gospel at the resurrection. We believe that the ground of condemnation is--not a partial submission in baptism, but a refusal to submit to the claims of the Gospel at all, where there is a sufficiency of discernment as to the Divine character of those claims. Of this sufficiency of discernment, God alone can be judge. We cannot invite the fellowship of those who advocate the new doctrine, but we cannot refuse the fellowship of those who recognise that knowledge is the ground of responsibility, though they may not be clear as to how the principle will work out in an age of darkness like our own. (The Editor writes this in Melbourne, May 16th, with best wishes for all--the political heavens growing darker and more threatening)." (The Christadelphian, 1898, 357)
Finally, as brother Islip Collyer noted:
"In the latter-day history of the Truth there have been several divisions caused through the introduction of a false doctrine. As brother Roberts pointed out not long before his death, the main divisions were caused by attacks on the fundamental truths of Christ's redemptive work. The 'no will' theory was in effect a denial of Christ's trial and perfect obedience. The 'renunciation' theory was in effect a denial that 'Christ came in the flesh.' The 'theories of inspiration' attacked the Word and therefore made a direct attack upon Christ. The divergent views regarding resurrectional responsibility were never treated as serious until in an attempt to formulate a coherent theory it became plain how closely the matter was connected with the redemptive work of Christ." (The Christadelphian, 1923, p. 261-262) Noah and Other Evidences
The correspondent says, "Noah, for example, was a preacher of righteousness, holding forth the 'light' of Truth to his generation but they refused and the Word says emphatically that they all 'perished.' They will never see light." Peter does not say that those who understood Noah's message "shall never see light". The Greek word for perish emphatically means to destroy. By implication it may carry the added meaning of "perish". Thus the disciples said:
Luke 8:24, " Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm."
Will our correspondent assert that the disciples believed they would "never see light"? How is it that Martha could assert of her brother: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24)? Are we to believe the men closest to the Lord were so desperately ignorant that they thought they would literally perish and "never see light"?
Our correspondent should be emphatic where the Scriptures are emphatic.
Psalm 49:19- 20, "He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light. Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish."
The correspondent asks: "is there 'exhaustive scriptural evidence'?" There are more affirmations that light brings responsibility, and that such will be judged, than there are verses that mention the bema, or judgment seat, of Christ (only two). Our correspondents want everything rolled into a single verse. This we are supposed to accomplish despite the fact that God chose not to mention the word bema in the same verse as light making responsible (yet He does say they "SHALL be judged" &c). In the two verses where bema is mentioned very little else is. We are even left to deduce, from other Scriptures, that the reward given to the faithful is "eternal life". Is not the most elementary deductive reasoning required to understand the Bible properly?
"4.--Their [the Christadelphians] rule of interpretation is, nothing to be received as proved which sets the New Testament Scriptures against the Old, or any text of these against another; an interpretation to be true must be in harmony and accord with these." (The Christadelphian, John Thomas, 1870, p. 1-2)
The Jews of Christ's day, rejecters of light, are placed at the bema in Luke 13:28 without the word bema even occurring in the book of Luke. There is more "exhaustive scriptural evidence" for resurrectional responsibility than the bema. Will our correspondent deny the bema on the same basis? Or deny "the gift of God" will be the inheritance of the saints at the bema? "An Open Question"?
