Seven Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of Faith
Contents:
Why It Is Timely to Consider this Matter
A Short History of the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith
A Summary of Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of
Faith
(1)
The Internal Inconsistency of the Amended Statement of Faith
The two
senses in which anastasis is used
(2)
The Amendment Clause Was an Innovation
(3)
The Scriptural References in Article XXIV Do Not Prove the Amendment Clause
(4) The
Teaching of the Amendment Clause Is Not Part of the Abrahamic Faith
(6)
The Absence of a Single Example
(7) The
Absence of Application of the Principle in the Public Preaching of the Apostles
James E. Farrar
November 6, 1995
Dear Brothers and Sisters in
the Unamended Ecclesias:
Are you prepared
to accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as your inter-ecclesial
basis of fellowship? This is a timely question to ponder in view of the
recent agreement which the Lancaster, Pennsylvania ecclesia reached with the
Amended ecclesia in Echo Lake. Following this Lancaster-Echo Lake
example, there are a number of discussions currently taking place between other
Unamended ecclesias and certain corresponding Amended ecclesias. The idea
is that the Amended ecclesia could potentially sponsor the Unamended ecclesia
to join their fellowship and so achieve union. The principal condition is
that the Unamended ecclesia accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as
its inter-ecclesial basis of fellowship.
It is difficult
to know who is involved in these discussions because, with few exceptions, they
are being carried out quietly and with great discretion. To the best of
my knowledge, no open, public meetings have been held and no information has
been broadly disseminated in advance of decisions being taken. In such
circumstances, it is possible that further Lancaster-Echo Lake arrangements may
be announced as fait accompli without any prior notice to our ecclesias.
There may be some who would see the application of the principle of ecclesial
autonomy as authority for the arranging board of their own ecclesia to engage
in these discussions with a partnering Amended ecclesia without any requirement
that anyone else be involved or informed. Such a view of the matter,
however, seems not to recognize that the implications of one unamended ecclesia
changing its basis of fellowship will affect not only other ecclesias but also
long-standing ecclesial institutions, such as Bible Schools and gatherings,
where we have enjoyed fellowship harmony together all of our lives. Can
there not be -- should there not be -- more openness and discussion before any
decisions are taken? It is in keeping with such a right spirit that I
have undertaken this labour at my personal expense to make known where I stand
in answer to this question about accepting the Amended Statement of
Faith. I encourage those who differ from my conclusions to bring forward
their reasons from the Scriptures in order that we might seek to resolve any
disagreements in a spirit of goodwill.
If you have had
an opportunity to read the letters exchanged between Lancaster and Echo Lake,
did you find, like I did, that they left many important questions
unanswered? In the circles of international diplomacy, imprecise language
in agreements is referred to as constructive ambiguity. Does this
political approach have any place among brethren, especially when we are
dealing with something as precious as our fellowship at the table of our
Lord? The Central fellowship until now has been a "closed shop"
in which acceptance of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith without
reservation has been a precondition of fellowship. Implicit in this
acceptance has been the withdrawal of fellowship from those who do not go
along. This is why the adoption of the Amended Statement of Faith, in the
first place, caused a division. If our brethren in the Central ecclesias
have now taken a different stand on this matter, do they not have a duty to
make their new policy known in clear terms? If they have not changed
their policy about exclusive acceptance of the Amended Statement, does it not
require that any unamended brother or sister who participates in fellowship
with them on this understanding has withdrawn and separated from all those
unamended brethren who do not embrace the Amended Statement as their
inter-ecclesial basis of fellowship? These are some of the questions
which need to be clarified in precise terms that all of us understand.
Are there any
scriptural precedents for a situation of this kind? The following analogy
is not exact but it offers certain parallels. There was a case in the
ecclesia in Antioch of Pisidia in which the majority of the Jewish believers in
Christ pressured Peter and Barnabas to withdraw and separate from the Gentiles
there who believed. [Galatians 2:13] When the apostle Paul sought to
correct their mistake, he took his argument to Peter before them all.
This open debate was instrumental to resolving an unsatisfactory development in
the ecclesia. The apostle Paul did not mince his words: the step taken by
these men of stature in the faith, Peter and Barnabas, he referred to as
dissimulation. His outrage at their dissembling was based on a profound
reason: I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel. What was their error? There is no evidence in the account
that Peter and Barnabas actually changed any of their fundamental
doctrines. Their error was that their fellowship practice made a
statement that denied the truth about the sacrifice of Christ: Knowing that a
man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith
of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified...for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain. [Galatians 2:16,21) By separating from the Gentiles in the
ecclesia, and openly siding with the Jews, they gave their support to the
principle that elements of the Law of Moses were necessary for salvation.
What is the parallel in the present situation? First, whether we actually
change any of our beliefs or not is less the issue than the public statement
made by our fellowship practice. Our Amended brethren meet on a Statement
of Faith that disconnects the resurrection and judgment from the sacrifice of
Christ and the everlasting covenant ratified by the shedding of his
blood. Is agreement with this fellowship also a form of
dissimulation? While it may be a harsh indictment to some, I will share
with you seven reasons why I believe it.
While I recognize
the paper which follows is long, and may be tedious reading in places, I do not
think the matters under discussion can be dispatched in two or three
paragraphs. I would be pleased to hear from you and discuss any of the
points further, particularly your answers to the questions at the end. It
is not my custom, when writing about the truth, to write in the first person,
using the pronoun "I." If I have done so in this paper, it is
because I want you to view it in its entirety as an open letter -- a personal
appeal to you.
Your
fellow-labourer in Israel's Hope,
fraternally,
James
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
Seven Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of Faith
Why It Is Timely to Consider this Matter
Over the course
of the next few months, many brothers and sisters in ecclesias that currently
use the Unamended Statement of Faith may be required to make a decision.
This decision will concern whether we are prepared to accept the Birmingham
Amended Statement of Faith as our inter-ecclesial basis of fellowship.
This paper has been written for the consideration of brothers and sisters who
may have to make this choice. In this paper, the writer will share from
the Scriptures seven reservations which he has with regard to the Amended
Statement of Faith as a basis of fellowship. His view is that the
reservations are not nit-picking, but profound, bearing on the truth of the
gospel.
On first
reflection, there may be some who find a decision of this kind has more to do
with political instincts of human nature than it does in exercising their
spiritual mindedness. In the days of the apostles, as far as we know from
Scripture, there was no such document as a Statement of Faith on which basis
fellowship was extended withheld. The fact that it is an entirely human
arrangement of comparatively recent origin does not mean that The Statement of
Faith has no value. On the other hand, for hundreds of years brethren
held the truth without using either the Unamended or Amended Statements of
Faith. Let us keep their origins in perspective. It is possible to
speak of the Statement of Faith in terms that elevate its status and authority
above the Scriptures themselves. It can become a touchstone, like a flag,
to be raised and flown with pride, rather than recognized as an imperfect
effort by brethren of goodwill to set down their understanding of the essential
elements of their faith.
It is necessary
to make a comment about style. While the issues under discussion are ones
which I also feel very passionately about, I have sought to use the utmost
restraint without blunting their poignancy. It is not my desire, after
the manner of some, to heap scorn on those who differ. [The infamous treatise,
Advocatism Exposed, was republished by one of the largest publishing houses of
the Central Fellowship, Logos Publications, under the title, The Truth
Affirmed, in the summer of 1995. As far as I am aware, no Amended writer
has repudiated either the contents or style of this work.] It is my
desire to convince and to persuade, not with the instrument of ridicule, but
reason; not with an appeal to pride and passion but to the authority of the Scriptures.
It is important that when we discuss things amongst ourselves about which we
feel strongly -- which strike at the very core of who we are and what we hope
to be -- we do so in a way in which we seek to reflect the qualities of the
servant of the Lord: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle
unto all men, apt to teach, patient... [2 Timothy 2:24] I believe that
there is a great difference between the argument of force and the force of
argument. The former relies on great swelling words dripping with bombast
and vitriol; the latter on a patient demonstration from the Scriptures.
Those who need the former expose the weakness of their case and discredit their
cause. In this paper, I refer to those who have expounded and defended the
amendment clause as "apologists" [An apologist is defined by
Webster's as a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a
doctrine, faith, etc.] -- a term I intend with respect. Similarly, I
refer to those among us seeking unity with them on the basis of their Statement
of Faith as "assimilationists." It is a neutral term, intended
neither derisively nor as a compliment, but one which I believe best expresses
their aim, as Webster's gives the meaning: "to be absorbed and
incorporated: as minority groups often assimilate..."
Is the present
proposal that unamended believers accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith new? Not at all. This offer has existed in one form or
another since the Amended Statement of Faith was first introduced at the turn
of the century. Ecclesias then were encouraged to adopt it and those that
did not, after a certain time passed, were penalized by having their ecclesial
news suspended from The Christadelphian. This public sanction was the official
withdrawal of fellowship. To characterize the present proposals, to
resume fellowship on the condition that the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith be accepted, as a unity breakthrough surely is not accurate. The
issue is whether, through the course of the years, the unamended community has
been worn down, and now sees the larger, worldwide fellowship of the amended
community as a thing to be sought after. When a succession of efforts to
bring about a continental reunion failed because of genuine differences in
understanding, those who could not accept this verdict have changed the method
in seeking to achieve this result. Instead of trying to effect a full
reunion, on a common continental basis, the approach now is to try to work for
the assimilation of the unamended ecclesias into the amended fold piecemeal,
brother by brother and ecclesia by ecclesia. Whether this approach will
be any more successful than the previous ones which failed is in our hands to
determine.
The prospect of
unity would be cause for rejoicing if it were real. Evidence has not been
provided to show that the differences in understanding have now been addressed
and resolved. Those of our brethren who wish to change to using the
Amended Statement of Faith fall into one of two categories:
Either the
beliefs of the amended community better reflect their own understanding, in
which case their decision to join it is completely understandable, or they must
relegate the differences to things of such little account that they are not
prepared to let them get in the way of their conscience.
In one of the
sad ironies of the situation, those unamended or former unamended brethren
seeking unity on the basis of the Amended Statement may actually end up causing
disunity and division within the unamended community, if some in an ecclesia
are in favour of the offer and others opposed, and each group acts upon its
convictions. It is critical to ask the assimilationists among us, what
are the aims they are seeking to achieve? If unity really is the goal, is
it not an elusive goal and one for which a heavy price -- in terms of present
ecclesial harmony -- will be paid?
There will be
some unamended brothers and sisters who will continue to decline the offer to
join the amended community, for conscience's sake. The issue of
conscience is important. Many of the past proposals have required
unamended brothers and sisters to accept the Amended Statement of Faith
"without reservation". If we can establish significant reservations
with the amendment clause, does it not follow that brethren of integrity
cannot, in conscience, accept the Amended Statement of Faith on such terms as
these that imply a whole-hearted endorsement? I believe that our amended
brethren are right to insist on acceptance of their Statement "without
reservation." The value of the Statement of Faith itself as a source
of cohesion and harmony is seriously undermined if brethren hold to it with all
manner of reservations in their mind about what it says. In the interests
of our own integrity, I also believe that we are right to reject fellowship on
the basis of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, because of the
reservations we attach to the amendment clause. Our object in this paper
is to set out our case, reasoned from the Scriptures, in the hope that it might
be persuasive in influencing others to take the same stand. For those who
are not persuaded that our position is just, the writer hopes that at least
they will come to respect our decision as one of conscience, based on our
convictions.
