is there agreemen;- in christadelphia? … ii...is there agreemen;- in christadelphia? • ......

THE

Is There Agreemen;- in Christadelphia?

•

Unamended

1. Nature of man: Adam disobeyed G ::>d, was guilty and was sentenced to death. He fe ll from a very good state to a mortal state and the sin tendency became a part of h .;s bting. All men descend from Adam and inherit from him a mortal nature, the federal sentence ofdeath and the proclivity to sin, without any personal guilt at birth. Man is alienated from God primarily by legal condemnation and secondarily by personal transgression.

2. Nature and sacrifice of Christ: The sentence ofdeath was upon Christ as it was all other men and he needed atonement the same as other men. By living a life of perfect obedience coupled with the shedding of his blood in sacrificial death, he met God' s requirements and delivered himself from the hold of death and provided a way for others to benefit from his sacrifice.

3. Baptism: Baptism removes inherited condemnation as well as personal sins committed before baptism. At baptism one legally passes out of Adam and the attendant sentence to eternal death and passes into Christ as his only federal head. Future judgment which inures at baptism will be' based solely on obedience to the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

4. Resurrectional responsibility: The act which relates or entitles one to resurrection is baptism at which time one enters the Everlasting Covenant-the Goddevised instrument providing resurrection. Resurrection means "a standing again in renewed corporeal existence" as a mortal being. Jesus- meaning covenant affilia tion with him (not the personal power ofJesus)is THE resurrection as well as the life. Christ's sacrifice ratified the Everlasting Covenant. The shedding of his blood was required in order for him to be resurrectedhe was the first beneficiary. Though there have been restorations to life in the past, these are not the resurrection at the last day-that includes only just and unjust saints-and there is no evidence in Scripture that any others will be raised before, when, or after Christ returns.

Amended

1. Nature of man: The disobedience of Adam affected him in separating him from God's favor and condemning him personally to death. His descendants inherit a condition of mortality and a proneness to sin from him, but no legal condemnation. Personal transgressions rather than legal condemnation alienate a person from God.

2. Nature and sacrifice ofChrist: There was no alienation of Christ from God. His sacrifice was a matter of obedience and since he was without personal sin he needed no atonement or covering for sin. His sacrifice made redemption possible for others, but he could have been redeemed by God without shedding his blood.

3. Baptism: Baptism is for the removal of personal sins. No inherited alienation or law of sin and death is removed. One is still in Adam after baptism as well as being in Christ, not putting off Adam until passing the judgment seat ofChrist. Baptism is not the means of-acquiring title to resurrection.

4. Resurrectional responsibility: The act which relates one to resurrection is knowledge or enlightenment which necessarily precedes baptism. The act of baptism has no resurrection-relating efficacy. The entering into the Everlasting Covenant does not link one to resurrection. Since it not determinable who has sufficient knowledge to qualify for resurrection, it is unknown who will be ultimately raised. The use of resurrection in Scripture refers to the complete process of coming forth from the dead and receiving immortality. The shedding of Christ's blood was not required fur his own resurrection or for others. Since enlightenment is the basis for resurrection, there will be universal resurrection at the end of the millenium for those dying during the millenium.

SANCTUARY-KEEPER

1 A MAGAZlNE

FOR THE EXPOSITION AND DEFENSE

OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

A.D. 1988 March A.M. 5991

o The Need for Apocalyptic Truth-Part III ........... 145 o The Fires of CFU Still Burning...................... 148 o Important Things .................................. 150 o Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew .................. 1561 o The Heavenlies in Christ .......... , ................ 167 o Editorial Flyleaf ................................... 168 o The Sign of the Beast .............................. 168

w

-

---

THE SANCTUARY-KEEPER is published monthly for $6.00 per year ($8.00 Canada and overseas, in U. S funds) by Christadelphian Publications, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A., 23225. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Christadelphian Publications, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia 23225. Subscriptions, correspondence and material submitted for publication should be sent to the editor and publisher, James S. Stanton, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia 23225.

To order back copies of THE SANCTUARY-KEEPER write to Richard Pursell, P.O. Box 504, Heber Springs, AR 72543. These are offset reproductions with minor imperfections, soft cover, eight separate booklets, 830 total pages. $20 for the eight volumes (1894-1902).

"The KING OF THEJEWS will first manifest his presence, not to the world at large; which will not know ofhis being there, or, if told the fact, would not believe it; but to THOSE WHOM THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT BRINGS before his tribunal."

JOHN THOMAS, Eureka, Vol IIIB, p. 189

The reader will remember that before the Judgment Seat of Christ in the wilderness ofTernan, there were TWO CLASSES ofsaints in Christ Jesus constitutionally ... The constitution and destiny of these TWO CLASSES, though originally built upon the same foundation, is widely divergent ... The judicial inspection of his household, having separated the refuse and the vile from those "accounted worthy to obtain of the aion, and the resurrection;" the rejected, virtue of the sentence pronounced upon them by Christ, saying, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the aionian fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels," forthwith enter upon their journey to the place of exile or torment; or, in the words ofJesus, "they go away into aionian punishment;" while the righteous, by their being quickened, enter into aionian life.

JOHN THOMAS, Eureka, VoL IIIB, p. 256

:::: "Men were not ushered into being for the purpose of being saved :.:. :::: oriost. God manifestation, not human salvation, was the great purpose :~:: ~:~: of the Eternal Spirit. The salvation of a multitude is incidental to the :::: :::: manifestation, but was not the end proposed. The Eternal Spirit in- ~:~: :~:~ tended to enthrone himself on earth, and in so doing, to develop a;:;: :::: divine family from among men, everyone of whom shall be Spirit, ::;: ~:~: because born of the Spirit, and that this family shall be large enough to { :::: fill the earth, when perfected, to the entire exclusion of flesh and :;:: :~:~ blood" (cf. I Cor. 15:28). ~:~: :::: JOHN THOMAS, Herald ofthe Kingdom, 1858 ::;:

;?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::;:::;:::;:::::~:~:;:::::::;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)~~

That at the appearing ofChrist prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible [his servants, 1877 edition], faithful and unfaithful, dead and living ofboth classes, will be summoned before his judgment seat" to be judged according to their works;" "and receive in !-1ody according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad."

- UNAMENDED STATEMENT OF FAITH

That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of Kingdom, 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 the judgment seat to be judged according to their works; and receive in body according to what they have done, whether good or bad.

-AMENDED STATEMENT OF FAITH

In"'\ In Adam Christ)

//

Federal Relationship Federal Relationship Unamended Teaching Amended Teaching EITHER in Adam OR in Christ In Adam WHilE in Christ

Orthodox Christendom With Supporting Theories

Teaching of the Amended With Supporting Theories

TrIc S" ""-. f A MAGAZINE FOR THE EXPOSITION AND

DEFENSE OF THE HOLY

VOLUME 11 1988

The Need for Apocalyptic Truth Interpretations Reviewed The Continuous Historical Interpretation

As in Eureka, John Thomas; also Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse, Robert Roberts; and Apocalypse and Hi.rtory, Boulton and Barker.

BROTHER Thomas interprets the Revelation as a forecast of history from the time ofJohn to the full establishment of the under Christ. the book a dear and understandabl e structure. As the

centuries pass, the activities that make up are to be groups of divine judgments in various parts of Europe and the Middle East The Lamb undoes the seven seals on the six Seal followed by the seventh Seal, within which are found seven judgments. The seventh Trumpet is subdivided into seven final Vials of the wrath of God to be out. Additionally, the conflict between God's the Holy City and the Two Witnesses--and the apostasy, is described as a of wild beasts. The coming of Christ is a Lamb on Mount who is declared to be the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

The way in which the symbols shown describe Iy becomes is The fit between the ~¥" .. ',rI~~ assurance that this is the correct correspondence between the and the onln",,,," exposition, but it will be found that this no gaps; it is able to interpret all th(~ very extensive detail of the book. This cannot be said of the other interpretations.

