The Christadelphian, June 1894, Robert Roberts

“The Responsibility Trouble in London”

Brother Owler, on behalf of those in association with brother Andrew, sends a communication in which he says:

“The doctrine which you designate as new has been held by many brethren for the past 30 years, and was set forth in the Declaration (prop. 31.) until altered in 1893. Our basis does not contain anything explicit about ‘the enlightened rebel’; the idea is imported into it, and the various sections, when taken in sequence and rightly combined, confine the resurrection to the judgment seat of Christ, to the faithful and unfaithful, the just and unjust of the household of faith.”

Remarks.—This is an illustration of the unsound reasoning by which the Scriptures themselves are forced into the service of error. We are responsible for the wording of the Declaration before and after 1893. We know exactly what it means, and on this point can therefore speak with authority. Brother Owler says it means (in the case of Proposition 31.) the doctrine now advocated at Barnsbury Hall. This is not true. The statement of the Proposition that Christ, at his appearing, will “summon before him for judgment, the whole of his professing household,” was directed against the contention of those who said that not the whole, but only a part (and that the faithful part) of the professing household, would come forth at the resurrection. The wording of the Proposition was intended to bar the door against those who denied the judgment by representing it as a mere distribution of prizes of different value. The parenthesis with which the Proposition concludes, shows this. The Proposition was never intended to exclude the resurrection of enlightened rebels, who form no part of the household. It related only to those who are mentioned in the Proposition—not to those who are not mentioned. As to the alteration in 1893 when it came to be used for the purpose of excluding the Scriptural rule of responsibility, it became necessary to make the slight verbal alteration appearing in the edition of 1893, by which it reads, “the whole of those who are responsible to his judgment.”

If anyone doubts the correctness of this explanation, and is of the opinion that the paragraph was intended to exclude the resurrection of enlightened rejectors, we have but to refer them to the whole current of Christadelphian literature for 30 years past (including brother Andrew’s own publications). There is scarcely a volume of the Christadelphian during all that time in which the doctrine of the resurrection of enlightened rejectors is not pointedly recognised as the teaching of revelation. Let a single volume suffice. In vol. 1870, page 3 (the very first one we search), Dr. Thomas, in his letter to the Rock, defining the teaching of the Christadelphians, says, in par. 14, “They teach that it is knowledge that makes responsible, so that man that is in honour and understandeth not is as the beasts that perish.” In the same volume, page 120, in answering a question, we ourselves speak thus: “The words quoted from John 12., on which the foregoing questions hinge, prove the resurrection of a class who are neither the faithful nor unfaithful servants of Chrst, but the simple rejectors of his word, and who are therefore appropriately styled by our correspondent a third class.” It would be possible to quote much in the same strain, but one quotation is as strong as twenty. It is a sufficient rejoinder to brother Owler to say that the doctrine of the non-resurrection of enlightened rejectors was not “set forth in the Declaration until altered in 1893,” and that his deduction to the contrary from the Declaration recognising the presence of “the whole professing household,” is on a par with the argument that extracts a similar conclusion from the command in Psalm 1., to “gather my saints together unto me.” We must suppose that brother Owler honestly imagines that his impression is correct, but it is not so satisfactory to hear him say, “Our basis does not contain anything explicit about the enlightened rebel: the idea is imported into it.” What the basis says is this: “Resurrection affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will—that all these, just or unjust, faithful or unfaithful, will be raised from the dead,” &c. This is an “explicit” recognition of the knowledge of the revealed will of God as the ground of human responsibility. It was intended to mean this, as brother Andrew plainly teaches, in Jesus Christ and him crucified. It is now denied that men are made “responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will.” It is now denied that men who know his revealed will and refuse to submit to it will be raised from the dead, unless they have been baptised. It is of course possible for honest men to change their minds, but it is not nice when they try to make it appear that they have not changed their minds, and that others have done so who have been of the same mind for 40 years.

The rest of the communication relates to details of the heated meeting, at which a confused vote was taken on the proposal to re-affirm the doctrine avowed in the basis. As these are unimportant, and would only lead to rejoinder on the part of those who might wish to give a different version, we think it best to withhold them.—Editor.

Brother Guest requests the publication of a circular which has been issued by twelve brethren and sisters who dissent from the position taken by the official brethren of the Gresham Hall ecclesia. So much of it as is of merely local application may be omitted without detriment. The principal feature of the circular is the endeavour to show that disbelief in the resurrectional responsibility of enlightened rejectors is not incompatible with the printed basis of the ecclesia. This endeavour takes the following form:—“Section 19 excludes the ‘resurrection of heathen,’ a term applicable to all out of Christ, and section 9 states that Christ was ‘raised from the dead in consequence of his perfect obedience,’ and that thereby ‘a way was opened from the grave for all who avail themselves of his covering name in the appointed way.’ The unbaptised do not ‘avail themselves of Christ’s covering name,’ and therefore no ‘way from the grave’ has been ‘opened’ for them, either to reward or punishment. This is our belief.”