There is a
widely held presumption among those advocating the assimilation of the
unamended community that the division of the Christadelphian community in North
America into two distinct fellowships based on which Statement of Faith each
uses must be displeasing to our Father in heaven -- that it is a shame to be
righted. I am not one who shares this point of view. I believe
that, in the purpose of God, the separate witness of the Unamended community has
been a vital factor in preserving precious elements of the truth of the
gospel. I further believe that, without this independent witness, the
theology of the amended community would have strayed much further from the
original truth we once held in common. That is, our witness has acted as
a brake on their return to evangelical Protestantism. If the larger part
of the Unamended community became absorbed within the amended fold, this
separate witness would be enfeebled, if not extinguished altogether.
There are those who would be pleased by such an outcome. The convictions
of the Unamended community, independently expressed through The Christadelphian
Advocate and our Bible Schools, which might now be a weight on the conscience
of our amended brethren, would no longer be heard. To the extent this
independent voice was still faintly sounded, it would be even less
heeded. It is also possible that such a diminution of the Unamended
community would cause those who remained to become more extreme in their
understanding of the gospel, as extremes are more likely to arise in very small
cells of believers where a handful of personalities dominate. Those of us
who will remain have a duty to preserve a spirit of moderation and guard
against the rise of extreme thinking and backlash actions.
Experience has
shown that it would be wrong to expect that every brother and sister will make
such a decision based on a sincere and heart-searching look at what the
Scriptures teach on the points of difference. There are those who will
reject the Amended Statement of Faith out of sheer prejudice, without any
capacity to explain their reasons; there are others whose decisions will be
taken by reference to factors such as family, proximity to ecclesia, size of
Sunday School, following the lead of one or more influential and leading
brethren and so on -- factors which we might call pragmatic as opposed to
principled. Our purpose in this paper, if it is possible, is to rise
above prejudice and pragmatism and try to sort out the principles of Bible
understanding that are at stake.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
A Short
History of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith
The earliest
Statement of Faith in use at the Birmingham, England ecclesia, to which Brother
Roberts belonged, in the writer's possession is dated 1877 (while this is the
date of its printing, I do not know for how long it had been in use prior to
this printing). This statement was a precursor of those now in use but it
was changed significantly over the next twenty years. The embryonic article,
that later was to become articles 25 and 26 in the Unamended Statement, and
articles 24 and 25 in the Amended Statement, originally read as follows:
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;" [2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy
4:1; Romans 2:5-6,16; 14:10-12; I Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 11:18] that
the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and "the second death,"
[Matthew 7:26; 8:12; 25:29; Daniel 12:2; Galatians 6:8; 5:21; 2 Thessalonians
1:8; Hebrews 10:26-28; 2 Peter 2:12; Revelation 21:8; Malachi 4:1; Psalm
37:30-38; Proverbs 10:25-29] and the faithful, invested with immortality, and
associated with Jesus as joint heirs of the kingdom, copossessors of the earth
and joint administrators of God's authority, in matters both civil and
religious. [I Corinthians 15:51-55; 2 Corinthians 5:1-4; James 1:12; Romans
2:7; John 10:28; Matthew 5:5; Psalm 37:9,22,29; Revelation 5:9; Daniel 7:27; I
Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 3:21; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation
5:10; Psalm 49:7-9; Luke 22:29-30]
Sometime between
1877 and the 1890s, this Statement was rewritten as two separate
articles. It appears to have been widely adopted and was the most common
Statement of Faith in use in Christadelphian ecclesias by the 1890s.
XXV. -- That at
the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the
responsible (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." Romans 2:5-6,16; 14:10-12; I Corinthians
4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 11:18.
XXVI. -- That
the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and "the second death," and
the faithful, invested with immortality, and exalted to reign with Jesus as
joint rulers of the kingdom, co-possessors of the earth, and joint
administrators of God's authority among men in everything. Psalm 37:9,22,29-38;
Psalm 49:7-9; Proverbs 10:25-30; Daniel 7:27; 12:2; Malachi 4:1; Matthew 5:5;
7:26; 8:12; 25:21; Luke 22:29-30; John 10:28; Romans 2:7; I Corinthians
15:51-55; 2 Corinthians 5:1-4; Galatians 5:21; 6:8; I Thessalonians 2:12; 2
Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Timothy 2:12; James 1:12; Hebrews 10:26-28; 2 Peter 1:11;
2:9; Revelation 3:21; 5:9-10; 21:8.
At its quarterly
business meeting in the first part of 1898, the Birmingham ecclesia adopted an
amendment to Article XXV. After the amendment was accepted by the
ecclesia, Article XXV read:
That at
the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, 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 --
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" -- 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; Romans
2:5-6,16; 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 11:18.
This article is
numbered XXIV in the Amended Statement and XXV in the Unamended Statement
because there is a difference in the order of the articles in the two
Statements. Article XXIV in the Unamended Statement is Article XXVII in
the Amended Statement. Otherwise, the two Statements are essentially
identical.
Three changes
were made in the wording of this article by reason of this amendment:
1. the parenthetical
description, faithful and unfaithful, was lifted and replaced with
"namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called
upon to submit to it."
2. with the
terms "faithful and unfaithful" gone, the terms "obedient and
disobedient" were added
3. the phrase
"of both classes" was dropped.
It is obvious on
comparing on the two predecessor Statements that went before it, that they had
reference to two classes, as indicated by the words, "both
classes." In the earliest version, it is further obvious that these
two classes were both baptized, as they were called "his (i.e. Christ's)
servants." This also explains why the terms "faithful and
unfaithful" were used as a description of the two classes, since it is
consistent with the language of the parables concerning the servants. (See, for
example, Matthew 24:45; 25:21,23). This is undeniable proof that until
the amendment clause was introduced, the matter of the calling to judgment of
any outside of Christ was not a doctrine addressed by the Statement of
Faith. The acceptance of a diversity of understanding on the issue up to
this point was acknowledged at the time by those who introduced the amendment.
There were two
references to resurrection in the section, "Fables to be Refused," in
the 1877 Statement.
The concept of
universal resurrection was denied:
XXXI. --
Resurrection of Heathens, Idiots, Babies, etc. That "heathen,"
idiots, pagans, and very young children, will never see the light of
resurrection, but pass away as though they had not been: the resurrection being
restricted to those who are responsible to the divine law. Job 3:13-32;
10:18-19; 14:10-12; Isaiah 26:13-14; Jeremiah 51:29,57; Proverbs 21:16; Romans
2:12; Psalm 49:6-30; John 3:19; 12:48; 15:22-24.
This is the only
place where the term "responsible' appeared. What was meant by
"responsible to the divine law" was not elaborated.
The concept that
the resurrection was confined only to the faithful was denied:
XXVI. -- the
"First Resurrection" -- That the resurrection, at the appearing of
Christ, is not confined to the faithful, but extends to all who have a
profession of his name, whether faithful or not. Romans 14:10,12; 2 Timothy
4:1; Luke 19:15; Daniel 12:2.
Again, the
emphasis was on those who had taken on the name of Christ in baptism.
In this paper,
when we use the term "amendment clause" we are referring to the
definition of responsible parenthetically inserted into the Statement of Faith
in 1898: Namely, those who know the revealed will of God and have been called
upon to submit to it.
It is important
to keep this historical evolution of Article XXIV in the Statement of Faith in
mind. It helps to explain one of the curious anomalies in this Article,
of which we shall speak later.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
A Summary of Reservations Concerning the
Amended Statement of Faith
There are seven
reasons we shall provide to explain why we do not believe the Amended Statement
of Faith is an acceptable basis for fellowship. Each will be elaborated
in detail.
The Amended
Statement of Faith has an internal inconsistency in what it teaches about
resurrection in Article VIII and what it teaches in Article XXIV.
The amendment
which distinguishes the Amended Statement of Faith from the Unamended Statement
represented an innovation in Christadelphian thinking. It was not a case
of simply writing down a long standing belief. This innovation is not in
harmony with the Scriptures and allows false principles to affect an
understanding of the gospel. The amendment clause brought to an end a
diversity in understanding which until that time had been accepted in
Christadelphian ecclesias. It made a particularly narrowly defined belief
on the issue a test of fellowship. For example, it was worded in such a
way that it excluded the belief that the enlightened rejector would be raised
at the end of the Millennium and not with Christ's Household at his second
coming. Because it contains no qualification with respect to the time
during which the principle that light brings resurrectional responsibility has
been operative, it extends the application of the principle back to earliest
Old Testament times. For the first time, the amendment clause also
indiscriminately lumped the baptized and unbaptized together, with respect to
resurrection and judgment, and lost the distinction between those in covenant
relationship and those not. The testimony to which direct reference is
made in Article XXIV itself, 2 Corinthians 5:10, which refers to the baptized,
is misquoted in reference to baptized and unbaptized persons.
The Scriptural
references attached to Article XXIV as proof were originally chosen to prove
that the baptized of both classes would be brought to the judgment seat of
Christ; when the amendment clause was added, the references were not
changed. The references are rarely cited in any effort to prove the
amendment and bear no witness to the teaching it proclaims.
The teaching of
the amendment forms no part of the faith of Abraham necessary for
justification.
The amendment
expresses a principle of ambiguous application. Such ambiguities are not
appropriate as a proclamation of a vital doctrine on which fellowship is
predicated. The Scriptures offer no examples of resurrection according to the
basis of the amendment; nor are there any types in the Law or prophets
foreshadowing the principle. The Scriptures contain no inspired warnings in
which the principle is applied to men in the time of the apostles.
The omissions of
#6 and #7 are particularly difficult to explain if the amendment principle is a
vital teaching of the gospel on which fellowship depends.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(1) The Internal Inconsistency of the
Amended Statement of Faith
The Amended
Statement of Faith is internally inconsistent. It reflects the teaching
of the Scriptures concerning resurrection in Article VIII and contradicts it in
Article XXIV.
It is necessary
to ask an important question that has received surprisingly little
consideration. On what basis was our Lord Jesus Christ raised from the
dead by His Father? In all of the things which I have read, none of the
apologists for the amended point of view has ever suggested that the answer to
this question is that it was because our Lord came to a knowledge of the
revealed will of God in his formative years, and therefore, because responsible
to resurrectional judgment. This is not a trivial point and should not be
lightly set aside. Does the teaching of the amendment clause apply to the
case of our Lord Jesus? If so, where is the Bible evidence in support of
such a conclusion? Consider the difficulties that arise if this
principle does not apply in his case. He revealed himself to be the
resurrection in the same sense that He is the way, the truth, and the life.
[John 11:25; 14:6] But how can such a statement stand if the whole basis
of his resurrection is different from ours? Again, did not the apostle
Paul testify, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in (the likeness of his)
resurrection? [Romans 6:4-5] How can it be that we are baptized into his
resurrection if his resurrection is on a different basis than our own? It
is on this point that the unamended and amended models of the gospel begin to
diverge. The Unamended take the resurrection of Christ as the starting
point for understanding the purpose of God in the doctrine of the resurrection
of the dead. Resurrection, in our understanding, is a means to an end,
the end being redemption. In the amended model, the purpose of
resurrection is to bring men into judgment; redemption is effected on a very
different set of principles than resurrection. Furthermore, we believe
that all resurrection is derived from, and rests upon, Christ's; even those
that come before it in time. For example, the apostle Paul taught that
Christ was inseparably associated with resurrection just as surely as Adam was
with death: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of
the dead. [I Corinthians 15:21] Therefore, we believe a correct
understanding of his resurrection is essential to understanding the gospel.
