Introduction
Robert Roberts……J. J. Andrew
Debate
One of
the stalwart supporters of Brother Roberts in his opposition against Edward Turney’s “clean-flesh” teachings of the 1870’s was Bro. J.
J. Andrew. He saw through the folly of Turneyism and
produced a valuable series of articles in The
Christadelphian entitled “Jesus Christ and him Crucified” (later issued in
booklet form as “The Real Christ”) arguing against the theory of his opponent.
Unfortunately, when an issue
arose in 1894 concerning the basis upon which resurrection is possible, Bro.
Andrew was dogged by personal considerations, and assumed an altogether wrong
premise. He contended that those who had not been baptised, were not
necessarily amenable to judgment; that responsibility was therefore not upon
the ground of knowledge, but of works. Pressed upon this matter, he developed
the theory of legal alienation by birth, and claimed that this could only be
averted by the process of circumcision or baptism.
All wrong theories find their
impact upon the doctrine of the Atonement, and “Resurrectional Responsibility”
is no exception. A debate was organised between the
two disputants, in order to test the veracity of the differing teachings. The
following transcript reproduces in their entirety the questions and answers
given by Bro. Roberts and Bro Andrew. It must be recognised
that the form of debate does not always provide for a balanced, developed
presentation of a subject. The very nature of debate means that each combatant
is seeking the weak points of the other, and to demonstrate the strengths or
weaknesses of the arguments. The report of a debate is helpful to that end; it
examines various claims, and tests the differing viewpoints—but that is its
limit. Readers of this debate must remember that statements made are usually
based upon the opposing claims, or are being directed along a particular line
of argument. They might therefore be sometimes clarified by later cross-examination.
It will be seen, nevertheless,
that Brother Roberts had a clear perception of the resurrectional
responsibility question and its effect upon the atonement,
and in the later questioning was able to elucidate some of the misrepresented
statements that were earlier made.
Prefaces
by the Disputants
J.J. ANDREW: The proposal for this
debate came from certain brethren in
R. ROBERTS: I agree that the subject cannot be exhaustively
dealt with in a debate on the Socratic method which,
though convenient for test, is liable to draw off the disputants to side issues
which occupy time disproportionately. The more formal exhibition of it in the
pamphlet referred to by Bro. Andrew, and in the reply which I have published to
that pamphlet under the title, “The Resurrection to Condemnation: Who will come
forth to it?” will enable the reader to see the bearings of the subject in a
clearer light.
Also, the form in which the
theme of the Debate was stated, I felt to be inconvenient. It is not one that I
would have chosen, for a variety of reasons. It is of Bro. Andrew’s wording. I
was obliged to submit to it from the representation made to me that if I did
not consent to it, the Debate would not come off.
I proposed a question that
would have brought the issue before the meeting in a more direct and simple
form. It seems to me an unnatural association of ideas to make the infliction
of condemnation depend upon the attainment of reconciliation (which is the
central idea of justification by the blood of Christ). I deem it necessary to
say this, because I felt all through the Debate that the wording of the subject
placed the issue in a false light, and led to a method of treatment entirely
foreign to the moral essence of the thing. I also think it necessary to advert
to other points which the absence of a closing rejoinder put it out of my power
to notice.
Some of the discrepancies
between Bro. Andrew and myself in the questions and answers that were exchanged
were due, I feel sure, to his employment of inexplicit phraseology, technical
terms and phrases, which are always open to more than one construction. Take
for example, “Adamic sin,” “inherited sin,” “sin in the flesh”. Only one of
these—the last—is a Scriptural form of speech, and that is used only once (
According to these
definitions, Adamic sin is desire to do
evil. Answering his questions according to this definition, I was obliged
to maintain that it is not removed till the resurrection, since the desire to
do evil remains unchanged to the last, as Paul declared to be his own
experience. Answering it according to my own conception (which is a larger
conception, while including Bro. Andrew’s conception),
I was obliged to make the same answer.
My conception is this, that
death became a physical law of Adam’s nature in consequence of Adam’s sin; that
it became so by the power of the sentence of death operating physically upon
him, as the sentence of life at the judgment seat will operate physically upon
the bodies of the accepted, causing them to become incorruptible; that becoming
a part of his being, it was therefore necessarily transmitted to all of Adam’s
posterity who partook of that death-stricken being by physical descent, and
became in them also a tendency to moral corruption; that, therefore, as the
whole mischief originated in sin, taking effect in the flesh, it could, by
casual language, and on the principle of metonymy (putting cause for effect),
be described as sin in the flesh: “sin that dwelleth in me.”
Having this conception, I
could not say otherwise than “No,” when asked if we are justified from “Adamic
sin” at baptism. Christ was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Tim. 3:16) in the
sense of being made right, or perfected physically in the Spirit—not in the
sense of being pardoned, for he required no pardon. It was this sense of
“justify” that I had before my mind when Bro. Andrew asked me about being
“justified from sin in the flesh at baptism.”
I have always believed (and it
seems to me impossible for any man having regard to meanings and not to mere
phrases, to do otherwise than believe) that this blessed change is effected
only at the resurrection. “We shall all be changed.” This corruptible and
mortal, which has come by Adam, putting on the incorruptible
and immortal through Christ.
What is cancelled at baptism
(and it is only cancelled potentially—for there is an “if” all the way through)
is the condemnation resting upon us as individual sinners, and the racial
condemnation which we physically inherit.
I have never diverged from
this view, though Bro. Andrew seemed to think I had, from the quotation he made
from the ‘Christadelphian’ of 1878, page 225. It is the employment of an
ambiguous phrase—one of his own phrases—that leads him to think so, but the
paragraph itself in which the phrase occurs, shows the meaning with which I
used it. The contrast is between “legal” and actual mortality. The actual
mortality of our experience is the result of the sentence passed on Adam, to
which, as a race, we are related.
Legal mortality would be that
which is constituted, ordered, or determined upon by law. In this sense, we
pass (potentially) from death to life at baptism—which is a very important
sense certainly, for without it there could be no hope of the physical
deliverance that waits at the coming of Christ.
But still it has no binding
force in the direction which is Bro. Andrew’s whole contention in this
argument. It cannot prevent the revival of a dead mortal being to a renewal of
his mortal state if God require him to come forth—as is absolutely proved by
the restoration of unjustified dead in past times.
Finally, I did not get the
opportunity of pointing out the undue stress laid by Bro. Andrew throughout,
upon the idea of “probation,” as affording him an argument against the
resurrection of rebels against the Light. “Probation” is not even a Scriptural
technicality, and certainly it is not a Scriptural conception with the
limitations put about it by Bro. Andrew. It literally means “putting to the
proof.” Men are certainly put to the proof before God accepts them: but this
does not express their whole relation to Him. It is not merely a question of
whether they are worthy of a certain benefit: there is the question of God’s
claim upon them, and the whole evolution of judgment, nationally or
individually, turns upon this.
God has not surrendered His
claim on the sons of Adam, although death reigns among them. Had He said
nothing after the sentence in
What is the principle of its
operation? This is the whole question. Whenever we ask for a Scriptural
definition of it, that is, a definition in the actual words of Scripture, we
get the doctrine which Bro. Andrew is opposing. That is, we never can get in
Scripture words the doctrine he is advocating, but always the one he is
opposing. If we ask who in Scripture words are said to rise to condemnation, it
is “They who have done evil” (John
He rejoins, “Then you prove
the resurrection of all wicked, of all unjust, of all who have done evil.” The
answer is,—No, because the Scriptures draw a line. If it be asked where? the answer is, at ignorance (Acts
If on the other hand, the
question is asked, What in the Scriptures is the
formulated—the specifically alleged—ground of condemnation? The answer is
invariable: “Light” (John
The reason of condemnation is
always alleged to be disobedience. It is “Because I have called, and ye have refused. I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded … ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof” (Prov.
“Probation” has its place as a
Scriptural idea; but it is used unskilfully and with
destructive results when it is made to hide the idea that God has property in
sinful man, and will not be mocked by him when He stoops to the great
condescension of addressing commands to him.
J.J. ANDREW: When consent was given by Bro. Roberts and myself to the publication of this Debate, I had no idea that
he would supplement it by a written argument, but having done so, I must follow
suit.
In saying that, according to
my argument, “the infliction of condemnation” is made to “depend upon the
attainment of reconciliation,” Bro. Roberts conveys the impression that I deny
“the infliction of condemnation” on any members of the race who have not been the
subjects of reconciliation. This misrepresents me; many have so suffered. God
“condemned
The expressions “Adamic sin”
and “inherited sin” are, says Bro. Roberts, not Scriptural forms of speech.
This is immaterial provided they represent a Scriptural truth. It is often
advisable to use other than Scriptural phrases to show in what sense certain
inspired words are understood. The word “sin” is so frequently used to describe
an act of transgression that it is necessary at certain times to show that this
is not its only meaning.