The correspondent claims "the matter of responsibility was an open question until the death of Bro. Roberts." If the doctrine was a matter of fellowship, it could not have been an open question. Nor could brother Roberts have written the following in 1875, which is 17 years before the controversy erupted:
"The rejecters of Christ were not 'brethren.' Yet they are to rise from the dead.--(John 12:48.) Consequently it cannot be an 'open question,' 'whether any but the brethren of Christ will be raised from the dead.' None but they will be raised to immortality; but numbers besides them will rise to the shame and the contempt of the terrible epoch of the Lord's coming. This teaching is too explicit and too accordant with justice to be mistaken. The only point in connection with the subject that may be said to be 'open' is as to the degree of knowledge necessary in our day to constitute a rejecter responsible to resurrection. Where a man knows and believes the gospel, there can be no doubt about his resurrection-responsibility, whether he obey it in baptism or no; for the basis of responsibility is knowledge.--(John 3:19.) But many reject the gospel, sincerely believing it to be opposed to the truth of God, and others without capacity or opportunity to judge whether it be gospel or no. This is the only class about whose case there can be any doubt. For further remarks on the subject see Christadelphian for April 1870, pp. 120-186; also the Christadelphian for 1873, page 231." (The Christadelphian, 1875, Robert Roberts, p. 473)
In fact, if our correspondent consults the writings of brother J.J. Andrew he will find that brother Andrew never believed it was an open question either:
"'The tares,' we are told, 'are the children of the wicked one,' - a phrase which comprises, not only unbelieving adversaries, but also all believers who are not faithful to their master; for Jesus says, 'He that is not with me is against me'* we may conclude the burning of the tares immediately precedes the glories of the millennial age." (The Ambassador, J.J. Andrew, December, 1867)
"It is apparent that those who sin in the clear light of knowledge do so under far greater responsibilities than those who sin in ignorance." (J.J. Andrew, The Ambassador, January, 1868)
"But where no law is there is no transgression. Sin is not imputed when there is no law - for man that understandeth not is like the beasts that perish; hence those only who have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law - that the law of righteousness required by God during the dispensation in which each individual has lived." (J.J. Andrew, The Ambassador, May, 1868)
"The phrase 'every man' is in itself sufficient to decide the meaning of the word 'reward;' because, as we have already seen, all Christ's disciples--faithful and unfaithful--are to appear before him at his second advent, to reap that which they have sown." And "A parallel passage to this is to be found in John 5:28, where we read that Jesus said 'Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.' The 'all' here mentioned, are, of course, not all mankind, but only that portion amenable to the judgment--those who have become responsible to God by a knowledge of His law or truth." (The Ambassador, J.J. Andrew, The New Testament Doctrine of Judgment)
In 1870 brother Andrew wrote, "Daniel (12:2), in harmony with other prophets predicts that only some, or 'many of them that sleep... shall awake.' The 'many' will comprise all those who, by a knowledge of God's revealed truth, have been brought into a state of responsibility, from the time of Abel to the second appearing of Jesus Christ. To the faithful portion, styled by Daniel, 'the wise,' resurrection is all-important: it is the gate from the prison-house of the grave to eternal life: without it, they would like the heathen, become 'as though they had not been" (The Real Christ aka Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, J.J. Andrew, pp. 174-175).
There are too many quotations from brother John Thomas and brother Robert Roberts to quote. Let a few suffice:
"No; it is better to die a heathen than to understand the gospel and not obey it. 'The ground of condemnation is that light,' or knowledge, 'has come into the world; but men love darkness', or ignorance, 'rather than light because their deeds are evil.' (Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1858, p. 186)
"... That the just and unjust, or all that have been enlightened, must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, when every one shall give account of himself; and receive through the body, according to what he hath done, whether good or bad. Rom xiv, 10, 12; 2 Cor. v, 10." (The Christadelphian, March 1868, p. 27. Article signed by John Thomas)
"Is a man responsible who is not under the law of Christ? Answer.--If the light has come to him--he knowing it to be such--and he reject it, preferring the darkness, he is responsible to it. Proof: 'This is the (ground of) condemnation that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light.'--(John 3:19.) 'He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The words that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.'--(John 12:48.) 'Preach the gospel to every creature; . . . he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.'--(Mark 16:15-16), when Christ comes to take 'vengeance on them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ' (2 Thess. 1:9), and he is not the judge of the living only, but the dead also.--(Rom. 14:9.) Such are they who 'despise the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering . . . treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;' when there shall be to those 'who do not obey the truth, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile, . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.'--(Rom. 2:4, 5, 8, 10.) Consequently, hearing Paul reasoning on 'judgment to come,' Felix trembled.--(Acts 24:25.)" (The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 378)
"The question is answered by the questioner, or rather by the testimonies he quotes. It is light that makes responsible, and disobedience is the ground of condemnation, which is reasonable and just. Baptism is the first act of obedience: but there are many commands to obey after that, the disobedience of which will make baptism of no profit." (The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 283)