In the prophecy
of Isaiah, knowledge is associated with our Lord Jesus Christ, but not with
respect to his resurrection: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many... [Isaiah 53:11] His knowledge is referenced, not as a
quality which occasioned his resurrectional responsibility, but as one which
enabled him to be the justification for the sins of many.
To return to the
question: On what basis was our Lord Jesus Christ raised from the dead by His
Father? One of the Scriptures that answers this question is Acts
2:24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because
it was not possible that he should be holden of it. This testimony does
not fully answer the question, but invites another: Why was it not possible
that His Son could not be held in the grave? There are many who will, on
first reflection, reply, "Because of his sinlessness." They
will find that this answer is not the cornerstone of the explanation which the
apostle Peter went on to provide. The sinlessness of Christ was necessary
towards, but not sufficient as, the basis of his resurrection. It was the
basis of the acceptance of his sacrifice by His Father and vitally important in
the divine scheme of redemption but it did not obligate, as it were, His Father
to raise him from the dead. There was, however, such an obligation, as
expressed by the words, "It was not possible that he should be holden of
it." What was the source of this obligation? The apostle
Peter, continuing his address in the same account, stated it clearly: Therefore
(David) 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,
that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. [Acts
2:30-32] As apostolically expressed, the basis of the Father's obligation
and the basis of our Lord's resurrection, was the oath that the Father had
sworn to the fathers of Israel. This is the reason why it was not
possible that he should be holden of death -- the integrity of the Deity's oath
was at stake. With this agree the words of the writer to the Hebrews when
he testified, Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant..." [Hebrews 13:20] Some might observe that the testimony
in Acts and the one in Hebrews are not strictly comparable. The first
refers to the fact that our Lord could not be holden of the grave; the second
to the fact that he was brought again from the dead. In our
understanding, these are two different expressions to describe the same thing
and we make no distinction in their meaning. For all the promises of God
in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. [2 Corinthians
1:20] The promises of God concerning the resurrection of the Redeemer who
should come were made under covenant oath.
There is a
significant testimony in 2 Corinthians 4:14 which has not been given sufficient
attention. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up
us also by [Greek, dia] Jesus, and present us with you. This testimony
establishes a direct connection between the resurrection of the Lord by the
Father and our resurrection. (How can any premise that his resurrection
and ours are somehow on different principles or bases be sustained in the light
of this testimony?) The word also in this testimony is very important
because it directly associates the resurrection of the Lord with our
resurrection. If we are to be raised up through Jesus also, then there is
an implication that our Lord himself was raised up through himself, that is,
through the efficacy of his own sacrifice. This was confirmed by the
writer to the Hebrews. The blood of the everlasting covenant by which he
was brought again from the dead was his own blood. I believe that this is
the power or authority to which our Lord referred when he said, Therefore doth
my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it
again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This
commandment have I received of my Father. [John 10:17-28] The power or
authority lay in the covenant promises of the Father.
These
testimonies present a serious problem to the amended model of understanding
Bible teaching concerning the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus was accomplished by his Father because of God's faithfulness
to His covenant promises; and if our resurrection is on the same basis as his,
where is there any room for the principle that our resurrection is according to
the basis, light brings resurrectional responsibility? The amended have
either to prove that this principle is the basis of the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus; or to prove that our resurrection and his are on different
bases. In our view, neither one of these potential solutions to the
problem can be or has been proven from the Scriptures. Because of the
lack of attention this problem has received in amended literature, I do not
know which way out of this dilemma their apologists would choose, but for
reasons I will come to later, I expect that they would prefer to argue that the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus was unique and, therefore, on a different basis
than our own. There were circumstances surrounding his death which were
unique. He went to the grave as a perfectly righteous man and his corpse
did not decompose into the dust. The basis of his resurrection from the
dead was not unique. He was our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20); our
firstfruits (I Corinthians 15:23); the beginning, the firstborn from the dead
(Colossians 1:18); the first begotten of the dead (Revelation 1:5); the
assurance God has provided unto all men (Acts 17:31). None of these
phrases would have any meaning if his resurrection were effected according to
principles different than our own.
In this
distinction, between the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and our resurrection,
which the amended model leads them to make, lie the seeds of a whole body of
erroneous thought. Once one accepts that the redemption of the Lord Jesus
was worked out on different bases or principles than our own, the door is
opened for many other distinctions between his salvation and our own to be
introduced. Amended exposition, in the margins, has always tended in this
direction -- to view the sacrifice of Christ as necessary for us but not for
himself. It is but a short step once this process of reasoning takes hold
to come to the conclusion that his nature was not under condemnation as ours
is. This explains why issues concerning the nature and sacrifice of
Christ have often emerged as points of difference in discussions between the
fellowships. Wrong thinking about our relationship to Christ's
resurrection is at the root of other error.
What has this to
do with the Statement of Faith? Much every way. Perhaps few of us
recognize that the Statement of Faith is very definite as to the basis of the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
That these
promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned
line of Adam, Abraham and David [in the condemned race of Adam in the line of
Abraham and David] and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to
obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience and, by dying abrogate the
law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him.
[Article VIII; the parenthetical alternative is the more accurate wording of
the Unamended Statement].
This article in
the Statements of Faith uses a legal term, title, to refer to the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus; he obtained a title to resurrection on two grounds.
First, by his perfect obedience; and second, by his death. The Statement
of Faith nowhere links his "title to resurrection" with his
knowledge. It has been my observation that amended writers never us a
term like "title to resurrection," even though it is in the Statement
of Faith itself, because such a term does not well fir the amended model of
resurrection. In their model, a "title to resurrection" is not
something obtained as a result of obedient and faithful action we take; it is
something imposed by God when the degree of knowledge of His will is
sufficient, a point which no man can determine with any certainty. The
very idea that, as a result of obedient action we take, we obtain a "title
to resurrection," is vigorously opposed and even ridiculed in recent
amended literature. Notwithstanding, the Statement of Faith uses this
term and expresses this principle in respect of our Lord Jesus. These
observations cannot be too strongly stressed because, in our view, Article VIII
is a standing contradiction of Article XXIV in the Amended Statement. The
Amended Statement of Faith actually sets forward two very different bases of
resurrection: one, for Christ, in Article VIII; and one, for the responsible,
in Article XXIV. The Scriptures, however, do not make such a distinction:
they teach only one resurrection. Is this not a serious inconsistency in
the Amended Statement of Faith?
This situation
forces the Amended apologists to choose between the basis of resurrection of
Article VIII and that of Article XXIV. Consistently and repeatedly, they
have elevated the basis of Article XXIV and, in so doing, inadvertently
denigrated and contradicted the basis of Article VIII. On the other hand,
in the unamended community, the basis of Article VIII is the only one on which
fellowship is predicated. I believe that the overwhelming testimony of
the Scriptures inks the resurrection of those in Christ with the resurrection
of Christ. Therefore, if Article VIII is scripturally sound in respect of
Christ, must it not be also for those who have been baptized into his
name? Should this not be the basis of our unity? I do not hesitate
to say that for myself, this is a matter of conscience that I hold dearly, and
I am not prepared to abandon this truth for the sake of a broader fellowship
based on the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.
The principal
theme of the Bible is to expound the divine solution to the Adamic
problem. Man's problem is sin and death. The divine solution is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. There is a wonderful
simplicity in this message. For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him [literally, in the Greek,
into him, an active sense] should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the
world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see
life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. [John 3:16-18; 35-36] In these
testimonies, the simplicity of the truth is made plain enough. The
dividing line between death and life -- between condemnation and justification
-- is faith in the Son of God.
Let us consider
further testimonies which form the foundation for strongly held convictions on
this matter.
When our Lord
Jesus gave his revelation to the apostle John, in the opening part of the
vision, he saw the glorified and risen Lord. And when I saw him, I fell
at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,
I am the first and the last; I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold, I am
alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. [Revelation
1:17-18] This testimony affirms a vital truth of the gospel concerning
the redemptive work of Christ: to him were delivered the keys of the grave and
of death. This figure indicates that the grave was locked or sealed, such
that keys were needed to open it, as a result of the principle laid down at the
beginning, that the wages of sin is death. Our Father, in His mercy, has
provided a way by which this victory of the grave might be defeated, through
the work of His Son. The hold that it has over the sons of Adam is not
supreme, but according to the principles of the Father's righteousness and
mercy, it may be opened with the keys in the hands of the Son. Of what
was the Lord Jesus the first and the last? He is described in Scripture
as "the last Adam" [I Corinthians 15:45] and "the first begotten
of the dead," the first of many sons brought to glory. [Revelation 1:5;
Hebrews 2:10] These are terms which relate to the purpose of God in
redemption, in providing a way by which the sons of Adam might become partakers
of His divine nature. This is the way that depends on Christ and
fittingly, in symbol, into his hands were committed its keys.
Another figure
that is used by the prophet Zechariah to describe the grave is to liken it to a
prison in which men are held captive. Speaking of the deliverance to be
effected by the King who would come to Zion, just, and having salvation, the
prophet declared, As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent
forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. In this poetic
figure, there is a clear connection made between the sacrificial offering of
Christ, as indicated by the reference to his blood, and the release of the
prisoners from the bondage in which they were held. [Zechariah 9:9-11]
There are many
occasions in the teaching of our Lord Jesus when he spoke of eternal life as
the ultimate end to which he sought to lead men. He taught that faith in
his name was the dividing line between death and life. Neither he nor the
Spirit speaking through the apostles always qualified gospel teaching and noted
that those who believed on him would be subject to judgment, and would forfeit
their standing if found unfaithful. An example occurs in John 5:24:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but
is passed from death unto life. We know that in an absolute sense,
believing on Jesus did not assure one of everlasting life. But these testimonies
were revealed by the Spirit on the presumption that one continued faithful
until the end. This is a style that is frequently used in divine
revelation: the positive outcome in the race for eternal life is set forward
without explicit reference to the possibility of a negative outcome.
It is important
to recognize that this style is used, not only in relation to everlasting life,
but also in relation to resurrection. There is often the same
presumption that those raised are faithful, and go on to receive immortality,
without stating the qualification that among those raised there will also be
some who are unfaithful, and who are condemned to death. In enough
places, such as Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29, the fact that some who are raised
will be rejected is made clear enough, but this is not the case with every
reference to resurrection, just as it is not said either in every reference to
everlasting life. Let's pursue this further.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
Those who are
strongly persuaded of the truth of the amendment have a puzzle to solve.
I will explain the puzzle by reference to engagement and marriage. When a
young couple announces their engagement, there is a presumption that they will
be married at the set time they have appointed. Everyone knows that there
is a possibility that the marriage may not take place. One or both of the
betrothed might die beforehand; or one or both might decide to call off the
marriage and break the engagement. Not all that are engaged always go on
to be married, but there is a common set of principles that apply to both
states, engagement and marriage. In the English language, there is even a
similarity in the language that is used to describe the two states, the engaged
and the married. The former is referred to as "espoused" and
the latter as "spouse." Another way of describing the relationship
between engagement and marriage is to refer to the first as the lesser state
and the second as the greater state. The two states are closely related
to each other but they are not the same. This analogy is helpful to
consider in relation to the concepts of resurrection and immortality in the
Scriptures. The Scriptures sometimes speak of those to be raised as if
they will go on to receive eternal life, in the same way that we often speak of
those engaged, as if they will go on to marry. While we recognize that
there is always a qualification that could be attached to the engagement,
generally we do not state it, but speak of the marriage as if the outcome were
assured. In the same way, the Scriptures use terms -- such as heirs
according to the hope of eternal life [Titus 3:7] -- that contemplate the
positive outcome of the race for eternal life, without always attaching the
qualification, that some will be judged unworthy. What does this have to
do with the most common word for resurrection in the New Testament, anastasis?