It is quite true that the
phrase “sin in the flesh” only occurs once in the Bible—a remark obviously
intended to minimize its importance—but that which it represents is described
in other language. Thus, “every man’s own lust” (James
“Sin in the flesh” is treated
by Bro. Roberts as being identical with the “physical law of death transmitted
to Adam’s posterity.” This is not correct; the two things are related to each
other as cause and effect, and they are so combined in the expression
“corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). When Adam was created
he had no “lust” or evil desire; he was “very good” (Gen. 1:31), not “knowing
good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). But through yielding to outside temptation he came
to “know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22); and henceforth evil desire became an
element in human nature, transmitted from parents to offspring.
To say that it is called “sin”
because it leads to sin is misleading; this may be partly true, but the chief
reason is, that it is the result of sin—that is, of Adam’s disobedience. Hence,
by the transmission of evil desire all the descendants of Adam are accounted as
having “sinned” in him (Rom.
“Lust” being the cause of
physical “corruption,” every member of the race is necessarily the subject of
Divine condemnation by reason of its possession; and the removal of this
condemnation is requisite before they can “have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1).
This removal is a justification or acquittal; and from the time that it takes
place, inherited “lust” ceases to be the subject of condemnation or accusation.
It was not the “removal” of
“lust” about which I questioned Bro. Roberts, but the removal of its
condemnation—two distinct events. Lust continues to exist to the end of
probation, but there is then “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1) for it; condemnation
at the judgment seat can only be incurred for yielding to it. “If ye live after
the flesh ye shall die” (Rom.
“To be perfected physically in
the spirit” is, according to Bro. Roberts, the only way of being “justified
from Adamic sin”; not so, however, according to apostolic teaching. This event
is more correctly defined to be the consummation of a previous justification;
failure to realize it can only result from “sowing to the flesh” (Gal. 6:8),
not from possession of the flesh. Therefore “the flesh” must have been the
subject of a justification when probation commenced.
The bearing of these
testimonies on Jesus Christ is obvious. He was made of “the same flesh and
blood” as his brethren, “in all things like unto” them (Heb.
At birth “sin in the flesh”
“had the power of death” over him, but “through death” he “destroyed” its power
(Heb. 2:14) over himself; and when he rose it could be said of him, prior to
his change into Spirit—“he that hath died is justified from sin” (Rom. 6:7 RV).
Believers who are “baptised
into his death” (verse 3) necessarily partake of that justification, but with
this difference—that their probation is only beginning, whereas his was at an
end; and they then receive forgiveness of individual transgressions, of which
he was quite free.
The two-fold aspect of their
justification at this time is very concisely expressed in Col. 2:13: “You,
being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened
together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” The phrase
“uncircumcision of your flesh” is synonymous with “sin in the flesh” before
justification. For this, as well as for individual “trespasses” the brethren of
Christ were once under “the power of death,” but, having been “quickened,”
death cannot, for either the one or the other “reign” over them; they have,
like Paul, been “made free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2); if they
enter the grave it cannot hold them.
The fact that the physical
consequences of Adam’s “offence” are not removed at baptism is no evidence that
Adamic sin is not then the subject of justification; if it were, the
continuance of the physical consequences of some individual “trespasses” such
as disease caused by drunkenness, would prove that such trespasses were not
forgiven.
It is therefore, erroneous for
Bro. Roberts to confine justification from Adamic sin to the change from
mortality to immortality; this must be preceded by a legal justification as he
himself recognized in 1878. The statement that he was using one of my phrases
has not been substantiated; and, even if it had been, this would not be a valid
defence. That he understood the phrase is shown by
the way he illustrates it (see Christadelphian, 1878, page 225).
Without a legal justification
condemnation remains in full force, and in such cases death must forever
“reign”. “The law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2) is not invalidated by the
restoration of some unjustified ones in the past; they were not freed from
Adamic death, but only temporarily released from it. Not so with the rejected
at Christ’s judgment seat; they will be condemned to death solely for their own
offences during probation—and this could not be if they were still under
condemnation to death for inherited “sin” or for “trespasses” preceding
probation.
It is true that probation is not a Scriptural word, but
it nevertheless represents a Scriptural truth. The children of Adam, being
“servants of sin”, are “free from righteousness” (Rom.
It is quite a new thing among
the brotherhood to speak of men being under probation “before God accepts
them.” This, together with the denial that condemnation in Adam is legally
taken away at baptism, deprives that ceremony of half its efficacy; one or two
steps further in the same direction will render it superfluous.
The exclusion of unjustified
sons of Adam from the judgment-seat of Christ does not affect “the question of
God’s claims upon them”, because God has, for their wickedness, inflicted
punishments in this life, and He will do it in the future. These punishments
are confirmatory evidence that unjustified men are, by condemnation in Adam,
excluded from resurrection.
Additional “light” undoubtedly
brings additional responsibility; hence the supporters of the Papacy suffer
greater Divine wrath than the benighted followers of Confucius; but this light
is not sufficient, in itself, to bring them within the scope of resurrection to
Christ’s judgment-seat.
The Jews to whom Christ spoke
(John
The mere fact of not believing
(John
Such justification, equally
with that of faithful Jews, would be ratified by the blood of Christ; but their
subsequent wicked deeds, of course, would not. In this respect they occupied in
relation to the name of salvation, the same position as unfaithful brethren of
Christ, some of whom are spoken of in terms quite as severe (2 Pet. 2; Jude 12,
13) as those applied to the Jewish opponents of Christ.
The application to unjustified
Gentiles of warnings addressed to Jews (Prov.
R. ROBERTS: I have waived my right of rejoinder to remove a
barrier from the way of the writing of the foregoing.
[1]Debate at Essex Hall,
Between
brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts, April 3rd and 5th, 1894.
Chairman:
First Night
The Chairman: I
will read to you, brethren and sisters, the subject of discussion and the
condition of debate. The subject is as follows: “That resurrection to the
judgment-seat of Christ will comprise some who have not been justified by the
blood of Christ.” That proposition Bro. Roberts will affirm and Bro. Andrew
will deny.
The arrangement for speeches is
as follows: There will be two quarter-hour speeches, followed by six
quarter-hour speeches or questions as each disputant may prefer to employ that
time. That is, on this evening, we shall open with two quarter-hour speeches,
followed by six quarter-hour speeches or questioning as Bro. Roberts or Bro.
Andrew may prefer, and the matter will be opened by Bro. Roberts.
There is this condition
attached to the debate, and it is understood that this condition is binding
upon all of us: “No partial or complete account, description or report of the
debate to be printed or circulated, either separately or in any publication,
without the consent of both disputants, and in the event of such consent being
given, each disputant is to be permitted to revise same in manuscript.”
I have only one other thing to
say and that is to ask you to express no opinion whatever, neither
to approve or disapprove of what you may hear; not to interrupt the
speakers. If any brother should interrupt either speaker, I shall add to that
speaker’s time what he may lose by the interruption. I now call upon Bro.
Roberts to open in a 15 minutes’ speech.
BROTHER ROBERTS: Dear
brethren and sisters, I need not say how far from gratifying it is to me, as
probably to you, to be present on such an occasion, and for such a purpose.
David says, “How good and how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity.” The reverse condition must be of the reverse character. We
have, in past times, dwelt together in unity as regards the particular issue
raised tonight, and if there is any change, it rests—you know where—with Bro.
Andrew, who thinks he has discovered that some things he used to think were
true are not true. We need not enquire how he has come to think so. The
question for enquiry is, whether his present thoughts are in harmony with the
Word of Truth.
He has come to the conclusion
that—not the wickedness of men, but the reconciling blood of Christ, is the
basis of God’s vengeance; that not “he that believeth not”, but he that
believeth, shall be condemned; that not those rebels of mankind who utterly
refuse to submit to God are to come under His retributive vengeance in the day
of Christ, but only those who make some attempt to submit to His will by bowing
down in the presence of His Son and accepting His yoke, confessing His name and
seeking to serve Him.
He was not always of this
mind. His change of mind might not have necessitated the present meeting, but
he has taken steps which involve an attempt to coerce us into the reception of
his views, first by propounding an amendment to the constitution in force among
those with whom he is in fellowship, and, secondly, by issuing a pamphlet in
which, like another before him, he says, though not in the same words, “I
renounce what I have believed beforetime” as to the rule upon which God holds
men responsible.
I have endeavored to show
reasons against the view which he now advocates. I have done so to an extent
and in a form that I thought rendered a meeting like this superfluous. The
argument is before us on both sides. We are more likely to come to a
dispassionate conclusion in the matter by the quiet weighing of arguments than
in the heat of personal contest.
Nevertheless, it was strongly
urged upon me that such a meeting as this was in the interest of the Truth;
therefore I consented—not under any conditions—the conditions that have been
referred to are not mine. I thought that perhaps it might be that the
brethren’s idea who asked me to come here would prove right, that such a
meeting might be to the advantage of the truth.
I believe that Bro. Andrew is
perfectly sincere in the course he is taking. I hope he may be enabled to think
that we who oppose him are not less sincere. However, it is an immaterial
matter what we think of each other, the question is, what is the truth in this
case? In a phrase, it is defined by Paul that “there shall be a resurrection of
the just and of the unjust,” and by Jesus that “those who have done evil”, as
well as those who have done good, shall “come forth at
the resurrection.”
