CHANGES IN PIONEER CHRISTADELPHIAN WORKS

Obscuring The First Teachings

As mentioned at the beginning of this work, Amended writers over the century have referred to Unamended beliefs as departures from the first teaching of Christadelphia, labeling Unamended beliefs as error introduced by Brother J. J. Andrew around 1894. By contrast, these writers infer that the Amended community has held steadfast to those first teachings. This writer is hopeful that the information presented in this work will allow the truth of the matter to be determined by

those who seek it.

It is an astonishing fact that several early pioneer works have undergone changes that obscure portions of what the authors originally taught. Honest and sincere readers of these historical works today have no idea as they read them that they are reading a text that is now somewhat different from what was originally presented. One might normally expect that when changes are made, there would be a footnote or mention in a Preface indicating those changes. Is it not reasonable to ask, “Why was it necessary to go back and change the wording of some of the early works?” Was it done without notice to obscure original beliefs and conform to a changed doctrine? It is a fact that statements that have been changed or deleted from those early works are contrary to “amended” beliefs, but are supportive of beliefs held by the pioneer community and the Unamended community today.

Christendom Astray:

Brother Roberts’ Christendom Astray was treated in this manner. Brother Roberts admitted in the last night of the Andrew/Roberts debate that he had changed his doctrine, and he called that change his “mature position”. However, the book itself quietly underwent a revision that removed that portion to which Brother Andrew had referred. This writer has a copy of the original wording of the work, and Page 79 revised, originally read as follows:

“The ‘rest of the dead’ cannot apply to the unfaithful persons amenable to the judgment seat of Christ, inasmuch as if raised at that time, their resurrection and condemnation are accomplished facts at the time when these words are used. If they apply to a specific class, it is a class not amenable to the judgment which Christ brings to bear on his household, and a class undealt with till the close of the thousand years. Possibly, it may refer to men like Nero, and others great in wickedness, who are unpunished in the present life, and who, though outside of specific law to God, have acquired a degree of moral responsibility by external contact with divine things.

“Rejecters of the Word, who do not come under the law to Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the thousand years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since they do not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection, at the time when account is taken of that household, would seem inappropriate. May they not be dealt with at the end?”

Comment: The above wording clearly delivered the original message that the author did not believe or teach that the rejecter would be resurrected at the return of Jesus nor judged with the saints. However, after the debate, when the author had changed his position, the work was quietly changed. The page affected is Page 130 of the modern issues of Christendom Astray. The reader will find that none of what we have quoted is still in the book. Yet many unsuspecting readers, when reading that portion of the book are completely unaware that the work once clearly rejected the idea that the rejecter would rise to be judged on the same basis and at the same time as the saints. That was a position which was considered “inappropriate” by pioneers, but later a position to be endorsed by the Amended community

A Declaration:

There are two propositions in this work that were quietly changed, a fact of which many brothers and sisters are probably unaware. Propositions 31 and 32 on pages 47 and 49 no longer read as they originally did.

Proposition xxxi originally read as follows:

“xxxi –That at the return of Jesus Christ from heaven, TO ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM ON EARTH, he will, first of all, summon before him for judgment, the whole of his professing household. Those that are dead he will cause to come forth from the dust, and assemble them with the living to his presence. Faithful and unfaithful will be mustered together before his judgment seat, for the purpose of having it declared, after account rendered, who is worthy of being invested with immortality and promoted to the kingdom, and who is deserving of rejection, and re-consignment to corruption after punishment.”

In subsequent versions of A Declaration, that proposition reads as follows:

“xxxi: That at the return of Jesus Christ from heaven, to establish his kingdom on earth, he will, first of all, summon before him for judgment, the whole of those who are responsible to his judgment. Those that are dead he will cause to come forth from the dust, and assemble them with the living to his presence. Faithful and unfaithful will be mustered together before his judgment-seat, for the purpose of having it declared, after account rendered, who is worthy of being invested with immortality and promoted to his kingdom, and who is deserving of rejection and re-consignment to corruption after punishment.”

So we see the change made from the belief in the resurrection and judgment of “the whole of his professing household”, to the less defined concept of “the whole of those who are responsible to his judgment”. As we know, for over a hundred years now it has been Amended doctrine that the rejecter is subject to resurrection and judgment right along with the household. It is easy to see and understand that the original doctrine of Christadelphia precluded any such idea. Changes to A Declaration and other pioneer works were determined expedient to promote the “new” understanding.