"J. E.--All will not rise from the dead. This is plainly affirmed (Psa. 49:19; Is. 26:14; Jer. 51:57; Psa. 88:5) and is accordant with the most elementary conceptions of reason and justice, for why should the benighted, who knew no better and could be no different, rise? The rule of responsibility is light (Jno. 3:19; Jno. 12:48; Rom. 2:2, 8, 9, 16): This also is according to reason: for knowledge is the ground of responsibility in all transactions, human and divine. To hold a man responsible who did not know, would be cruelty: to let off a man on some technical plea, who did know, would be injustice. If a man know and believe the truth and refuse submission to it, he will rise to answer for his rebellion. The idea that he will only rise if he partially submits in being baptised, is founded upon a misapplication of truth." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 294-295) Are there other witnesses to the fact that this was not "an open question"? Yes:
"This is my twentieth year as a London Christadelphian, and as such, and as one who has held every office in the ecclesia, from door-keeper to examining brother, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that your present theory has never been (till now) openly advocated, nor has it ever been looked upon ecclesially as an open question. Brother Bosher confirms this, with the additional weight of some 8 or 10 years longer experience." (The Christadelphian, 1894, p. 350)
"MANCHESTER.--Temperance Hall, York Street, Chester Road. Sundays, 3 and 6.30 p.m.--A special meeting of this ecclesia was held on Tuesday, February 6th, for the purpose of re-affirming the basis of fellowship in accordance with the Birmingham Statement of Faith. The meeting having been opened with prayer by the presiding brother, the recording brother was asked to explain the reasons for the meeting being called. It was pointed out that, recently, circumstances had arisen which, in the judgment of the managing brethren, made it necessary that the ecclesia should clearly state the basis upon which it was prepared to have fellowship with individuals and ecclesias. The doctrine that 'knowledge brought responsibility,' it was shown, had, from the inception of the truth in these latter days, been held consistently from the days of Dr. Thomas' early work to the present. This was shown by reference to the Doctor's works, to the writings of brother Roberts, and of brother Andrew. To the contention made by some that the matter had always been 'an open question,' it was shown that very phrase had been very strongly repudiated by brother Roberts in Answers to Correspondents, as far back as 1875. Brother J. J. Andrew's book, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, was produced, and in the appendix it was found that the doctrine of accountability to resurrection was thus set forth. 'Resurrection affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will.' The departure from this basis of faith had become so pronounced with some, that fellowship had, as a consequence, become impossible. A resolution re-affirming the basis of fellowship was proposed and the vote was carried with only one dissentient. The recording brother was then authorised to send intelligence of this fact to the Christadelphian." (The Christadelphian, 1900, p. 133)
Finally, history always has something to teach us.
"One newly-formed small community issues a manifesto proposing that the question should be considered 'an open one.' 'We do not,' say they, 'hold it essential that we should be all of one mind in reference thereto . . and will allow full liberty of conscience.' This sounds very well in the popular ear, but it is by no means a scriptural attitude, and marks the difference between two sections that have come into variance." (The Christadelphian, 1885, p., 376, brother Roberts speaking of those who supported Partial Inspiration) Yahweh the God of Law
The correspondent wrote, "Yahweh being a God of law has determined to deal with his servants apart from the world". We did not claim he will judge "the world" with the saints... only those servants responsible to Him through a knowledge of God's revealed will shall be judged at the bema. The world will be "judged" in the wars that occur following Christ's return. Which brings up another inconvenient fact to our correspondent's position... the world will be judged without it's consent, not even on the basis of light, but on the basis of its wickedness and sins of the past. (eg. Rev 18:5).
We call readers attention to the fact that our correspondent has provided no Scriptural proof that those who know His will are not His servants. He has none. Nebuchadrezzar, Cyrus and other "servants" of God might interfere with such a proposition. The reader can only take us through a maze of arguments beginning with "covenant relationships." But, when we go there, he will not define the word covenant as the Scriptures use it. He will use man's definition. He will not show us that Yahweh's covenants are never mutual agreements. What does Yahweh's Word teach us? The following is not a complete list by any means:
* Exodus 34:28 And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
* Leviticus 26:15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant.
* Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
* Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.
* Deuteronomy 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
* Joshua 7:11 Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them.
* Joshua 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.
* Judges 2:20 And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice.
* Malachi 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
If in fact the correspondent believes that God is truly a God of law he will acknowledge the plain laws, commands and declarations written in Yahweh's Word. "Why Stop At Enlightened Gentiles?"
The correspondent wrote, "Brethren, if I took the same interpretation of cited scriptures, why stop at "enlightened Gentiles", I might as well believe in a universal resurrection, for that is the only end I can see in your conclusion."
"(Your correspondent) has evidently not perused the writings of Christadelphians carefully, or he would never have asserted that they believe in the resurrection of 'the whole family of man'...On the contrary they believe that only a portion of the human race will be raised from the dead--that portion which is responsible by a knowledge of God's truth" (J.J. Andrew, The Christadelphian, Jan. 1871, p. 93).