146 The Sanctuary-Keeper

The Futurist Interpretation As in Apocalypse for Everyman, by A. D. Norris.

3/88

The word "futurist" means that the book is largely concerned with events still in the future. InA. D. Norris's presentation, chapter 4 is a vision of heaven itself; chapter:; isJesus arriving in heaven; and the first four Seals of chapter 6, horsemen going forth, cover the general character of history fromJohn'sdayto ours. From the 5th Seal all is in the future. This means that under 5% of what follows from the opening of the scroll belongs to the past; 95% is in the future. The 6th and 7th Seals, the Trumpets, the are all in the future. They describe waves of judgments still to happen. The proposed interpretation of these many judgments cannot be of much importance to us, because it is necessarily speculative and cannot be tested. Nor does it have a background of past judgments that have occurred, to us as to the nature of future judgments, as is the case with the future part of the continuous historical interpretation.

The peculiar nature of A. D. Norris's interpretation is expressed in the accompanying diagram. The diagram highlights a basic element of his interpretation that is hard to receive. It is, that God should leave our brethren over the past 18 cewnturies in darkness with no prophetic light to illuminate their path and encourage them in their patient waiting. This is out of harmony with the example of all previous ages. And it is out of harmony with God's promise: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). Further, this futurist interpretation results in crowding what seems an unreasonable number of prophetic items into a short space of time in the future, much of it into only 3 ~ years, just before we are called to theJudgment Seat. There are over 200 prophetic items to be fulfilled in this short space of time; and yet no prophetic guidance for the previous centuries!

The Preterist Interpretation As in The Revelation: A Biblical Approach, by Harry Whittaker.

Harry Whittaker looks in the opposite direction to A. D. Norris. The Seals and the Trumpets were fulfilled in the first century, though some items have a triple fulfillment:

i) A.D. 70 to the fall of Jerusalem it) The "continuous-historic" application (Eureka)

iii) The last days and the coming of the Lord.

The Vials belong to the future. The other characteristic of this exposition is that the symbols are applied almost entirely to the nation of Israel. The Seals and the Trumpets were judgments on the land and people in the final A.D. 70 epoch. Thus the great mountain burning with fire cast into the sea in the second Trumpet was aJewish fleet encountering Roman ships on the Sea of Galilee; the great star burning like a lamp that fell on the third part

3/88 The Need for Apocalyptic Truth 147

of the rivers and fountains of waters is associated with Halley's comet. As to the future, the Beast out of the abyss is identified with Russia. "All present indications are that the political power of the Church of Rome is as good as finished. Fantasies about union between Rome and Communism are ventilated from time to time, but lack even a of Biblical support, and politically they do the world of reality. The identification of the Beast with the great power of Russia has much to commend it" (page 1 This drives the author to identify the Harlot of 17 and modern Israel. Like [jV'''',U,'Vl/,'~

word for the brethren

It is vital to the concept of this that the Revelation was given toJohn before the A.D. 70 Evidence does not support this. The evidence of the early Fathers points to the under Domitian near the end of the century for the timeJohn received the vision. Furthermore, if the strange symbols of the Seals and had been fulfilled around A.D. 70, there surely would have been reference to them in the writings of Polycarp, Ireneus and others since was acquainted with John.

The Origin of the Past and Futurist Interpretations One is not to suppose that interpretations of the Revelation either as

largely fulfilled in the first century, or largely still future, are new. Both these ideas were propagated by the Roman Catholic Church to counter the Protestant charge at the Reformation and after, that the Roman Church and her dvil supporters is intended in the symbol of the Harlot on the Beast. Alcazar, a Spanish]esuit, started the idea of a first century fulfillment involving the Jewish nation; Ribera, another his futurist theory in 1580. But it was the writings of a cunning Jesuit, writing under the false name of "Rabbi Ben Ezra," that turned the Protestants and Nonconformists away from the historical interpretation in the 19 th century. So the futurist ideas were popular in Brother Thomas's time. Elliott, who published his Horae Apocalypticae in 1844, some five years before Elpis Israel was published, wrote at the beginning of his exposition, "When first I began to give attention to the subject, some twenty years ago, it was the increasing prevalence among Christian men in our country of the futurist system of Apocalyptic interpretation,-a system which involved the abandonment of the opinion held by all the chief fathers and doctors of our Church respecting the Roman Popes and Popedom as the great in tended anti- christian Power of Scripture prophecy, that suggested to me the and indeed the necessity, of a more thoroughly careful of the whole subject than had been made previously." So the brethren of the last century were not unacquainted with the futurist ,nj'prnr.,r"t,

Quoted entirely from THE REVELATION- WHICHINTERPRETA TION? Pages 12-14

148 The Sanctuary-Keeper 3/88

The Fires of CFU Still Burning

WE HAVE two notices which we reproduce below to show, probably in miniature, that the Pseudo-Unamended are still at work promoting the aims of the CFU-oriented Christadelphians. One of the

Baptist churches in Richmond has as its name, the Open Door Baptist Church, and this appropriately fits this group which we are going to refer to as the Open Door Christadelphian Church. The Virginia Peninsula Open Door Christadelphian Church sent out a notice of a study weekend in which their invited guest speaker is George Booker from the Amended. Then there is an announcement in a Cleveland-area newspaper that a speaker from the Bloomington, Illinois Open Door Christadelphian Church is still courting the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. We know the cry, "we are trying to teach them the Truth," will be thrown up, but this is only further evidence that the efforts started and still continued by Operation Onesimus, Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg Conference, the Family Living Seminars, Counseling Programs, and several ecclesias who are totally and irrevocably indoctrinated with these church pursuits, still look at their religion through different eyes than mainstream Unamended Christadelphians. When are we going to take action and disassociate ourselves from such? It seems to me that to shake our heads and put up with such departures from sound doctrine is not going to help the community as a whole.

I hope that my publishing Sister Winchell's letter will not meet with her disapproval She was a former member of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith in the Cleveland area, and she knows full well what they believe. As she rightly says, Let them learn the Truth and be baptized into the Christadelphian faith if they are after saving truth.

The announcements follow; I would not have put these in print before their occurring dates for fear that it might be construed as recommending support. The clipping from the Cleveland-area paper is photographically reproduced rather than being typeset.

January 4, 1988 Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Greetings in our Master's name.

The Virginia Peninsula ecclesia would like to invite you to a study weekend to be held, Lord willing, on Saturday and Sunday, Feb. 27-28 at the Governor Spottswood Motel in Williamsburg. Bro. George Booker from Austin, TX will conduct the weekend's study and discussion. The subject and schedule will be:

"Paul's Last Will and Testament" (2 Timothy)

3/88 The Fires of CF U Still Burning 149

Saturday A.M. (9:30 A.M.) 1. "Stir up the of God" (2 Timothy 1) II. "Be strong in grace that is in Christ Jesus" 2) Saturday P.M. III. "In the last times" 3) IV. "I am now ready to be offered" (ch. 4) Sunday (10 A.M.) S.S. "The Parables of Peanuts" (cartoons with Bible messages) Worship service-,"Profiles of a Missionary Ecclesia" (Based on

Paul's letter to the

Bring your Bible, concordance and a willingness to both discuss and be instructed from God's Word. If planning to attend please notify as soon as possible:

Bro. John Laben c/ 0 Governor Spottswood Motel 1508 Richmond Rd. Williamsburg, VA 23185

We look forward to sharing this weekend with you.

Dear Bro. Jim:

Your Brothers and Sisters of the Virginia Peninsula Ecclesia

34251 Ridge Road, #407 Willoughby, Ohio 44094 January 18,1988

Thank you for calling me tonight. I have wanted to write to tell you how much I enjoy THE SANCTUARY·KEEPER I do not like the trouble that is in the household. When I saw that notice in the "N ews-Herald" paper Saturday Uan.16, 1988] about theJanuary 23rd study day, I just could not believe what I saw.

What an underhanded trick to meet with the very people that have been the cause of so much trouble for us.

