No scrivener, amanuensis, practitioner of elocution, or any other purveyor of specific principles, subjective homilies, or miscellaneous and sundry expostulations, whether by the mechanism of graphic impression or vocal emanation, should endeavor or assay to utilize any polysyllabic combination in lieu of a relevant, logical, and appropriate monosyllabic alternative, or indeed of any other more diminutive definitional counterpart.
(Translation: Never use a big word when a small word will do.)
There once was a very great nation, which was in its time the wealthiest nation in the world. Its government devised a method of collecting revenues from its citizens that involved their voluntary reporting of annual income. The date selected by law by which this reporting was to be completed was the 15th day of the fourth month of the following year.
So it came to pass that, shortly after the end of every year, all across this great land, millions of businesses and individuals who had paid out moneys to their workers or landlords or business associates began to file information reports. Copies of these reports went to the central government itself, while other copies went to the recipients of the income.
It then became the responsibility of all individuals to compile their own reports, from the information provided, of the total income they had received during the previous year.
These income figures, from all the diverse sources, were reduced by other figures, called “deductions”, provided by other businesses in like manner. These deductions — such as amounts given to charities, amounts paid for medical expenses, and certain amounts paid out for “usury” — were subtracted from the total income, so as to produce a new number, called “taxable income”. After further calculations, the individual was able to determine and to render to the government an amount of “income tax”.
Throughout the year, during many instances when money exchanged hands, the government (by various means) was able to extract and confiscate portions of such moneys almost immediately as they were paid out. This was called “withholding”. This was far-sighted in that the government, through the remainder of the year, was able to use this money which technically still belonged to the individual “taxpayer”. This was clever also in that the amounts “withheld” during the year usually exceeded the amount actually owed by the taxpayer at the end of the year.
Thus, when the taxpayer filed his report with the government, he could usually expect to receive back some surplus as what was called a “refund”. And so the taxpayer was guarded, by a benevolent (?) government, against the danger of earning much money during a year, owing much money at the end of the same year, and having little or nothing left with which to pay.
But, invariably, every year many taxpayers wait until the 14th or even the 15th day of April to begin compiling their income and expenses for their annual report. This, despite the fact that — for most people — all the necessary information is available by the end of January!
What is there about people that, having 75 days to perform a relatively simple task, they will wait 74 days, or even 74 days and 21 hours, and then try to perform the same task under great pressure of time? The consequences: foolish errors that could have been easily avoided; frayed nerves; sleepless nights; late-evening rushes to the post office to beat the deadline; and delays in receiving refunds. Why do we so often make life more difficult than it need be?
The professional tax preparer sees such senseless procrastination close up, and multiplied a hundredfold. And he learns something about human nature: It is not pleasant to think about certain things, and many people do not think about them until they are absolutely forced to. This is silly, imprudent, and wasteful. And it happens all the time.
It is a favorite fantasy of the little child that, if he closes his eyes, difficult or uncomfortable facts or circumstances will disappear. The adult knows that reality is not changed simply by his refusal to contemplate it. But sometimes, somewhere deep in his subconscious, he deludes himself into thinking like that “little child”.
There is a time, a day, of ultimate reckoning, upon the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). We do not know (in fact, we are told that we cannot know) the actual day. But we do know it is coming. It is coming as surely as next April 15th. (And, when it comes, it will negate the effect of all subsequent April 15ths!) Shall we wait until the very day itself, and then rush around frantically trying to tie, up the loose ends of our lives? Or shall we use the available time… now… to prepare ourselves for the inevitable? And the right preparation… now… will make the inevitable so much more pleasant.
May the little “deadlines” of our lives remind us, as they roll around one by one, of the great “deadline” somewhere over the horizon.
Don’t wait until the last minute to prepare for the most important accounting you will ever know.
“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deu 6:5).
“O God, be thou exalted over my possessions. Nothing of earth’s treasures shall seem dear unto me if only Thou art glorified in my life. Be Thou exalted over my friendships. I am determined that Thou shalt be above all, though I must stand deserted and alone in the midst of the earth. Be Thou exalted above my comforts. Though it mean the loss of bodily comforts and the carrying of heavy crosses I shall keep my vow made this day before Thee. Be Thou exalted over my reputation. Make me ambitious to please Thee even if as a result I must sink into obscurity and my name be forgotten as a dream. Rise, O Lord, into Thy proper place of honor, above my ambitions, above my likes and dislikes, above my family, my health and even my life itself. Let me decrease that Thou mayest increase, let me sink that Thou mayest rise above. Ride forth upon me as [Thy Son] didst ride into Jerusalem mounted upon the humble little beast, a colt, the foal of an ass, and let me hear the children cry to Thee, ‘Hosanna in the highest’ ” (AW Tozer).
“I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Ecc 2:17).
Here, in Ecclesiastes, may be the place where eastern philosophies come into closest intersection with the truth of the Bible. The Buddha, for example, stated: “True wisdom is a desire to be nothing, to be blown out, to enter into Nirvana”, that is, to become extinct, with the residue of life, in some sense, mingled into the Eternal. And so much of the religions that characterize the Far East breathe out this same spirit: the spirit of self-abnegation, or stoic calm and resigned acceptance of the inevitable — as though (which Zen Buddhism teaches us) “life and death are all the same”, and…
“Life is like a dewdrop,
Empty and fleeting;
My years are gone
And now, quivering and frail,
I must fade away.”
It IS true — so sadly true… if a man knows not God, or even if — knowing God — he lives a life as though he has no care for the Eternal and His priniciples and purpose.
True Christianity has much in common with this sort of pessimism. The only feature that makes it different is the hope of eternal life, beyond a life of frustration and futility and vanity. Without the empty tomb of Christ, and the heart-skipping hope it gives us, our lives would be not one whit beyond or above those of the countless millions who have gone on before us, into the oblivion of their own final resting places.
“The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head” (John 19:2).
But the crown of thorns became a crown (stephanos) of victory. There is a crown of pride (Isa 28:3), which no one should wear. A crown of thorns (Mat 27:29), which no one can wear. And a crown of life (Jam 1:12), which everyone may wear.
“In making fun of the king of the Jews, they were mocking, not Christ, but their own Caesar, and every Caesar, king or ruler than ever had been, or will be. They were making human power itself a subject of scorn). Thenceforth, for all to see, thorns sprouted under every golden crown, and underneath every royal robe there was stricken and smitten flesh” (M Muggeridge). From that time forward, every power and every pretension of foolish mankind would appear ludicrous alongside the one true crown, the crown of thorns worn by Jesus. From that time forward, the only meaningful power would be that which originated in his suffering.
“They clothed him in a purple robe” (v 2).
Was the robe at Christ’s trial purple (Mark 15:17; John 19:2,5) or scarlet (Mat 27:28)? Many commentators state that the two colors were often confused, and dismiss the matter casually as “purple, or scarlet”, as if to say it does not matter. Purple was the color of royalty, whereas the common Roman soldiers’ cloak was scarlet (so we are told). Perhaps the cloak initially thrown over Jesus’ shoulders was scarlet, belonging to one of the soldiers; but that it was further augmented by a purple scarf or cape, since the intention of his mockers was clearly to portray Jesus as king.
“And you said, ‘The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a man can live even if God speaks with him’ ” (Deu 5:24).
“God’s great design in all His works is the manifestation of His own glory. Any aim less than this were unworthy of Himself. But how shall the glory of God be manifested to such fallen creatures as we are? Man’s eye is not single, he has ever a side glance towards his own honour, has too high an estimate of his own powers, and so is not qualified to behold the glory of the Lord. It is clear, then, that self must stand out of the way, that there may be room for God to be exalted; and this is the reason why He bringeth His people ofttimes into straits and difficulties, that, being made conscious of their own folly and weakness, they may be fitted to behold the majesty of God when He comes forth to work their deliverance. He whose life is one even and smooth path, will see but little of the glory of the Lord, for he has few occasions of self-emptying, and hence, but little fitness for being filled with the revelation of God. They who navigate little streams and shallow creeks, know but little of the God of tempests; but they who ‘do business in great waters,’ these see His ‘wonders in the deep.’ Among the huge Atlantic-waves of bereavement, poverty, temptation, and reproach, we learn the power of Jehovah, because we feel the littleness of man.
“Thank God, then, if you have been led by a rough road: it is this which has given you your experience of God’s greatness and lovingkindness. Your troubles have enriched you with a wealth of knowledge to be gained by no other means: your trials have been the cleft of the rock in which Jehovah has set you, as He did His servant Moses, that you might behold His glory as it passed by. Praise God that you have not been left to the darkness and ignorance which continued prosperity might have involved, but that in the great fight of affliction, you have been capacitated for the outshinings of His glory in His wonderful dealings with you” (CH Spurgeon).
“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief” (Ecc 1:18).
The sorrow is in seeing more clearly all human failings and hopelessness. “Great scholars do but make of themselves great mourners” (Henry). Cp Jesus in Joh 11:35; Heb 4:15; Isa 53; Rom 12:15. Yet “wisdom” (proper wisdom) brings life also: Ecc 7:12.
With this agree also the words of Paul in 1Co 1:20: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
THE MORE KNOWLEDGE, THE MORE GRIEF: “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth” (1Co 8:1). Knowledge of itself and for itself is sterile, and caters only to pride. Truly creation is marvelous, and natural curiosity is continually delighted with its infinite variety, but such knowledge of itself — though fascinating — is lifeless and vain.