This word is used by the Spirit in a number of Scriptures with reference
to the coming forth from the grave in mortal flesh, its root signification; and
in others it appears, by extension, to contemplate the end result, namely, that
the resurrected ones have been endowed with immortality. Those who
believe in the amendment clause have this puzzle to explain: Why would the
Spirit of God use the same word if it had reference to two very different sets
of principles? If the amendment clause teaching is true, then the Spirit
of God has used this word anastasis in its greater application in reference to
those redeemed with immortality by the blood of Christ; and in its lesser
application to the unrelated principle that those who know the revealed will of
God and have been called upon to submit to it are responsible to resurrection,
without necessarily any connection to the redeeming sacrifice of Christ.
The puzzle is this: the use of the same word to apply to two related concepts
on common principles, namely, resurrection as coming out of the grave, and
resurrection as rising from mortal to immortal nature, is easy to explain and
understand (just as engagement and marriage are closely linked and
related, though not the same). But the use of the same word to apply to
two completely different concepts and sets of principles is not easy to
explain. That is the puzzle that the apologists for the amendment clause
have never properly solved. Yet, is it not on that fine distinction in
meaning that the fellowship wall erected on the amendment clause rests?
To provide a specific case in point, consider the teaching of our Lord in John
6:53-54: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in
you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. As we have observed earlier, this
passage speaks of the positive outcome, without qualification. The
qualification is supplied by other Scriptures, such as I Corinthians 11:27:
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The point
is, however, that the basis for attaining to eternal life, and the basis for
resurrection at the last day, are one and the same: relationship to the
sacrifice of Christ. The two things are inseparably linked, as engagement
is to marriage. The amendment clause denies the linkage and puts
resurrection in its lesser sense on some altogether different footing.
This Jesus did not teach.
Why is the same
word anastasis used by the Spirit of God with these two different
nuances? Is it not because the greater sense -- of being endowed with
immortality -- is simply the extension of the positive outcome of the lesser
sense -- of rising to life in mortal flesh? And is this presumption of
the positive outcome not a characteristic feature of revelation? In one
place in the Scriptures, this extended meaning of the word anastasis is made
very plain. The Spirit of God has used the compound word, exanastasis,
literally, "out of the standing again," implying a further stage of
development after resurrection, namely, the endowment with immortality.
This is the word used when the apostle said, "If by any means I might
attain unto the resurrection of the dead." [Philippians 3:11]
There may be
some readers who wonder why the writer labours this point. The reason is
that it has been his experience that whenever an amended apologist is shown one
of the many verses which link resurrection with the sacrificial work of Christ,
invariably the answer is the same. The amended apologist, without a
second thought, will argue that the word resurrection must always be assigned
the meaning of "the complete process of immortalization" in any
passage in which it is associated with Christ. But my appeal to the
reader is to give this matter a serious, second thought. What is the
framework for insisting on such an arbitrary interpretation of the usage of the
word anastasis in the New Testament? The framework is the amendment
clause. Is this then not a case of assuming the thing to be proved?
Many apologists for the amendment clause interpret these passages of the
Scripture sincerely convinced they are negating the force of our proof
texts. In my view, all they are doing is assuming the thing they are
trying to prove. As I have sought to show, the assumption is not only
arbitrary, but most unreasonable.
An illustration
may assist in making this point clearer. It is recorded in the book of
Acts, early in the apostolic Ministry, concerning Peter and John, that they
preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead. In this testimony
the preposition translated through, in nearly every instance of its occurrence
with our Saviour's name in Scripture, is translated as in, and many other
versions give that rendering in this place. If we ask our amended
brethren why it was appropriate for Peter and John to preach in Jesus the
resurrection of the dead, but apparently not for us to do so too, they will
invariably answer that in this passage the word anastasis means the complete
process of immortalization. In other words, what Peter and John were
really preaching was that in Jesus is everlasting life. Are we not
entitled to an explanation that, if that was what they really were preaching,
why did they not use Greek words that would convey that meaning more precisely?
Why did they use this word resurrection? It would seem improbable that
the Spirit of God would use a word this way, if a vital principle of the truth
hinged upon rightly dividing its meaning. There is no question that the
same word is used by the same inspired writer in Acts where all agree it has
its lesser meaning of standing again in mortal flesh -- Acts 24:15 -- which
reads: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Is this
resurrection not also the resurrection of hope in Jesus which the apostles
preached or are there two different resurrections in the book of Acts? I
must state frankly that I believe the effort by amended apologists to explain
why passages like Acts 4:2 do not mean what they say is to sow confusion.
And for myself, I would not like to predicate my basis of fellowship on such a
contrived and arbitrary meaning of the word anastasis, as the amendment clause
requires. Let our basis of unity be apostolic: that we preach in Jesus
the resurrection of the dead. In our understanding of the usage of
anastasis in the New Testament, there is only one basis of resurrection: in
Jesus.
The primary
signification of this word is standing again in mortal flesh; sometimes, by
extension on the presumption of a positive outcome, it conveys the greater
concept of that mortal flesh being swallowed up in immortality. To this
argument there may be a few on the amended side who reply that their position
does not require that the word resurrection in this passage mean the complete
process of immortalization. They might argue that the key to
understanding Acts 4:2 is the omission of the word only. Peter and John
are not recorded to have preached only in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.
Much has been made of this argument in reference to other passages such as
Psalm 50:5, by analogy to crows and black birds. However, it is an
argument that must be used with extreme caution in any application. When
the apostle Paul taught that our Saviour Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and
hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, he did not say
"only." But every believer understands his statement as if he
did, since the Scripture teaches no other basis for immortality. The
presumption of exclusion is obvious in language. It reminds me of a true
and false question on a grade school geography test. The question read,
"There are forty-eight states in the United States." When we
read this question, we have to decide if the intent of the question is,
"There are (in total) forty-eight states in the United States" or
whether it means "There are (at least) forty-eight states in the United
States." The former statement is false, the latter true. The
way we use language, virtually everyone interprets the statement the first way,
even though it does not say, "There are only forty-eight states in the
United States." Another example may make the point even clearer in
relation to the resurrection. If we report that there were seventy-five
people at meeting last Sunday, everyone understands what we mean, without our
having to add, "There were only seventy-five people at meeting."
It would be deceptive to say that there were seventy-five people at
meeting when there were really one hundred, and rely on the superficial
argument that what we reported was accurate, because we did not say there were
only seventy-five present. There were also sixty-five and eighty-five;
to report seventy-five would be an arbitrary choice of number. Yet, sadly,
apologists for the amended point of view often read the Scriptures about the
resurrection, and its relation to Christ, and they posit that the writer did
not exclude some other group, because he did not say "only."
This is one of the most superficial of all arguments. I find it very
frustrating because it is used over and over to deny the point of those
Scriptures which link resurrection and judgment to covenant relationship, yet
no one would accept using the same argument to prove that there were other grounds
for eternal salvation.
Our Lord Jesus
was express in teaching that he was the exclusive basis of redemption: I am the
way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. [John
14:6] The exclusivity is conveyed by the use of the definite
article. He had earlier made a very similar statement to Martha, the
sister of Lazarus: I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in
me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. [John 11:25] Any reasonable
student, in putting the thought of these two declarations together, would take
it that Jesus was the resurrection in the same sense in which he was the
life. Now John 11:25 is a case where the word resurrection does not mean
"the complete process of immortalization." If it had that meaning
in this Scripture, it would reduce the statement of our Lord to a redundant and
repetitious thought. One young apologist for the amended point of view
has made just that argument, comparing John 11:25 with 2 Timothy 1:11 where the
apostle stated that our Saviour brought life and immortality to light.
But in the statement concerning life and immortality there are actually
two distinct concepts, as immortality in this instance is translated from the
Greek aphtharsia, meaning incorruption. That is the way it is translated
in I Corinthians 15:53: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality. [athanasia, literally, without death]
Incorruption refers directly to the glorious nature of the body; immortality to
the fact that in that nature death no longer works. The reason Adam and
Eve were driven from the garden of Eden was to prevent them from obtaining
immortality in a body of their fallen and corruptible nature. The
concepts of immortality and incorruption are related but not identical.
The meaning of
the statement by our Lord Jesus, that He is the resurrection and the life, is
further confirmed by how these words resurrection and life, are elsewhere used
together in the gospel of John: And shall come forth: they that have done good,
unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of condemnation. [John 5:29] Resurrection is just as
distinct in meaning in this passage from life, as the meaning of resurrection
is from condemnation. Why should the same distinction in meaning not
apply to the only other place in John's gospel where the two nouns appear
together, namely, in John 11:25? Does not acceptance of the Amended
Statement of Faith require holding to such a strong conviction on this matter,
as to withhold fellowship from those who believe that the use of anastasis in
John 11:25 has reference to its root meaning, standing again in mortal
flesh? In view of the context of John 11:25 -- the account of the
resurrection of Lazarus -- was this literal meaning not confirmed by the event
which followed?
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(2) The Amendment Clause Was an
Innovation
The amendment
which distinguishes the Amended Statement of Faith from the Unamended Statement
represented an innovation in Christadelphian thinking and was not simply
writing down a long standing belief. Furthermore, this innovation is not
in harmony with the Scriptures and introduces false principles into an
understanding of the gospel.
There is no
question that the majority of Christadelphian expositors in the nineteenth century,
including the original and primary ones, namely, Brother John Thomas and
Brother Robert Roberts, believed that men in this dispensation who had acquired
a knowledge of the gospel, but who were not baptized, would be raised from the
dead for judgment. Given this fact, how can the amendment possibly be
viewed as an innovation? Does it not simply give expression to what they
believed?
There are three
separate ways in which the amendment represented an innovation in
Christadelphian thinking.
It was the first
time that this teaching was set forward as a condition of fellowship.
Previously, it had not been regarded as a vital detail of understanding of the
faith which justifies.
Brother Thomas
is very clear on this point in the Preface to Anastasis:
But some may
be prompted to enquire, Is it necessary to understand all the details of
Resurrection and Judgment in order to possess the faith which justifies?
In reply, I would say, if it were necessary, there would scarcely be found, in
this generation, a corporal's guard of justified believers. I apprehend
that if a person heartily believe in "the resurrection of the just and the
unjust," and that both these classes will appear in the presence of the
Righteous Judge, "to give account of themselves to him," their
understanding so far is sound upon these two first principles; but if on the
contrary, he deny the resurrection of "the unjust" or saints of the
Sardean type, and repudiate the citation of the righteous to judgment, saying
that there is no other judgment for them than what they are subjected to in the
present state; I can only say for myself, that I had rather never have been
born than to appear in the Divine Presence with such a tradition. It
would not be difficult to make out against such, a case of constructive treason
to the truth. [Anastasis,
Preface, (Birmingham, 1899 edition]
In this
paragraph, Brother Thomas set out what he believed to be the two vital first
principles in respect of resurrection and judgment. Note carefully that
he confined his remarks to the two classes, answering to the just and the
unjust, and he defined the unjust as saints of the Sardean type. Later in
his treatise, he writes about a third class of enlightened sinners who reject
the gospel, and makes it clear that he believed in their resurrection also.