The article directly answered the correspondent's suggestion, but if he acknowledged the reasons which were stated, it would create a difficult situation for him. The reasons stated were thus:
1. All men are God's property (Psa. 50:10). They are therefore His servants in the particular way he chooses to use them (Isa. 20:3; Jer 25:9; Isa. 10:5; Hab. 1:6; Mal. 4:4).
2. God "winks" at, or ignores, times of ignorance. (Acts 17:30). All men are not called (Matt 22:14). This calling comes by enlightenment in the Gospel (Acts 15:14, 17:30; Rom 16:26).
3. When this calling comes, men have no choice as to whether to obey or not. (Mark 16:16; John 3:18-19; John 3:36; 2 Thess. 1:8). He commands men to repent.
4. Those who constitute this servant class, obedient and disobedient, dead and living, will be gathered to receive a "just recompense of reward" for the deeds they have done. The faithful obedient will be raised up to life eternal. The unfaithful disobedient will be given over to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2; John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Luke 14:14; Gal. 6:8)
5. That the enlightened rejecter is called to the bema because he:
a. Has moral faculties (Gen. 2:17)... which have received Divine Light (John 3:19)
b. That Divine light is the basis of judgment (John 12:48; Deuteronomy 18:19; Mark 16:16; 2 Thess. 1:8; Luke 9:26, 10:16; Heb. 12:25)
c. God requires the public condemnation of sin in the grand pivotal actions He takes for the glorification of Himself and the instruction of mankind. (see October 2004 Bible Journal for a full elaboration of the principle)
These are simple principles. They are indisputable principles. What our correspondent does not like are the implications they have upon him and his situation personally. This we cannot help. "Let God be true" is a maxim that will not be negotiated at the judgment seat.
Our correspondent believes that those who were under Moses' Law were forced to hearken to the voice of his words or be judged (Deut. 18:19). He cannot dispute that the contemporaries of Christ who rejected him will be raised up and judged at the bema of Christ (Luke 13:28). Yet he believes in the doctrine of "acceptable rebellion" wherein men may disobey the command of God and of His Christ and yet not appear at the same place, for the same reason. This is not a reasoned position but a dogmatism. As we stated before, this doctrine "reflects upon the authority of God and His Word, the honor of Christ, the clarity of the moral law brought in at his appearing, and the call of all men, everywhere, to repent (Acts 17:30)."
The correspondent claims: "It is obvious that you refuse to see any connection between the sentence of condemnation God placed upon the race, excluding man from the Divine presence, and consigning him to death and woe as having any connection with the principles of Divine 'wrath' and 'judgment' that you so conveniently place at the Bema alone." This is what is called a red herring. Death is not a prize. It is clearly a condemnation resting upon mankind, having entered the world through the Edenic transgression. Sin and ignorance alienate man from God (Col. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). No one sound in the truth denies these facts. This is not the question. And therefore the subject does not require elaboration. One assumes that a Christadelphian has a knowledge of this element of the Gospel. This is our misfortune, not our crime. We are moving on from the misfortune of man to look at the Divine doctrine that states that men who reject the Ways of God have committed a crime against the gracious God of heaven, and are therefore worthy of a different condemnation than that with which we have by birth.
"The Dr. lays down a principle somewhere, which I think you will find to be the right thing when you come to think further about it, viz:--that 'where the truth has power to save, it has power to damn'; and, therefore, as its power to save depends upon enlightened conviction, so also its power to condemn. As Paul says, it is a 'saviour of life unto life or of death unto death--the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes,' but the ground of condemnation to every one, who, having both heard it and understood it should thereupon reject it. As it is said 'he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall be damned,' this condemnation being due to the rejection of light.
"Conviction is conviction, whether wrought by the direct operation of the spirit, as in the first century, or by the indirect method of 19th century exhibition of testimony. This is the ground of condemnation that light has come into the world -- and wheresoever the light penetrates with the result of conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and this is the truth of Jehovah for faith unto salvation, it brings with it resurrection-responsibilities." (The Christadelphian, 1883, pages 241-242) Agreement?
The correspondent claims, "I agree with the stand that Bro's. Roberts, Williams and Thomas took on the issue". But here he is mistaken again.