Even the knowledge of the Scriptures — though this is the only important knowledge — pursued simply as knowledge, is empty and dead if it does not transform the character and purify the heart. In fact, knowledge and wisdom of themselves just open up the heart to a greater experience and discernment of grief and sorrow and the utter vanity of all earthly things.
How is this true, that the more we learn, the more we experience sorrow and grief? In several different ways:
This is the sad experience of all who are wise and understand. Jesus wept when he entered into the fellowship of Mary’s sufferings (John 11:35), because in that suffering he saw all the suffering of all humanity (cp Heb 4:15; Isa 53). But we may rejoice in the knowledge that the time of suffering will give way, at last, to the time of deliverance and glory (Psa 30:5; 126:5,6; Luk 6:21-23; Rev 21:4).
“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3).
Eternal life is not — literally — a present possession; this is a plain Bible teaching: Mat 19:29; 25:46; Mar 10:30; John 12:25; Rom 6:22; Gal 6:8; Tit 1:2; 3:7; Jud 1:21.
But… “eternal” life could be, either: (1) a life that never ends, or (2) a mortal life taken up with eternal things. If I spend my life thinking about eternal things, and living AS THOUGH I were in the presence of God, and AS THOUGH I were in His Kingdom already (because it is so real and meaningful to me, even now), and living in faith that that day is coming… then that is the sense — admittedly a limited and imperfect sense, but real nonetheless — in which I have an “eternal” life even now!
This is what may be called the present aspect of eternal life; and may help in appreciating the fulness of some passages in John’s writings: ie, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54; 10:28; 17:3; 1Jo 5:11,13.
In this sense, “eternal life” may be thought of as a continuum: a widening experience, beginning in the present death-prone world, but leading on to a fulness of personal knowledge in the age to come.
“In Christ eternal life, the life of God Himself, was brought into the experience of men that they might know it and share in it themselves — in some measure here and now, perfectly and everlastingly in the day ‘when he shall appear’ and when by God’s grace ‘we shall be like him’… It is a truth to ponder upon, to weigh in the mind, to carry with one through all the complexities and uncertainties of this mortal life, to call to remembrance in moments of crisis and decision, to rest upon in the less dramatic routines of daily living” (Melva Purkis, “A Life of Jesus”).
“On the other hand [after having stated the obvious Bible teachings about eternal life NOT being a present possession!: GB], what are we to make of those other passages which speak of eternal life in the here-and-now? We cannot, and must not, ignore them. Some endeavours have been made to reconcile them by saying that in these texts eternal life is being spoken of prospectively, so that when we are told we ‘have eternal life’ it really means ‘you will have’. You have become ‘heirs of eternal life’, and though not possessing it now, you will do so in the Kingdom Age. There are certain texts which could be said to support this view (eg Tit 3:7 and Heb 1:14), though they do not seem to me to completely answer our problem. However, I believe it is possible to see a balance which would take in both aspects of eternal life, without violating either the Biblical view of human nature or the rules of common sense interpretation. The Greek word for ‘eternal’ has the meaning of ‘belonging to the age’ (aionios). The basic idea is not so much the quantity as the quality of life. The Kingdom Age will be ushered in by the coming of Christ in glory, when the qualities of God’s world will be brought to the world of men in the Earth. The Kingdom of God will embody all the principles of His nature, and His will. The glory of that age will be the glory of God Himself, represented in the very person and presence of His Son. So that ‘the glory of God will fill the earth as waters cover the sea’ (Hab 2:14). To live in that glorious age the believers will be raised from the dead and receive the gift of immortality. This is ‘the promise which he has promised us’.
“In the present life, however, the aionian life, ‘eternal life’, is that new relationship with God into which the believer enters at baptism. It is, in this sense, living in anticipation of the life of the Kingdom NOW. The new life in Christ is ‘eternal life’ in terms of quality rather than quantity. By ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’, Jesus declares, ‘you have eternal life’. In other words, we become related to the quality of spiritual life which is even now seen in the Lord Jesus Christ, and which will one day be manifested in all the world in glory” (Len Richardson, “Balancing the Book” 82,83).
One of the questions posed at the beginning of this study was: does our commonly accepted Christadelphian statement of faith — the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith — go too far, or not far enough, in defining essential doctrines?
Very few Christadelphians are truly familiar with their own statement of faith. So, as a first step to answering the question above, we reproduce the text of the BASF (the Foundation clause and 30 positive clauses).
The Foundation.— That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Cor. 2:13; Heb. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 14:37; Neh. 9:30; John 10:35).
I.— That the only true God is He who was revealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by angelic visitation and vision, and to Moses at the flaming bush (unconsumed) and at Sinai, and who manifested Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in unapproachable light, yet everywhere present by His Spirit, which is a unity with His person in heaven. He hath, out of His own underived energy, created heaven and earth, and all that in them is (Isa. 40:13-25; 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5; 46:9,10; Job 38,39, and 40; Deut. 6:1-4; Mark 12:29-32; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Neh. 9:6; Job 26:13; Psa. 124:8; 146:6; 148:5; Isa. 40:25-27; Jer. 10:12,13; 27:5; 32:17-25; 51:15; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 1 Chron. 29:11-14; Psa. 62:11; 145:3; Isa. 26:4; 40:26; Job 9:4; 36:5; Psa. 92:5; 104:24; 147:4,5; Isa. 28:29; Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; 34:21; Psa. 33:13,14; 44:21; 94:9; 139:7-12; Prov. 15:3; Jer. 23:24; 32:19; Amos 9:2,3; Acts 17:27,28; Psa. 123:1; 1 Kings 8:30-39,43,49; Matt. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:15,16; 1:17).
II.— That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of man, and afterwards anointed with the same spirit, without measure, at his baptism (Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 2:22-24,36; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Gal. 4:4; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 3:16,17; Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; John 3:34; 7:16; 8:26-28; 14:10-24).
III.— That the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth on the earth was necessitated by the position and state into which the human race had been brought by the circumstances connected with the first man (1 Cor. 15:21,22; Rom 5:12-19; Gen. 3:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21).
IV.— That the first man was Adam, whom God created out of the dust of the ground as a living soul, or natural body of life, “very good” in kind and condition, and placed him under a law through which the continuance of life was contingent on obedience (Gen. 2:7; 18:27; Job 4:19; 33:6; 1 Cor 15:46-49; Gen. 2:17).
V.— That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken — a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity (Gen. 3:15-19,22,23; 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2-4; Rom. 7:18-23; Gal. 5:16,17; Rom. 6:12; 7:21; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4).
VI.— That God, in His kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals (Rev. 21:4; John 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 2:25; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:26; John 1:29).
VII.— That He inaugurated this plan by making promises to Adam, Abraham, and David, and afterwards elaborated it in greater detail through the prophets (Gen. 3:15; 21:18; Psa. 89:34-37; 33:5; Hosea 13:14; Isa. 25:7-9; 51:1-8; Jer. 23:5).
VIII.— That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him (1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 2:14-16; Rom. 1:3; Heb. 5:8,9; 1:9; Rom. 5:19-21; Gal. 4:4,5; Rom. 8:3,4; Heb. 2:15; 9:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 7:27; 5:3-7; 2:17; Rom. 6:10; 6:9; Acts 13:34-37; Rev. 1:18; John 5:21,22,26,27; 14:3; Rev. 2:7; 3:21; Matt. 25:21; Heb. 5:9; Mark 16:16; Acts 13:38,39; Rom. 3:22; Psa. 2:6-9; Dan. 7:13,14; Rev. 11:15; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 14:9; Eph. 1:9,10).
IX.— That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Gal. 4:4; Isa. 7:14; Rom. 1:3,4; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15).
X.— That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in the flesh — yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman, of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression, including the death that passed upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature (Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:17).
XI.— That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work, the assertion of his divine sonship and Jewish kingship; and the proclamation of the glad tidings that God would restore their kingdom through him, and accomplish all things written in the prophets (Mark 1:15; Matt. 4:17; 4:20-48; John 10:36; 9:35; 11:27; 19:21; 1:49; Matt. 27:11-42; John 10:24,25; Matt. 19:28; 21:42,43; 23:38,39; 25:14 to the end; Luke 4:43; 13:27-30; 19:11-27; 22:28-30; Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44).
XII.— That for delivering this message, he was put to death by the Jews and Romans, who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done — viz., the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam’s disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin (Luke 19:47; 20:1-16; John 11:45-53; Acts 10:38,39; 13:26-29; 4:27,28; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:10; Rom. 3:25; Acts 13:38; 1 John 1:7; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Peter 3:18; 2:24; Heb. 9:14; 7:27; 9:26-28; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 3:25; 15:8; Gal. 3:21,22; 2:21; 4:4,5; Heb. 9:15; Luke 22:20; 24:26,46,47; Matt. 26:28).
XIII.— That on the third day, God raised him from the dead, and exalted him to the heavens as priestly mediator between God and man, in the process of gathering from among them a people who should be saved by the belief and obedience of the truth (1 Cor. 15:4; Acts 10:40; 13:30-37; 2:24-27).
XIV.— That he is a priest over his own house only, and does not intercede for the world, or for professors who are abandoned to disobedience. That he makes intercession for his erring brethren, if they confess and forsake their sins (Luke 24:51; Eph. 1:20; Acts 5:31; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:1; Acts 15:14; 13:39; Heb. 4:14,15; John 17:9; Heb. 10:26; 1 John 2:1; Prov. 28:13).
XV.— That he sent forth apostles to proclaim salvation through him, as the only name given under heaven whereby men may be saved (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:19,20; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 26:16-18; 4:12).