But when he summarized, in the preface, those vital details to be
understood, he made no mention of the third class. During the generation
following his death, this was the prevailing fellowship practice in all the
ecclesias. No one was disfellowshipped for their understanding of the
responsibility of the third class to resurrection and judgment. I regret
that many amended writers have been disingenuous when referencing the teaching
of Brother Thomas, and have failed to point out that he does not identify the
responsibility of the enlightened rejector to resurrection and judgment as an
essential detail of the faith which justifies. Furthermore, many amended
writers have argued that the word unjust in Acts 24:15 refers to this third
class, but it is clear that Brother Thomas understood it as a reference to
saints of the Sardean type, or unjust saints. It would be refreshing to
see amended brethren acknowledge these points.
The fact is that
the fellowship practices of the unamended ecclesias, in relation to this
doctrine, have not changed since 1866, when Anastasis was first published.
In his writing
on the subject, Brother Thomas was always careful to distinguish among the
classes that would be raised from the dead. He spoke of three classes and
taught that their position before the Judge was very different, depending on
whether or not they had been baptized into the Saving Name. The
amendment was an innovation because it completely obscures these distinctions
and teaches implicitly that the position of a baptized believer who is
unfaithful is no different from an unbaptized rejector. In order to
sustain this teaching, it misapplies the Scriptures.
That at the
appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, 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 -- 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" --
This amendment
allows for the possibility that an unbaptized person might have acceptable
works before God and be judged worthy of everlasting life. While it was
evidently not the intent of the author of the amendment to allow this teaching,
there is nothing in the amendment clause that limits a favourable verdict at
the judgment seat to those who have been baptized. In this respect, the
amendment significantly diminishes the importance of baptism, even to the point
of dispensing with it as a condition of salvation. [The teaching that
baptism is not necessary for salvation is included among the doctrines to be
rejected, #30.] Knowing the weakness of human nature, the writer has
always been concerned the amendment clause allows false thinking to creep into
the body this way: "My dear Uncle Benny died. He was a good-living
man but he did not come to an understanding of the gospel...If the Most High is
willing to raise sinful rejectors from the dead to visit His judgment on them,
might He not, in His mercy, raise Uncle Benny and give him a chance to learn
the gospel?" In this way, the finality of the condemnation stemming
from Adam's sin is denied. The amendment clause leaves the door ajar for
false thinking to enter concerning another resurrection leading to another
gospel. [Galatians 1:6-7]
Why does the
amendment clause allow that possibility? Because it quotes from a
Scripture that has reference to the baptized and extends its application to the
unbaptized also. In other words, by inserting the amendment clause into
proposition XXIV, the Scriptures which follow are misquoted. Can any
brother or sister in good conscience accept a Statement of Faith that misapplies
the Scripture? Proposition XXIV in the Amended Statement of Faith quotes
directly from 2 Corinthians 5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. It is obvious
on reflection that this Scripture cannot possibly have any application to the
unbaptized, for how can they be judged under terms of reference established to
determine "whether it (the record of their life in the Body) be good or
bad?" The "we" in this testimony includes the author and
the ecclesia which is at Corinth and all the saints which are in all
Achaia. [salutation of the epistle, 2 Corinthians 1:1] Where did
the author of the amendment clause obtain the authority to extend the
application of this Scripture beyond those to whom the apostle addressed it?
Among
expositors, Brother Thomas was very clear in his application of those passages
which concern the judgment seat to the saints:
What is to be
understood by Romans 14:10, in connection with 2 Corinthians 5:10, in reference
to the judgment-seat of Christ? In Romans 14:10, the apostle says to the
saints, including himself, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat
(bema, not thronos) of Christ." If it be asked, what are they to
stand there for? he answers in 2 Corinthians 5:10, saying, "For it
is necessary that we all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of
Christ." They stand there to be made manifest; that is, for it there
to be made known whether in their former life they "walked after the
flesh" or "walked after the Spirit." [John Thomas, Catechesis, Question
#47]
Seven years
after the first publication of Elpis Israel, Brother Thomas wrote a reply to a
correspondent under the heading, Resurrection not Universal. We reproduce
the first part of his understanding:
Our friend in
Orange is under a mistake in supposing that we maintain, that the resurrection
of every man, woman, and child of Adam's posterity, is the doctrine of
Scripture. His words are, "You say, all are raised from the dead:
now I can't exactly say 'amen' to that." Nor can we. We
believe that the Scriptures teach the resurrection of the just and of the
unjust who have died under times of knowledge, whose knowledge they accepted:
and the resurrection, a thousand years afterwards, of "the rest of the
dead" who have intelligently rejected it. Of the former were the
contemporaries of the Lord Jesus who lived under the times of the law. To
some of them he said, "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when
ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of
God, and you yourselves cast out." This testimony proves, that when
the kingdom of God is established, these victims of despair will be there; and
secondly, like Adam and Eve from Paradise, they will be expelled from it; so
that, while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets and the saints, will
be permitted to eat of the Tree of Life, they will be driven forth to misery
and death. Besides these unjust there will be those who, placing
themselves under law to Christ, run well for a time, but become weary of
well-doing, and turn like washed hogs to their wallowing in the mire.
These all rise from the dead at the coming of the Lord to receive according to
their demerits. The rest of the dead are those who never came under a
constitution of righteousness; not because they did not know how, but because
they refused to do so. Having been enlightened, but preferring darkness to
light, they will arise to judgment at the end of the millennium. Besides
these three enlightened classes, there is a fourth which returns to the dust
forevermore. This class is very large, and consists of all whom God from
whatever cause has left in helpless ignorance...[John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and
Age to Come, July, 1855, p. 161]
At this point in
his life, Brother Thomas was convinced that the resurrection of the "third
class" was so distinct from the resurrection of faithful and unfaithful saints,
that it was separated in time by the span of one thousand years. Such a
view is excluded by the Amended Statement of Faith which posits the
resurrection of the third class at the same time as the Household.
Brother Roberts was evidently influenced by this teaching of Brother Thomas,
because he expounded a similar view in Twelve Lectures, which later continued
in Christendom Astray, in all the editions published in the nineteenth
century. (After Brother Roberts' death and the adoption of the amendment,
part of this paragraph was deleted from subsequent editions of Christendom
Astray, without any record of the change in the Preface.)
But the
principal obstacle is found in the words "The rest of the dead lived not
again till the thousand years were finished." This is assumed to
apply to the unfaithful servants of Christ, but this is evidently a mistake,
because at the time when that is developed which John styles "the first
resurrection," viz., living and reigning with Christ, the judgment which
disposes of the unfaithful and rewards the worthy, is past. The
"rest of the dead" cannot apply to the unfaithful amenable to the
judgment-seat of Christ, inasmuch as if they were raised at that time, their
resurrection and condemnation are accomplished facts at the time these words
are used. If they apply to a specific class, it is a class not amenable
to the judgment which Jesus brings to bear on his household, and a class
undealt with until the close of the thousand years. Possibly, it may refer
to men like Nero, and others great in wickedness, who are unpunished in this
present life, and who, though outside of specific law to God, have acquired a
degree of moral responsibility by external contact with divine things.
Rejectors of the Word, who do not come under 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 be inappropriate. May they not be dealt with at the
end? This may be the meaning of the language under consideration...[Robert
Roberts, Twelve Lectures, (Birmingham, 1869), p. 112].
While there are
many amended brethren today who would not make an issue out of the time and
place for the resurrection and judgment of the third class, as long as the
certainty of their resurrection was conceded, the fact remains that the Amended
Statement of Faith allows no such latitude of thought as clearly existed in the
nineteenth century. Brother Roberts also contemplated resurrection of the
unbaptized on grounds other than that stated in the amendment clause, when he
speculated that notorious persecutors of the saints, like Nero, might be
raised. More distressing than the explicit exclusion of those who
accepted this teaching of Brothers Thomas and Roberts from the
Amended-Statement-of-Faith fellowship is the fact that by lumping the third
class together with the baptized believers, the amendment fails to make the
distinction in which they both strongly believed. That is, the amendment
puts the enlightened rejector on the same footing with respect to resurrection
and judgment as those in covenant relationship. This Brethren Thomas and
Roberts did not do. By the time of his major work on the subject,
Anastasis, Brother Thomas had changed his view with respect to the time of the
resurrection of the enlightened rejector. By that time in his life, he
believed their resurrection would occur at the same time as the Household,
coincident with the return of Christ. But note that he did not lump them
all together indiscriminately as the amendment clause does:
Now, would it
be reasonable to subject unenlightened sinners, illuminated sinners, and
ungodly Sardian saints, to one and the same condition? The Righteous
Judge is not "a hard man, reaping where He hath not sown."
Where the Word hath not been sown, He will look for no result; but, on the
contrary, where He has made proclamation by "faithful men, able to teach
others," whose teaching He has borne witness to "by signs and
wonders, and with divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Spirit," which
is "preaching the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven,"
(Hebrews 2:4; 1 Peter 1:12), He expects to reap and gather in. This is
just and reasonable, as well as scriptural. And as "no man can come
to me," saith the Spirit, "except the Father who hath sent me draw
him," He will not raise them up in the last day upon whom the
drawing influence of the word has not been brought to bear (John
6:44). They are "as the beasts that perish."
But
illuminated sinners and Sardian saints are obnoxious to a perdition arrived at
in different ways. These are they "who obey not the Gospel of the
Deity" (I Peter 4:17), or disgrace it; and who come forth to anastasis of
judicial condemnation. These two classes are punished on the principle
that "it is better not to have known the way of righteousness than, after
they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them"
(2 Peter 2:21). In the apostolic age, this holy commandment was delivered
with power descending from heaven; but now, there is no such sanction
confirming a faithful teacher's exposition of the word. Nevertheless, if
a sinner come to the understanding of the truth, the result being the same, he
is held accountable. An enlightened sinner cannot evade the consequences
of his illumination. I have known some of this class flatter themselves
that they would not be called forth to judgment; but would perish as the
beasts, if they did not come under law to Christ. Such reasoning,
however, is simply "the deceitfulness of sin." This evidently
teaches their anastasis kriseos, or coming forth from sheol, for judicial
condemnation and punishment, contemporarily with the establishment of the
kingdom in the Holy Land. But whatever the details of their punishment
may be, the evils befalling ungodly Sardian saints will be more intense.
Both classes will "of the flesh reap corruption;" but the
post-resurrectional antecedents of the one leading to this common fate, will be
"sorer" than those of the other. So Paul teaches in Hebrews
10:26 saying, "If we sin willfully after that we have the knowledge of the
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful
looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the
adversaries. He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy, under two
or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be
thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of the Deity, and hath
counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing,
and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?" This "sorer
punishment" awaits all saints, who, like the majority in Sardis, lived in
name, while they were dead in fact -- "twice dead, and plucked up by the
roots." (Jude 12)
[John Thomas, Anastasis (Birmingham, 1899), p. 41
Brother Thomas
was strongly convinced of the certainty of the resurrection of the enlightened
rejector, even in the conditions of the nineteenth century. He viewed
those who thought they could be exempt from such judgment by evading baptism as
deluded by "the deceitfulness of sin." But he did not suppose
that the unbaptized rejector and the unfaithful saint were on the same basis as
regards the judgment, for he recognized that with covenant responsibilities went
a greater liability for judgment. The amendment to the Statement of Faith
does not make this recognition. It implies that all classes come forth to
judgment on the same basis and with the same consequences.