If it had been left to human
estimation as to what was expedient or suitable in the matter of resurrection,
we might have come to the conclusion that a great many people in America have
come to, and that is, that there need not be any resurrection at all of those
who are to be rejected; that no purpose can be served by bringing again to life
those who are to be put back into death again. But we dare not come to that
conclusion. It is God’s matter, not ours. We can form no opinion on such a subject
of any value. It is a mere question of God’s purpose, and what He has declared.
Now He has declared the resurrection of the unjust and the evil, and the
question is why? On what ground? I am sure I am within
the recollection of everyone present, when I say that no ground is alleged in
the Bible for resurrection to condemnation excepting unrighteousness and
rebellion, and this is not on any mechanical principle.
I have felt oppressed and
depressed exceedingly by the mechanical nature of the theory propounded by the
pamphlet which Bro. Andrew has written. I do not mean it in any irreverent or
flippant sense, but it really seems to me to advocate salvation by machinery.
God is kept out of view, and we have a system of mechanical law placed in the
foreground. God makes the law certainly, and governs us by it, but there is a
great difference between Divine law and human law. In the case of human law, we
are obliged to speak of it as an abstraction, as if it possessed powers of its
own, because man is so weak, because human memory is so frail, and because the
men who appoint the law cannot keep pace with it, cannot be always present with
its operation; cannot know those who are related to it either on the favorable
side or otherwise.
But it is totally different
with God. God ever lives, and His power never fails, and His presence is
everywhere, and His discernments are infallible, and His rights are absolute.
Law is but the expression of His wish and will, design and intention. You never
can put the law above God. God is always above law. And you cannot tie Him by
any law. If He gave the law of Moses, He took it away;
if He gave circumcision, He took it away. If He gave baptism, He will take it
away when it has done its purpose.
He can alter, or amend, or
adapt, or adjust as He pleases to accomplish the objects He proposes. Why,
brethren and sisters, where is even the living man who, dealing with his own
property, does not claim the right (any lord in his estate, or any petty
landlord in any house, in appointing this and that to serve his purpose and
convenience) to change his appointments? In making such a change it is not a
change in himself, not a change in what he is, but a
change in the methods he adopts according as exigencies arise.
And so God has revealed to us
it is with Him. He says, “At what instant I speak concerning a nation to pluck
up and to pull down and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have
pronounced turn from their evil, I will
turn from the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I
shall speak concerning a nation to build and plant it, if it do
evil in My sight that it obey not My voice, then I will repent of the good
wherewith I said I would benefit them.”
Now it appears to me that
this, what you might call flexibility of Divine intelligence, is not
sufficiently recognized by the arguments submitted to us in the pamphlet.
Indeed there is an absence of that vivid sense of the living God which is the
very essence of the whole system of Divine truth. We are liable to fail in
apprehending His living relation to His works, because we see no actual
manifestation of Him such as we see of man, and we are apt to feel as if there
were no life or intelligence with Him such as there is with man.
The fact is just the reverse
of the appearance, as we shall see when we are subject to that process which
Elisha prayed for the young man, “Lord, open the young man’s eyes.” Lord, open
all men’s eyes, and they will see that He is the true living Essence and
Principle and Power of the universe, and the true discriminating intelligence
of all things—the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has appointed
him as the judge of the living and the dead.
BROTHER ANDREW: I need scarcely say, brethren, that equally with Bro. Roberts, I very much
regret to have to appear here on such an occasion as this. It is not because I
have not made an effort to prevent it. I was twelve months in communication
with him for the very purpose of preventing conflict. Contention is not a thing
which I like, but rather dislike; when, however, conflict is forced upon me in defence of Bible Truth, I shall not, and dare not, flinch
from it.
Reference has been made to my
change of attitude. Yes, a change from a position which I never deemed strong
to one which I do deem strong. As to the cause of that change—reference to
which has been indirectly made without being specifically stated—I will state
it. In contending for the view advocated by Bro. Roberts it was said by someone
that certain ones outside Christ would be raised to judgment through the blood
of the covenant. In support thereof a statement was quoted from John’s first
epistle, chapter 2, verse 2, that Christ’s blood is a
“propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”
That determined me to look
into the matter thoroughly, for I could see that if it was capable of being
supported by such testimony, it set aside fundamental principles of truth. The
proposition which has been mentioned was directed specifically against that
particular contention, and as you are not all aware of the wording of it, I
will read it—
“That Christ having been
raised from the dead through his own blood, it necessarily follows that the
dead in Christ will be raised through the same blood, and as a consequence,
that the blood of Christ is not available for the resurrection of any who have
died in Adam.”
I withdrew that resolution,
not, as Bro. Roberts says in his pamphlet, on condition that he replied to my
manuscript. I gave no such promise to him. I simply promised to consider the
matter. What he wanted me to do was to add some words to the proposition, and I
did not see my way to do it. I did consider the matter, and I withdrew the
proposition on the basis of the statement that had given rise to it, being
previously withdrawn. These are the simple facts and they can be verified if
necessary. It was not for that purpose that Bro. Roberts came to
Several passages have been
quoted in the address to which you have just listened—“resurrection of just and
unjust”, and those “who have done evil” are to “come forth to the resurrection
of condemnation”. If I were contending that there was no resurrection of the
unjust or no resurrection of those who have done evil, those passages would
refute my position. But I do not so contend. I fully recognise
resurrection to condemnation of certain ones who have “done evil,” and certain
ones who in the Scriptures are styled “unjust,” and therefore these passages
are no proof whatever.
Reference has been made to the
“mechanical” nature of the “theory”. Well, it may seem so to some minds, but I
submit that that is not a correct definition. God is not excluded from my
contention. God, and His ways, are the sole basis of
all that I have to say upon the subject. How do we know God except by His laws
as revealed in His word? How can we know Him in any other way? None whatever. He asks us to judge of Him by His word, and
to act in accordance with the laws and principles which He has laid down in
that word, and if we are so doing we are as much recognizing God as if we were
introducing His name into every sentence we uttered.
It is not a case of salvation
by machinery, or anything of the kind. Such phraseology is a complete misnomer,
like many other statements and definitions which have been given of my
position. The point is, what is necessary in the first instance in order to
commence a probation for eternal life? Justification,
says the Scriptures; otherwise there is no scope for probation; no justification,
no probation.
Nothing I have said
invalidates God’s prerogative to change His laws. I fully recognize that God
has given laws and taken them away; He has a perfect right to do so, unless His
promises preclude it. If He has made a promise which precludes the abolition of
a law within a certain time, His faithfulness requires that that law shall be
kept in operation until the end of that time.
Baptism, to which reference
has been made, is a case in point. God has laid it down for the present
dispensation that baptism is essential for justification; therefore He is
precluded by His own faithfulness from justifying any without baptism as long
as that law is in operation. But the time will come when it will be taken away.
For what object? To supersede it by
other laws, embodying other ceremonies for attaining the same end.
The “law of sin and death” is
still in force; the “law of the spirit of life” has not yet brought the
consummation for which it was designed: and therefore while these laws are in
operation, God’s faithfulness requires that He shall act in accordance with
that which He has embodied in them.
In the course of this debate I
shall have occasion to use certain expressions, and for that purpose I will
give my definitions of them. It is one of the elements in a controversy to
define your terms. “Adamic sin”, I
shall use as meaning “sin in the flesh”; “sin
in flesh”, I shall use as expressing the desire to do evil which is in
fallen human nature; “the ‘offence’ of
Adam”, I shall use as meaning his act of disobedience in Eden; “Adamic condemnation”, as meaning the
wrath or disfavor of God for the offence of Adam; “Justification”, as acquittal from imputed or actual guilt; “Reconciliation”, as the removal of
Divine wrath or disfavor for imputed or actual guilt; “The blood of Christ”, to represent the sacrificial death of Christ
as the consummation of an obedient life, unless for the purpose of argument I
may divorce his death from that obedient life. The expression, “In Christ”, I shall use as having reference
to all who have entered on a probation for eternal life, whether living before
Christ’s death or afterwards; the term, “The
faithful”, as meaning candidates for eternal life who have pleased God; and
the expression, “The unfaithful”, for
candidates for eternal life who have not pleased God.
A word or two upon the basis
of sound exposition is advisable on approaching this, as other subjects.
Fundamental principles must obviously regulate the interpretation of isolated
passages. Thus, when a passage will bear two different interpretations,
that one must be accepted which is in harmony with the fundamental
principle relating to it.
Take this for instance. In 1
Pet. 1:4, “An inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, reserved in heaven for
you.” If the fundamental principle were that the abode of the righteous is in
heaven, it would be quite fight and necessary to construe that “inheritance” as
being the place of abode; but that is not the fundamental principle; such a
construction is opposed to the fundamental principle. Therefore we are
compelled to adopt another construction which we all recognize, namely, that
the “inheritance incorruptible in heaven” is the eternal life which dwells in
Jesus Christ.