1. Brother Thomas always believed in the enlightened rejecter only differing on where the rejecter was dealt with. Our correspondent does not believe brother Thomas' latter position (1861-1871, the last 10 years of his life), and he has not affirmed he believes in brother Thomas' former position (1835-1860, 25 years). Both of brother Thomas' positions placed "saints" and "sinners" at the same judgment seat. Our correspondent, based on the principles he has stated, objects to this either pre-millennially, or post-millennially. Therefore he does not agree with brother Thomas.
2. Brother Roberts mirrored brother Thomas' views, saving that he moved the rejecter to the bema roughly 10 years after brother Thomas did. He also repeatedly declared the principle of light bringing responsibility to judgment: post-millennial at first (1864-1871, 7 years), pre-millennially by 1871 (1871-1898, the last 27 years of his life). Both of brother Roberts' positions placed "saints" and "sinners" at the same judgment seat. Therefore our correspondent does not agree with the position of brother Robert Roberts.
3. Thomas Williams was not a moderate as is commonly represented in the UA community. It cannot be denied that his magazine, The Advocate, advocated many of the principles of Andrew which caused a split in the North American ecclesias. Perhaps our correspondent should review The Advocate magazines for the years the dispute was conducted. Here is some of the "moderation" American brethren were treated to:
"And yet pages and pages have been written by brethren who ought to have known better, in the vain, fruitless effort, and in a Salvation Army and ranting Methodist style of 'getting your sins forgiven' and AGAINST THE UNHEARD-OF FOOLISH, IRREVERENT GOSPEL-NULLIFYING AND GOD-DISHONORING INVENTION THAT ENLIGHTENMENT IN THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL--a gospel sent by Heaven's love to rescue a groaning humanity--BY THIS GOSPEL PERISHING, GROANING, LOST MEN AND WOMEN ARE BROUGHT UNDER THE SENTENCE OF THE SECOND DEATH; and that all that the gospel does through the agency of baptism is remove the penalty brought by its own hands? Surely facts-foolish facts--in the ranks of some Christadelphians--have turned out to be stranger than the most fictitious fiction ever conceived by the most prolific imagination. Flee you, brethren, from association with such HERESIES! Escape for your lives while opportunity is within your reach; for if this is not 'another gospel' and a complete perversion of the gospel of Christ, there never was one" (Thomas Williams, Adamic Condemnation, p. 13)
It would appear from this that our correspondent does not agree with Thomas Williams stated position either.
4. Our correspondent does not agree with J.J. Andrew's positions either for at first he raised "the matter of responsibility to a test of fellowship" (up till the 1890's). Then brother Andrew disfellowshipped all who did not advocate the "God cannot raise" -- "acceptable rebellion" doctrine. We should notice that brother Andrew made it a test of fellowship both ways. Prior to 1894 the basis upon which he met demanded the rejecter be at the bema. When his new teachings split his ecclesia, he demanded that those around him agree upon the doctrine that the ER could not be raised -- his disfellowship of Thomas Williams is proof of that. Futhermore, so strong were his convictions that by October of 1900 he had himself reimmersed based upon his new beliefs (June 1901 Sanctuary Keeper, "A Confession of Faith", page 63; Also in The Advocate, September 1901). If one were to attribute these actions to extremes, then it is not unjust to ask the question: "when did these extremes begin?" Could that decline have started in 1892 when he abandoned that 'form of sound words' believed by the majority of the Christadelphian body?" If the fruit is unhealthy, then to question the tree that produces the fruit is only logical.
Our correspondent doesn't agree with any of these brethren, but rather he holds the historical revisionist position that developed in North America over the ensuing 50 years and today is accepted as genuine history: "I agree with the stand that Bro's. Roberts, Williams and Thomas took on the issue"! Yet none of these brethren took the position our correspondent does and no documentation from John Thomas, Robert Roberts or J.J. Andrew supports the position that it was "an open question". It may have been "open" to those who did not understand the first principles of Truth as taught throughout the rest of the world, but it was not an open question with the majority of the Christadelphian body. However, having said that, when we are judged, it will not be important who we agreed with, save for the Father, and Christ. Therefore we appeal to the correspondent to review the applicable verses and to be reconciled to the law of God as expressed in His Word. Twelve Lectures: Christendom Astray
The correspondent wrote, "Thirteen Lectures"... "I would be interested to know what you think about what Bro. Roberts wrote as well."