XVI.— That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the gospel they preached, and to take on the name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded (Acts 13:48; 16:31; Mark 16:16; Rom. 1:16; Acts 2:38,41; 10:47; 8:12; Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 6:3-5; 2:7; Matt. 28:20; John 15:14).
XVII.— That the gospel consists of “the thing concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12; 19:8,10,20; 28:30,31).
XVIII.— That the things of the Kingdom of God are the facts testified concerning the Kingdom of God in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and definable as in the next twelve paragraphs.
XIX.— That God will set up a kingdom in the earth, which will overthrow all others, and change them into “the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ” (Dan. 2:44; 7:13,14; Rev. 11:15; Isa. 32:1,6; 2:3,4; 11:9,10).
XX.— That for this purpose God will send Jesus Christ personally to the earth at the close of the times of the Gentiles (Acts 3:20,21; Psa. 102:16,21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts 1:9,11; Dan. 7:13).
XXI.— That the kingdom which he will establish will be the kingdom of Israel restored, in the territory it formerly occupied, viz., the land bequeathed for an everlasting possession to Abraham and his seed (the Christ) by covenant (Micah 4:6-8; Amos 9:11,15; Ezek. 37:21,22; Jer. 23:3,8; Gen. 13:14,17; Heb. 11:8,9; Gal. 3:16; Lev. 26:42; Micah 7:20).
XXII.— That this restoration of the kingdom again to Israel will involve the ingathering of God’s chosen but scattered nation, the Jews; their reinstatement in the land of their fathers, when it shall have been reclaimed from “the desolation of many generations”; the building again of Jerusalem to become “the throne of the Lord” and the metropolis of the whole earth (Isa. 11:12; Jer. 31:10; Zech. 8:8; Ezek. 36:34,36; Isa. 51:3; 60:15; 62:4; Jer. 3:17; Micah 4:7,8; Joel 3:17; Isa. 24:23).
XXIII.— That the governing body of the kingdom so established will be the brethren of Christ, of all generations, developed by resurrection and change, and constituting, with Christ as their head, the collective “seed of Abraham”, in whom all nations will be blessed, and comprising “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets”, and all in their age of like faithfulness (Dan. 12:2; Luke 13:28; Rev. 11:18; 1 Thes. 4:15-17; John 5:28,29; 6:39,40; Luke 14:14; Matt. 24:34,46).
XXIV.— That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it),1 dead and living — obedient and disobedient — will be summoned before his judgment seat “to be judged according to their works”; and “receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5,6,16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 11:18).
XXV.— That the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and “the second death”, and the faithful, invested with immortality, and exalted to reign with Jesus as joint heirs of the kingdom, co-possessors of the earth, and joint administrators of God’s authority among men in everything (Matt. 7:26; 8:12; 25:20; Dan. 12:2; Gal. 6:8; 5:21; 2 Thes. 1:8; Heb. 10:26-28; 2 Pet. 2:12; Rev. 21:8; Mal. 4:1; Psa. 37:30-38; Prov. 10:25-29; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 2 Cor. 5:1-4; James 1:12; Rom. 2:7; John 10:28; Matt. 5:5; Psa. 37:9,22,29; Rev. 5:9; Dan. 7:27; 1 Thes. 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 3:21; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; Psa. 49:7-9; Luke 22:29,30).
XXVI.— That the Kingdom of God, thus constituted, will continue a thousand years, during which sin and death will continue among the earth’s subject inhabitants, though in a much milder degree than now (Rev. 20:4-8; 12:15; Isa. 65:20; Ezek. 44:22,25; 1 Cor. 15:24,28).
XXVII.— That a law will be established which shall go forth to the nations for their “instruction in righteousness”, resulting in the abolition of war to the ends of the earth; and the “filling of the earth with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah,2 as the waters cover the sea” (Micah 4:2; Isa. 42:4; 11:1-5; 2:4; Hab. 2:14).
XXVIII.— That the mission of the Kingdom will be to subdue all enemies, and finally death itself, by opening up the way of life to the nations, which they will enter by faith, during the thousand years, and (in reality) at their close (1 Cor. 15:25,26; Rev. 21:4; 20:12-15; Isa. 25:6-8).
XXIX.— That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a general resurrection and judgment, resulting in the final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years (Rev. 20:11-15; 1 Cor. 15:24).
XXX.— That the government will then be delivered up by Jesus to the Father, who will manifest Himself as the “all-in-all”; sin and death having been taken out of the way, and the race completely restored to the friendship of the Deity (1 Cor. 15:28).
To the BASF is also attached 35 “Doctrines to be Rejected”.
Footnotes:
How does the “Apostolic statement” stack up against the BASF (and of course the BUSF), as to general content?
Apostolic |
Birmingham Amended |
| Statement of Faith | Statement of Faith |
| (ASF) | (BASF) |
| 1. The Bible | The Foundation clause, Doctrine to be Rejected 1 |
| 2. God | Clause I, Doc. Rej. 2 |
| 3. The Holy Spirit | Clause I, DR 6, 25 |
| 4. Jesus, the Son of God | II, DR 3, 28 |
| 5. Jesus, the Man | VI, VIII, IX, X, DR 4, 5 (The condition of the human race – of whom Jesus was part is defined in IV and V.) |
| 6. Sin and Death | IV, V, DR 27 |
| 7. The “Soul” | IV, DR 7, 8 |
| 8. “Hell” | DR 8, 9 |
| 9. The Sacrifice of Christ | VIII, IX, X, XII |
| 10. The Resurrection of Christ | XIII |
| 11. The Mediatorship of Christ | XIII, XIV |
| 12. The Second Coming | XIX, XX |
| 13. Resurrection | XXIV, DR 16, 17 |
| 14. Judgment | XXV, DR 15 |
| 15. The Promises to Abraham | XXI, XXIII, DR 10 |
| 16. The Promises to David | XXII |
| 17. The Kingdom of God | XXVI through XXX, DR 12, 14, 18, 29 |
| 18. The “Devil” | DR 11 |
| 19. “Satan” and “Demons” | ….No equivalent…. |
| 20. Justification by Faith | XI, XII, XVI, DR 22, 23, 26 |
| 21. Baptism | XVI, DR 21, 30, 31 |
| 22. The One Body | ….No equivalent…. |
| 23. The Breaking of Bread | ….No equivalent…. |
| 24. The Jews | XXI, XXII, DR 33 |
| 25. Christ’s Commandments | XVI, DR 24 |
| .No equivalent…. | DR 13, 19, 20, 32, 34, 35 |
Certain clauses in the BASF (i.e., III, VII, XV, XVII, and XVIII) are connective only, adding no particular principles to the whole. This leaves 25 clauses plus the “Foundation” clause, most of which find plain counterparts in the comparison above. The general doctrinal coverage between the two “statements” is almost identical, with two primary exceptions:
More specifically, it is proposed now to evaluate the clauses of the BASF phrase by phrase, attempting to determine if they go too far or not far enough in defining essential doctrine. (In the analyses that follow, ASF stands for Apostolic Statement of Faith, and BASF for Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.)
“The Foundation: That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation” (BASF).
This could be replaced by:
“The Bible is the Word of God, directly inspired by Him in all its parts. It is powerful to instruct man in righteousness, and to accomplish God’s purpose in those who believe” (ASF 1).
The second is only about one-third as long as the first, and states the same essential truth, even adding an additional (and, as attested, essential) significant truth: “It is powerful…”
Furthermore, the ASF removes the problems of the BASF: i.e., the suggestions that:
There are no real problems with BASF I, except — again — its considerable length. The briefer ASF 2 says everything essential; in addition, it attributes God’s eternal plan to His desire to save men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10).
ASF 3 is a perfect match for (a) that part of BASF I which deals with God’s Spirit, and (b) Doc. Rej. 6.
Also in the BASF, DR 25 rejects the teaching “that a man cannot believe without possessing the Spirit of God.” It may be assumed this means that a man does not need to be directly inspired by God in order to believe (though it might better have been so stated). Surely it was not intended to mean that man does not need the beneficial influence of God in Spirit-inspired Scriptures or in Spirit– directed providence in order to believe!
In the absence of any proof that it is an “essential teaching”, and because of this ambiguity of meaning, DR 25 might well have been omitted from a Statement of Faith.
In this case, unlike the earlier ones, the ASF (Clause 4) is slightly longer than the BASF (Clause II, DR 28), but with good reason:
“God — in accordance with His eternal plan, and in His goodness and kindness and grace — manifested Himself through a Son. Jesus of Nazareth is that unique and holy Son of God, begotten of the virgin Mary by the power of God, without a human father. He is not the second person of a ‘trinity’ of ‘gods’, and he had no pre-human existence except in the mind and purpose of his Father.”
The first sentence has no equivalent in BASF II (perhaps it does, somewhat, in BASF VI), but it is well worth saying. It expresses the motivation of God in His plan of salvation.
The relevant “essential doctrines” taught by the BASF are:
If by “condemned” is meant “condemned to mortality” (with no moral stigma attached), then Points b and c are the logical and indisputable corollaries of Point a, and need not have been included on that score alone.
Otherwise, the ASF (in Clause 5) perfectly coincides with the BASF (in Clauses VIII, IX):
“Although he was the Son of God, Jesus was also truly and altogether a man; he shared our mortal nature, with all its sorrows and griefs” (ASF 5).
The terms “condemned” and “condemnation”, found in the BASF, do have — for some readers — a moral connotation, and might well be avoided for that reason. The Bible evidence does not support the use of these words to describe Christ’s nature in a “first principles” statement; “mortal” is sufficient.