Another illustration is found
in 1 Cor. 15:52, “The dead shall be raised incorruptible.” At one time it was
thought that that embodied immortal resurrection. At the first glance, without
taking into consideration other passages of Scripture, it appears to bear that
construction. But we apply to that passage the fundamental principle in regard
to the judgment seat, and we find that it cannot bear that interpretation;
therefore we exclude it, and substitute for a false interpretation the correct
one, that “raised incorruptible” extends from the time of coming out of the
ground to the bestowal of immortality.
Another fundamental principle
is, that “what the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law” (Rom.
So likewise the apostolic
epistles are a law to the brethren of Christ. Hence what is said in these
epistles, sometimes in the third person, unless those outside are specified, is
applicable solely to the brethren of Christ.
Bro. Roberts Questions
Bro. Andrew:
1. Bro.
Andrew, who are the unjust? Answer: In the first instance all
men are unjust, but the unjust referred to in connection with
resurrection are those who have been justified, and subsequently become
unjustified.
2. What do you mean by subsequently becoming unjustified? Answer: Sinning, and not obtaining
forgiveness.
3. Are we always to understand the phrase “the unjust” in
the apostolic writings in that sense? Answer:
No, because we read of Christ dying for the unjust.
4. Quite so, and it says there shall be a resurrection of
the unjust. Now, then why do you discriminate between one and the other? Answer: Because in writing to the
brethren of Christ, reference is made to both faithful and unfaithful, and the
term unfaithful is identical with the unjust, who are
spoken of as appearing before the judgment-seat.
5. Will the enemies of Christ be present at the
resurrection: those who rejected him, who did not believe him, who had no faith
in him? Answer: The Jews living in
his day will.
6. I did not say the Jews, but the enemies of Christ? Answer: I must ask you to define who
they are.
7. The enemies of Christ who rejected him, who did not have
faith in him. Will they be present at the resurrection? Answer: What enemies?
8. The enemies I have defined, who rejected him, and had no
faith in him. Will they be present at the resurrection? Answer: Jews or Gentiles?
9. You know, Bro. Andrew, what I mean. I mean Jews or
Gentiles who had no faith in him, who rejected him, who were his enemies. Will
any of them, Jews or Gentiles, be present? Answer:
The Jews will.
10. They will? Answer:
Yes.
11. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the
previous sacrifices they had offered up.
12. Excuse me, that is not my
question. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Justification by the blood of Christ after the blood has
been poured out extends backwards.
13. Does it extend to the unfaithful? Answer: Yes.
14. Where is the proof of that, that the unfaithful are
justified by the blood of Christ—the unbelieving? Answer: In Heb. 9:15 we are told “For this cause he is the mediator
of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
15. Does not that refer to those who are to receive the
promise? Answer: Yes.
16. Will the unfaithful receive the promise? Answer: No.
17. Does that refer to them? Answer: It applies in principle to all who have been related to the
promise.
18. Does it refer to the faithful or unfaithful? Answer: The faithful.
19. Will the unfaithful be present at the resurrection? Answer: The unfaithful will be present.
20. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Through the sacrifices which
they offered up.
21. That is not my question. Are they justified by the blood
of Christ—those who have no faith in him? Answer:
Justified from Adamic condemnation.
22. Without any faith in Christ? Answer: Yes, but not from their subsequent individual
transgressions.
23. Are they in any sense justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Yes.
24. Who have no faith in it? Answer: Through the sacrifices they offered up.
25. Who have no faith in it? Meet the question. Answer: It was not necessary to believe
in Christ’s blood before it was poured out. The apostles themselves did not
understand and believe it, and yet they were “clean” (John
26. Did you say then that sacrifices under Moses could
justify men from their sins unto life eternal? Answer: Not without the blood of Christ.
27. And how is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Is it
not by faith? Answer: Certainly, by
faith and sacrifice.
28. These men had no faith. Christ said they had no faith? Answer: They had some, for they
believed in the resurrection.
29. Excuse me, in Christ they had no faith, “Ye have omitted
the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith” (Matt.
30. Answer my question. Were they justified by the blood of
Christ? Answer: Justified from
Adamic condemnation.
31. Yes or no, Bro. Andrew? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation through the sacrifices
which they had offered up.
32. That is not my question. My question is, By the blood of Christ? Answer:
From Adamic condemnation.
33. Answer the question, yes or no? Answer: Yes, from Adamic condemnation.
34. By the blood of Christ? Answer: From Adamic condemnation, but not from their subsequent
individual transgressions.
35. From anything? Answer:
From Adamic condemnation.
36. How was the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: Through sacrifice.
37. Not by faith? Answer:
They had faith in regard to the Abrahamic covenant, they believed in the
resurrection, but they rejected Christ as the one through whom it was to come.
They had faith, but it was not sufficient for eternal life.
38. . Were
they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer:
Justified from Adamic condemnation.
39. You are not answering my question. Answer: I must define my terms, certainly.
40. My terms are clearly defined, the issue is very simple.
You wish to evade it, and go round it. Come to the point. Were these enemies of
Christ justified by the blood of Christ? Answer:
Yes, when Christ died, his blood ratified the sacrifices which they had offered
up, and thereby justified them from Adamic condemnation.
41. Do you teach, then, that a man can be justified by the
blood of Christ, who has no faith in it? Answer:
Not now, certainly. We live in a different dispensation.
42. These Scribes and Pharisees, were they not contemporary
with the blood of Christ? Answer:
Not before it took place.
43. After? Answer:
Yes.
44. Are they to be present at the judgment? Answer: Yes.
45. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: No.
46. Can you point me a case in the Bible where a sinner has
been justified before Christ’s death by Christ’s blood? Answer: The faithful, to whom reference is
made in Heb. 11.
47. I said sinners, the unfaithful. Can you point me to a
case in the Bible where an unbelieving sinner before Christ, has been justified
by the blood of Christ? Answer: He
is justified through the sacrifices he offered up.
48. That is not the question. Can you point me to a case?
Answer the question. Answer: I am
answering.
49. No, you are not. Give me a case where a sinner, an
unbelieving man, was justified by the blood of Christ, before the days of
Christ, by sacrifice or anything else? Answer:
Of course he was not justified by the blood before it was poured out; I never
affirmed such an absurdity.
50. You stick to that? Answer:
He was not justified previously.
51. You stick to that? Answer:
Justification comes when Christ’s blood is shed, as a result of what a man did
in his lifetime.
52. Now then, will there not, amongst the unjust that are to
be raised, be a large contribution from the generations before Christ? Answer: O Yes.
53. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified in shadow
by the sacrifices which were offered up, and subsequently when Christ’s blood
was poured out they were justified in substance.
54. When? Justified in the grave? Answer: What?
55. Dead men justified? I am speaking of those who died
before Christ came, who were unjust, were they justified by the blood of
Christ? Answer: They had entered the
name of salvation.
56. You are not answering the question. Were they justified
by the blood of Christ? Answer: Yes,
when the blood was poured out.
57. You said No before. Answer:
That they were not justified before Christ’s blood was shed. They were
justified by sacrifices, and the blood of Christ ratified those sacrifices.
58. In the case of a sinner, of an unfaithful man, Bro.
Andrew? Do you say that? Answer:
Justified from Adamic condemnation when he commenced his probation.
59. An unfaithful man justified? Answer: Justification was through the sacrifices he offered up, and
the sacrifices were ratified by the sacrifice of Christ.
60. Yes, but you are not dealing with a person,
you are speaking of a process. An unbelieving, unjust man who died before the
days of Christ, was he justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Not from his own sins.
61. Was he justified by the blood of Christ? Is it not a
plain issue? Answer: Certainly.
62. Say yes or no. Answer:
He was justified from Adamic condemnation.
63. I have not asked in what sense. Yes or no? Answer: It is necessary to define it.
64. The time now is to answer questions, you can give
explanations afterwards. Yes or no? Answer:
He is justified from Adamic condemnation.
65. An unbelieving sinner was justified through the blood of
Christ? Answer: What do you mean by
an unbelieving sinner?
66. You understand the terms. Answer: I have never said an unbelieving sinner. It was necessary
previous to Christ to enter into the Abrahamic covenant by belief and the
offering of sacrifice. When that took place a man entered upon a probation for eternal life, and that act was subsequently
ratified by the blood of Christ.
67. My question relates to the unjust, Bro. Andrew, not to
the faithful men at all, but the unjust who are to be present at the
resurrection by your own admission. Were they justified by the blood of Christ?
Answer: From the sin.
68. Yes or no? You can explain afterwards. Yes or no? Were
they? Answer: From the sin.
69. You refuse to answer the question. Yes or no? Answer: I am answering your question.
70. You are evading it. Say yes or no. Do you refuse to
answer? Were these men justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: You define what you mean by unbelieving sinners.
71. I have defined my terms. You understand what I mean. I
ask you to say yes or no. Do you refuse to answer? Answer: No.
72. Then answer yes or no. You can explain afterwards. Answer: I must explain in the answer.
73. I want yes or no? Answer:
If you take the unjustified sinners to be those who are justified in the first
instance, Yes. Their justification by sacrifice was subsequently confirmed by
the blood of Christ.
BRO.