When I lived at Breakenridge, I asked Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Bertha Ross [presumably CGAF members] to come and talk with me. If they were so determined to join with the Christadelphians, then let them learn the true word of God and be baptized.

Church of the Blessed Hope in Chester Township will have a study day entitled "Studies in I John" from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. next Si:!1urday, led by Paul Zilmer' of BloOiiUiigton, m. Lunch and babysitting will be provided free and a free-will offering will be accepted. For information, call John Linsenmeier at 795-3000 or 371-3360.

***


My sister Dorothy Horton(Amended) from Livonia, Michigan, was one of them, too. All of those people knew us before we were married-since 1935.

Being a widow I have to keep to myself all the time. These are the last days. We must keep our eyes and thoughts looking at that wonderful vision that is ahead of us. God is truly good to me. I study any hour of the day or night, and I find peace in my heart.

May God be with you, Bro. Jim; keep up the good work. Love to you and Sis. Stanton. Let us keep the faith bright and clean.

Your Sister, BETTY]. WINCHELL

NOTE: Thank you for your information and kind letter. You represent the kind of exCGAF people who perceive the difference in the Christade1phians and the CGAF. We do not believe in immortal emergence, paid ministers, non-combatant military service, and some of the other things endorsed by the CGAF. I realize that there are different groups of them, not all believing alike. Unfortunately the same is true of us Christadelphians. The problem as I see it is not the CGAF causing us so much trouble; it is the ecumenical Open Door Christadelphians who are trying to build a formidable church membership without regard to sound doctrine. I understand the Christadelphians (pseudo-Unamended) of the Great Lakes Bible School in Rockford, Illinois had a teacher on their staffin either 1986 or 1987 from the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith What should we expect next?

Important Things

Woodward, Oklahoma January 8, 1988

DEAR BRO. James,

It has been some time since I last wrote and I take this opportunity to commend you for your work in defense of the Truth and apologize for my slothfulness. I wrote you a long letter about a year ago but thought I' d let it sit awhile and never mailed it. Since then I've decided to delete at least part of it. But the night is far spent and I fear it is past time for the most of us to awake and be about the Lord's business. To contribute everything we are capable of is not only our duty but our privilege. The least I can do is sound my feelings on what I feel are vital subjects. Whether they are pertinent or not, I leave to you.

Your work has thus far been one of courage which I believe has been endorsed by all who have a true love of the Truth. An exposition of the causes of division among us and a defense of the Truth pertaining to them could not

3/88 Important Things 151

nor can it ever be done without eXDOSlrl2 certain groups or individuals connected therewith. Thus it is without and he was more whether it be by word error, we fail to uphold Truth.

'fJC"""'UH;; to defend and Truth

But there is a principle that operates within each of mortals. It seems that if we spend enough time on anyone we become engn)ssied or infatuated with it to the extent that we lose contact with

else. So very much effort has been these past few years by very well educated in the wisdom of the world and in the Scriptures) to try and unite all What in been the result of it? To my mind, instead of there being two basic groups, we are now on the verge of having several. Instead of bringing about peace and unity, the sword of division has been bared. This I perceive is not bad as some may suppose, but necessary in order that Truth might survive. Indeed there will be a weeding out, or falling away, process by which some, perhaps very few, will not only continue to hold the faith in its simple purity but will be stronger because of it.

In order for these few or many who hold fast and to do so as a united group with freedom of fellowship and the privilege of uplifting one another, there has to be a simple solution found-one that the unlearned such as myself can look to and say, "This is the way, let us walk in it."

Almost volumes have been written on the reunion effort and the causes of division that are completely unintelligible to many who had a simple trust that Christadelphians had" the way." This is very discouraging to those little ones for whom Christ prayed (Matt. 18:1-14) and diedUohn 17). They listen to a brother on tape or in person and are spellbound by his exhortation but later find that he is Amended or that he supports this group Of that which is in conflict with the beliefs of some in his own ecclesia! This, I say, is causing many to become discouraged and either quit Of adopt the attitude that it will all be settled at the judgment. What they feel safe in is that they must love everybody and live the best they can and hope that is sufficient. A bit akin to modern Christendom, wouldn't you say? Any subject that borders on argument or debate they automatically shy away from. This is not good. The Truth is simple enough to be intelligible to all. It was and is to these unlearned that it was given and not to the wise and prudent of this world (Matt. 11 :25-26).

So what to do? Error necessarily has to be exposed. Doctrine has to be defined and defended. But if we become obsessed with these particulars or anyone phase or aspect of the Truth, then we lose sight of the whole and in the process cause some or many to stumble. I am convinced that this is the cause of almost all divisions. A well-read, well-liked brother takes a position on a certain issue. He will have some who will agree simply because they like and trust his character and knowledge. This alone will cause most of us to defend that position to the utmost, even though ample proof exists that we


are wrong. I t is a sad fact and contrary to the exhortation to" Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good," that some will follow men rather than God.

My point is that issues have become so in-depth and complicated that it is almost impossible for some to comprehend what the real issue is, much less what is the right or wrong of it. Let us simplify so that our children can understand and cultivate a faith in the things for which we stand. If those of us who have been associated with the Truth most of our lives cannot agree, how can we expect those who know little of it to accept it in spirit and in truth?

I am simple and my solution is simple. The Christadelphian Unamended Statement of Faith has served its purpose well for many years in that it has clarified with ample Scriptural proof the things we believe necessary to be believed and taught I see no need to further simplify or change it. It is "Christ's Commandments" and "The Doctrines to be Rejected" toward the back cover that needs further clarification in these days of immorality and permissiveness. I speak not of aliens but of Christadelphians who have the responsibility of children and who are in the position of Arranging Brethren and Elders in some cases. For example, if a young person asked us these questions, would our responses be in general agreement?

1. Is it permissible to serve in any branch of the armed forces? If so, to what extent and what are your Scriptural reasons for believing thus?

2. Are we permitted to take government jobs? Some have refrained from doing so. Why?

3. Can I who am considering law school be accepted as a Christadelphian (brother of Christ)?

4. Of what does fornication and adultery consist and what would be your action pertaining to either as an individual, ecclesia or group of ecclesias?

5. Is it wrong to vote? 6. If I am baptized and take a wife who is not, what would be your

reaction? 7. What is your definition of fellowship and upon what conditions do

you invite others into it? 8. If a person broke into my home and started doing bodily harm to my

family, what should be my reaction? 9. Christ commanded his followers to "Owe no man anything." Does

this mean not to contract any debt for any amount, and if so, how would one survive in this day and age where almost all transactions are made with some credit attached?

10. The last question I would like to ask at this time is, Are you answering these questions from your personal interpretation of the Scriptures or do your answers typify the attitude of all Christadelphians?

I believe the young person would receive a variety of answers and the above are by no means conclusive of all that could be asked by a seriousminded person. Taking into consideration that the answers to some may vary

3/88 Important Things 153

somewhat from one ecclesia to another, should be upon within each ecdesia them. The

lives. learn of the way and those within manage and sisters of Christ (the

are questions which certainly situations occur

us to live decent

Where will those without brothers

our beliefs with strong or learned all and the Truth as was taught by our p1()n~eer brethren and all who have "".lwo.n,y contended for it, will be lost those to whom it has

I say has been in THE SANCTUARY-KEEPER, which can be verified if the reader desires to do so, to inform anyone interested that nothing less than total capitulation by the Unamended will be accepted by the Amended. It is the Amended who elevated "The Responsibility Question" to a test of fellowship in the first place. They thought it important enough to amend the original statement and separate themselves from us because "they were not of us." Who are we fooling to think that after so many have lived, died and fought for their theory, they are going to reverse their thinking because of a few overtures from the Unamended?

Sadly enough, it is they who seem to recognize that the question is one of basic fundamental doctrine and that there can be no bridging over it, no unity, no compromise. One has to agree with one or the other. I admire them for their persistence.