It is difficult to know exactly what “very good” (Gen. 1:31, AV; BASF IV) means, or even whether it is so much a description of Adam’s condition before he sinned, as it is of the condition of the whole of God’s original creation. Therefore, use of this phrase could be avoided in any list of “essential doctrines”.
Likewise, “a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being” (BASF V) is not demonstrated to be a first principle by reference to any relevant passages. Indeed, the use of this phrase in the BASF has led to arguments such as:
The ASF (6) is sufficient, while not introducing controversial matters of questionable merit:
“The first man was Adam, who disobeyed God and was condemned by Him. Adam was responsible for bringing sin and death into the world.”
This is not so much a demonstrable first principle as it is a reasonable deduction from one. That is, it is difficult to find “essential teaching” that spells this out in so many words. (For example, nothing is found about sin and death per se in the “Acts statement”.) But it must be true that, since the sacrifice of Christ is the means of saving us from death, we need to be clear as to what death really is before we can appreciate our potential deliverance from it! What we need not do, however, is add to an “essential” statement matters of secondary importance and/or second-level logical deduction.
The phrase “sin in the flesh”, which occurs in DR 27, is found only once in the whole Bible (Rom. 8:3). There is perhaps some legitimate disagreement, even among Christadelphians in good standing, as to what the phrase means. There is even some disagreement — in fact — as to whether it is a phrase: i.e., “sin-in-the-flesh” (with hyphens understood). In other words, did God condemn (a) “sin-in-the-flesh”, or (b) “sin” in the flesh?
If “sin in the flesh” means the human tendency to sin, inherent in our nature, then plainly — as DR 27 states — it would be fundamentally wrong to deny its existence. But it is also redundant to state this principle in DR 27, in the light of its already being stated in BASF III, IV, and V (and ASF 5, 6, and 9).
Just as it is necessary to understand death, so it is necessary to understand the Scriptural definition of “soul”. The ASF (7) and the BASF (IV, DR 7,8) are equivalent on this matter (except for BASF’s aforementioned use of “very good”).
Likewise with the Scriptural definition of “hell”. The ASF (8) and the BASF (DR 8, 9) are equivalent here.
The ASF has:
“Although he was of our weak and sinful nature, Jesus was enabled, through faith in and love for his Father, to overcome all temptation and to live a righteous and sinless life. His crucifixion — accomplished by wicked men but according to God’s plan — was the means by which he was saved, and by which those who believe in him may be saved from sin and death. God was working in the sacrifice of His Son to express His love and grace and forbearance toward all men — not His wrath against them” (9).
The BASF has:
“…Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him” (VIII). “…the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God (IX). “…put to death by the Jews and Romans, who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done — viz., the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam’s disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin” (XII).
The BASF covers everything that is an “essential doctrine” in the area of the Atonement. But clearly, the BASF goes into more detail on certain “Atonement” points than seems warranted by the evidence for the ASF.
Even then, it is noteworthy that many of the typical Christadelphian legalisms and technicalities concerning the Atonement are not found in the BASF: “alienation”, “inherited alienation”, “Adamic condemnation”, “clean flesh”. Even the term “resurrectional responsibility” is not to be found in the BASF.
The phrase “to obtain a title to resurrection” (VIII) implies a “mechanical” or “process” orientation to the question of Jesus’ salvation. Hence the argument as to the “basis” for his resurrection (and then, secondarily, to the supposed “basis” for the resurrection of others). Such legal technicalities, possibly interesting in themselves, might well be avoided in a discussion of true “essential doctrines”, as the ASF bears out. In terms of fundamental doctrine, it is enough to know “what”; it is perhaps interesting but not essential to know “how” and “why”.
Also, the phrase “to bear our condemnation” — used about Christ (BASF IX) — has implied to some readers that a degree of personal guilt is thereby attached to Christ. Of course, this is very wrong. Such an idea need not even be hinted at in any “essential doctrine” — and this wording is not included in the ASF.
And so ASF 9 expresses Jesus’ participation in, and benefit from, his own sacrifice in quite simple terms. Some readers might wish for a fuller statement, but the “first principles” evidence does not warrant it.
Interesting though it might be for “experts” to probe into the “mechanics” of the Atonement, such matters need not concern the unbaptized or the “novices”. The car can carry the passenger, or the driver for that matter, from Point A to Point B even if he does not know the difference between a carburetor and a radiator. It may be good and useful to know such things, but strictly speaking it is not necessary. (And the “car” of Christ’s atonement is not going to break down along the road!) Some Christadelphians seem to think that a person must be a professionally certified auto mechanic before he is allowed even to get into a car!
Some of our divisions might well have been avoided if, for the sake of the One Body, we had settled on the simplest defensible teaching of the Atonement as our “first principle”!
A mild quibble might be had with the BASF, which states that the resurrection of Christ occurred “on the third day” (XIII), whereas the Bible sometimes says “after three days” (Matt. 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31). (This may merely be a difference between Hebrew and Greek or Roman methods of counting days.) At any rate, and while somehow connected to a “third day”, the exact time of Christ’s resurrection is certainly not on the same order of importance as the true first principles.
Otherwise, the fit between ASF (10) and BASF (XIII) is perfect.
The ASF reads as follows:
“Being exalted to God’s right hand in heaven, Jesus is the only priest and mediator between God and men” (11).
The BASF has:
“[Jesus was] exalted…to the heavens as priestly mediator between God and man, in the process of gathering from among them a people who should be saved by the belief and obedience of the truth” (XIII).
The significant feature of each is the same, as expressed in one of the Pastoral Letters’ “sayings of faith”:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
Continuing, BASF Clause XIV presents some problems:
“That he is a priest over his own house only, and does not intercede for the world, or for professors who are abandoned to disobedience. That he makes intercession for his erring brethren, if they confess and forsake their sins.”
Is it true that, as high priest, Jesus never intercedes for anyone other than his obedient brethren? It may be true that forgiveness of sins is only obtainable to those who enter into covenant relationship with God, and Christ as high priest and mediator is certainly involved with this. But does he not even begin the process with those not yet in such covenant relationship?
One of the proof texts quoted with BASF XIV is 1 Timothy 2:5. This reads, in context with vv. 1,3,4,6,7:
“ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men… For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher [and] a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
The use of the phrases “all men” and “all” and “Gentiles” in the context of 1 Timothy 2 plainly points to those not yet in Christ’s household. Can it be right that Christ cannot intercede at all for such as they?
Then there is, of course, the case of Cornelius. Though not as yet baptized, his prayers were heard by God (Acts 10:2,4,31) — presumably through Christ the high priest and the only mediator between God and men. And the one whom Peter calls “Lord” (vv. 14,36; 11:8,16,21) answers Cornelius’ prayer by sending Peter to teach the Roman soldier and his household the way of life (one of the “first principles” lectures in Acts).
It is also true that Jesus said, “I pray not for the world” (John 17:9), and that it is “we” (the baptized believers) who surely have a “high priest” (Heb. 4:14,15; 8:1) and an “advocate” (1 John 2:1). But are those not yet in the “house”, but moving in that direction, merely “the world”? And even if they are not yet “we” (i.e., baptized believers), can it be true that Christ is bound to take no notice of them whatsoever?
The collateral matters (upon which XIV touches) of repentance, baptism, and forgiveness of sins (only through Christ) are dealt with elsewhere in the BASF (and of course in the ASF also); there is no need to repeat these matters in another clause.
On balance, therefore, BASF XIV might well be omitted from any statement of “essential doctrines”.
The ASF (12) and the BASF (XIX, XX) are identical as to essential doctrines.
ASF: “After his return, Jesus will raise many of the dead, the faithful and the unfaithful. He will also send forth his angels to gather them together with the living to the great judgment” (13). “The unfaithful will be punished with a second, eternal death. The faithful will be rewarded, by God’s grace, with everlasting life on the earth, receiving glorified and immortal bodies” (14).
BASF: “That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living — obedient and disobedient — will be summoned before his judgment seat ‘to be judged according to their works’; and ‘receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad’ ” (XXIV). “That the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and ‘the second death’, and the faithful, invested with immortality, and exalted to reign with Jesus as joint heirs of the kingdom, co-possessors of the earth, and joint administrators of God’s authority among men in everything” (XXV).
Like the original Birmingham Statement (before the Amendment of 1898), the ASF does not attempt to define the “responsible” — except to say, in Clause 14, that the “faithful” and “unfaithful” will appear at the Judgment Seat of Christ. This is equivalent to the BASF in XXV, which uses the identical words “faithful” and “unfaithful”. [For that matter, Clause XXIV of the BASF originally read: “the responsible (faithful and unfaithful), dead and living of both classes”. The parenthetical phrase was dropped out of the original Clause XXIV to make room for the parenthetical amendment.]
This ASF 14 is absolutely Biblical, being based upon a “first principles” passage (Acts 24:15) which uses terms of identical meaning in defining those who are “responsible” to a resurrectional judgment:
“There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust…” (KJV).
“…the dead, both the righteous and the wicked…” (NIV).
“…the dead, both the just and the unjust…” (RSV).