ROBERTS: Bro. Andrew refuses to answer the question.[2]
Bro. Andrew Questions
Bro. Roberts
74. Who
are the “some” not justified by Christ’s blood who will be raised at the
judgment seat? Answer: The enemies of Christ are one class.
75. Any other class? Answer:
That is enough for you, is it not?
76. Quite enough.
77. Have you always held your present contention that
enemies of Christ, or those outside Christ, will appear at the judgment seat? Answer: Always.
78. Without deviation or modification? Answer: Without deviation or modification.
79. Are all the descendants of Adam sinners by birth? Answer: Seeing that a child before it
is born cannot sin, I must ask you to say in what sense you mean.
80. In the sense used by Paul in Rom.
81. By birth? Answer:
As a result of birth from him. There is a distinction there.
82. What is the distinction? Answer: The distinction lies here. Your question implies “in the
act of being born”, whereas my answer is the state into which we are born,
which is different.
83. Does your definition of “the state into which we are
born” mean that they had to do something before they became sinners? Answer: They had to do something before
they became sinners in the sense of transgressors.
84. I did not say in the sense of transgressors. Answer: I asked you to define your
sense.
85. I defined the sense. Answer: You gave me a passage. You did not define it.
86. Very well. “By one man’s disobedience many were made
sinners.” It does not say became sinners, but “were made”? Answer: The terms are identical in the original, “became” and “were
made”, “became flesh” it is the same verb.
87. What became flesh? Answer:
The Word became flesh.
88. Has man to do something to become flesh? Answer: I did not say man, I said the
Word.
89. But we read the Word became flesh. Had Christ to do
anything to become flesh? Answer:
The Word had.
90. I am speaking of Christ. Answer: I am not.
91. The Word became flesh. Was not Christ made flesh? Answer: Well, that is a mere mode of
description.
92. Was he “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4)? Answer: Yes.
93. Was he “made sin” (2 Cor.
94. Did he do anything himself in order to become such? Answer: He had to be born.
95. Did he do it himself? Answer: Do what himself?
96. Did he do that himself? Answer: Did he beget himself, do you mean?
97. Did he do anything in order to be made of a woman? Answer: O! Bro. Andrew,
put me wise questions.
98. It is a question based upon your definition. Answer: No.
99. To be made is to become something. Answer: Your understanding of any statement must be in harmony with
the facts, as you said, and the fact is a man cannot sin until he is a man.
100. The question is not whether a man can sin, but whether
he was made or constituted a sinner by the offence of Adam. Answer: By Adam’s offence he was
brought into such a state of things that his being a sinner was inevitable.
That is the fact of the case—you must harmonize the facts and your maxims.
101. That is not an answer to my question. The question is,
are the descendants of Adam “sinners” by birth? Answer: Well, I have already answered that, and I shall be
repeating myself to answer it again.
102. Have they “sinful flesh”? Answer: Yes, they have.
103. Is not that equivalent to saying they are “made sin” by
the offence of Adam? Answer: Quite
so, when you understand what is meant. Sinful flesh
comes as a result of what he did.
104. By birth? A man, of course, has not to do something in
order to be made of that “sinful flesh”? Answer: Certainly not; the question need not be put.
105. Men are sinners before they can do anything of
themselves? Answer: That is a matter
of technical description. Let us have the facts.
106. It is necessary for the shedding of blood to take away
the sinful condition associated with birth? Answer: The object of the shedding of blood was to declare God’s
righteousness as the basis of His offer of forgiveness.
107. That is not an answer. Answer: Yes it is. It is Paul’s definition of the meaning of the
shedding of blood.
108. Is it necessary to cleanse from the sinful condition
which we all have by birth? Answer:
Understood in the apostolic sense, yes.
109. What is the apostolic sense? Answer: I have defined it.
110. I ask for a further definition. Answer: The definition is that God required the shedding of the
blood of transgressing human nature, before His majesty in the case was
sufficiently vindicated for Him to receive us back, and forgive our sins
because of our faith. It is a moral operation, physically expressed.
111. Is “sin in the flesh” the subject of justification
through the blood of Christ? Answer:
It will be ultimately.
112. It is not now? Answer:
No; we have it with us now.
113. Is that proof that it is not the subject of justification?
Answer: It depends upon what you
mean by justification; there are different kinds of justification, moral and
physical.
114. I defined the term. I said “acquittal from actual or
imputed guilt.” Answer: I take a
much wider sweep than you. I take in all the Bible facts.
115. We will deal with one at a time. Answer: We must deal with all.
116. Let us deal with what we have before us. Answer: Our sins are put away first of
all in being forgiven.
117. What do you mean by sins? Answer: The “wicked works” which Paul says alienated from God (Col.
1:21).
118. Are we not alienated from God before we commit a single
wicked work? Answer: Not in the same
sense.
119. Not in the same sense? Answer: No, we are members of a sinful stock which will certainly
bring forth wicked works left to itself.
120. Is not the sinful condition which we have by nature in
itself a cause of alienation from God? Answer:
The whole human race is in a state of alienation from Him; it can only become
reconciled by coming into harmony with Him, and sinful flesh cannot be in
harmony with Him.
121. Is “sinful flesh” in itself the cause of alienation from
God, before a single act has been committed? Answer: It is the root of the mischief.
122. Is it in itself a cause of alienation from God? Answer: As we cannot consider the thing
in itself the question cannot be narrowed in that way.
123. Why cannot we consider it in itself? Are there not human
creatures born who die before they have committed a single act? Answer: Yes, they are mere bits of
animal organism.
124. Were they not in a state of alienation from God at
birth? Answer: Alienation is only
applicable to those who are capable of reconciliation.
125. Is it not applicable to any who are unable to do right
or wrong? Answer: No; it is a moral
relation—not affirmable of an unconscious babe.
126. Then, if so, how is it that “sin in the flesh” requires
justification which I understand you to have admitted? Answer: Because, Bro. Andrew, we are going to be saved and be made
incorruptible, and we could not be made incorruptible if “sin in the flesh” was
not put away by a change to incorruptibility.
127. Is there not a preceding justification from “sin in the
flesh?” Answer: There comes first
the sense which I defined; sins are forgiven.
128. I am not speaking of a man’s “wicked deeds.” I am
speaking of “sin in the flesh.” Answer:
There are two stages in the process of being saved, one a moral and one a
physical; one having to do with the mind and the other the body. That is the
distinction. We are not justified from the physical until the resurrection. We
are justified from the moral now.
129. Are we not justified from “sin in the flesh” at the same
time as from wicked deeds? Answer:
That is your way of putting it. I put the facts: that God forgives our sins
when we are baptized, and takes away sin in the flesh when we are changed.
130. In Eph. 2 we read, “And you hath he quickened who were
dead in trespasses and sins.” What do you mean by “trespasses and sins”? Answer: “Wicked works.”
131. Does it include “sin in the flesh” or the offence of
Adam? Answer: Certainly not.
132. When it says in the 3rd verse, “Ye were children of
wrath”, it does not of course mean they were children of wrath then, because it
is in the past tense? Answer: Yes.
133. Does it mean they were “children of wrath” previously? Answer: It means they were “by nature”
such as became children of disobedience or wrath, such as sin, such as become
transgressors.
134. Previous to baptism? Answer: Previous to baptism.
135. Were they not children of wrath in consequence of their
nature? Answer: No doubt; I have
already explained that.
136. In consequence of “sin in the flesh”? Answer: Yes, that is a mode of
description; I prefer to understand things rather than to jingle phrases.
137. It is not a jingling of phrases at all. Are those who
possess “sin in the flesh” and have not committed a single wicked thing,
children of wrath? Answer: In the
sense in which a young serpent would be an object of your repugnance: although
it has not power to sting you, it will have by and by if it grows.
138. Is it not the subject of anger for its condition then? for its sinful nature? Answer:
To be angry with a thing for its condition is absurd.
139. Do you then apply the term “nature” here to acts done
subsequently? Answer: No, by nature
they were that which they were, and they became so through Adam.
140. Were “Jews by nature” required to do anything to become
Jews, or were they Jews by birth? Answer:
Both.
141. Both? In Rom.
142. Yes. Had they to do anything to become “uncircumcised by
nature”? Answer: No.
143. Were they not uncircumcised by birth? Answer: Yes.
144. Then by parity of reasoning are not all of them
“children of wrath” by birth? Answer:
Subject to the right explanation, yes.
145. What is the correct explanation? Answer: That when they grow up, they are wicked.
146. But is not “sin in the flesh” in itself the subject of
Divine wrath? Answer: It is “sin in
the flesh” only in the sense of being that which will lead to sin afterwards.
It is the impulse; but kept in subjection it ceases to be the cause of wrath.
147. Then is not “sin in the flesh” in itself under
“condemnation” by God? Answer: God
is angry with the wicked. You never read of Him being angry with a man or a
beast in a passive sense.
148. For what was Christ condemned on the cross? Answer: For the sins of the world.
149. Was he not condemned for sin in his own flesh? Answer: He was part of the sin stock,
and stood there as the respresentative of the whole
race, that all might afterwards come to God through him in being crucified with
him.