Remarks.—The fallacy here arises from a wrong understanding of terms. “Heathen” was never used to mean the knowing rejectors of the truth, but only the utterly benighted of mankind who having no understanding are, as the Scriptures declare, “as the beasts that perish.” “Heathen” was not used by those who wrote the “basis” to mean “all out of Christ,” but the class popularly expressed by that term. Many are out of Christ who were once in Christ, as Christ recognises in saying, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth,” &c. (Jno. 15:6.) Even those who deny the resurrectional responsibility of knowing rejectors must admit its applicability to men who abide not in Christ, and, therefore go out of Christ. Yet if the above paragraph were correct, they would be compelled to regard such as “heathen” and excluded from resurrection.

The next fallacy turns upon the unnatural construction put upon the phrase “a way opened from the grave.” By this was meant a way into life eternal. It was never intended to mean a way back to mortal life. A man can come back to mortal life without a “way” being opened. This has been shown repeatedly in the history of mankind. Men do not require a way “opening” into mortal life, for they are in that way already. Reviving for another spell of mortal life is not coming out of that way. What they require is a way opening into immortality. This is the way that has been opened by Christ, which is a way to reward only, and not punishment at all. Men do not require a way opening to punishment, for they are “worthy of” that by nature. To say, then, that as “the unbaptised do not avail themselves of Christ’s covering name, which has been given for salvation, no way has been opened for their punishment,” is to state the argument in terms that allow of its absurdity to appear.

It would be far better to allow frankly that the basis does affirm that knowledge, and not partial obedience is the ground of resurrectional responsibility. If some did not understand that this was in the basis or if they have changed their minds, let them say so, and not try to make out the basis to be on their side. We are happy to think that those who have changed their mind are few in number, considering the efforts put forth. The large majority in London, a majority amounting to four-fifths, if our information be correct, adhere to the truth professed from the beginning: not that majorities have anything to do with the question of what is the truth of God. But it is some comfort to see the truth make some stand in the midst of the terrible odds arrayed against it in the present benighted-state of British society.—Editor.

The circular makes a further effort in this form:—

“During the past few months, many statements seriously affecting the first principles of the truth hitherto held by us have been made to support wrong teaching on this subject, some of them being equivalent to affirming that we do not pass out of Adam into Christ at baptism: that the disobedience of Adam is not imputed to his descendants, and that a sacrificial death is not necessary to cleanse them from it. . . .”

“The Bible teaches that ‘by one man’s disobedience’ all men are ‘made sinners’ at birth (Rom. 5:19; Eph. 2:3); that when believers are baptised into Christ they are ‘made righteous’; that they are ‘justified’ (Rom. 5:1) from the ‘condemnation’ under which they were born (verse 18), and ‘receive forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 26:18); and that consequently death cannot ‘reign’ over them for their own previous sins or for Adam’s disobedience. Brethren who say that they are not freed at baptism from condemnation for Adam’s disobedience are depriving Christ of a part of his work as a Redeemer, and in so doing they are partially ‘denying the Lord that bought them’ (1 Pet. 2:1).”

Remarks.—We are of course unaware of all the statements that have been made in the controversy originated by brother Andrew’s new contention (for it is certainly new with him). But so far as those we are acquainted with are concerned, we cannot recognise the truth of the allegation of the opening sentence of the foregoing extract. It seems to us just the other way round; that the statements seriously affecting first principles have been made by those who are opposing the responsibility of enlightened rejectors. We refer to our pamphlet for illustration. That we do not pass entirely out of Adam into Christ at baptism is a self-evident fact when two things are realised: our physical connection with Adam: the physical nature of Christ. The Christ we are baptised unto is a glorified Christ: baptism does not give us his glory, yet will lead to our getting it. The nature we have received from Adam is a mortal nature: baptism does not deliver us from this nature, yet it will lead to our being delivered. These are themselves “first principles” and not statements “seriously affecting first principles.”