It is true that one early Christadelphian Statement of Faith (by John Thomas) seemed to limit the resurrectionally “responsible” to those of “the household” (see chapter 10). But surely the description “unjust” (or “unfaithful”) always allowed for the possibility that, besides all the unfaithful who are validly baptized or otherwise in covenant with God, some unbaptized (who are “unjust”/“unfaithful” too) will also be raised to condemnation. In Acts 24:15, the word translated “unjust” is the Greek adikos; other uses of the same original word plainly include the unbaptized:
Again in the immediate context of Acts 24:15, the Gentile ruler Felix, who heard these words of Paul about a “resurrection of the wicked”, grew fearful when — only a few days later — Paul spoke to him again of “the 1 judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). If a resurrection of the “wicked” or the “unjust” (v. 15) plainly held no threat at all for any unbaptized Gentile, why did Felix tremble when told of the judgment? 2
The analysis of “essential doctrines” in “The Apostles’ ‘First Principles’ Lectures” section (chapter 6) demonstrates that Deuteronomy 18:15,19 and its context formed part of the teaching presented as a preliminary to baptism:
“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken…I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”
It is true that these words were spoken by Moses to the children of Israel, and not to Gentiles, and that — likewise — they are quoted by Peter when addressing the children of Israel again (Acts 3:22,23). But…the warning includes the serious, all-inclusive “whosoever”! It is the same inclusiveness used by Peter in Acts 2:39:
“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
The promise of blessing, even when spoken to Jews, is also to “all that are afar off” (i.e., Gentiles: Eph. 2:13,17; 3:5-8; Isa. 57:19). Surely — if those same “all” knowingly and willfully refuse the offer of such a promise — they cannot expect to avoid the effect of such refusal: “Whosoever will not hearken to my words… I will require it of him.”
The history of the “resurrectional responsibility” division indicates that the original Clause XXIV was at the time of its drafting understood to allow for the unbaptized responsible, who had refused to give heed to the words of Christ. But a prominent English brother (J.J. Andrew of London) began to teach, in the 1890s, that those responsible to a resurrectional judgment could not possibly include any who were either uncircumcised (in the Mosaic dispensation) or unbaptized (in the Christian dispensation), because such were not cleansed from “Adamic condemnation” by the “blood of the covenant”, and thus could not be delivered, even briefly and by Divine decree, from the curse of an “eternal death”. 3 The controversy from this new (or, if not so “new”, then “newly prominent”) teaching led the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia to change its Statement of Faith in an attempt to rule out the teaching that Christ could not raise and judge any who were unbaptized.
However, the brief analysis above suggests that a careful reading of the original clause (even before the Amendment) — with its reference to the “unfaithful” — should have ruled out such teaching in the first place. Then there would have been no need for an amendment of doubtful meaning and application.
The amendment defines the responsible as “namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it”. (It does not say, as some suggest, that the “responsible” are all who know the Gospel; it might even be argued that it pointedly avoids saying such a thing.)
The amendment was, and is, doubtful as to its meaning, since who can truly know (a) if another has not only known enough of the will of God, but especially (b) if that same person has been called upon (by God? by man? and in what manner?) to submit to it. And thus, of course, it was, and is, doubtful as to its application in individual cases: Few if any Christadelphians ever try to apply the Scriptural warnings about resurrectional judgment to specific individuals — and that is as it should be.
More might be said about the ambiguities of the amendment. For example, what does “those who know” really mean? Some might say, ‘What a foolish question! The answer is obvious!’ But is it? There are two primary Greek words translated “to know”:
Understandably, there is not always a perfectly clear demarcation between these two Greek words — gray areas do exist. However, depending on which of the above definitions is given the word “know” in the Amendment, the statement can be made to mean very different things. In other words, in order to be responsible to resurrectional judgment, how much need one know? And how well need one know it? Who can say for sure?
Secondly, there is of course uncertainty about the phrase “called upon to submit to it”. The very reasonable questions have been asked: ‘How does God call men?’ ‘How can we ever know which — if any — among the unbaptized today have been truly called by God?’ In fact, to be “called” — Scripturally — goes far beyond “knowledge”:
“Those he called, he also justified” (Rom. 8:30).
“…Live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (1 Thes. 2:12).
“…As members of one body you were called to peace” (Col. 3:15; also see Rom. 8:28; 9:23,24; Eph. 4:1; Jude 1).
Such examples could be multiplied many times over. In fact, out of more than 100 passages, the concept of “calling” is almost invariably associated with those who have been or go on to be baptized.
What does all this mean? Among other things, it means that the Amendment was and is so worded that one might accept it while still not believing that all “enlightened rejectors” (whatever that means, exactly) will be raised and judged by Christ at his coming.
And, to stretch the point a bit further, it means that the amendment is so worded that one might accept it while having reservations about the resurrection to judgment of any “enlightened rejectors” in this modern age, when the Holy Spirit is not openly manifest. How? Because, in the absence of Holy Spirit guidance, none of us can determine how much an unbaptized person must “know” or, indeed, whether that “knowledge” must be theoretical or practical, impersonal or personal, objective or subjective. And, finally, because none of us can really determine how and when, or even if, any unbaptized person has been Scripturally “called” by God.
The following point needs to be made, and stressed: The original Birmingham Statement of Faith (used by many ecclesias even today, and generally referred to as the “Unamended Statement”) is not in opposition to the “Amended Statement”. How can this be said? Because the original Clause XXIV, along with Clause XXV, plainly teaches that the resurrectionally “responsible” includes the “unfaithful”, and because — as the passages above, such as 1 Corinthians 6:1 and 1 Peter 3:18, indicate — there is no Biblical warrant for limiting the “unfaithful” to the baptized class only.
Are the unbaptized raised upon a different “basis” than the baptized? Such a question implies that, for fellowship purposes, we must know the means (the “why” and the “how”) as well as the end (the “who”). To ask such question is to move the discussion from a “first principles” matter to a non-essential matter. And so, to pursue such a question as though it were a “first principle” is to create an artificial barrier where none need exist. The course of wisdom? Agree on the essential doctrine, and then discuss further details only with other “experts” who need — or think they need — to know!
So, should there have been a division in the first place? While making allowances for our lack of firsthand knowledge of those times, one may be tempted to think that, had the Christadelphian body given due prominence and weight to the (unarguably) fundamental Bible teaching of the One Body, they might have found a way to prevent a serious and destructive division.
The more responsible (!) question now is: what can be done about such a division? And the simple answer is: The minority (i.e., the “Unamended” in North America) — if not truly believers in what may be called the J.J. Andrew error — should ask themselves, in the spirit of the fundamental Bible teaching on the One Body: ‘Why have we resisted for so long a statement which essentially occurs in our own (“Unamended”) Statement of Faith anyway?’
And, going one step further, the majority (i.e., the “Amended”) might ask themselves: ‘Why have we made our own special interpretation of a vague amendment [Remember, it does not say, “All who know will be raised”!] the test of fellowship for everyone else — thus raising a relatively minor matter to such an extraordinary level?’ And…‘Have we used our Statement of Faith as a weapon to punish (or a wall to exclude) those who differ from us only slightly and on a secondary matter?’
Footnotes:
The BASF has these relevant Doctrines to be Rejected:
15. That the tribunal of Christ, when he comes, is not for the judgment of saints, but merely to divide among them different degrees of reward.
16. That the resurrection is confined to the faithful.
17. That the dead rise in an immortal state.
As discussed in the previous section, the clearly essential doctrines concerning this subject include:
The Doctrines to be Rejected, above, are plainly the negative restatements of these positive “first principles”.
One Scripture passage presents a significant problem. The Bible teaching that the dead do not rise in an immortal state seems to be contradicted by the words of Paul to the Corinthians:
“The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:52,53).
However, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is equating “resurrection” with the whole process (resurrection, judgment, and glorification) culminating in the Kingdom of God. That is (letting verse 53 interpret verse 52), ‘the dead shall be raised…to put on incorruption’! Paul’s own words elsewhere (i.e., Rom. 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Thes. 4:14-17; 2 Tim. 4:1) give the step-by-step details of this process, and should be studied alongside 1 Corinthians 15.
There are other examples of the Bible speaking of “resurrection” as a finished work, with no indication of any judgment whatsoever or any rejection of the unworthy: Luke 20:33,35; John 5:29; Philippians 3:8-11; Hebrews 11:35; and probably Revelation 20:6.
It is possible that a “statement of faith” may quote 1 Corinthians 15:53,54 without teaching false doctrine. (How can the direct quoting of Scripture ever be false?) But, to be consistent with other plainly essential teachings, the words “raised incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52) would have to mean something like: ‘raised, then judged, and then glorified’ — even if such process were almost instantaneous after the literal coming forth from the grave.
It should be said, moreover, that there is no real Bible proof for the length of time (no matter how long or how short) involved in the process of resurrection, judgment, and reward. But any theory that denies that a literal resurrection will be followed by a literal judgment is — by the earlier tests — plainly a false doctrine.
Finally, it must be noted that there is no conclusive Bible proof for any specific procedure of judgment; it cannot be proven as a first principle, for example, that every responsible person has, one by one, his or her own individual “trial”. Certain “judgment” verses indeed might be interpreted this way (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10), but other “judgment” verses imply very much otherwise (Matt. 13:48,49; 24:40,41; 25:32; Luke 17:34-36). But, once again, the true “first principles” passages require a literal judgment — no matter how the details are arranged by Christ and his angels.
ASF: “The promises made to Abraham, confirmed to Isaac and Jacob, and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, require a literal inheritance in the earth for Christ and all the faithful, who are the spiritual ‘seed of Abraham’. The righteous do not go to heaven at death” (15).
BASF: “That the kingdom which he will establish will be the kingdom of Israel restored, in the territory it formerly occupied, viz., the land bequeathed for an everlasting possession to Abraham and his seed (the Christ) by covenant” (XXI). “That the governing body of the kingdom so established will be the brethren of Christ, of all generations, developed by resurrection and change, and constituting, with Christ as their head, the collective ‘seed of Abraham’, in whom all nations will be blessed, and comprising ‘Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets’, and all in their age of like faithfulness” (XXIII).