I remember when the reunion effort was beginning to be kindled and before I was baptized, I believe, my dad asked Brother Ira Stanton what he thought about it. His reply was, "All they( the Amended) have to do is give up the idea that knowledge alone is sufficient for a resurrection and we will be in fellowship. Otherwise there can be none." He was also asked about the growing trend to present the Truth in such a way as to be palatable to a greater number, to say the least. His reply was, "What you will have is a group of people calling themselves Christadelphians who are completely ignorant of the things for which the name stands." Simple enough.

I would like to recall another incident, at the risk of sounding like a modern pulpit orator, as related to me by an unbeliever. This person had related to Brother O. L. Dunaway how his dad was a good and just man in every way but that he was unbaptized, I believe, and certainly knew nothing of Christadelphian teaching. The question was asked, "What chance does he have of getting into the kingdom?" Brother Dunaway's answer: "No more than one of those bull yearlings out there in the pasture." Upon this answer the unbeliever replied, "Then I want no part of your religion," and he never accepted the Truth although he was associated with it most of his life.


Now one may not agree with the example used by Brother Dunaway in his answer, but the point is that both these older brothers answered without hesitation, with conviction and in a manner simple enough that a child could understand. It is all our prerogative to choose, but the choice has to be made plain in order for us to do so with conviction. This our older brethren did without dilly-dallying around and inserting maybes and under certain ciralmstances, etc. The Scriptures either teach it or they don't. We can either accept what they teach without regard to "Father, mother, children, brothers and sisters, yea, and our own life also" (Luke 14:26), or we can reject them.

Some seem to think that one must wear the name Christadelphian to be saved and some may wantto refine it a little farther to those professing one or the other Statements of Faith. But let it be reaffirmed by us all that we will not give account of ourselves as a group. We will stand alone at that day and give an account of the deeds we as individuals have done, whether good or bad

The purpose of assembling ourselves together is for the sole purpose of edification, building up and strengthening one another in our most holy faith so that each of us as individuals can run the race with patience and without growing weary. An assembly which does not, in the main, gender to these ends is detrimental to the Truth. Error is present and must be sought out and corrected or Truth will die.

If I am fortunate or blessed to hear the words, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," I don't believe I will be looking around to see if there are any Amended in the group. I believe I will have more than enough for which to answer and will certainly know that I have received those words through grace and not by my works nor because I have endorsed a certain group.

So let us desist from these efforts to unite with those who do not desire it, and let us exert our efforts in such a way as to strengthen those who have put on the name, many of whom are becoming discouraged.

Let us reaffirm our belief that the principles set forth in the Unamended Statement of Faith are those principles taught by Christ and his apostles and therefore ncessary to be believed in order to obtain salvation. If some who profess otherwise in some points are saved even though we may not agree, let us say Amen to it.

Let us explain in simple terms "The Commandments of Christ" and the "Doctrines to be Rejected," how they apply to us today and what ecclesial action should be taken in the case of non-compliance.

Let us settle the" divorce and remarriage" question which, it seems, has been passed over in the heat of reunion efforts, but which has caused much grief and division in the brotherhood. Does the general context of the Scriptures teach that it is permissible? If not, do we fellowship those who for whatever reason engage in it?

3/88

the past, been

it is yet

Important Things 155

U«:U";; u .... "'\.,l S ta tement Those who subscribe to that clarification will be

thus eliminate all have not, in

almost that we in the world news us and let us know without doubt that our redemption

or condemnation is near. Do we see them? Do we relate them to prophecy and interpret them as signs? Do we think the economy of this country is going to aright itself and or are we ourselves for worse days ahead? What do the Scriptures teach? Are we willing to share our goods with a brother or sister less fortunate, or do we say, "They should have had some insurance"?

The Jewish world failed to recognize Christ's first coming for two reasons. First, they became divided on spiritual issues and next because they were far too concerned with their material welfare (the kingdom being restored again to Israel). The sequence is always the same. But there were wise men( shepherds) who were not beguiled by the times in which they lived. They were watching and followed the star and worshipped him at the place of his birth. They also brought gifts which they had stored up for the occasion.

The few thoughts I have advanced were not intended to be so numerous, nor were they intended to be published. I leave that to someone more apt than I, but I have believed for a number of years that some voice within the brotherhood had to sound the Truth in its pure simplicity, loud and clear. For this, in its efforts to identify the principals involved in the reunion effort, I am especially thankful to THE SNACTUARY-KEEPER, or rather to those who have had the fortitude to let their voice be heard, by its means. It is my further hope that it may be used as a means to bring reconciliation and peace to at least a few in the Unamended brotherhood. This I believe to be a necessity if the Truth is to be found in a body of believers at Christ's return.

WAYNE DARTLON

156 The Sam;tuary-Keeper 3/88

Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew

TIE MAIN objective of an Advocate article of a year ago (February, 1987) appears to have been an attempt to not only discredit Bro. Andrew, but primarily to show Bro. Williams to have differed with

Bro. Andrew on the concepts of "violent death" and various events which occurred in the Garden of Eden. The Advocate has now acknowledged in the January, 1988 issue the abundant evidence (from 1894-1900) to the contrary; that these brethren did, in fact, AGREE with one another on these subjects.

The Advocate does, however, continue their readers the impression that these same brethren DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME disagreed" on the subject of resurrection, who could or would be raised from the grave and certain other related matters." On this point I believe the committee is mistaken. The earliest evidence thus far produced indicating disagreement ON ANY SUBJECT is in late 1900. It is recorded in Life and Works o/Thomas Williams, pp. 21, 30 and 152-153. Bro. Williams clearly points out that up until 1900 they were still in agreement. However, during Bro. Williams's visit to England in the summer of that year he reported, "It was just before my arrival ... that you [Bro. Andrew] suddenly changed" Apparently this was the pivot point in their relationship. Both recognized the resurrection to be based on the everlasting covenant. However, Bro. Andrew now (summer 1900) restricted resurrection only to those in covenant, whereas Bro. Williams did not.

The January, 1988 Advocate article has not withdrawn its accusations against Bro. Andrew. Admitting, now, that Bro. Williams agreed with Bro. Andrew, Bro. Williams is equally cast aside! The committee writes, "Bro. Williams does not seem to have reached his usual level of lucid thinking." Having grouped these two brethren together, what is said about one, necessarily applies to the other.

On page 37 in the February, 1987 article concerning Bro. Andrew's teaching, The Advocate made the following statement: "The observations contained herein provide ample reason for the policy of The Christadelphian Advocate Publishing Committee not to have approved nor distributed Bro. Andrew's controversial work, The Blood of the Covenant." Since clear evidence has now been acknowledged by the Advocate Committee that Bro. Thomas Williams did indeed concur with what Bro. Andrew wrote in The Blood of the Covenant, what was said concerning Bro. Andrew must now apply to Bro. Williams as well! If Bro. Andrew's thinking is "erroneous," so is that of Bro. Williams. Consistency requires that The Advocate likewise ban the distribution of Bro. Thomas Williams's material of which there is considerable quantity on the same subject, namely, the connection between Adamic sin and the sacrifice of Christ! To wit: (from an address by Bro. Williams quoted from Life and Works, page 174.

3/88 Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew 157

1. "Who put him (Christ) in that death and that grave out of which he prayed to be saved?"

2. "Everybody must see that if there had never been another single sin committed the work of Christ was necessary."

3. "Nothing but sin that cross there between Christ and the Crown."

Who sinned? Adam. Who suffered? Christ. Is this not substitution???

The s

fairly.

Committee's Objection #1. Brethren Andrew and Williams FORM OF SUBSTITUTION"

(page 6, January, 1988 Advocate). The Advocate says that if"God the of a violent death"

for Christ, it "tends to lead to this erroneous conclusion and a form of substitution." Now brethren, this may be a "form" of substitution, but iEit is, the Scriptures plainly teach such a "form." We may simply ask, Why is the entire human race suffering the maladies of pain, sorrow and death? Is it not due to Adam's sin, something of which we are completely innocent? The point is, brethren, that all of the race is suffering for something we did not do! Why should each of us innocent humans be "punished" with these curses when Adam is the one that sinned? Adam sinned, and WE suffer! Although it seems incongruous, even the committee's own words teach a "form of substitution." Consider what has been written on page8,]anuary, 1988 issue: "It is evident that the Creator, inHis eternal purpose, intended that there would be a race of humans upon the earth, but that RACE WOULD SUFFER THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SIN OF THEIR ORIGINAL PARENTS." Is The Advocate not teaching that the race is suffering for something for which our parents were guilty? Our parents are guilty, and we suffer. Is this not likewise a "form of substitution"?