In the writer's
view, Brother Thomas misapplies Hebrews 10:26-29 when he quotes the passages
about "sorer punishment." The word "sorer" is in the
comparative degree, and indicates that a comparison is being made. The
comparison is not, however, between the punishment that awaits the saint who
counted the blood of the covenant unholy and the punishment that awaits the
enlightened rejector. The comparison is between those who died without
mercy under Moses' law with those who have trodden under foot the Son of God:
in other words, between the temporal judgment of the old covenant and the
eternal judgment of the new.
Brother Thomas
quotes Hebrews 10:26 as if it had reference to the rejector with knowledge who
had not been baptized: But if we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a
certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
devour the adversaries. Is it not obvious, however, both from the context
which follows, and the content of these verses, that it does not have reference
to an unbaptized person? An unbaptized person does have remaining "a
sacrifice for sins," if he avails himself of the washing away of sin in
baptism; and therefore such a statement could be made only in reference to one
already baptized.
Similarly,
Brother Thomas quotes John 6:44 as if the "drawing" by Christ had
reference to the call of the gospel without the response of baptism. No
man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will
raise him up at the last day. In the context of the chapter, it is very
doubtful if the drawing unto Christ was met by hearing and learning of the call
of the Gospel alone. Our Lord went on to say, in relation to this: It is
written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every man
therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me...But
there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning
who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said,
Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given
unto him of my Father. [John 6:45, 64-65] Our Lord on this occasion
quoted from Isaiah 54:13, and by reference to this prophecy, it is clear that
the "children" who were to be taught of God, were the children of new
Jerusalem, including the Gentiles who believe. That is the inspired
interpretation which the apostle Paul puts on this prophecy in his reference to
it in the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:26-27. As begotten
children of the Abrahamic faith, those drawn to Christ were in covenant
relationship. If this were not proof enough, our Lord equates the drawing
unto him with coming unto him. Earlier, in this same discourse, he is
very precise as to what coming unto him. Earlier, in this same discourse,
he is very precise as to what coming unto him involves: I am the bread of life;
he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall
never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe
not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh
to me I will in no wise cast out. [John 6:35-37] It is very clear, from
this latter statement, that those who come unto Jesus, who are drawn to him by
His Father, are not enlightened rejectors, for he says, "I will in no wise
cast out." Therefore, I do not believe John 6:44 should ever be
used as a proof of the amendment clause or its principle.
We have
considered the indiscriminate lumping together by the amendment clause of the
three classes it teaches will be brought forth. The implication of this
is to minimize the importance of baptism and covenant relationship. But
there is more obfuscation in the amendment than that. It makes no
reference to time and therefore requires that the principle which it enunciates
has been operative from the fall of Adam. This is curious in view of the
fact that all of the proof texts following are drawn from the New
Testament. Where is the proof that those who knew the revealed will of God
and were called upon to submit to it in Old Testament times will be raised for
judgment? Brother Roberts, while a fervent believer in the third class
resurrection, did not believe that the principle became operative until the
Light of the world came among men. Here again, because the amendment
clause contains no qualifications, it cannot accommodate this latitude of
thought. The writer expects that there are many brothers and sisters who
use the Amended Statement of Faith that have never thought through what it
really means, and who do not believe in the sweeping and strict application of
the principle it proclaims, throughout the course of God's dealing with man.
So far as we
have any information, no one became responsible to a resurrection of condemnation
in pre-Noahic times. Responsibility was discharged with the penalties of
the time... In this respect, the children of Abraham by faith, that is, those
"who walk in the steps of the faith which Abraham had, being yet
uncircumcised" (Romans 4:12), who, being Christ's, are Abraham's seed
(Galatians 3:29), through believing the Gospel and being baptized into Christ,
are like their father. By nature children of wrath, even as others, they
were in the days of their ignorance "without God and without hope in the
world" (Ephesians 2:12), "strangers from the covenants of
promise" (ibid), "aliens from the life of God, through the ignorance
that was in them" (Ephesians 4:18), living without law, and destined, as
the result of that condition, to perish without law in Adam; inheriting death
without resurrection -- death without remedy; having neither the privileges or
responsibilities of a divine relationship. But when called from darkness
to light, by the preaching of the gospel, they are "not their own."
They neither live nor die to themselves as formerly. They have
passed into a special relationship to deity -- extra-Adamic -- in which their
lives, good or evil, come under divine supervision, and form the basis of a
future accountability, unknown in their state of darkness, at which God
winked. This is neither more nor less than the responsibilities of
Abraham, transferred to them on becoming his seed by adoption... The law of
righteousness by faith, is the principle on which men are saved -- that is,
saving righteousness is recognized or imputed by God where He is honoured by
faith being exercised in what He has promised. This law came into
operation with Abraham. Actually, it had its origin in Eden, for we read
of Abel that by faith (the substance of things hoped for), he offered an
acceptable sacrifice. [Hebrews 11:4] The prediction of the woman's
serpent-destroying seed, formed a pivot on which faith could work even then,
and doubtless was the subject matter of the fact which saved Abel, Enoch, and Noah;
but the full and official initiation of the law of faith, as the rules of
salvation, occurred in the history of Abraham. This law was the basis of
resurrectional responsibility. The Mosaic law was national... out of the
law, as a national code, it does not appear any resurrection responsibility
arose. Yet concurrently with its jurisdiction, it is evident that a
dispensation of God's mind, having reference to resurrection, was in
force. Undoubtedly this was subordinate, and occupied the place of an
undercurrent; but its existence is unquestionable, else how are "Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets," to appear in the kingdom of
God? If it be recognized that God's purpose from the beginning had
reference to the mission of the Christ as "The Resurrection and the
Life," there will be no difficulty in apprehending this conclusion.
Obscurely it may be, but really it must be, that resurrectional responsibility
was contemplated in all Jehovah did through His servants, from righteous Abel
to faithful Paul. [Robert Roberts, Twelve Lectures, (Birmingham, 1869), p.
94-97. This teaching survived into Christendom Astray but the sentence in
italics was deleted. JF's emphasis]
A brother
holding these convictions -- that in Old Testament times, the basis of
resurrectional responsibility was the Abrahamic faith -- could not, in
conscience, accept the Amended Statement of Faith, and would not, in principle,
be fellowshipped by those who do. It is a curious thing that Brother
Roberts believed that the Abrahamic law of righteousness by faith was the basis
of resurrectional responsibility throughout the period from Abraham to Christ,
and yet this teaching, in application to this generation, is openly denied by
contemporary amended writers. Since the Abrahamic faith did not change --
except that the way was revealed by which Gentiles might become related to it
-- is it not reasonable that it would continue as the basis of resurrectional
responsibility for those who took hold of it? The burden of proof rests with
the amended apologists to show where in the Scriptures the Abrahamic covenant
was changed, at the time of Christ, so as to release its heirs from the promise
of resurrection. Because this cannot be demonstrated, the conclusion is
therefore inescapable: it must remain the basis of resurrection for those who
are related to it. Such a conclusion cannot be reconciled with the
amendment clause in Proposition XXIV. Therefore, to accept the Amended
Statement of Faith requires throwing overboard the teaching of the Abrahamic
covenant with respect to resurrection; and this, sadly, is like surrendering
the title deeds to our salvation.
Much of the
focus of amended exposition of the responsibility question has been concerned
with showing that in apostolic times, as a result of God calling all men
everywhere to repent, a new basis of resurrectional responsibility was
introduced to the Gentiles. I expect that most amended brethren today
would accept Brother Roberts' view, that the basis of resurrectional responsibility
in Old Testament times, from Abraham to Christ, was the law of righteousness by
faith. (They would not be aware that their Statement of Faith excludes such a
view because it does not limit the application of the amendment principle to
this dispensation.) However, it is not sufficient for them to prove that
a new basis of resurrectional responsibility was introduced by the coming of
Christ and his apostles; they must also prove -- in order to uphold the
position enunciated by the amendment -- that the prior basis was revoked.
In all my reading of amended writers, I have never found one that sets out to
argue this position. Does their failure to prove this revocation not
present their argument with a serious difficulty? Does it not render
groundless their objection to our teaching concerning the scriptural link
between the Abrahamic covenant and the resurrection of the dead?
There is more in
what Brother Roberts has written on which we would do well to reflect
seriously. His basic premise is that relation to divine law or word is
the instrumentality through which resurrectional responsibility is
established. Yet, the nation of Israel, who had the most intimate
relationship with divine law of all peoples on the face of the earth, he does
not believe incurred any resurrectional responsibility under the old
covenant. I believe his conclusion is sound in this matter but the most
diehard believer in the amendment clause must be arrested by the obvious
inconsistency in such a position. The people who received the law by the
disposition of angels were not resurrectionally responsible for it, their
judgments being meted out in the affairs of this life, and bringing them to the
grave. Even the multitude of the nation, that had witnessed the wonders
of the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea, and who rebelled on receiving
the report of the ten spies, were to be spent and fall in the wilderness.
Yet individual Gentiles, whose relation to divine law is much less intimate and
more incidental, shall be raised to give account? It is the glaring
inconsistency in such teaching -- which amended apologists do not attempt to
explain -- that leaves the amendment clause on such untenable ground.
As to the
distinction between the position of those within and those without the
Household of Faith, in respect of their judgment, one of the arguments of the
apostle Paul depends on it. It is our view that this distinction is
completely lost by the amendment clause. The argument is as follows:
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not
altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the
world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth.
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. [ I Corinthians
5:9-13] The apostle made a clear dividing line, in respect of judgment,
between those who are without Christ and those who are called brethren.
He based it on the fact that God will judge those who are without the household
but the ecclesia has the responsibility for those who are within it. He
goes on in the following chapter to rebuke the brethren in Corinth for not
exercising their responsibilities for judgment. They were taking their
disputes to the law of the Romans. This example clearly establishes the
dividing line for differences in judgment is between those within and those
without. There is no consideration given as to the degree of the
knowledge of the will of God of those without. How is this scriptural
distinction upheld by the amendment clause?
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(3) The Scriptural References in Article
XXIV Do Not Prove the Amendment Clause
The scriptural
testimonies offered as proofs to Article XXIV in the Amended Statement of Faith
do not prove the statement of the amendment clause and are rarely brought
forward by amended writers for this purpose.
2 Corinthians
5:10 For we must
all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the
things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or
bad.
As already
discussed, this verse has no relationship to any except the saints in
Christ. The "all" and "every one" to whom the verse
refers is obviously qualified in its extent. If the qualification is not
those in Christ, what is the qualification and where in the epistle is it
expressed?
2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before
God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom.
This passage
does not set forward any causal link to the judgment. The main Scripture
which expounds who the living and the dead are is I Thessalonians
4:14-18. The living have reference to we -- the ecclesia -- which are
alive and remain, and the dead has reference to those "which sleep in
Jesus," also called "the dead in Christ."
Romans
2:5-6,16 But
after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath
against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who
will render to every man according to his deeds. In the day when God shall
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
This chapter
cannot be understood in isolation from what comes before in chapter one.