Doctrine to be Rejected: “That the righteous will ascend to the kingdoms beyond the skies when they die” (10).
The hope of Abraham is the hope of the gospel, and the hope of all true believers. The promises made to Abraham are among the most completely attested of all first principles in the Book of Acts; they are the subject of comment by Peter, Stephen, and Paul alike. They form the basis for other first principles, including the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the Kingdom of God, the promises to David, and baptism (“If ye be Abraham’s seed…”).
There is essentially a perfect fit between the Biblically-derived ASF and the BASF on this matter. (The implication in BASF XXI that the Kingdom of God will not encompass the whole earth is actually modified and explained by the elaboration in Clause XXII — that Jerusalem will become the metropolis, or capital, of the whole earth.)
ASF: “The promises made to David, and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, require Jesus to sit on David’s throne and rule over God’s Kingdom, which is the kingdom of Israel restored. Jerusalem will be the capital of this kingdom” (16).
BASF: “That this restoration of the kingdom again to Israel will involve the ingathering of God’s chosen but scattered nation, the Jews; their reinstatement in the land of their fathers, when it shall have been reclaimed from ‘the desolation of many generations’; the building again of Jerusalem to become ‘the throne of the Lord’ and the metropolis of the whole earth” (XXII).
The promises to David are, like the promises to Abraham, intensively discussed by Peter and Paul in the “first principles lectures” of Acts. Once again, there is a nearly perfect fit between the ASF and the BASF.
This is not so much a separate first principle as it is an addendum to the promises to Abraham and David; this explains the lack of “essential doctrine” verses appended to Clause 17 in the ASF. The words of the Old Testament prophets (David, Isaiah, Daniel, Micah, Habbakuk, etc.) and the New Testament prophets (Jesus, Paul, and John in Revelation) are — of course — equally inspired with the “essential doctrines” verses in Acts, etc. But,
With these considerations in mind, we compare the ASF 17 and the BASF XXVI through XXX, along with Doctrines to be Rejected 12, 14, 18, and 29. The statements of ASF 17 are few and simple, and verified by other first principle teachings and numerous other verses:
“Jesus will be assisted by his immortal brothers and sisters in ruling over the mortal peoples in the Kingdom of God. This kingdom will result in everlasting righteousness, happiness, and peace. Finally all sin and death will be removed, and the earth will at last be filled with the glory of God. The earth will not be literally burned up or destroyed.”
On the other hand, the “Kingdom” portions of the BASF are quite extensive and less well-attested:
XXVI. The “thousand years” (Rev. 20:4-8) is mentioned nowhere else in the whole of Scripture. It was apparently unheard of through long ages of inspired writings, until John received the Apocalypse.
The supposed pattern of a divine “week” of precisely 7,000 years, with a 1,000-year “Sabbath day” at the end, is based on 2 Peter 3:8 and very little else. But careful reading of 2 Peter 3 suggests just the opposite: that God operates on His own quite flexible timetable, and that time is almost infinitely expandable (“a day is with the Lord as a thousand years”) or contractible (“a thousand years as one day”) as He may choose.
It is (or should be) axiomatic that fundamental doctrine cannot be based solely on one Bible passage. It should be doubly axiomatic that fundamental doctrine cannot be based solely on one passage from the Book of Revelation (which is prophetic, and figurative to a very high degree). And, when it is considered that all the other time periods in Revelation (1,260 days; 42 months; 3 1/2 years; 10 days; 3 1/2 days; an hour; half an hour; etc.) are often interpreted figuratively, then it would appear unwise to base an essential, saving Truth on one reference to a time period in Revelation! Might it just be possible that “a thousand years” is symbolic of a very, very long time (like the “144 thousand” may be symbolic of a very, very large number of people)?
Furthermore, is the passage in Ezekiel (44:22,25) — also cited for Clause XXVI — about mortal or immortal priests? About an earlier temple (planned, or actual) or a literal Temple of the Kingdom Age? The answers to these questions are by no means certain enough to constitute part of saving Bible Truth.
XXVII. This clause contains nothing questionable, and is matched by parts of ASF 17.
XXVIII. Once again, reference to a “thousand years” is questionable.
XXIX. This is the third clause in which the “thousand years” has a prominent part. Also, the “general resurrection and judgment” at the close of the “thousand years” — being based on a single passage (Rev. 20:11-15), and without corroboration elsewhere — cannot be considered fundamental doctrine. The order of events in Revelation 20, in addition to their placement with regard to the (literal or symbolic) “thousand years”, is also subject to various expositions, more than one being reasonable and possible and compatible with all true “first principles”. If interpretations of Last Days prophecies need to be approached carefully, with due allowances for human fallibility…surely this is more so true with events which may or may not occur more than 1,000 years hence, and on the other side of the “great divide” of Christ’s coming and God’s direct intervention in world affairs. Surely a little humility is in order here. And surely we would be wrong to exclude from our fellowship those who believe all fundamental Bible teachings, yet have some uncertainties in their minds about exactly how God will continue to fulfill His purpose a thousand or more years from now!
XXX. This clause is nothing more than an effort to expound the “all in all” of 1 Corinthians 15:28. No other Bible passage is (or can be) quoted on this matter. How can this be a “first principle”?
DR 12. It is a “doctrine to be rejected” “that the Kingdom of God is ‘the church’.” But should it be? It would be unanimously agreed among Christadelphians that “the church”, or ecclesia, is not the Kingdom of God in final realization or in actual fact. But is it as certain that the ecclesia is not the Kingdom of God in prospect, in development, or (if you will) in “embryo”?
Robert Roberts, for instance, wrote that “the Kingdom of God is not exclusively an affair of futurity…”, but that it is also seen in the aspect of being “first introduced to any man called to be an heir thereof”. He went on to write of the Kingdom of God being like “leaven” (Matt. 13:33), “put into the mass or bulk of human affairs…in the gospel preached by the apostles”, etc., etc. If this is not equating the Kingdom of God, in its formative phase, with the “church” or ecclesia, then it is simply not possible to understand his words.
Indeed, it is fair to say that the great majority of references to “kingdom” in the New Testament have to do, not with the Kingdom of God in its future manifestation, but with the Kingdom of God as presently preached, and as presently believed upon in the “church” — that is, in its present phase among believers today, over whom the Father is the Eternal King, and in whom Christ reigns by faith. (Consider, as only a few examples, Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 11:11,12; 13:24,31,44,45,47; Luke 17:20,21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9.)
This is not to say that the Kingdom of God, in its future reality, is not a tremendously important Bible teaching. But why introduce wording of an alleged “first principle” which so overstates the case, and is so susceptible of criticism, and so necessary of further explanation, as DR 12?
DR 14, 18. The “thousand years” seems to have inspired great fascination in the framers of the BASF!
DR 29. This is clearly a first principle, since the literal destruction of the earth itself would be a plain negation of the “essential doctrines” of the promises to Abraham, the promises to David, and the Kingdom of God. This doctrine has a perfect counterpart in the last sentence of ASF 17.
The BASF says only that it is a “doctrine to be rejected” “that the devil is a supernatural personal being” (11). Surprisingly, the BASF has nothing at all to say about “Satan” and “devils/demons”.
The ASF is much more complete, dealing briefly with “Satan” and “devils” (literally, “demons” in the Greek), as well as the “devil” — though primarily in the context of what they are not! The “first principles” passages in Acts, Ephesians 4, and the Pastoral Letters have nothing to say directly about the “devil”, “Satan”, or “demons”. It may be concluded, therefore, that teachings about these concepts are only of “first principles” status if they directly contradict true “first principles” (such as the One God or the One Lord).
That is, belief in an immortal but wicked “fallen angel” not under God’s authority would be, in effect, belief in a second “god” or a second “lord”, and a serious false doctrine. On the other hand, belief in an angel of God acting, with God’s authority, as a “Satan” or Adversary in a specific instance would be acceptable.
Thus it may be possible for two believers, without either of them denying a truly essential doctrine, to hold quite different views upon certain Bible passages: e.g., the nature of Christ’s tempter in the wilderness, the identity of “Satan” in the Book of Job, or the source of the “demonic” illnesses in the gospel records.
The ASF teaches that men are justified, or declared righteous, not through their own works, but by the grace of God (20). However — while mentioning the “forgiveness of sins” (XII), which plainly implies grace — the BASF also has the (erroneous, or at least misleading) statement that “the way to obtain this salvation is” (among other things) to continue “patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded” (XVI)! This appears, on the surface at least, to teach justification by works and thus to contradict the “essential doctrine” of justification by faith. (See more on this in chapter 16.) This lapse is, in this writer’s opinion, a serious flaw! But, thankfully, we do not seem truly to believe this: common Christadelphian teaching is well in advance of what was surely an unintentional error in the BASF.
Both statements teach that understanding of the gospel, and belief or faith in it, must precede baptism (ASF 20, 21; BASF XVI).
The ASF teaches that men must turn to God and show repentance by forsaking their wicked ways and performing God’s will. But the BASF has no specific reference to conversion or repentance in connection with baptism! (Repentance is mentioned, more generally, in BASF XI.) Surely this is merely an oversight.
The ASF teaches that men must be baptized in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Likewise, the BASF (XII and XVI).
The ASF teaches that men must be baptized in order to become heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. Likewise, the BASF (XVI along with XXI).