Bro. Roberts Questions
Bro. Andrew:
150. Who are the synagogue of Satan, Bro. Andrew? Answer:
That is the 2nd or 3rd of Rev. is it not?
151. You need not refer to it. You know where it is. Who are the synagogue of Satan? Answer: The brethren of Christ who had become unfaithful.
152. Were they Jews? Answer:
Unfaithful.
153. Were they Jews? Answer:
They said they were Jews, but because of unfaithfulness were not accounted as
such.
154. What? Answer:
They said they were Jews, which implied they were faithful Jews, but because of
unfaithfulness they were not accounted as such.
155. Did they cease to be brethren then? Answer: No.
156. How did they cease to be Jews? Answer: That is an elliptical form of expression to describe
unfaithfulness.
157. That is your assertion. It is “those who are not Jews, but do lie.” Answer: They claimed to be faithful
Jews, but were not.
158. It does not say unfaithful Jews. It is those “who say
they are Jews and ARE NOT, but do
lie.” Answer: It is equivalent to
having a name to live, but are dead.
159. Does Christ describe his brethren as the synagogue of
Satan? Answer: Not while they
continue faithful.
160. If they are not Jews, they are not brethren, are they? Answer: They are unfaithful brethren.
161. Excuse me, unfaithful Jews? Answer: Yes, unfaithful Jews.
162. But Jesus says they were not Jews. Answer: That is an elliptical statement.
163. That is your assertion. Jesus says they are not Jews, but do lie. Are they to be
present at the judgment? Answer:
Yes, and Jews living in the time of Christ.
164. Very well, Jews living at the time of Christ are to be
present at the resurrection? Answer:
Yes.
165. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: These Jews?
166. No; the others you referred to, those living in the time
of Christ? Answer: They were
justified by the sacrifices they offered up, and these were subsequently
ratified by the blood of Christ, because all who had entered upon a probation for eternal life were given to Christ by God.
167. Did these sacrifices have any virtue apart from that of
Christ? Answer: None whatever.
168. How is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: Now?
169. Then; any time? Answer:
The blood of Christ was brought to bear upon them, then, by their faith, in the
first instance, and the offering up sacrifices for sin.
170. Did these persons have faith? Answer: They had faith at the commencement of their probation.
171. Excuse me, “I never knew you”. Had they faith? Answer: “Then I will profess unto you
that I never knew you”. He will treat them as if he had not known them. It is
not an absolute statement that he never knew them, but “I will profess unto
you.” ‘I will treat you in consequence of your unfaithfulness to me as if I had
never known you.’
172. Will he profess that which is not true? Answer: It is not a profession of that
which is not true.
173. He says I never knew you. Answer: I will profess, I will treat you as if I never knew you.
174. Will he say that which is not true? Answer: No.
175. Do you know that the word profess
means to declare, to proclaim, to state? Answer:
Yes.
176. Will he state that which is not true? Answer: No.
177. Will he say I never knew you? Answer: He knew them in a certain sense.
178. He says I never knew you, and they are there to be
judged? Answer: They are there
through the sacrifices they offered up.
179. Are these sacrifices of any use without the blood of
Christ? And how is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: By God recognizing the sacrifice at the time, and
subsequently ratifying them through the blood of Christ.
180. How does the ratification come to the person? Answer: How does the ratification come
to the person?
181. Yes. Answer:
By his having been introduced into the Abrahamic Covenant.
182. Is it not by faith? Answer:
Now?
183. Excuse me, you are speaking of
then, the ratification. Answer: Yes,
by faith.
184. These had no faith? Answer:
They had a certain faith.
185. “Children in whom there is no faith?” Answer: Faith in the particular things
that were being imparted to them at that time. They had not faith in that which
Christ preached.
186. Can a man be justified by the blood of Christ without
having faith in it? Answer: Previous
to it taking place?
187. Any time, before or after, yes or no? Can he be
justified by the blood of Christ without having faith in it? Answer: He was justified by believing
the promise, and by the sacrifices which he offered up, which was a shadow of
that of Christ.
188. But those who offered the sacrifices and who rejected
Christ, were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the sacrifices they offered.
189. Answer the question: Were they justified by the blood of
Christ? Answer: They were justified
by the sacrifice by which they entered upon their probation, and thereby they
came under the justification of Christ when his blood had been shed.
190. Had those sacrifices any effect apart from Christ? Answer: No.
191. How then could they justify those who rejected Christ? Answer: Because they were under
probation and in a state of responsibility toward God, and God transferred them
to Christ when he shed his blood.
192. Transferred rebels? Answer:
Yes.
193. That is a new doctrine. Answer: Is it?
194. Yes, quite. Why will God raise the unfaithful? Answer: Because they have been
justified in the first instance from Adamic condemnation.
195. For what purpose will He raise them? Answer: Judgment.
196. With what object in the case of the unfaithful? Answer: They are raised to be judged.
197. But what is the object of the judgment? Answer: The judgment in their case will
result in punishment.
198. Why are they punished? Answer: Because they were unfaithful.
199. Unfaithful to what? Answer:
To the position of favor and responsibility in which they were placed.
200. Is it not because they were disobedient? Answer: The word “disobedience” may be
taken as having two senses, and therefore I prefer not to use it. I must ask
you to define the sense, because obedience is used in reference to the act of
immersion, and it is also used in reference to the course of conduct pursued
after immersion.
201. Precisely; is not disobedience the ground of punishment?
Are they not raised because of disobedience? Answer: For their unfaithfulness.
202. For disobedience? Answer:
For their disobedience subsequent to entering upon probation.
203. Is it not the fact that the punishment is for their
disobedience? Answer: Yes.
204. Why should He punish them for disobedience? Answer: Because they deserve it, and because God had made known to them that they would
be punished.
205. That is supplementary. Who are the disobedient? Answer: It depends in what sense you
mean.
206. “Because of these things, the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience”? Answer: The world as
a whole are sinners.
207. I have asked the question in a particular form. Answer: They are disobedient in the
sense of not being obedient.
208. Are they not punished because they deserve punishment? Answer: The world as a whole deserves
to be swept off the face of the earth.
209. We are speaking of a particular class, the children of
disobedience. Answer: Who do you
mean by them?
210. You have already recognized who I mean. Do not put it
off. Answer: The unfaithful.
211. No, no. With regard to the unfaithful we have arrived at
this point, that they are to be punished for their disobedience because they
deserve it. Does not the world deserve punishment? Answer: The world deserves sweeping out of existence.
212. Does it not deserve punishment then? Answer: It receives punishment.
213. Does it deserve it? Answer:
It deserves whatever God gives it.
214. Why hesitate? Does it deserve punishment? Answer: Certainly it does.
215. Will not God punish it? Answer: God is doing so.
216. Will He not in days to come? Answer: Those who are living at the time.
217. Why does He do it then? Answer: Because of their iniquity.
218. Yes,
that will do. Then supposing Christ comes tomorrow, why of two sinners one of
whom obeyed God in baptism, and another with equal knowledge refused to do so,
why should God punish one and notthe other? Answer: Because the punishment of the
one is on the basis of the law, and the other is not
under law.[3]
219. Is not the law, in both cases that disobedience deserves
punishment? Answer: One was under
the law.
220. Is not that the law of the case? Answer: One sinned under law.
221. Is not that the law of the case, that he is punished
because he deserves it? Answer:
Because he sinned under law.
222. Because he deserves it? Answer: Because he deserves it by sinning under law.
223. You have admitted the other deserves it, too. Answer: Not the same punishment.
224. He deserves it? Answer:
Not the same punishment.
225. Then does it not come to this, that you make God punish
a man who obeyed Him a little, and let a man go free who would not obey Him at
all? Answer: Suppose I do?
226. Then you accuse God of iniquity? Answer: I do not.
227. I will not push that further. Answer: I recognize the justice of God to the fullest extent.
228. I have no doubt your intent to do so. You think
knowledge makes no difference in a man’s position as to responsibility? Answer: Without justification from
Adamic condemnation, it does not give him a resurrection to the judgment-seat.
229. Why did God wink at times of ignorance? Answer: You refer to the statement that
God did wink?
230. Why did He do so? Answer:
Because He chose to overlook the iniquity that was committed in times of
ignorance.
Bro. Andrew Questions
Bro. Roberts:
231. In
writing to the Colossians, Paul says, “You being dead in your sins, and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses.” We have dealt with the expression “dead in sins”
already in Ephesians. You take those of course to be “wicked works” committed
previous to baptism? Is that so? Answer: I have answered that
question.
232. Then the expression “hath He quickened” applies to all
that was previously dead, does it not? Answer:
It defines the change that had taken place in the position of the persons
referred to. Before, they were under the unquestioned dominion of death, but
now they were placed in a position of having been forgiven their trespasses.
233. For the trespasses which had been the subject of
forgiveness, could death hold them in the grave forever? Answer: Have I caught the question right?
234. Could death permanently reign over them for the sins
which had been the subject of forgiveness? Answer:
The subject of forgiveness?
235. Yes. Answer:
Well, unless God chose to revoke His forgiveness because of their
unfaithfulness, because Peter speaks of some who had forgotten they were purged
from their old sins, and Paul, of some who had sold their birthright.
