The Christadelphian August 1938, John Carter

“Hinderances to Reconciliation”

We have received a copy of An Open Letter to the Christadelphian Reconciliation League issued by the Arranging Brethren of the Melbourne ecclesia. It is a temperately worded statement pointing out the true teaching of the scriptures on the reign of death. They quote the words of brother Roberts as giving the meaning of Paul’s words in Rom. 5 : 12: “that death came by a decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden; and was not inherent in him before sentence.” This doctrine is to be found in all the standard literature of the Truth, but is now being denied in a few places. This Open Letter deals with the denial in Australia as a barrier to reconciliation. A recent pamphlet is quoted in evidence; also a letter from the secretary of the Reconciliation League, which tells what happened at a session of the Biennial Conference held at Regent Hall, Sydney, at Easter, 1938. This letter says:—

“The next matter to be considered was Clause 5 of the (Birmingham) Statement of Faith. This was the scene of the trouble 34 years ago (when the Truth therein stated was denied by brother John Bell,—J.C.). Well, they altered it, and altered it by a unanimous vote. They brought it into conformity with the list of first principles put at the Newcastle Conference by the League. They altered the latter part of the clause, which says ‘which became a physical law of his being,’ and substituted the words ‘as a result of disobedience was sentenced to return to the dust.’ This may not be the exact wording, but it is substantially the same.”

If there is agreement on the teaching of Clause 5 why should it be altered? If there is not agreement then let us frankly say so, and not claim there is harmony in doctrine, and that conditions for reconciliation exist. As the Open Letter says: “Thus we are left without the grounds for reconciliation. Instead of false teaching being removed, the Statement of Faith is altered—in a way that leaves room for the false view.”

It may be contended that the change is to a scriptural form of words. But that is a disadvantage if the change allows fellowship of teaching which is based upon a wrong interpretation of the scripture. A statement in scripture words could be drawn up to which every sect which professes to be based upon belief of the Bible could assent. But would that produce agreement on the One Faith?

We have had criticism of recent articles in The Christadelphian from Australia, from brethren not in our fellowship. This again shows there is not agreement. One writer, who requires that views should always be given in the author’s own words, says:—

“I am one of those who believe that ‘the sentence of death imposed for sin’ is the second death, and that we die what is scripturally called ‘the common death of all men’ (Num. 16 : 29), because dissolution of being is a ‘law of our nature.’”

The effect of this view on the sacrifice of Christ may be seen from the further statement of the same writer:—

“It was in the resurrection of Christ that the declaration of God’s righteousness was declared. . . . Christ was saved from a death not inherited from Adam, but from one to which he was condemned by sinners. Christ was murdered. Sinners had accused him of wrong doing, and God justified Christ from the accusations of sinners, and, at the same time, disclosed that Christ was perfectly obedient in the judgment of God in his inner being as well.”

Readers of “The Diary to Australia” will recognise in this the same theory which was put forward by “one, Cornish,” and in reply to which brother Roberts drew up the series of propositions on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” which were reproduced in The Christadelphian of December last.

The Regent Hall ecclesia mentioned is in fellowship with the Suffolk Street ecclesias here. We personally approve the attitude of the Melbourne ecclesia and agree with them that by such teaching, and such changes in the Statement, “we are left without the grounds for reconciliation.”