A key verse is 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first,
and also to the Greek. In the second chapter, the apostle goes at length
to show that the believing Jew had no advantage over the believing Gentile in
respect of judgment, not withstanding the Jew's submission to the Law of
Moses. This explains the question with which the following chapter opens,
What advantage then hat the Jew? Verse 5 of Romans 2 is addressed
specifically to O man, believing Jews in the Roman ecclesia who trusted that
their standing in the Law gave them an advantage over the believing Gentiles
with respect to judgment. The apostle shows that this was not the
case. These verses make no reference to any but the Jews and Gentiles who
believe; and the apostle repeats this refrain from chapter 1:16 twice. In
verse 9, in reference to those who do evil; and in verse 10, in reference to
those who work good. It is obvious the two classes to which he refers are
men who have believed the gospel, and it is only of such he writes in verse 16,
the operative phrase being, judgment according to my gospel. If they
include those not in Christ, then the chapter might well form an argument in
favour of universal resurrection.
Romans
14:10-12
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy
brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every
tongue shall confess to God. So every man shall give account of himself
before God.
The context of
this second reference to the judgment-seat of Christ -- and the only other
reference in all of Scripture -- is clear: the apostle is speaking about the
judgment of the brethren.
I Corinthians
4:5 Therefore
judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the
hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
This occurs in
the context of an exposition about stewards of the mysteries of God (verse
1). There is no basis for giving application to this Scripture to any but
the stewards, for among the faithful stewards only (verse 2) will be drawn
those who shall have praise of God.
Revelation 11:18
There is no reference
to any dead who shall be raised to judgment in this testimony except God's
servants; the saints; and them that fear His name. It forms no argument
in favour of the amendment clause.
When all six
testimonies appended to Article XXIV are examined, it is clear that none of
them offers any proof for the amendment clause. This is the "curious
anomaly" in the Amended Statement to which we referred earlier in our
short look at the history of Article XXIV. Why is this? Because the
Article started out with a reference to "His servants" being brought
to judgment, and the verses were originally selected as proof of that
statement. When the amendment clause was added, the verses were not
changed. This is just another example of the serious inadequacy of the
amendment clause and why I believe it should be such an embarrassment to those
who predicate their fellowship on it. The proof verses supplied were
actually chosen to prove that the baptized will be raised. None of the
verses speak of the responsible; nor do they speak of those who know the
revealed will of God -- they do not even mention knowledge; nor do they speak
of those who have been called upon to submit to God's will; they do not mention
obedience or the will of God. And we are supposed to accept such an
ill-conceived, poorly thought through amendment to the Statement of
Faith? It would be no worthy tribute to the faith of Christ that is in
us.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(4) The
Teaching of the Amendment Clause Is Not Part of the Abrahamic Faith
The teaching of
the amendment clause forms no part of the faith of Abraham necessary for
justification.
There is an
overwhelming emphasis in the Scriptures of the New Testament on the principle
that justification comes from the Abrahamic faith. It is the burden of
Romans 4 and Galatians 3. It is therefore important to ask, and to
understand, the basis on which Abraham believed in the resurrection of the
dead. We are not left to speculate on this matter -- the Scriptures
inform us very directly. In that chapter which speaks of the faith of the
great cloud of witnesses, the writer to the Hebrews speaks of Abraham's faith:
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in
Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him
up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. [Hebrews
11:17-19] What was the basis of Abraham's faith in Isaac's
resurrection? There is no reference to Isaac's knowledge of the revealed
will of God and his call to submit to it -- clearly, that was not the basis.
The basis was the promises that God had made to Abraham -- they necessitated
Isaac's resurrection. If Isaac had been cut off by the knife in Abraham's
hand, only by Isaac's resurrection from the dead could the promise have been
fulfilled, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Abraham's faith in this
promise was the basis of his faith in the resurrection. Can any justify
withholding fellowship from us, because we hold the faith of Abraham, and
believe in the resurrection from the dead for the same reason as he? This
vital principle of the Abrahamic faith is at best obscured, and at worst
contradicted, by the amendment clause.
We have earlier
spoken of the issue of the term resurrection in its two senses, as the lesser
term and greater term, as engagement is to marriage. We recognize that at
times resurrection is used with the lesser signification, of being brought back
from the dead to mortal flesh, and at other times with the greater
signification, of being brought back from the dead to immortality. In
what sense is the term used in Hebrews 11:17-19? If there is any doubt
that the same principles apply to the term resurrection in both its usages in
Scripture, it is removed by this testimony. Abraham's expectation o
Isaac's resurrection from the dead was in the lesser sense: he did not
anticipate that Isaac would be brought back to receive immortality. He
knew that Isaac was to be the progenitor of children (Genesis 15:16) and, by
implication, that afterward he would come to the grave, as Abraham himself
(Genesis 15:15). This should permanently end any disputation over the use
and meaning of the term resurrection in the Scriptures, and put to silence the
arbitrary argument of the amended side, that in its lesser sense the term has
reference to an entirely different set of principles than in its greater
sense. This was not the faith of Abraham that justifies.
To their credit,
apologists for the amendment clause have never argued, as far as I am aware,
that Abraham's faith included the doctrine of resurrectional responsibility as
they teach it. But that omission should not be passed over lightly.
If it was not part of the Abrahamic faith that justifies, what business does it
have in the Statement of Faith as a vital doctrine?
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
The Amendment
Clause is set forward as a statement of saving truth necessary to be believed for
salvation. The paradox is, that in moments of candour, many amended
writers have acknowledged that no man is able to determine to whom the
principle applies. There is no other doctrine in the Statement of Faith
that exists as a vital principle, yet incapable of meaningful application.
What point is there in believing in a principle if no man can tell to
whom or when it applies? This takes us into the realm of the
hypothetical, and surely hypothetical doctrines are not worthy to be the basis
of fellowship. The word of God is characteristically unambiguous,
reflecting the tone of our Master, (teaching them) as one having
authority. The fact that this principle does not conform to this pattern
of the word of God is one of the clues that makes it highly suspect in my mind.
Consider the
answer of Brother Roberts to a correspondent "V.C.":
The thing at
issue is the principle of light being the ground of responsibility. There
are various classes in the controversy. Those who out and out deny that God can
raise knowing rebels to judgment consistently with His law, those who admit
that He can and will, but who hesitate as to the degree of knowledge necessary
to make a man a knowing rebel, those who are content with the broad principle
that "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is
sin:" and who therefore believe that to all who know the Gospel to be the
truth and refuse submission, it will rise to condemnation at the appearing of
Christ; and those who think that mere contact with the truth in its public or
private proclamation, or the possession of the Bible, is enough to make a man
responsible. The second and third positions are consistent with each other and represent
the attitude of enlightened and prudent men. The first is inadmissible,
and the fourth unwarranted. [The Christadelphian, November, 1897, inside front cover.]
Brother Roberts
was content with a man who admitted the principle but did not see its
application. This is not an unreasonable position to take on one of the
"uncertain details" of the Scripture but surely it is unbecoming to
make a principle of such ambiguous application a basis for fellowship! I
do not believe the fellowship of the apostles consisted of such uncertainties
and hesitancies.
There is real
possibility that when this argument is brought to the attention of our amended
brethren that they may believe the best way to redress it is to assert the
certainty of the principle and its application with renewed vigour and
emphasis. In other words, to show by the strength of their language that
they are not among those who hesitate. Such a show of fervour would be
commendable if the foundation were scripturally valid. I have also noted
that such shows of zeal for the principle are especially reserved for unamended
audiences, as if vehement proclamation of the principle itself would be
persuasive. Frankly, I have greater respect for those brethren who, like
Brother Roberts himself, are prepared to acknowledge their hesitancies in
application of the principle.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(6) The Absence of a Single Example
There is not one
instance in the Scriptures of the resurrection of an enlightened rejector being
recorded. There are no types in the Law or the prophets which teach the
principle. There are many types which teach the covenant principle of resurrection,
such as the deposition of Aaron's rod that budded within the ark of the
covenant, and the dry bones prophecy in Ezekiel 37, in which the whole house of
Israel took part.
Much has been
made of the historical cases of resurrection by apologists for the amendment
clause. These cases are often brought forward to show that resurrection
is not confined to those in covenant relationship, as if such exceptions negate
the principle. In the first place, we must hasten to point out, that the
cases of resurrection of children form no argument in favour of the amendment
clause, because in no case was knowledge of the revealed will of God a factor
in their resurrection. These cases [the widow's son of her old age in
Zarephath - 1 Kings 17:9-17; the Shunammite's only son - 2 Kings 4:16-37; the
widow of Nain's only son - Luke 7:11-17; the only daughter of Jairus, ruler of
the synagogue - Luke 8:41-42;49-56] have a number of features in common: they
concerned the only child of a believing parent or parents; they were
accomplished by the intercession of a mighty prophet of the Lord; they served
as an act of compassion for the sake of the bereaved, not an act of judgment on
the deceased. In at least one of the cases, a Gentile was involved, a
fact which was noted by the lord (Luke 4:26). The only inspired comment
made on these cases of resurrection occurs in Hebrews 11:35: Women received
their dead raised to life again. [In the original language, the noun anastasis
is used.] From this short comment we learn that faith was the operative
principle for these resurrections. Furthermore, the ones brought back to
mortal life obtained that benefit by reason of their relationship to their
mothers, and more specifically, on account of their mothers' faith. (The comment
in Hebrews does not specifically include the case of Jairus but the record is
clear that he also was a man of faith -- Matthew 9:18.) In each of these
cases of anastasis in its lesser meaning, the pattern and principles in
relation to its greater meaning were exhibited, at least in a typical
sense. The key to understanding them -- and not viewing them as
incidental, exceptional or arbitrary cases of resurrection -- is that faith was
the foundation principle, for Jew and Gentile, male and female.
One of the questions
that will arise in the minds of many thoughtful students of the Word is, If
there is so much evidence in the Scriptures against the amendment clause
principle, why is it widely believed and accepted? I do not doubt the
sincerity and intensity of the conviction for the amendment principle. I
also think it is possible to offer some reasons for its acceptance.
Many of our
brethren in the nineteenth century came from orthodox church backgrounds in
which they were conditioned to believe in hell fire as the eternal destiny of
the damned. Furthermore, many of the evangelical preachers of their day
used this threatening doctrine to fill their pews. This disposed our
brethren to accept a doctrine which allowed them, when preaching, to threaten
their unyielding hearers, not with eternal torment, but resurrectional
judgment. Brother Roberts spoke of this doctrine as a preaching
weapon. Some have gone further than he and arrogated to themselves the
power to raise a man from the dead, by their action in imparting the knowledge
of the gospel. Can we not understand why a Christadelphian preacher of
such persuasion will defend the doctrine and be reluctant to give it up, no
matter how compelling the evidence against it is? The answer of Scripture
is: The wrath of men worketh not the righteousness of God. [James 1:20]
Many brethren
embraced the amendment as a reaction to, and out of antipathy for, the
teachings and person o Brother J.J. Andrew. An object of the amendment
clause was to create a great distance from him and his fellowship. The
heat of such feelings did not create an environment for calm and careful
consideration of Scriptural teaching. Does this not explain why in North
America, removed as our ecclesias were from the epicentre of the storm, the
degree of acceptance of the amendment was much less than in the United
Kingdom? One hundred years later, the name of J.J. Andrew is still used
to incite prejudice rather than reason out of the Scriptures.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
(7) The
Absence of Application of the Principle in the Public Preaching of the Apostles
There is not one
instance in the Scriptures of which the writer is aware in which the apostles
warned either Jews or Gentiles of their resurrectional responsibility on
account of their hearing the gospel. Felix is sometimes brought forward
as such a case, but the reference makes no reference to resurrection.