236. Does God withdraw forgiveness? Answer: In the sense of withdrawing His favor, sometimes.
237. Does He withdraw His favor for sins committed
subsequently to forgiveness? Answer:
In some cases certainly.
238. But forgiveness from the condemnation, or Divine wrath,
is that withdrawn for sins committed subsequently to forgiveness? Answer: I do not think that the
offences of a previous time will be brought against men brought into judgment,
except in the case of entire departure from the truth. God says that when a
righteous man departs from righteousness, all his righteousness is forgotten.
Forgiveness is part of his righteousness.
239. Whatever punishment is inflicted is for sins committed
subsequent to forgiveness? Answer:
Yes, I think so.
240. Well then, that would apply to whatever is the subject
of justification, would it not? Answer:
No doubt.
241. Is not “sin in the flesh” the subject of justification
at baptism? Answer: No, it will be
at the resurrection.
242. Is it not included in the quickening in this verse? Answer: Certainly not. “The body is
still dead because of sin” (Rom.
243. When the apostle says, “You being dead in your sins and
the uncircumcision of your flesh”, what does he mean by “the uncircumcision of
your flesh”? Answer: He is writing
of the Gentiles who formerly had no hope at all. They were more dead even than
the Jews.
244. But does not the expression “sins” describe their wicked
deeds? Answer: No doubt.
245. Then does not the expression “the uncircumcision of your
flesh” describe their condition by birth or nature? Answer: Their Gentile state.
246. Does it not describe their condition by birth or nature?
Answer: In the sense of my answer.
They were formerly Gentiles who were called “the uncircumcision by that which
is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands” (Eph.
247. Were they not in a state of death through the
uncircumcision of their flesh? Answer:
They were dead because of sin.
248. And is that not equivalent to saying through “the
uncircumcision of your flesh”? Answer:
That is a technicality.
249. Is it a Scriptural technicality? Answer: Yes, it has a meaning, but you are not putting the right
meaning to it.
250. They were dead on account of sin. Is not sin spoken of
here in the sense of wicked deeds, and the sin nature? Answer: Yes.
251. Then they were dead on account of both these things? Answer: No doubt, no doubt.
252. Then the quickening must have had reference to sin in
both its forms? Answer: Certainly
not, the “body is dead because of sin.” Paul said so to believers, and it is
evident to anyone’s common sense. There is not the least change physically
until the resurrection.
253. We are not dealing with physical change. Answer: I am, if you are not, in this
matter.
254. That is the mistake you make. Answer: No, it is your mistake.
255. “You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, hath he quickened”. Is not quickening the
antithesis to deadness? Answer: No
doubt.
256. Does not quickening embrace all that is comprised in the
deadness? Answer: No doubt.
257. Then it embraces wicked works and sinful nature? Answer: In that sense of the deadness,
but the sense is this, they were dead in having no hope.
258. Were they not dead or under condemnation to death
because of these things? Answer: No
doubt, but not actually dead yet.
259. No, it was a state of leading to death. Answer: Just so.
260. I am not speaking of the physical. Does not “sin in the
flesh” defile the body? Answer:
Since you cannot conceive of the body apart from “sin in the flesh”, it seems
an absurd question.
261. If it is absurd, never mind, answer it. Answer: I cannot answer an absurd
question.
262. Is not the body defiled? Answer: It is an unclean nature. I hope the change will come in the
midst of some of these wrangles.
263. Is the body the subject of justification at the present
time? Answer: No.
264. Then how does that which is defiled become holy? Answer: I do not know what you mean?
265. Does not the body of believers become holy at baptism? Answer: In a moral sense only, not a
physical.
266. I do not mean physical. Answer: Very well.
267. Can it become holy morally, without the sin that defiles
it being the subject of justification? Answer:
In view of the two senses of sin which you have introduced, I must ask which
you refer to.
268. I said “sin in the flesh” Answer: You did not.
269. I beg your pardon. When it becomes holy, is not “sin in
the flesh” which defiled it the subject of justification? Answer: No. “Sin in the flesh” is physical; justification from that
is by the change that is to come at another stage, viz., at the resurrection.
Justification is moral first, physical afterwards.
270. I am speaking about the moral. Is not “sin in the flesh”
the subject of justification in a moral or legal sense (I think legal is
better)? Answer: You are mixing up
two terms. “Sin in the flesh” is a physical attribute, forgiveness is a moral
relation. Do not confound the two things.
271. Have not wicked deeds a physical consequence? Answer: No doubt they have.
272. Is there not complete forgiveness for wicked deeds,
without removal of the consequences of those deeds? Answer: That is too nebulous a question for me to answer.
273. Is it? I thought from what you had admitted it would be
perfectly clear. Answer: Nay.
274. Are there not physical consequences from many wicked
deeds? Answer: The question is too
general.
275. A person gets drunk. Answer: That is a physical condition.
276. A course of drunkenness ruins the constitution. If one
who has been an habitual drunkard during his life
becomes Christ’s by immersion into his name is not all his drunken course of
life blotted out and forgiven? Answer:
He is forgiven the sin of drunkenness.
277. But the physical effects are not removed? Answer: No.
278. But they are not counted against him? Answer: No, not his previous
drunkenness.
279. In the same way by parity of reasoning is not the
offence of Adam in regard to each individual the subject of justification at
baptism, although its physical consequences are not affected? Answer: We are not held guilty of Adam’s
offence.
280. Not legally? Answer:
I do not wish to deal in shadowy terms. I prefer the naked substance of truth.
Adam sinned and was condemned, and we as his children inherit the mortality
which was the consequence. God does not hold us responsible for what he did,
but our own sins.
281. Does it require the shedding of blood in order to
cleanse us from it? Answer: The
blood of Christ was shed in order to declare God’s righteousness. So Paul
teaches (Rom.
282. In order to cleanse us from sin in the flesh? Answer: I gave you the apostolic
definition.
283. Give me yours. Answer:
It was to declare God’s righteousness as the foundation upon which He would
grant the remission of sins through His forbearance. It was a vindication of
God’s dishonored majesty, for us to submit to as a condition of His favor, and
not a mechanical process to cleanse us.
284. I perfectly recognize all you quote; the question is as
to its meaning. Did Christ require to die for himself?
Answer: In view of the work he came
to do, Yes; but if there had been himself only, No.
285. He would not have had to die for himself? Answer: I have answered the question.
He came as the representative of our condemned race to lay a foundation for our
salvation, and for that reason it was needful he should take our nature and
stand as our representative, and die as one of us, and we die with him in being
baptized.
286. If he did not die for himself, did he not die purely as
a substitute? Answer: By no means.
He was of exactly the same stock and inherited the same consequences of Adam’s
sin as we.
287. Was the shedding of his blood not necessary for himself
apart from others? Answer: Since we
cannot contemplate him apart from others, it is no use putting the question. He
was one of the whole race.
288. You put it, if there had been no others his death would
have been unnecessary? Answer: That
is putting an abstract question which it is not convenient to discuss.
289. It may be inconvenient, but it is necessary. Answer: Since you cannot separate him
from others, we cannot so consider him. Had he stood by himself—a new Adam—his
position would have been totally different.
290. But did he not fulfil the
Aaronic type of offering for himself and then for the sins of the people? Answer: No doubt.
291. What was it in relation to himself for which he had to
shed his blood? Answer: He stood
there as bearing the sins of his whole brethren.
292. Did he have the sin-nature himself as well as the sins
of his brethren which required the offering of himself as a sacrifice? Answer: He had no sin except the
possession of a nature which leads to sin; but which in him did not lead to
sin.
293. Did it not require blood-shedding to cleanse him
although it did not lead to sinning? Answer:
In order to declare God’s righteousness is Paul’s explanation which to me is
the all-sufficient explanation, and to me profoundly philosophical. Any other
is so much cloud of dust.
294. We do not want to take a surface view of matters; that
is why I ask these questions as to whether Christ’s own sin-nature required the
shedding of blood to cleanse it? Answer: I have answered the question.
295. I insist upon a yes or no. Answer: What is it you ask me to say yes or no to?
296. Did Christ’s own sin nature require blood-shedding in
order that he might be cleansed? Answer:
As you cannot put him apart from others, it is no use asking the question.
Bro. Roberts Questions
Bro. Andrew:
297. God
winked at times of ignorance. Would He have winked at times of knowledge? Answer:
The question implies no.
298. What would He have done? Answer: Inflicted such punishment as He Himself might deem
necessary.
299. Why inflict punishment? Answer: Because He would deem that they deserved it.
300. What is the ground of deserving punishment? Is it not
refusing to do the will of God when it is known? Answer: Yes, that is one basis, it is not
the only basis.
301. Can you give me any case of a man that will be punished
for any other reason than this, that he refused to do
the will of God when knowing it? Answer:
God punishes the wicked who do not know what His will is.
302. That is making the case worse. Answer: He has done so in the past.
303. You are going the other side of the line,
keep on this side, please. Can you give me a case where God will inflict
punishment where that element is absent, knowing His will? Answer: Not at the judgment seat, certainly.