The Scriptures clearly teach another "form of substitution," and we all believe it, including the Advocate Committee. The spirit tells us, "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). It can be said simply and unequivocably that this teaches a "form of substitution"; an innocent man suffers for the iniquity of others. The mere mention of the word" substitution" makes the concept appear ugly, when in reality it is not. We need not fear the teaching of these brethren (Andrew and Williams) because it has been described by others as a "form of substitution."

It might be pointed out that the repeated use of the term "instead of' and "in place of' (p. 6,7 ,8,]anuary, 1988 Advocate) is most unfairly employed


by the committee when These terms have

the belief ofBre. Andrew and Williams.

Committee's

their beliefs. Christ Bre. Williams

"Adam violent death because Christ suffered a violent death ... We believe that the that God the of a violent death tends to lead erroneous conclusion and a form of substitution" The committee ap'palren such as unjust "PUNISHMENT" in that God don of the of death upon a substitution" above. It is a matter that makes a tural truth appear ugly. Death, whether "violent" as Bro. Andrew suggested or by decay as the committee suggests, certainly is the "punishment" for sin; this is indisputable. But Bro. Andrew's suggestion is no more objectionable than the committee's, for no matter the means, violent or otherwise, "innocent" men are being" punished" with death for no action of their own. The apostle clearly states this in Romans 5, "Nevertheless death reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." To show the inappropriateness of the word "punishment," we may simply ask, "Was Christ's death a punishment?" If death is not a "punishment," he ought not to have died. If death is a "punishment," for what was he being "punished"? Was it his sin nature, mortality? If so, it could be said that Christ was being" punished" or penalized for being born mortal. In this respect, the committee's suggestion of" dying thou shalt die" (death by decay), is no less a "punishment" of innocent men than the teaching of Bro. Andrew.

Committee's Objection #3. Apparently the committee feels Bre. Andrew and Williams failed to

recognize the prophetic importance of the curses upon the serpent, woman and man.

This objection is found on page 8, January, 1988 issue. The committee's reasoning appears to be that hadAdam been cut off personally at the time the coats of skins were provided., the prophecies contained in the curses requiring his continued existence could not have been fulfilled. Hence, it is concluded the meaning of the words" dying thou shalt die" MUST mean a dying by decay and not a sudden and violent death as taught by Bre. Andrew and Williams.

This reasoning may appear to be sound, but it is not. Here is why. It means that the fulfillment of any prophecy necessarily removes the possibility of any other option, in other words, predestination. Consider the following:


APPARENT SOUND REASONING. God prophesied Adam's continued existence. Had Adam been God's would have been thwarted. Therefore, it is that shalt die" could

mean a sudden death.

A. would be sinless.

would have been thwarted. Therefore, it was not possible to have sinned.

SIMILAR REASONING, example B. Israel was to be unfaithful and Had she repentant, God's plan would have

it was not for Israel to have ret)erlte,d. 3 COULD returned, but God knew she would not.

Since the Creator knows the end from the beginning, prophecy is based upon His foreknowledge of events, rather than events being dictated by prophecy. Such is the case with respect to Adam's continued existence. By foreknowledge, the Lord knew Adam would voluntarily "die" with Christ through faith in the sacrifice provided, and consequently prophesied Adam's continued existence. The fact that Adam believed the Lord's promise of a seed to come (allowing his continued existence), does not necessarily remove the possibility that he would have been cut off in the absence of such belief.

Committee's Objection #4. Bro. Andrew's concept means "God in His vengeance was determined

to exact a punishment upon Christ ... before He was prepared to wipe clean the offence introduced by Adam's sin" (page 12,]anuary issue).

This conclusion is based upon a misapprehension of Bro. Andrew's concept. The Advocate has asked its readers to choose which of two items, vengeance or mercy, motivated God to respond to Adam's sin in the way He did. Obviously, the latter is to be preferred, but such a question is loaded. It makes the assumption that God's "vengeance is required" (page 10,]anuary, 1988) by Bro. Andrew's proposal. This is not necessarily true.

Surely the Advocate committee does not believe the motivation of the Lord's response was based solely upon His attribute of mercy, forgiveness and longsuffering. Although mercy certainly is a valid consideration, it does not meet all the requirements of the case. If it were simply a matter of mercy and forgiveness, why did not the Lord simply say, "I forgive you." Or, since Adam had already devised the fig leaf covering, why not simply approve it? If mercy and longsuffering were the only considerations as implied by the committee, why did God REQUIRE more than the fig leaf device, or more than just a simple apology from Adam?

To have simply" forgiven" Adam of his sin would have violated another attribute of the Lord, and that is the fact that He is a" just" God. His justice could not be set aside. He could not arbitrarily forgive Adam. The mode of restoration must have a connection to the crime.

God's "justice" is not the same as God's "vengeance." ALL of the characteristic attributes of the Lord had to be maintained, among which was


Committee's Objection #5 Bre. Andrew and Williams taught "vengeance" rather than mercy. "God's that blood be shed for the remission of sins must

not be viewed as a ... " These are Bro. Williams's RPJ7P'hernJtin1Z page 13, written in 1895, the same year

Bro. Williams published his agreement with Bro. Andrew. Just four years ago (April, 1984), The Advocate reprinted the following words of Bro. Williams from this pamphlet which we may assume were endorsed at that time. (Possibly they would be retracted now?) He writes;

That God should REQUIRE the shedding of blood is what causes many to stagger, and this arises from a failure to see the relation of the race to the law of sin and death ... TheJUSTICE and purity of divine law L4 WFULL Y REQUIRED the crucifixion of the flesh, the taking oflife from it by the shedding of its blood THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT GOD'S JUSTICE COULD EVER ADMIT OF HIS MERCY SAVING ONE WHO DESCENDED FROM ADAM. If the one whose blood is shed is a personal sinner as well as a sinner in Adam, neither justice nor mercy can save him: justice cannot save an actual sinner, and mercy cannot interfere in his behalf without colliding with justice, which would place one attribute of God against another ... Christ being one ofthe race, so related to Adamic sin that without the shedding of the blood of Adamic flesh, of which he was made, there was no remission; his blood MUST be shed in order that God 'may be just' ...

Oh! cry some, where is mercy if God REQUIRED and would accept of nothing without the shedding of blood? Well, suppose we cannot show this horrified inquirer a spark of mercy, the/act that God did REQUIRE the shedding of blood is a/act . .. But the trouble with some is that they look for mercy in the wrong place; they look for it where justice and not mercy belongs (page 12, caps mine).

In this we see the words "required," "must" and "only way" used relative to the shedding of blood. It is equivalent to saying that God's justice LA WFULL Y REQUIRED the shedding of blood a "violent death," to redeem the race. Although The Advocate acknowledges that "Christ died on the cross as a means of redemption for him and for us," the committee has now publicly denied that God's JUSTICE LEGALLY REQUIRED such a death. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CHOOSING "VENGEANCE" OVER "MERCY," as is suggested, but rather THAT MERCY IS DEMONSTRATED THROUGH JUSTICE.

3/88 Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew

Both attributes must be maintained. The the same principles as Bro. Andrew violent death if it were not the Edenic inconsistent that The would from it in 1984, and during the Covenant, when both doctrine.

Committee's Objection #6.

161

If "violent death" is a matter of inheritance, aU men should die "suddenly and violently" (p. 6, January, 1988).