As to the charge of believing “that the disobedience of Adam is not imputed to his descendants,” we own to it. To believe anything else would be to prove Christ a sinner, for he was one of those descendants. And it would be to contradict what God has declared as a principle regulating His procedure towards men, that “The soul that sinneth, it shall die . . . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Ezek. 18:4; Deut. 24:16). Adam sinned and was sentenced to death: and we inherit the nature on which that sentence took effect. But this is a different thing from God imputing Adam’s sin to us. It is testified that “God will not do iniquity.” He strongly appeals to Israel on this point all through Ezekiel 18. What should we think of holding a man guilty of an offence he had never committed? The consequences of another man’s sin may come upon him—such as where the son of a spendthrift, who has wasted an estate, is born into a state of poverty: but who would dream of “imputing” the spendthriftness of the father to the son? “By one man’s disobedience many have (truly) been made sinners”—not “at birth,” as the circular says, and which the Scriptures never say. They become sinners when they are capable of responsible action, and this being the result of the “nature” they have received from Adam, is traceable to “one man’s disobedience.” But this is a different thing from holding them to be sinners before they have sinned, and especially for a sin they never sinned—even Adam’s sin—which Paul expressly recognizes they are not guilty of (of course) in saying, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” (Rom. 5:14). The idea of imputing the sin of Adam to helpless babes is one of the old monstrosities of Papalised theology, from which we have become emancipated. We are not going back to that suffocating smoke.

As to believers just baptised into Christ, it is not these to whom Paul refers when he says, “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” He is referring to the completed upshot of Christ’s work, of course: for the circular-writer must allow that many are baptised who are unrighteous, and remain unrighteous, like Simon Magus, to whom Peter said, after Simon’s baptism, that he was still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity (Acts 8:21–3), and had neither part nor lot in the way of life. The many who are “made righteous” are those who are chosen at the last; and they are made so by a double process: first, their sins are forgiven and, second, they are so influenced by the truth as to put away all unrighteousness and become the servants of righteousness, bringing forth fruit unto holiness in walking in the righteous ways of the Lord. All this is the result of “one man’s obedience”; for the operative power at all stages is the work of Christ. It is “for Christ’s sake” (the obedient) that they are forgiven. It is by the love of Christ constraining them that they obey His commandments and thus become righteous. It is not the result of a mechanical imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as the sects teach. God does not impute the righteousness of Christ to other men in the artificial way taught by modern theology. He imputes righteousness by reason of their faith, that is, “their faith is counted for righteousness,” as in the case of Abraham, and He ceases to impute their sins to them. But as for the righteousness of Christ, that is the righteousness of Christ and nobody else’s. By reason of it we are forgiven and invited to earn a joint inheritance with him by doing righteousness in the obedience of His commandments. This is the testimony and common sense. “Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as He is righteous: he that committeth sin is of the devil” (1 Jno. 3:7). “The unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” “If ye walk after the flesh, ye shall die.”

These simple and glorious truths are becoming obscured by the unskilful use of words and phrases which though found in Paul’s epistles are capable of being wrested hurtfully from their meaning as Peter testifies (2 Peter 3:16).

The circular points out that “the ecclesia has not hitherto made this a test of fellowship.” This is true; and if it is now becoming such, it is not because of any changed attitude on the part of those who believed, but because some who believed it are now repudiating it, and inviting the brethren by a determined endeavour (by pamphlet and otherwise) to depart from it; and, not only so, but are declaring the maintenance of the truth in the case to be a work of error, and “a serious interference with first principles, &c.” Perhaps we have been wrong in winking at the denial of a truth that has always been recognised as a part of the Gospel from the beginning; and it may be that God in His providence is forcing us into a more prominent assertion of the fact that He will not be mocked by any of the sons of men to whom the knowledge of His sovereign will is allowed to come; but that He will require it at their hands in the great day of His wrath. We were invited ten years ago to unite in the attitude now being taken by the London brethren, on the occasion of an Australian ecclesia having withdrawn from some on this very subject. Our answer, which appears in the Christadelphian for April, 1884, page 190, was as follows:—“It seems a pity to make the fate of the rejected a cause of rupture where first principles are not compromised. It is the glad tidings of salvation . . . . that is the basis of union in Christ, and not the details as to how the disobedient are to be dealt with, so long as it is recognised that death is the upshot of disobedience. Granted that responsibility should be preached, but it is a point on which there should be patience with those who do not see the full extent of the responsibility. No one can say where, among the rejectors of the word, responsibility exists. We can only recognise the general and reasonable principle that light, when seen, makes responsible.” The Sydney brethren answered “The discussion had lasted three months. A continuation of the proceedings would have been destructive of the unity and peace that ought to prevail in every ecclesia: hence the action, which proceeded from no animus but from a simple desire for a Scriptural state of things and to maintain the wholesome rule of responsibility laid down by the Lord, that light having come into the world, if men knowingly refuse subjection they come under its condemnation.”

The question has now been raised in a way that defies accommodation. We kept back brother Andrew’s name till he himself published it to the world. Having done all we could to keep the controversy at bay, we can but sorrowfully accept the situation created, believing at the same time that the hand of God may be in it in compelling the assertion and proclamation of the whole truth—concerning the day of His anger as well as the day of His favour.—Editor.