We believe the correspondent intended to say "Twelve Lectures". "Thirteen Lectures" is brother Roberts book on the Apocalypse. "Twelve Lectures", was first published in February of 1862. It was later renamed Christendom Astray. At the time it was first written brother Roberts believed the ER came forth at the post-millennial judgment seat, with the dead saints of the millennium. By 1871 The Christadelphian magazine consistently printed letters, articles, and correspondence that showed the ER appearing at the bema. This was over 20 years before the Responsibility Controversy arose.
This question was answered more than once by brother Roberts:
"725. Andrew: Do you not think it inappropriate for those outside Christ, rejecters of the Word, to be brought before the judgment seat with members of his household? Roberts: It is not I who am responsible for that inappropriateness. With the servants came the rebels: 'Those mine enemies who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.'
"728. Andrew: Is it not inappropriate for them to appear at the judgment seat? Roberts: As a mere expression of opinion as to when, it is nothing. I did not remember having expressed that opinion. It is nothing more than a suggestion upon an immaterial point. My views are much more matured now than they were then, much more certain and definite. That was thirty years ago.
"729. Andrew: It is Christendom Astray, only ten years ago, thoroughly revised and rewritten (Preface, p. 4). Roberts: Intended to be so, but it was not thoroughly done, owing to incessant other occupation and indifferent health.
"730. Andrew: Then you would not write that now? Roberts: It is probable I would not. It is an immaterial point altogether, It is the fact of the resurrection of the disobedient we want."
Andrew: "Therefore I say, as Bro. Roberts said 10 years ago, that it is 'inappropriate' and out of harmony with God's arrangements that there should appear before a tribunal established for such a purpose, men who have no relationship whatsoever to its judicial process and no relationship to the eternal life which will be bestowed upon some." Bro. Roberts: "30 years ago. It was intended to be rewritten, but it was not rewritten, only revised, and I was too fatigued with other literary occupation to do it very thoroughly." (Roberts/Andrew Debate)
Let us put this prior position into perspective: Up to 1871 brother Roberts had placed the enlightened rejecter and the saint who died during the millennium at the post-millennial bema -- the two (faithful, unfaithful) or three (saint, ungodly, sinner) classes at the same bema. After 1871 (21 years prior to the Responsibility Controversy) he placed the same classes at the same pre-millennial bema. The Correspondent's Moving Goalpost
In a followup letter our Unamended correspondent has complained about quoting from brother John Thomas.
The article entitled "An Objection Raised" based its arguments from the Scripture and upon deductive (not inductive) reasoning. "Authority" was not appealed to outside of the authority of the Bible. In fact, brother Thomas was not quoted in the entire article.
The correspondent responded, not by making a case from the Scriptures or arguments against the logic set forth. Instead he asserts that ultimately it doesn't matter because it was "an open question."
When it is demonstrated that the subject was not an "open question" by publishing brother Thomas' comments in 1869, he responds by saying we have failed "to distinguish between the tools that Yahweh has given us to dig out the truth and the truth itself." It is ironic that he accuses others elevating the pioneer position to a position of authority yet twenty-four hours before he was comforting himself with the mistaken claim that "I agree with the stand that Bro's. Roberts, Williams and Thomas took on the issue" and that it was "an open question."
The correspondent raises an 1862 position of Robert Roberts as though it has some authority. Yet he will not accept what brother Roberts wrote from 1871 through 1898 -- 21 years before the Responsibility Controversy, the last 28 years of his life.
The facts speak for themselves. We leave our correspondent and other readers to muse upon an untenable, though thoroughly modern position. Readers are encouraged to look and think further upon this very important topic.
*For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth. (Psalm 47:2)
*And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent. (Acts 17:30)
*The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)
*The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom, And before honor is humility. (Proverbs 15:33)
*In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the LORD one departs from evil. (Proverbs 16:6)
*The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
*The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, To turn one away from the snares of death. (Proverbs 14:27)
*Better is a little with the fear of the LORD, Than great treasure with trouble. (Proverbs 15:16)
*The fear of the LORD leads to life, And he who has it will abide in satisfaction; He will not be visited with evil. (Proverbs 19:23)
* Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times, And the strength of salvation; The fear of the LORD is His treasure. (Isaiah 33:6)
FOOTNOTE
1. This appears to have been brother Thomas' sentiment as well. Brother Roberts writes: "Are we to say that their faith in Christ is invalidated by this error concerning the degree of punishment to be meted out to rebels against the light? Here we have always hesistated; and we knew Dr. Thomas was against making it a ground of disfellowship...We admit that it makes a difference when this error becomes aggressive." See The Christadelphian (1896, p.475.)