This objection is not valid. There are several cases in Lord has indeed inflicted sudden and violent death instances were confined only to actual transgressors, could be no argument, but such is not the case. "Innocent" victims were cut off as well actual transgressors. For example, the destruction of the Canaanites by God's Israel, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome was necessarily sudden and violent, and was meted out by God upon "innocent" infants as well as actual transgressors. Now, in this and other instances was the Lord JUST in slaying these innocent victims? If so, why? Since they have no sin of their own, what sin makes their" sudden and violent" death JUST? We have no answer but the sin of their father Adam. If God is JUST in inflicting sudden and violent death upon some, then He would beJUST in inflicting it upon all. Then why doesn't every man taste "sudden and violent" death as the committee has asked? The fact that the vast majority of mankind has not died suddenly and violently is NOT testimony that mankind is not under such a "vengeful" sentence as supposed, but rather is testimony that the Lord does indeed "strive" with man, and "is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The means of redemption from our inheritance has been established. It requires association with "violent (blood-shedding) death," whether prospectively in sacrifice as from the fall of Adam to Christ's death, or retrospectively in baptism today. Without such a "death," redemption from the Adamic curse is absolutely impossible. We must" die" with Christ in order to be delivered [eventually] from the curse of Adamic nature. And so it is written, "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9)

THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SCRIPTURES REVEAL ONLY ONE WAY OFDELIVERANCEFROMADAMICINHERITANCE,ANDTHATISVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION IS SOME WAY WITH VIOLENT (blood-shedding) DEATH ! From this fact, we cannot escape. Adam volunteered. Abel, Noah, Abraham and all men and women of faith have done likewise. But such individuals could not have redeemed themselves from the eternal effects of such a voluntary death unless they themselves were sinless, which, of course, they were not.

Objections to The Advocate's Proposal Objection #1.

The Advocate's position teaches an arbitrary mode of deliverance. The Advocate's proposal suggests that there is no connection between


upon Adam prior to his and the subsequent deliverance therefrom of page 10,

denies thet"God's action was determined of a law which He had

" In other words the Edenic Law did not necessitate the If this were true, then it follows that the mode

was PURELY ARBITRARY. We have clear testimony to the contrary, The writer the Hebrews clearly tells us that "without the "W"U'~H!g of blood there is no remission." He further states that it was for Christ to die this type of death(H eb. 9:22-23). It apparently was "not possible that the blood bulls and of goats should take away " and it was not

that the be removed from Christ. WHY was it not because arbitrary declaration or was it not possible

because of the circumstances in the Garden of Eden along with God's im-If the leaves were not sufficient to cover our first sin,

to ask Why did the Lord dismiss the device of the fig leaf provided a covering for their nakedness. What was

missing? We all know the answer; the shedding of blood was miSSing, because "the life is in the blood." Why was Cain's offering unacceptable? He freely gave of his substance, but something was missing. The answer is the same. There was no blood shed. But the REAL question is WHY? Why did the Lord REQUIRE the shedding of blood for reconciliation? Was the concept of violent death arbitrarily conceived or was it absolutely necessary because of the nature of the law given in Eden? The position of the pioneers is the latter, whereas it appears that the Advocate committee believes that the Lord's action in this matter was purely arbitrary.

Brethren, saying that the Lord God's method of salvation (shedding of blood) was NOT dictated by the "dying thou shalt die" Edenic law appears to lead toward a very serious error. It would mean that the shedding of blood by Christ was only required because God arbitrarily said so, and not because Edenic law required it. This, as you may recall, is the same conclusion to which the Amended have come, namely, that Christ's "violent death" was NOT required because of his natural inheritance, but only as a crowning act of obedience! Why? Because God said so. The Amended have removed the connection between Edenic sin and Christ's death. It appears the Advocate committee may have done the same.

Let us follow a few questions, the answers to which are given or implied by The Advocate articles:

1. Why did Christ die a "violent death"? Answer: Because animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law, which pointedforward to Chrirt's death, were "violent."

2. Why were animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law "violent"? Answer: Because they were patterned after the sacrifice in Eden.

3. Why was the sacrifice in Eden "violent"? Answer: Because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission. "


4. Why is there no remission "without the shedding of blood"? Answer: Because God said so.

This (answer Lord REQUIRED the

is no answer at alL There must be a reason WHY the of blood.

#2. God's attribute of Justice is overlooked. Weare clearly told by the apostle that Christ's death was" to declare his

[God's] righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his [God' sJ righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth inJ esus." From this passage we may conclude that God was" right" and" just" in inflicting the mode of death (violent or blood-shedding) upon his innocent son. The Lord's death was a declaration of God's righteousness; this is indisputable. If there was not a valid REASON for the Lord's death, how could it be said that such a death" declared God's righteousness," that God was" just" in requiring such a death? And if our answer, brethren, is simply because God said so, which appears to be The Advocate's pOSition, we have given no reason at all Is this the picture of a "just" God, requiring such suffering and agony of an innocent obedient son, with no reason other than because his Father arbitrarily said so?

Objection #3. The committee's proposal removes Adam from coming into cove

nant relationship at the time the coats of skins were provided The Advocate states the sacrifice in Eden" allowed an extension of his life

and the opportunity to believe in God's promise and to obey God's requirements" (page 9, January, 1988). This statement is not only contradictory to the committee's stated pOSition, but also to reason. Let's break this statement into its parts:

"It [the sacrifice in Eden] allowed 1. an extension of his life and 2. the opportunity (a) to believe in God's promise

(b) to obey God's requirements."

The contradiction to The Advocate pOSition is this: The converse to the above statement suggests that in the absence of the sacrifice, Adam's life would NOT have been extended. If his life had not been extended, then the only alternative is to have been cut off, THE VERY PREMISE TO WHICH THE COMMITTEE OBJECTS

The second portion of the above statement can be understood two ways.

(a) that the sacrifice allowed an opportunity for Adam's salvation. (b) that the sacrifice allowed an extension of Adam's life in order that he

might later believe.

If (a) above is what is meant, we can agree. However, if (b) is what is


meant, it seems to "put the cart before the horse." Adam's life was not extended that heMIGHT"believe inGod' s promise," but rather BECAUSE he believed in God's promise. It appears that Adam displayed faith in the Lord's promise, and "died" with Christ voluntarily through sacrifice, and thusly entered upon probatio~. Brethren, is it possible to approach the Lord without faith, in conjunction with the shedding of blood? Weare plainly told in Hebrews that without either it is impossible. What was provided Adam in which he might believe and have faith? It was the promise of a redeeming seed Did Adam have faith? Yes, "he called his wife's name Eve" (living) subsequent to the promise, yet prior to the sacrifice, indicating belief similar to Abraham's" that what he [God] had promised he was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21). Was there "shedding of blood"? Yes, "coats of skins" were provided Was Adam's sin covered? Yes, "the Lord clothed them."There is no other record of sacrifice relative to Adam. Is this the occasion of Adam's coming into covenant? We have every reason to believe so. Was Adam delivered from death THROUGH" death"? Did he" die" with Christ in faith? Did Adam have his life extended080BY MEANS OF the sacrifice? Yes, yes, yes. If The Advocate's statement means his life was extended that he might LA TER believe, it is out of harmony with the facts of the case. Ifhowever, the committee believes he" died" with the sacrifice, then Adam did" die" in the "day" of transgression.

Objection #4. If" dying thou shal t die" (Edenic law) means mankind's inheritance

is "inevitable" death by decay, then it follows that all men must experience such a physical death to satisfy this law.

All men shall NOT physically die. "We shall not all sleep," says the apostle. "We that are alive and remain shall be caught up," Paul writes. If our inheritance requires a physical death, each saint living at the return of the Lord would require at least a moment of death to satisfy the demands of such a law. Strangely enough, this premise is not new to Christadelphians, for some may recall that A. D. Strickler came up with this device (momentary death), in order for the unfaithful "living and remaining" to be qualified to suffer the" second death." His reasoning was that the" second death" required a first death, and therefore any living at the Lord's return would require at least a moment's "first" death to qualify for the "second." However, this difficulty vanishes if we will but recognize that the first death is a "violent (blood-shedding) death" by "dying with Christ," as aU men of faith have done. Let's hope The Advocate does not oppose the concept of" first" death by association with sacrifice, a concept freely taught by Bro. Williams and supported by Scripture.