Again, 1 Peter 4:1-5 is sometimes provided as evidence, but the testimonies
make no reference to a knowledge of the revealed will of God. If they
prove the amendment clause, they prove too much, as the same argument would
require universal resurrection.
One of the very
few places in the Old Testament that apologists for the amendment clause cite
as confirmation of the principle is Deuteronomy 18:18-19: I will raise them up
a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in
his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And
it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he
shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. The latter phrase is
sometimes interpreted to mean that when Christ came among men, the Most High
would require those who rejected him to give account at the judgment seat of
Christ. This part of the Law is quoted twice n the book of Acts, the
first time by the apostle Peter: For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A
prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto
me: him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And
it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall
be destroyed from among the people. [Acts 3:22-23] The way in which the
apostle Peter quotes this passage does not bear out the interpretation
that the amended apologists would place upon it. Rather than emphasizing
to the Jews that they would be required to give a post-resurrectional account,
he simply cited that part of the Law which indicated that they would be
destroyed. Should not our teaching conform to the doctrine of the
apostles?
This is
consistent with our Lord's teaching in the gospel of John. It has been my
experience that verses in the gospel of John are often quoted in support of the
amendment principle without giving sufficient consideration to the
context. One example is John 3:19: And this is the condemnation, that
light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because
their deeds were evil. This is one of the most common verses in the Bible
that is cited as proof that knowledge is the ground of resurrectional
responsibility. Is there not a vast difference between light, as a ground
of condemnation, and light as the ground of resurrectional responsibility?
Must condemnation necessarily require resurrection? The judgment
that came on all men to condemnation was death, not resurrection. [Romans
5:18] And what does "light" mean? How does a man
"come to the light," as our Lord described in the verses which
follow?
In the teaching
of the Lord, light is inseparably linked with life: In him was life: and the
life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the
darkness comprehended it not. [John 1:4-5] I am the light of the world:
he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life. [John 8;12] If light is linked with life, does it not follow that
darkness is linked with death? The people which sat in darkness saw great
light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung
up. [Matthew 4:16, citing Isaiah 9:2] What is the dividing line between
death and life, between darkness and light? Yet a little while is the
light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon
you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While
ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.
[John 12:35-36] The dividing line is believing in the light, that is,
faith; and once that faith has taken hold, abiding in the light, by showing
love to the brethren. [I John 2:9-10]
What is this
condemnation of which the Lord speaks in John 3:19? Is it not the same
condemnation to which reference was made in the preceding verse? He that
believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of
God. [John 3:18] This passage confirms that the dividing line is faith in
the Son of God, but it also shows that the condemnation is not
post-resurrectional, but prior: the language is, "condemned
already." By what is one who believes not "condemned already?"
Is it not by his relationship to Adam, and the condemnation which came
upon all men in consequence, of which the apostle speaks in Romans 5:18?
A second verse
from John's gospel that is similarly used is John 12:48. In order to
understand the meaning of this verse, it is essential to consider the context
in which it occurs. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth
him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever
believeth on me should not abide in darkness. [Note how this confirms the point
that believing in Christ is the dividing line between darkness and
light.] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not;
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [Note that the Lord
specifically teaches that he will not judge those who hear and do not
believe.] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day. [John 12:44-48] It is the latter verse that is the most common of
all on which the amendment clause argument rests. But it is necessary to
ask a number of questions. Is verse 48 restating the thought of verse 47,
or is it introducing a new thought? Is the man who hears and believes not
the same as the man who rejects him and receives not his words?
(Concerning the man who hears and believes not, did the apostle not write in
his epistle that he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he
believeth not the record that God gave of his Son? [John 5:10].) If it is
the same man, the Lord is very clear: I judge him not. If it is a
different man, in what lies the fine difference -- the one making God a liar by
not believing His record concerning His Son and the other rejecting and
receiving not Christ's words? Jesus did not say that he was going to
raise this rejector from the dead and hold him accountable at his judgment
seat. What he said was that the word that he hath spoken would judge him
at the last day. Note the tense of the verb carefully: something Jesus
had already said would judge him. Was that judgment not the overwhelming
message of the gospel of John, which is repeated again and again, that
believing in the Son of God is the dividing line between death and life?
Was Jesus not teaching, in contradistinction to himself as the personal Judge
for this class of enlightened unbeliever -- I judge him not -- that the agent
of judgment would be the word he had spoken? Might not this judgment be
pronounced in absentia as a witness to the fate of the rejector? This
concept is more clearly expressed by other translations. As for the
person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For
I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for
the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I
spoke will condemn him at the last day. [NIV] At least this much is
clear: the rejector is not going to give account before the Lord Jesus as his
Judge, as the amendment clause teaches.
Are there any
cases in the Scriptures of those who received not the words of life? One
case is provided by the Pharisees and lawyers, during the ministry of John the
Baptist: But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against
themselves, being not baptized of him. [Luke 7:30] Note how the Spirit
describes their rejection, as against themselves. By their obstinacy,
they cut themselves off from life.
An example that
more precisely fits the rejectors of whom the Lord spoke in John 12:48 is
provided by the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia. They heard the words of the
gospel preached in their synagogue but received them not. Their rejection
was marked for its vehemence: But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were
filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul,
contradicting and blaspheming. Notice how the apostle spoke to
them: It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken
to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of
everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. [Acts 13:46] The apostle
did not warn the rejectors of impending resurrectional judgment. He
informed them that they had rendered their own judgment on their destiny: they
judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life. I must say frankly that I
find it most unusual that, if the amendment clause principle is such a vital
truth of the gospel, it is not expressed in the Scriptures at such a time as
this. When these omissions of the principle in the record of apostolic
preaching are weighed, must one not ask, is this principle really so important
that for its sake it is necessary to rend asunder the body of Christ?
That is the position of those who use the Amended Statement of Faith.
Does this mean
that none of the Jews who opposed the Lord during the days of his flesh will be
raised from the dead for judgment? The Scriptures are very clear that
some of his contemporaries will witness the appointment of the Kingdom, with
themselves thrust out? When Jesus heard (about the faith of a Gentile
centurion), he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you,
I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you,
That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the
kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. [Matthew 8:10-12] Again, it is vital that we pay
attention to the context. These verses were not spoken by the Lord to
show that enlightened rejectors among the Jews would be condemned at his
judgment seat. They were spoken to show that the Gentiles, who took hold
of the faith of Abraham, would enter into the kingdom, while the Jews who
rejected it, would not. Why would these Jews from his day be witnesses of
the appointment of the Kingdom? They will be raised from the dead because
they were in covenant relationship; they were the children of the (Abrahamic)
covenant (Acts 3:25) and our Lord called them the children of the
kingdom. But they would not have their king to reign over them. [Luke
19:14,27] For this unfaithfulness to the covenant, they will be excluded
from the Kingdom.
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page
Those who take the
time to read this paper may not be influenced by all of the arguments
explaining each of the seven reservations. But taken together, do they
not present an overwhelming and formidable case against using the Amended
Statement of Faith as the basis for our fellowship? Above all things, is
it not evident that the case for the amendment clause depends on making razor
thin distinctions in meaning? For example, does it not require
understanding anastasis, when it is used in relation to Christ, to always arbitrarily
mean the complete process of immortalization? Does it not require
understanding John 12:47-48 to mean that the willful unbeliever is not judged
by Christ but the enlightened rejector will be raised to give account, as if
there is a difference of great consequence in the two positions? Let it
be clearly understood that those who have withdrawn and separated from us over
the amendment clause have done so on the strength of their confidence in their
interpretations of such Scriptures. Is such confidence well-placed and
according to reason?
There will be
some who are prepared to acknowledge the reasons advanced in this paper have
weight but who are not willing to act on their conscience to come to the same
conclusion. I appeal to the example of the apostle Paul and the way he
dealt with the issue in Antioch. He did not seek to rectify the
dissimulation of Peter and Barnabas by going over and joining them. Such
a step on his part would have brought a measure of unity with the Jews in the
ecclesia but at what cost to the name of Christ? The smokescreen, if I
can be blunt to call it that, under which we are supposed to set aside the
voices of our conscience is the paramount doctrine of unity. Why did this
doctrine not seduce the apostle Paul to join the powerful Jewish element in
Antioch? Is it not because it would have required him to betray his
Gentile brethren there and the principles of the truth for which Christ
died? I have things on my conscience to answer for at the judgment-seat
of Christ on which I depend on the Lord for mercy; but I do not wish to add to
them the responsibility for urging the assimilation of my brethren on a basis
of fellowship that is not worthy of the name of Christ, for the reasons I have provided.
It is the time
for us to think carefully about what is at stake if we participate in the
assimilation of our ecclesias within the Central fellowship. What is at
stake? Are not certain vital principles of the gospel that are uniquely
held and proclaimed in our ecclesias? Are not the words of the truth as
it is in Jesus at stake, when he said, I am the resurrection and the
life? Is not the justifying principle of the Abrahamic faith, that
proclaims the covenants of promise hold the title to our resurrection in
him? The fellowship of the Central ecclesias is not worthy to be compared
to such glorious truths. I am not prepared to bury these truths in a
napkin, ashamedly, in order to obtain the favour of amended brethren. For
whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man
be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of
the holy angels. [Luke 9:26] To accept the Birmingham Amended Statement
of Faith would require us to hide our beliefs and hold them to ourselves, as it
were, in secret. This would be pseudo-fellowship, not based on truth, but
politics; not based on the mind of Christ but the favour of men. I write
this not in bitterness, but, as it were, with tears.
There are those
who I view as wishful thinkers, who wish the amendment clause meant something
else, so that it could actually accommodate our understanding. There is
no escaping the original reason why this amendment was drawn up and the meaning
its framers attached to it. Has experience not taught us that if any of
our brethren assimilate within the amended on the pretext that the amendment
clause wishfully means something else and allows greater liberty, the pretext
will be forgotten within days of such assimilation being effected?
If there is ever
to be unity between the fellowships, I believe it will only be possible by
moving off of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Our goal should
be the recovery of our brethren in the Central Fellowship from a Statement of Faith
to which an ill-considered patch was added, without having thought through the
implications of what it meant. For myself, I do not insist that the only
alternative is the Unamended Statement of Faith. I expect it would be
possible to rewrite Article XXIV in their statement and Article XXV in ours in
a way that reflects the true principles of the Scriptures and leaves the
uncertainties out of the picture. This Christadelphian Statement of Faith
would avoid using a term not found in the Scriptures -- the responsible.
I have been told that such a step is impossible because it is unreasonable to
expect the worldwide fellowship of Central ecclesias to change their statement
of faith to accommodate a few Unamended brethren in North America. Why is
it unreasonable/ If we are dealing with true men, who act for
conscience's sake and not for political motives, why is it impossible?
The issue of numbers means nothing to me. If the amendment clause is
flawed -- and I do not see how it is possible to come to any other conclusion
-- must it not be corrected, regardless of the inconvenience and the tradition
surrounding its use? They that deal truly are the LORD's delight.
[Proverbs 12:22]
But short of
coming up with such a new basis for reconciliation, I believe the Unamended
Statement of Faith will continue to be a satisfactory basis for our
inter-ecclesial fellowship. It preserves the truth about the resurrection
as it is in Jesus. Jesus said unto Martha, I am the resurrection and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou
this? [John 11:25-26]
Back to Contents
Back to Browser’s
Page