Proposition xxxii originally read as follows:

“xxxii – BAPTISM is an act of obedience required of all who believe the Gospel. It is a bodily immersion in, and not a face-sprinkling or head-pouring with, water. Its administration to infants, in any form, is unauthorized and useless; it is only enjoined on those who have intelligence enough to believe the glad tidings of the kingdom of God and the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ. To such, it is the means of that present (legal) union with Christ, which is preparatory to perfect assimilation at the resurrection. It is, therefore, necessary to salvation.”

However, the term “legal” has been removed from the proposition and current readers are completely unaware that the proposition in its original form taught the same doctrine that is to this day held by the truly Unamended.

The changed version reads:

“xxxii – BAPTISM is an act of obedience required of all who believe the gospel. It is a bodily immersion in, and not a face-sprinkling or head-pouring with water. Its administration to infants, in any form, is unauthorized and useless; it is only enjoined on those who have intelligence enough to believe the glad tidings of the kingdom of God and the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ. To such it is the means of that present union with Christ which is preparatory to perfect assimilation at the resurrection. It is, therefore, necessary to salvation.”

The Temple Of Ezekiel’s Prophecy:

We all know how the entire brotherhood at one time believed and taught baptism for both personal sins and Adamic sin.

Page 76 of that work at one time read: (I assure readers that I do have a photostat of that page from the original edition before me as I write.)

“The provision for baptism, in addition to the provision for sacrifice in the Temple would indicate the concurrent existence of these two ordinances. This will not be a matter of surprise to those who remember that there are two classes of sins from which the human race need deliverance. First, those to which men are related by reason of racial descent (Rom. v. 12-14); second, individual trespasses. In immersion there is a recognition of the first; and, by the offering of sacrifices, there is confession of the second.”

We now quote the paragraph as it reads in later versions of the book. Notice the obvious difference that changes the meaning of the original teaching completely, thereby obscuring the fact that the brotherhood at first plainly taught baptism for racial alienation as well as for personal sin. This revised section is currently on page 92 (6^th Edition) of The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy.

“But this national cleansing will not bestow eternal life. This must come through individual confession of sin and baptism.

“The provision for baptism and the provision for sacrifice in the Temple appear to exist concurrently for passing over sin. This will not be a matter of surprise to those who remember that there are two classes of sins from which the human race need deliverance. Firstly, those to which men are inevitably related by reason of their physical constitution (Rom. 5:12-14), secondly, individual trespasses. Animal sacrifices may serve for passing over sins which arise from transgressing laws enacted for the regulation of the State. But there are sins which appertain to the conscience for which animal sacrifices are not efficacious (Heb. 9), because their removal can come only by the destruction of the sin nature through the exercise of faith in the Son of God.”

If the reader will carefully look into the subject, it will be seen that the doctrine of a symbolic cleansing at baptism is no longer believed in most Amended circles. In fact, Brother Roberts strongly denied it on pages 248-249 of The Law of Moses, when in previous years he had taught a symbolic, legal cleansing at baptism and then an actual change of nature after judgment. As The Law of Moses was written, Brother Roberts could only see a literal physical change as he addressed that matter. All through the book Brother Roberts had dealt extensively with the subject of symbolic cleansing, but grew unable to see anything other than a change from a physical condemnation to a literal, physical release as he approached the subject regarding New Testament times. Both symbolic cleansings/atonement at baptism and a later, literal physical cleansing at the return of Jesus is taught in God’s holy word, now rejected by many of the Amended.

Again we remind all brethren that the Unamended today are criticized and condemned by many in the Amended community for holding to the same doctrines believed and taught by Christadelphians at the time of the truth’s revival and for nearly forty years thereafter. Sadly, many have departed from those truths and those who choose to remain are assailed worldwide for doing so. Many of us do not mind this assailing, but rather consider it (as Paul did) an honor to be counted worthy to suffer with Christ. (Col. 1:24) We invite all readers to consider, HOW MANY OF US STILL BELIEVE THE DOCTRINES WITH WHICH GOD REVIVED THE ECCLESIA IN THESE LAST DAYS?

Let us be mindful of the fact that writers of all communities bearing the name Christadelphian, periodically write concerning the shipwreck that occurred as the ship carrying Brother John Thomas from Britain to America ran into trouble. It is always emphasized that Brother Thomas promised God that if He would bring him safely to his destination that he would seek God's truth, a promise that Brother Thomas remembered and faithfully kept when he reached his destination. It is always intimated that God used this incident and utilized Brother John Thomas to revive the ancient doctrines once delivered to the saints, and thus He established the ecclesial era of the last days. Those doctrines are copiously recounted in this work.

And so we invite all readers to consider our closing question. How many of us continue to believe the doctrines with which God revived the ecclesia in the last days?