The ASF teaches that baptism is symbolic of a new, spiritual birth. The BASF has no specific reference to baptism as a new birth! Surely an oversight again.
“Those who believe the gospel and are baptized into Christ become ‘brethren in Christ’, without regard to nationality. They also become a part of the ‘one body’, with Christ as their head. God calls them His children, and they become partakers of His grace and love” (ASF 22).
One looks in vain for any equivalent statement in the BASF. One may wonder if, perhaps, many of our problems and divisions might have been alleviated or even avoided altogether if we as a body had kept our eyes upon this principle.
“The body is one” (1 Cor. 12:12). It is the Father’s wisdom generally to place believers together in “families”. We are all, whether we like it or not, members of a body. No man should live to himself; that would be selfishness, and a direct contradiction of Paul’s elaborate allegory in 1 Corinthians 12. One of the most important lessons of our spiritual education is to “discern the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:29): to learn to think and to act unselfishly as a member of the One Body, and not selfishly as a separate entity, even as regards our own salvation.
The body is one, yet it has many members (v. 12). Some are less beautiful or feebler than others (vv. 22,23), but these too are necessary. “God hath tempered the body together” (v. 24); these individuals have been welded together with the ecclesia. In faith and obedience they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. Those for whom Christ died must not be treated haughtily or indifferently.
“And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you” (v. 21).
So Paul presses home the point: There should be no schism (division) in the Body (v. 25). “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it” (v. 26). Life itself teaches everyone that pain in one member affects the whole body; and the loss of one member, even a small toe, can seriously affect the wellbeing and balance of the whole.
It was no meaningless rhetoric that Moses used when he sought to interpose himself as a sacrifice on behalf of his erring countrymen (Exod. 32:30-33). Neither is it to be thought strange that Nehemiah and David and Daniel and the other prophets showed no sign of dissociating themselves from Israel, no matter how wayward their brethren became. (And even when Jeremiah ceased praying for his brethren, it was God’s decision and not his! — Jer. 14:11.) These men had learned the Bible doctrine of the One Body, and the necessity to love one another, long before Paul was even born.
The implication of the Bible teaching of the “One Body” should be plain: An ecclesia must have clear and undeniable grounds — involving plain denial of essential teachings or serious unrepented-of moral failings — to justify its disfellowship or excommunication of any believer.
Are we afraid that living by this standard of the “One Body” will put us in danger of being contaminated by association with weak or sinful men? Then we must remember that the ecclesia does not exist to keep the Truth pure as a theory (i.e., ‘The purer our ecclesia, the better!’). The Truth (as an abstract principle, or set of principles communicated from God) cannot be anything but pure! The ecclesia does exist to help impure men and women (with imperfect beliefs and impure ways) to move toward purity, even if their progress is slow.
Consequently, certain Bible passages imply a very different treatment for false teachers than for those who are falsely taught. After appropriate warnings, false teachers must be summarily dealt with, even to the point of being rejected or disfellowshipped (see, e.g., 1 Tim. 6:3; Tit. 1:11; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 2 John 7-11; Jude 3:16; Rev. 2:20; and chapter 2 of Biblical Fellowship). On the other hand, those who have been misled by such false teaching must be carefully and patiently instructed again — so as to be saved (see, e.g., Matt. 18:5-7; Rom. 14:1; Gal. 6:1,2; Jude 22,23). So important is the teaching of the One Body — that the ecclesia of Christ cannot afford to lose even one member who might by love and tact and longsuffering be reclaimed!
This idea — of the One Body and its purpose in God’s plan — should be kept in mind by every individual, and every ecclesia, when dealing with every other brother and in every “fellowship” situation, and when considering every so-called “first principle”.
“The breaking of bread and drinking of wine, in remembrance of Jesus, was instituted by him for his true followers. It is a means of affirming their status as members of the ‘one body’ of Christ. It is a commandment to be obeyed whenever possible” (ASF 23).
Once again, on this question the BASF has…NOTHING! Into this vacuum, into this “house swept and garnished”, has entered by default the “theory” that one may lightly refuse the bread and wine to anyone who does not totally agree with him. As if to say (and it has been said!), ‘Better to give the Lord the benefit of the doubt, and cut off anyone about whom we have the least reservation!’ And further, ‘Let’s not forget also to cut off anyone else — even if fundamentally sound — who can’t go along with us in our first decision of cutting off!’ And even…‘Of course, we never judge others; we just politely “stand aside” from them!‘
Might our brotherhood have been much better off (might we not be much better off yet?) if we had thought of the breaking of bread positively, rather than negatively? If we have thought of it as something to share joyfully (the “feast of love”!), much more than as something to withhold prudently? If we had thought of the tokens of fellowship in the One Body as not our own, but Christ’s? If we had thought of the ecclesia itself as not ours, but Christ’s? And if we had thought of the ecclesia as a house with a “door” through which to invite others in, rather than merely as a house with “walls” to keep others out and to hide ourselves behind?
Once and for all, let us see the “one body” and the “breaking of bread” as true first principles (Acts 2:42; 10:34-36; Rom. 12:1,4,5; 1 Cor. 10:16,17; 12:12-27; Eph. 4:4). Then it may be possible for us to recognize, for the first time, that there is at least as much danger in refusing the bread and wine to those who believe the gospel, as there is in offering them to those who may be in error on some first principle.
“For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy” (James 2:13).
The primacy of the Jews, and their ultimate place in the plan and purpose of the God of Israel, are the subjects of a separate clause in the ASF (24). These matters might well have been dealt with as parts of other clauses, such as those on the promises to Abraham and David, and the Kingdom of God. The final regeneration of those who are Israelites indeed will be on the same principle as that of Gentile believers in all ages: belief of the one gospel, repentance, conversion, and baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
The BASF deals with the same matters as parts of several other clauses (XXI and XXII), and as one Doctrine to be Rejected (33). A small note of caution, however: BASF XXII appears to suggest that the nation of Israel, being God’s “chosen”, will be reinstated in God’s Kingdom with no regard to faith and repentance on their part. Surely this will not be the case, God being no respecter of persons. But the absence of any statement to the contrary may lead some to that erroneous conclusion.
With this slight caveat, it may be said that there is good equivalence between the two statements as regards the Jews.
The following Doctrines to be Rejected have no real counterparts in the ASF: 13, 19, 20, 32, 34, and 35.
DR 13: “That the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ merely”: This is redundant, since the whole of the ASF or BASF defines the “gospel”, and since it is already abundantly clear that the “Gospel” is much more than the above.
DR 19 and 32 have to do with the keeping of the Law of Moses as a means to life. This has already been effectively counteracted by the positive teachings of ASF and BASF. It is not necessary to state it again.
DR 20 is susceptible of misinterpretation. It is true enough that Sunday should not be kept as the Mosaic Sabbath. But it is equally true that the breaking of bread should be kept whenever possible (ASF 23), and — since this is usually done on a Sunday (cp. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) — DR 20 might imply that this observance is unnecessary, which would be very wrong.
DR 34 and 35 might better be dealt with under the general heading of the Commandments of Christ, with some latitude allowed to ecclesias to apply the commandments to specific cases at their own discretion (see chapter 16).
We summarize, then, some of the more general weaknesses of the BASF:
(1) The BASF uses uncommon and difficult words, suitable perhaps for a legal document of the Victorian era, but not nearly so suitable in a document we hope will be read (and understood!) by people in general today. (If any reader feels inclined to exclaim, “Why in the world should we want people in general today to understand it?”, then it may be because he has not seriously considered our body’s duty to proclaim the gospel to the world!) Probably many readers can define such words as these, but can our neighbors (or even our Sunday School scholars) define them?:
| extant | bequeath |
| transcription | metropolis |
| underived | abolition |
| inaugurate | immaculate |
| abrogate | coercion |
| propitiation |
(2) In addition to archaic and difficult words, the BASF uses lengthy and complex sentences — which obscure the meanings of some wonderfully simple concepts. (This may be seen — for one example — in the Foundation clause of the BASF, as considered previously, under the more detailed evaluation. Examples of this sort could be multiplied.)
(3) The BASF omits any clear statement of the fundamental Bible teaching of justification by faith. Corresponding to this is its failure to mention conversion or repentance in connection with baptism. These oversights may reinforce an unfortunate Christadelphian tendency: to understand, and perhaps to proclaim, salvation as a mechanical process (‘learn the facts, and then be baptized’) more than as a moral awakening (‘change your life, and then be reborn’).
(4) The failure to teach the doctrine of the One Body has reinforced a sad Christadelphian tendency: to divide too quickly, too often, and too easily. This lack of specific teaching on the subject has encouraged us to put far more weight on, and more effort into, maintaining the purity of the Truth than maintaining the unity of the Body!
(5) The BASF is characterized by a complete absence of “love” as an attribute or motivation of God or Jesus Christ in their work. Also, there is a complete absence of “mercy” in connection with either the Father or the Son.
(6) The BASF tends to say too much in stating a principle, and (sometimes) to suggest inadvertently what is plainly wrong: i.e.,
(7) The BASF puts excessive emphasis (in Clauses XXVI through XXX) upon events of the Last Days, for which our Scriptural approaches to defining “essential doctrine” yield no evidence for inclusion. Considering the scant evidence from any part of the Bible for the literality of the thousand years reign of Christ, and for a “general resurrection and judgment” at the end of that period, these statements might well have been omitted from a statement of faith purporting to define fundamental and saving truth. (This is not to say that these two items, or any other points in the last five clauses, are wrong — only that they are not nearly so well-attested as most of the earlier portions, and that they are demonstrably not of the same “first principles” status. It should go without saying that other, more detailed interpretations of Last Days prophecies must likewise be kept out of “first principles” status, even if some brethren might wish to lift them there.)