Objection #5. The committee has quoted Bro. Williams to have said, "I know of no

other way of viewing this matter with such stubborn facts before me" (p. 5,january, 1988). We believe the "facts" to which Bro. Williams referred are not his INFERENCES as the committee has suggested, but rather the following facts, among others:


1. The Law given in Eden: "in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

2. Adam sinned. 3. Adam incurred death 4. God could not set aside his 5. Fig leaves were insufficient. 6. The shedding of blood (violent 7. Blood was shed. 8. Adam's nakedness was covered. 9. Adam lived the day of

10. Some men today die a violent 11. Christ's death was "violent." 12. Christ's death was to dedare God's that God

just (Rom. 3:26). 13. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him" (Isa. 53). 14. "He shall see the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." 15. God is merciful.

From these facts it appears that Bro. Williams drew the conclusion (inferred) that Adam's sin incurred a "violent death." The committee's suggestion that Bro. Williams mistook his own inferences as the "facts" themselves seems quite unreasonable.

The "reasoning from analogy retrospectively" used by Bro. Williams, to which the committee also objects is a basic tool of every Bible student. It can also be called "type-antitype." By this method we arrive at many other conclusions" retrospectively." For example, Why was Eve taken from Adam' s side rather than from the ground? The answer, achieved through "retrospective reasoning," is because the ecclesia (the espoused bride) is taken out of the second Adam (Christ). [Also, the formation of Eve involved bloodshedding, as does the anti typical Eve, in being taken from the side of her husband-Editor].

The above series of facts can be viewed as similar to a mathematical equation. There is only one unknown, and that is contained in fact#3. What KIND of death did Adam incur? Bro. Williams reviewed the" stubborn facts" and concluded from this evidence that the KIND of death incurred by Adam MUST have been a cutting off.

At first glance it appears plausible that "God could simply have withdrawn Adam's breath and death would have been instantaneous," as has been suggested. But this method will not hold up when considering other factors in the equation that MUST be taken into account. Christ's death was NOT death by suffocation, nor were animal sacrifices to be strangled. THE FACT THA T A VIOLENT DEATH WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER MANKIND FROM THE FALLEN CONDITION IS TESTIMONY THAT THE SIN OF ADAM INCURRED A VIOLENT DEATH. Is the committee suggesting that the death of Christ had no direct connection with the sin of Adam? It would seem so. The


Amended fellowship chose this course some years ago, and as history has revealed, it has logically resulted in the denial that sin-nature requires an atonement.

Conclusion 1. Bro. Williams concurred with Bro. Andrew's doctrinallJu,,,uevH

in The Blood of the Covenant. The Advocate does NOT of Bro. Williams although claiming to do so in

2. We all believe ina "form of substitution." Adam is a matter of words. We need not from merely because it has been described as a

3. The fact that Adam's continued existence was preclude the possibility that he COULD have ofE Jesus' sinlessness was also prophesied, but did not remove the possibility that he COULD have sinned.

4. "God's requirement that blood be shed for the remission of sins must not be viewed as a gratification of 1895). The present Advocate committee has done this. God was NOT choosing between "vengeance" and "mercy" as claimed. His attribute of justice was upheld as well as mercy extended

5. The Scriptures reveal only ONE way of deliverance from our Adamic inheritance, and that is voluntary association in some way with violent (blood-shedding) death. If our Adamic inheritance was" natural death," it would seem that a "natural death" would have been sufficient to deliver the race therefrom. Why are the saints said to have "CRUCIFIED the flesh [along] WITH lusts" if such a (blood-shedding) "death" is not required for deliverance?

6. God's mode of deliverance (blood-shedding) cannot but must have a basis, a reason. The Advocate's position does not provide a reason why blood-shedding was REQUIRED. In the absence of a reason, it seems that fig leaves COULD have sufficed.

7. The statement that the sacrifice in Eden "allowed an extension of Adam's life," contradicts The Advocate's own position. It logically follows that without that sacrifice Adam would have been cut off.

8. If ALL men are required by Edeniclaw to die physically, as The Advocate suggests, some living at Christ's return would require a momentary death to be eligible for the" second death." The only death indicated by the Scriptures for redemption is to "die" with Christ.

Brethren everywhere are encouraged to consider the inconsistencies outlined above. The Advocate's position is clearly not consistent with Bro. Thomas Williams, yet it claims to be upholding his We urge the committee to review the" facts" as did Bro. Williams. Provide an explanation why the death of an innocent man was "just," "right" and pleasing to God. If there are other facts that should be considered in addition to those listed in the previous pages, would others please provide them for consideration? Both positions cannot be correct. As we all know, "Ideas have consequences."

3/88 The Heavenlies in Christ 1

May we pursue these matters in a brotherly manner, edifying one another in our further pursuit of truth.

RICHARD PURSELL

The Heavenlies in

But the Heavenlies in Christ are notluoght; orplaces, but STATES, the foundation of which laid in Jesus Christ-Deity manifested in the Flesh. "The Man Christ Jesus" is a real man. When on earth he was" holy, harmless, undefiled, and Sinless," as to character; yet imperfect as to his material nature. He is now perfect-a perfect man "justified by spirit," and therefore incorruptible and immortal- a perfect character or moral nature, developed by divine power, or spirit, into a perfect material nature.

But Christ is also an allegorical man, as Hagar and Sarah were two allegorical women; the former representing the Mosaic Covenant; the latter, the New, or Abrahamic Covenant. From the days of Moses until the Day of Pentecost, A.D. 34, the whole twelve tribes were constitutionally in their mother Hagar, or the Jerusalem system then in existence, and in bondage with her children. But on that celebrated day a new system was initiatorily developed, the Sarah Covenant, styled "the Jerusalem above the Mother of us all." Isaac was Sarah's son, and allegorically slain, and allegorically raised. The saints are all in Isaac; for" in Isaac shall thy seed be called." This seed is Christ; notJesus only; but that great multitude also which no man can number.

This" One Body" of people headed

are the as was; the free

born sons of Sarah the free woman. This is their state, without to the place or country of earth or heaven, where they might be supposed to be. But, if there had beenno literal or personal Christ, there could have been no such Christ-State for Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth was allegorically "a number which no man could number" (Rev. 7:9). He himself taught this, saying, "he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit." And, "Father, I pray for them who shall believe into me (els eme) through the apostles' word: that they all may be one in us" Oohn 10:5; 17:20-21).

Though few compared with the whole race of man, it is a great company absolutely-a people taken out from all the generations and the nations for the Divine Name. "He shaH increase," said John the Immerser; "butI must decrease." Jesus grew, or increased, into a divine and" chosen generation;" while John dwindled down into a mere Baptist Denomination, which is either ignorant of, or opposed to "the truth as it is in Jesus."

EUREKA Volume IlIA, p.251


Editorial Flyleaf Because of the length of two arti

cles in this month's issue we have less choice of material for readers. However, the long article on "Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew" is, in our

critical to a correct understanding of the sacrifice of Christ. We urge our readers to spend some time in an endeavor to analyze this article. The articles in question in The Christadelphian Advocate should also be compared and analyzed.

In all of our life in the Truth we have observed that when a motive surpasses analytical examination of a subject, problems arise. Many have made it their" goal in life" to discredit Bro. Andrew and have searched for some loophole to bring his credibil-

ity down. In so doing it is possible to err from the essentials of truth and instead Bro. Andrew look bad, the witch-hunter shows a lack of clarity on the examined

We have stated >"prIP" ·cpn

continue to state and Bro. Andrew Bro. Williams did not believe or third-class resurrection. But he tolerated it in others were sound the sin-nature inherited

later in declined to fel-lowship Bro. Williams on a to England because of the toleration factor, not any doctrinal Ul:;aglt:t::-

ment The of the article ning on page 56 is superb.

