The Christadelphian November 1958, John Carter

Words and Meanings

In the magazine The Old Paths bro. Snelling takes up the defence of bro. Barnard’s teaching and tries to support it by a series of quotations. It is largely a playing with words in a mechanical sort of way without regard to the meanings. Bro. Roberts used the term “racial condemnation” of the inherited mortality which all Adam’s descendants share: otherwise we have the monstrous doctrine that we are condemned for something in which we had no part and could therefore share neither guilt nor blame. So with the phrase “racial alienation” which was only used once by bro. Roberts, so far as we remember. The context shows that he meant all have become alienated because of our sins—our sinfulness being part of our inheritance as members of Adam’s race. It is significant that the quotations used are from literature published by the Christadelphian office. We could ourselves quote every citation made as defining our own position: it would appear, however, that words do not mean the same to every reader. Some quotations are manifestly misused. Cannot brethren see the difference between “two aspects of sin” as the phrase is being used in this controversy and the word “‘sin’ used in two senses”, that is, literally and metonymically? There are as many aspects of sin as there are kinds of sin; all the works of the flesh are aspects of sin. But the word “sin” is used in two senses in the Scriptures. Some words are used in more than two senses, as for example the words “law”, “death” and “life”. What Dr. Thomas said and said rightly, was that “the word sin is used in two principal acceptations (that is, in two senses) in the Scriptures”. There is a world of difference between two aspects of a thing, and two senses of a word. In this connection it is interesting to note that the very idea bro. Snelling is defending was repudiated in the Reunion discussions. In the letter of 24th January, 1956, addressed to the Suffolk Street Committee by the Central Committee, it was required that “those doctrines are not being countenanced which led to the denial of the resurrectional responsibility of enlightened rejecters, and which were the primary cause of our separation from certain ecclesias during the period 1894 to 1900.” Although bro. Snelling was not a signatory of this letter, he had been a party to the discussions. It is a strange irony of the controversy that bro. Snelling has left us because he thinks there is toleration of error on resurrectional responsibility, while he is endorsing the doctrines which were the logical basis upon which resurrectional responsibility was denied sixty years ago. It is possible in anxiety about gnats to swallow camels.

The Statement of Faith

Much has been made about accepting the Statement of Faith without reservation. But the Statement of Faith can be given the authority that belongs to the Scriptures. Bro. Snelling has printed that he “asked the Editor what parts of the B.A.S.F. were controverted by bro. Barnard” and that he received “an evasive reply”. This is unworthy of bro. Snelling. What we said was: “You seem to think that the B.A.S.F. has the authority of Scripture. Bro. Barnard reproduces the errors of J. J. Andrew . . . if the line had been taken then (that is, in the 1890s) that his views did not contravene the B.A.S.F. they would not have been rebutted. There can be errors which are not included in the B.A.S.F. but which vitally affect the truth.”

It will be seen that we base our case on the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. Bro. Snelling’s comment does raise the issue of what is the final basis of authority. The Statement of Faith is a worthy effort to define what we believe the Scriptures teach. It necessarily reflects the emphases of the time when it was compiled. It could not anticipate errors that might arise. A statement drawn up in the first century would define the unity of God and the sonship of Jesus but could not deal with the intricacies of the Trinitarian controversies. This fact is illustrated in the credal Statements of Christianity. The so called Apostles’ Creed could be accepted by us (one phrase about the descent into hell would be tautological in our view, but that phrase is a later addition). Contrast the Apostles’ Creed with the Nicene and the “Athanasian”. Suppose the latter had been formulated in the first century as a doctrine to be rejected, it would have been meaningless to practically all at that time, since the controversies which led to the formation of those Creeds had not arisen. In the same way an error could arise not foreseen when the B.A.S.F. was formulated. Are we thus to be restricted in our contentions for the faith to the definitions of the Statement of Faith, and allow error on the ground that a man claims that his teaching does not deny the Statement of Faith; or do we attribute a foreknowledge to those who formulated it concerning every possible error? Or is the authority for our faith the inspired Word of God? The Statement of Faith is a necessary definition of our Faith, but behind it is the divine Scripture as the ultimate seat of authority in matters of doctrine and of morals.

A U.S.A. Circular

We have received an eight-page circular from California (published by a brother who is “standing aside” almost alone), with the request to comment upon it, and these remarks are made to meet that request. The circular is entitled “The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith: Can it Long Survive?” It rightly points out the necessity for a Statement of Faith to define our position as opposed to the sects of Christendom. We need not add to what has been said above on this matter. Neither need we labour that it is important that we hold fast to the truths set out in the Statement to preserve unity of mind among us. The page of print that is devoted to a comment by bro. Reynolds made at the Pacific Coast Bible School is sufficiently met by a letter on another page from bro. Reynolds which he has asked us to publish. In fairness to bro. Reynolds, while his choice of words was provocative, not all who heard him misunderstood the point he was making. The words quoted have a context. But a protest must be made at the reckless assertion of the circular that there has been a retreat from the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. This is simply not the case. The proof that it is not true consists in the fact that not only at the Jersey City Conference, whose decisions the circular-writer approved, was the B.A.S.F. defined as a true exposition of the oracles of God, to be believed by us, but in the Final Statement in Britain, and in the Statement for Reunion in Australia, the same affirmation was made. In each case such a statement was made the leading clause in the basis set out for reunion. It is important that this position be maintained, to use affirmatively the words which in the circular are cast in the form of a question. While it is true that three statements were drawn up in Great Britain, the reasons given in the circular are a caricature of the real facts: and to assert that a “lengthy qualifying reservation published in the letters accompanying the Final Statement of some in the Suffolk Street ecclesias completely nullified the teaching of Clause 24” is not correct. It is a railing accusation to say that “by this qualifying clause it brought into Central fellowship many Suffolk-Advocate members who never accepted the Final Statement, and who even repudiated the B.A.S.F. itself”.

The circular repeats the charges of the erstwhile “Central” ecclesias in Australia which withdrew from Central fellowship eighteen months ago, that the Shield brethren condoned errors. The stubborn fact is that some in these ecclesias were themselves identified with views which in our judgment are errors, and they sought to impose these views as the correct interpretation of the B.A.S.F. For ourselves we repudiate this interpretation, and many things that have been said in Australia about the B.A.S.F. were really directed at the interpretation which it was sought to impose upon the B.A.S.F. We have met some of the brethren reputed to have made the statements referred to as evidence: we have met the brethren who make the charges, and we can speak from first hand enquiry. What has been called the “Carter-Cooper addendum” is found fault with because it does not find a place for the interpretations which appear to be common to the writer of this Californian circular and to Australian critics of the Addendum. For ourselves we are not agreeable to the imposition of these interpretations, which are discussed in the August Christadelphian, pages 372–376—a discussion dismissed by the writer of the circular as “13 columns to deal with a very profound theological argument”. Is this because those 13 columns deal with views to which he himself leans? The arguments we opposed are not by any means new. On page 515 we give a series of quotations from bro. Roberts which are a constructive contribution to understanding the Scriptures on these issues.

Why has the writer of the circular so tender a spot for this “one Australian brother” while at the same time being ready to accept as “an admitted fact” the charge that “hundreds reject fundamental doctrines”? After much enquiry on the spot we deny this charge to be an “admitted fact” or even a fact at all. These and other random charges in the circular get us nowhere, and are no credit to those who make them.