Despite the undeniable fact that the BASF embodies saving truth, the above weaknesses emphasize the need for a simpler, more readable, and less confusing statement of faith — not so much for long-time Christadelphians as for the young and the newly-baptized and the interested friends.
By tacit agreement, the Christadelphian body has long used substitutes for the BASF: pamphlets and other outlines and summaries of first principles for the “outsider” and the Sunday School student.
It is a pity that, when asked “What do you Christadelphians believe?”, we must (for some of the reasons above) hesitate to give an inquirer our (more-or-less) official statement of faith!
A list of the commandments of Christ, which also includes the commandments specifically communicated by the apostles and others in their New Testament writings, has since the beginning been appended to every Christadelphian statement of faith. This is altogether reasonable, inasmuch as obedience to these commandments is surely a part of the “first principles” of the One Faith.
As indicated earlier, the BASF appears to suggest, however, that the keeping of all the commandments is an essential for salvation (XVI). Surely this was not the intention of the original framers. (Nor, in this writer’s experience, is this what is taught among Christadelphians — thank God!) The Bible, and the Apostolic Statement of Faith, plainly teach that men are justified or declared “righteous” through their faith and not their works. (“Man cannot save himself by his own works alone, no matter how good or numerous”: ASF 20):
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).
Nevertheless, works are important. As the passage above indicates: while grace saves, good works are one of the tools God uses as He continues to work upon us, so as to produce — at last — the “workmanship” of Christ’s “new creation” in us: “All those who believe these teachings should strive also to live godly, Christ-like lives…The commandments of Christ…are therefore an important part of any Statement of Faith” (ASF 25). Not to earn salvation, but to strengthen and complete and perfect one’s faith (James 2:14-26), and thus to keep oneself in the one place where forgiveness is available, and where salvation may at last be received!
One such list of the commandments of Christ, and the apostles:
There have been, in the past, divisions among Christadelphians over certain commandments of Christ. For the most part, these have not arisen because one ecclesia or group of ecclesias disavowed or renounced clear commandments, but because the two sides interpreted certain commandments in somewhat different ways.
Notorious in this respect have been the commandments concerning marriage, and the related matters of divorce and possible remarriage. It might be argued, since the commandments of Christ should constitute part of any Biblical statement of faith, that there must be perfect unanimity among ecclesias on the questions of:
…before there can be true Biblical fellowship.
However, there is a vast difference between denying one or more of the commandments of Christ, on the one hand, and, on the other, applying one or more of them in a slightly different way.
A clause in many ecclesial Constitutions, suggested by the original Christadelphian Ecclesial Guide, reads as follows:
“In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority.”
We may make the mistake of supposing that “majority rule” is simply a convenient way of doing things, borrowed — with no particular Bible support — from the democratic governments of England and America. So we may assume that this rule is not especially binding, and in fact really means:
‘I agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, unless I believe them to be wrong.’
But it may be seen — upon some reflection — that the rule cannot be limited to such an interpretation: If everyone agreed to submit to the will of the majority only when he or she thought it to be right, then the clause would, in reality, mean…nothing! This would then be the perfect prescription for ecclesial disunity. Sadly, this has happened far too often among us. Brothers and sisters have stayed together in ecclesias, thinking themselves to be in perfect harmony, until the first real problem arose. Then they have divided from one another because one side or the other had supposedly “departed from the Truth”, even if only in a relatively minor matter.
No, the proper way to read the clause is surely:
‘In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, even when the majority is wrong.’
Even if our ecclesia makes what we consider to be a wrong decision, our duty is to remain peaceably with the ecclesia…unless that decision affects the ecclesia’s official position in relation to one or more essential doctrines of the Truth.
And if another ecclesia similarly makes what our ecclesia considers to be a “wrong” decision on the application of one of Christ’s commands in a specific case? What is the second ecclesia to do? Nothing! As Robert Roberts has written:
“There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another…An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with: but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere…There may be cases [in judging individual cases] where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result — a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot…The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ.” 1
By itself, this approach (coupled with a true understanding of the difference between essential and non-essential teachings) would have prevented most Christadelphian divisions before they arose!
Would an ecclesial decision to allow one whom others might consider an erring brother to break bread with the ecclesia be a matter “affecting essential doctrines”? It might be thought, since there are commandments of Christ that deal with so many aspects of life, including the breaking of bread, etc., that — “Yes! This IS a matter of essential commandments, and they must be understood, and kept, correctly by the ecclesia as a whole. I cannot go along with what I know/believe to be wrong!”
But let us assume that there is no attempt by the ecclesia in question, or any of its members, to deny one of Christ’s commandments — but only a difference of opinion as to how to apply that commandment in a particular case. Is that sufficient reason to consider leaving the ecclesia? If it is, then, conceivably, every difference of opinion as to how to apply any commandment could be considered a matter of “essential doctrine”, and we would always be on the verge of disfellowshiping anyone and everyone at the slightest difference of opinion on almost anything!
This is not to say: ‘There is no right answer.’ It is to say: ‘Even if you or I have the perfect answer, you or I should not try to force it upon everyone else under threat of withdrawal if they disagree!’
To return to the “majority rule” principle: This is much more than a convenient way of doing things; it is really the restatement of a Bible principle, or commandment, itself — which is just as fundamental as any other commandment!:
“All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5).
“Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21).
These passages most directly “prove” that the rule is Scriptural. There are other passages which, almost as directly, say the same thing, and they are the passages which teach the unity of the Body of Christ (ASF 22). All the passages, in Paul’s letters and elsewhere, that command us to “be of the same mind” or “one mind” (i.e., Rom. 12:16; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Pet. 3:8,9) make the same point: that in matters of non-essential questions, we must eventually, for the sake of peace and unity, submit to the will of others (i.e., the will of the majority), even if (especially if!) we think they are wrong. Just as our obedience to certain commands (to love, to be kind, and to “turn the other cheek”) is only truly tested when we are wronged — so also our obedience to other commands (to unify the Body, to submit to one another, and to be of one mind) is only truly tested when we have a significant difference of opinion with our brethren.
As a religious community, Christadelphians are known — and enjoy being known — as “the people of the Bible”. Our appeal to others is always: ‘Put aside your traditions; read and believe the Bible.’ It would be a pity for our community to allow itself to become enslaved to a particular statement of faith simply because it has become “traditional”, if a more Biblical alternative were available. [To characterize the ASF as “more Biblical” is not to imply that the BASF is non-Biblical. Instead, it is to assert (1) that there are Biblical (and not merely traditional) reasons for the inclusion of every ASF teaching in the “first principle” category, but (2) that the same cannot be said for the BASF — even if it may be said that its teachings are derived from the Bible.]
Is it possible, or desirable, then, for our community (or individual congregations) to consider an alternative to our most commonly used Statement of Faith? Some traditionalists will say that even to ask such a question is to invite charges of “heresy”. It is appropriate therefore to quote from an article written by the Committee of The Christadelphian:
“It is the word of God alone and not the Statement of Faith which produces faith. When someone wishes to become a Christadelphian, the question is not primarily whether he accepts the Statement of Faith but whether he holds the Bible teaching on which it is based. It is important to have our priorities right and not impute to any human writings, whoever wrote it, the power to produce saving faith and to be the authoritative basis for it. This is not to underestimate the value of the Statement: it is simply to put it in perspective.”
And, again, from the same source:
“Statements other than the Birmingham Amended Statement have always been regarded as acceptable amongst ecclesias in the Central Fellowship, provided they uphold the same Bible Teaching.” 2
The “other” such statements in the above quotation cannot be identical to the BASF; if they were, they would, of course, not be other statements but the same statement. This is so simple as to seem trite. However, it is useful to express the matter in such words. Why? Because brethren may admit the possibility that another “statement of faith” contains saving truth, who will then — almost in the same breath — fight fiercely against any such statement on the sole ground that it is different from the BASF. And the slight difference or differences (either by addition or deletion) will — in their minds — render any “other” statement, by that very fact, unacceptable.
Here, then, is the conclusion:
The BASF contains saving truth. But not everything in the BASF is saving truth. And not every saving truth is contained in the BASF. Nor is the BASF necessarily the best or the most complete statement of saving truth. Other statements, such as the Apostolic Statement of Faith (designated as ASF above) may more perfectly define the One Faith.
The alternative Apostolic Statement of Faith embodies the results of the inquiries outlined earlier, and thus merits its designation of “Apostolic”. This Statement has no “doctrines to be rejected” section, although the false doctrines that are most common around us today (and which truly pervert positive essential teaching) are dealt with in the body of the document. The proposed Statement is also intended to embody the Commandments of Christ, as the last clause implies.
The BASF is not wrong, while the ASF is right. Rather, the BASF is good, while the ASF (it is to be hoped) is better. (And one might hope that further research, carried out in an open-minded fashion, will improve the ASF even more.)
Brethren, then, should not quibble that one statement (the ASF) is slightly different than the other (the BASF). They should seek to understand where and why it is different, and — following the arguments presented — they will be pleased to accept the former when it is an improvement upon the latter.
They should no longer fight for those minor matters contained in the BASF but omitted from the ASF, when they come to recognize that such — even if Bible Teaching — are not saving or essential Bible Teaching.
And, likewise, they should be pleased to accept, and utilize, as saving or essential truths those items which the ASF includes that were, wrongly or by oversight, omitted from the BASF.