The Sign of the Beast Besides the reception of the charag

ma (impressed sign, stamp or mark) from the clergy, there was to be a

of the Sign of the Cross by people themselves, as appears

from Bellarmine' s Dottrina Cbristiana in which a master asks his dis

ciple, "In what principally consists the faith of Christ?" To which he is made to reply, "In two principal mysteries, which are included in the Sigl1 of the Holy Cross," adding, "The Sign of the Holy Cross is made by putting first, the right hand to the head, saying, 'In the name of the Father;' then under the heart, saying, 'and of the Son;' finally on the left shoulder, and on the right, saying, 'and of the Holy Spirit'." In this way the devotees of the superstition were to sign themselves with the Beast's Sign in token

of their bondage to him. These slaves of sin have

fidence in the O;:Ull.i:ll.Y as a defence all sorts of invisible UI:UHJUJ.,t\ .. i .. l influences. The of the cross, with the hand in "holy-water," is a terror to the Devil, who is to hate it exceedingly! They call it "the of the Holy Cross;" as the curse of the law upon Jesus hanging upon it, could be holy.

It would be as reasonable say Holy which murderers are hanged, as Cross. There is no-thing holy to the beast. Hence, its and 'H!'.Hu.~au awaits all who

VolumellIA, pp. 311 .. 312

-

---

THE SANCTUARY-KEEPER is published monthly for $6.00 per year ($8.00 Canada and overseas, in U. S funds) by Christadelphian Publications, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A., 23225. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Christadelphian Publications, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia 23225. Subscriptions, correspondence and material submitted for publication should be sent to the editor and publisher, James S. Stanton, 2725 Kenmore Road, Richmond, Virginia 23225.

To order back copies of THE SANCTUARY-KEEPER write to Richard Pursell, P.O. Box 504, Heber Springs, AR 72543. These are offset reproductions with minor imperfections, soft cover, eight separate booklets, 830 total pages. $20 for the eight volumes (1894-1902).

"The KING OF THEJEWS will first manifest his presence, not to the world at large; which will not know ofhis being there, or, if told the fact, would not believe it; but to THOSE WHOM THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT BRINGS before his tribunal."

JOHN THOMAS, Eureka, Vol IIIB, p. 189

The reader will remember that before the Judgment Seat of Christ in the wilderness ofTernan, there were TWO CLASSES ofsaints in Christ Jesus constitutionally ... The constitution and destiny of these TWO CLASSES, though originally built upon the same foundation, is widely divergent ... The judicial inspection of his household, having separated the refuse and the vile from those "accounted worthy to obtain of the aion, and the resurrection;" the rejected, virtue of the sentence pronounced upon them by Christ, saying, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the aionian fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels," forthwith enter upon their journey to the place of exile or torment; or, in the words ofJesus, "they go away into aionian punishment;" while the righteous, by their being quickened, enter into aionian life.

JOHN THOMAS, Eureka, VoL IIIB, p. 256

:::: "Men were not ushered into being for the purpose of being saved :.:. :::: oriost. God manifestation, not human salvation, was the great purpose :~:: ~:~: of the Eternal Spirit. The salvation of a multitude is incidental to the :::: :::: manifestation, but was not the end proposed. The Eternal Spirit in- ~:~: :~:~ tended to enthrone himself on earth, and in so doing, to develop a;:;: :::: divine family from among men, everyone of whom shall be Spirit, ::;: ~:~: because born of the Spirit, and that this family shall be large enough to { :::: fill the earth, when perfected, to the entire exclusion of flesh and :;:: :~:~ blood" (cf. I Cor. 15:28). ~:~: :::: JOHN THOMAS, Herald ofthe Kingdom, 1858 ::;:

;?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::;:::;:::;:::::~:~:;:::::::;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)~~

That at the appearing ofChrist prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible [his servants, 1877 edition], faithful and unfaithful, dead and living ofboth classes, will be summoned before his judgment seat" to be judged according to their works;" "and receive in !-1ody according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad."

- UNAMENDED STATEMENT OF FAITH

That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of Kingdom, 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 the judgment seat to be judged according to their works; and receive in body according to what they have done, whether good or bad.

-AMENDED STATEMENT OF FAITH

In"'\ In Adam Christ)

//

Federal Relationship Federal Relationship Unamended Teaching Amended Teaching EITHER in Adam OR in Christ In Adam WHilE in Christ

Orthodox Christendom With Supporting Theories

Teaching of the Amended With Supporting Theories

THE

Is There Agreemen;- in Christadelphia?

•

Unamended

1. Nature of man: Adam disobeyed G ::>d, was guilty and was sentenced to death. He fe ll from a very good state to a mortal state and the sin tendency became a part of h .;s bting. All men descend from Adam and inherit from him a mortal nature, the federal sentence ofdeath and the proclivity to sin, without any personal guilt at birth. Man is alienated from God primarily by legal condemnation and secondarily by personal transgression.

2. Nature and sacrifice of Christ: The sentence ofdeath was upon Christ as it was all other men and he needed atonement the same as other men. By living a life of perfect obedience coupled with the shedding of his blood in sacrificial death, he met God' s requirements and delivered himself from the hold of death and provided a way for others to benefit from his sacrifice.

3. Baptism: Baptism removes inherited condemnation as well as personal sins committed before baptism. At baptism one legally passes out of Adam and the attendant sentence to eternal death and passes into Christ as his only federal head. Future judgment which inures at baptism will be' based solely on obedience to the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

4. Resurrectional responsibility: The act which relates or entitles one to resurrection is baptism at which time one enters the Everlasting Covenant-the Goddevised instrument providing resurrection. Resurrection means "a standing again in renewed corporeal existence" as a mortal being. Jesus- meaning covenant affilia tion with him (not the personal power ofJesus)is THE resurrection as well as the life. Christ's sacrifice ratified the Everlasting Covenant. The shedding of his blood was required in order for him to be resurrectedhe was the first beneficiary. Though there have been restorations to life in the past, these are not the resurrection at the last day-that includes only just and unjust saints-and there is no evidence in Scripture that any others will be raised before, when, or after Christ returns.

Amended

1. Nature of man: The disobedience of Adam affected him in separating him from God's favor and condemning him personally to death. His descendants inherit a condition of mortality and a proneness to sin from him, but no legal condemnation. Personal transgressions rather than legal condemnation alienate a person from God.

2. Nature and sacrifice ofChrist: There was no alienation of Christ from God. His sacrifice was a matter of obedience and since he was without personal sin he needed no atonement or covering for sin. His sacrifice made redemption possible for others, but he could have been redeemed by God without shedding his blood.

3. Baptism: Baptism is for the removal of personal sins. No inherited alienation or law of sin and death is removed. One is still in Adam after baptism as well as being in Christ, not putting off Adam until passing the judgment seat ofChrist. Baptism is not the means of-acquiring title to resurrection.

4. Resurrectional responsibility: The act which relates one to resurrection is knowledge or enlightenment which necessarily precedes baptism. The act of baptism has no resurrection-relating efficacy. The entering into the Everlasting Covenant does not link one to resurrection. Since it not determinable who has sufficient knowledge to qualify for resurrection, it is unknown who will be ultimately raised. The use of resurrection in Scripture refers to the complete process of coming forth from the dead and receiving immortality. The shedding of Christ's blood was not required fur his own resurrection or for others. Since enlightenment is the basis for resurrection, there will be universal resurrection at the end of the millenium for those dying during the millenium.

SANCTUARY-KEEPER

1 A MAGAZlNE

FOR THE EXPOSITION AND DEFENSE

OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

A.D. 1988 March A.M. 5991

o The Need for Apocalyptic Truth-Part III ........... 145 o The Fires of CFU Still Burning...................... 148 o Important Things .................................. 150 o Bro. Williams Versus Bro. Andrew .................. 1561 o The Heavenlies in Christ .......... , ................ 167 o Editorial Flyleaf ................................... 168 o The Sign of the Beast .............................. 168

w

is there agreemen;- in christadelphia? … ii...is there agreemen;- in christadelphia? • ......

Documents