304. Is not that the cause of punishment at the judgment
seat, knowing the will of God, and refusing to do it? Answer: Yes, for those who are under probation.
305. That is your addition. I am now dealing with a principle
of general application. You have laid it down as a general principle applicable
to all mankind. Now you seek to circumscribe it. Answer: If I give a general answer without defining the sense in
which I use it, you can turn round and say it applies to another case as well.
306. I only wish to see the basis clearly defined, to know
whether the reason of punishment is not refusal to do the will of God when you
know it? Answer:
Yes, for those who are under probation.
307. Were the Gentiles under probation? Answer: Not those who did not enter Christ, certainly.
308. Did He punish them? Answer:
Yes, in this life.
309. Then He punishes them without probation? Answer: I have already admitted that.
310. Why does He do so? Answer:
Because of their wickedness.
311. Why is wickedness the reason for punishing them? Answer: Because God is righteous.
312. Why does His righteousness call for their punishment? Answer: It answers itself.
313. Because they deserve it? Answer: Oh, yes.
314. Very well, we are discussing the ground of
resurrectional punishment. Why do you object to the application of that
principle to resurrectional punishment, that men who know God’s will and refuse
to do it, will be brought up then? Answer:
I do not object to it in relation to those in Christ.
315. I am not speaking of those in Christ, but those who know
the will of God, and refuse to do it? Answer:
They will not be raised.
316. Did not they deserve it? Answer: They deserve whatever punishment God will give them.
317. Do not they deserve resurrectional punishment? Answer: It is for God to say whether
they do.
318. Have you an opinion? Answer: They deserve whatever punishment God may inflict upon them.
He has not threatened resurrection to judgment against them and therefore He
will not give it them.
319. It says “the wicked shall not be unpunished,
they shall come forth to the day of wrath”, “those who have done evil to the
resurrection of condemnation”? Answer:
And the greater proportion of those who have had a
probation have been wicked, and have done evil. “Many are called but few are
chosen.”
320. Then comes in the question, why does He discriminate
between one class and another? Why bring up some to punishment and others not?
It is not because He winks at times of ignorance? Answer: He brings some to punishment because He has constituted a
judgment seat specially for them.
321. Is not Christ the judge of all? Answer: He is judge of all who have been given to him.
322. Has he not power over all flesh? Answer: Dead men are not flesh. He will have power over all flesh
when he comes to take possession of his inheritance. That is the sense in which
he has power over all flesh.
323. God hath appointed a day in which He will judge the
living and the dead? Answer: Those
responsible.
324. Why keep out the dead because they are not flesh? Answer: Because power over flesh has
reference to the time when he will exercise power over all men.
325. Will his judgment be brought to bear upon all who are
responsible to it? Answer: Of
course. His judgment when he comes is of two kinds. First it has relation to
his judgment seat when all candidates for immortality will be judged, and
secondly, it has reference to the wicked living on the earth.
326. My question relates to those who rise. Will not the
judgment be for those who receive and those who reject his words? Answer: Yes, understanding that they
are probationary.
327. Can a man be probationary who rejects Christ altogether?
Answer: Certainly, there were
certain in Peter’s day who denied the Lord that bought them.
328. Did Christ refer to them when he said “He that rejecteth
me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day”? Answer: He referred to Jews living in his days.
329. Did he refer to those who once recognized him? Answer: Those who recognized Moses and
the prophets, but rejected the Messiah.
330. That is not my question. My question is, will not those who reject Christ altogether be present at
his judgment seat to be condemned by him? Answer:
Yes, Jews and Gentiles under probation.
331. Can a man who rejects Christ be under probation? Answer: Certainly he can.
332. Give me a case. Answer:
The Jews in Christ’s day. Many of them looked forward to Christ’s appearing,
accepted the baptism of John, but when Christ came they were disappointed and
rejected him. That did not invalidate the justification which they already had
from previous sins.
333. By John’s baptism do you mean? Answer: Yes, and by the sacrifices offered up under the Mosaic law. That brought upon them a special condemnation for
rejecting Christ.
334. Let us be clear. If they were justified by the
sacrifices of the Mosaic law, what need for the
baptism of John? Answer: That was a
special justification ceremony.
335. Was it superfluous? Answer:
No.
336. Was it necessary? Answer:
Seeing that God appointed it, it was.
337. Would it have been necessary if their sins had been
forgiven before? Answer: Their sins
by John’s baptism were forgiven in the same way that other sins had been
previously forgiven.
338. Were they forgiven previously? Answer: They were forgiven in shadow.
339. Were they forgiven at all? Answer: Yes.
340. Then why go to John’s baptism? Answer: Because under the Mosaic law,
seeing everything was in shadow, its ceremonies could be repeated time after
time.
341. Was John’s baptism substance or in shadow? Answer: It was in shadow, because it
presaged Christ’s own death and resurrection.
342. Why was it necessary to go from one ceremony to another?
Answer: Because God appointed it.
343. Does God appoint things without reason? Answer: Oh dear no.
344. Did he send them to John to get remission of sins which
were already remitted? Answer: They
were constantly sinning.
345. Did they require a sin-remitting ceremony each time they
sinned? Answer: Certainly, that was
required by the Mosaic law, whether they became
defiled legally or by actual transgression.
346. Is a man’s baptism vitiated by sinning afterwards? Answer: Not at all.
347. Why not? Answer:
Because after baptism he has a high priest, and he goes to God through that
high priest and asks forgiveness on the basis of the blood which was applied to
him at his baptism.
348. That is a very beautiful answer, but we are getting away
from the question. Where is the case of a rejector of
Christ being under probation? Answer:
Some of Christ’s own followers in his day were under probation, and in
consequence of the hard things which he spoke they forsook him, and that means, they rejected him.
349. Then if a man had not followed Christ in the sense of
your present explanation, he would not be one, would he, that
was under probation? Answer: O yes
he would.
350. What is the point of your answer then? Answer: There were the Pharisees.
351. Define it. Answer:
At that time it was to be in the Abrahamic covenant.
352. What was? Answer:
Probation. Previous to John’s appearing, those who
were under probation were in the Abrahamic covenant. They entered that covenant
by faith and sacrifice.
353. Was that sacrifice of any value to them apart from their
acceptance of Christ? Answer: It was
of value to them for the time being. It could not give them eternal life
without Christ.
354. It could not give them eternal life without receiving
Christ? Answer: No.
355. Would it give them responsibility to the judgment seat
then? Answer: Yes.
356. Why? Answer:
Because they were in covenant with God. They had been brought into a state of
reconciliation with Him.
357. A state of reconciliation to life eternal? Answer: With a view to life eternal,
certainly.
358. What was necessary to complete it? Answer: The same that is necessary for us, that they should
continue faithful.
359. Must we not recognise Christ
first? Answer: Now, certainly.
360. Can we make a beginning without it? Answer: No, we
cannot.
361. Can we be under probation without it? Answer: No.
362. How then can those who reject Christ be probationers? Answer: Now they cannot.
363. Could they then? Answer:
Previous to Christ coming they could be probationers without believing in
Christ individually, in the same way that some of his followers were.
364. I am speaking of rejectors. “He that rejecteth me and
receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him, the
word that I have spoken shall judge him.” Does not that define the basis of
condemnation—the rejection of the authority of Christ? Answer: Yes, in regard to those to whom it was applied.
365. Why do you say that those who know about Christ and
believe that he is the Lord of the living and dead, and refuse for their own
convenience to be subject to the law of God, to whom therefore Christ has
spoken, that they will not be judged by his words? Why? Answer: They have not had a probation for
eternal life; they have not been justified from the offence of Adam, and they
have not been given to Christ for resurrection and judgment purposes in the
future.
366. What is the reason why they are to be exempt from the
punishment of a law they know? Answer:
Who are the “they” that know?
367. Those who know the will of God
and will not obey it? Answer:
Outside Christ?
368. Yes. Why are they exempt from the punishment of a law
they know? Answer: Because they are
born under condemnation to death, and when they die that condemnation takes its
effect upon them.
Bro. Andrew Questions Bro. Roberts:[4]
369. In
Heb. 13:20 it says that Christ was brought from the dead by the blood of the
everlasting covenant. Was the blood of the everlasting covenant necessary for
Christ to be brought from the dead? Answer: With the meaning already
defined, yes.
370. If, after the Last Supper, he had died without shedding
his blood, could he, on Scriptural principles, have been brought from the dead?
Answer: No, because he would have
been disobedient.
371. Then the shedding of his blood was absolutely necessary
for his restoration to life? Answer:
When properly understood, yes.
372. I will listen to what you have to say about properly
understood. Answer: You don’t mean
me to make a speech?
373. No. Answer:
You had better proceed with the questions. If disobedient, Christ could not
have been raised from the dead, and of course, he could not have received
eternal life.
374. You recognise that he was immortalised by his blood? Answer: Immortalised by his blood? No, not as a literal description. It is a figure of speech.
It is your figure, not even the Bible’s. Blood is a perishing thing. God immortalised him because of obedience. God required of him
that he should suffer a violent death as a vindication of God’s righteousness,
and as a foundation on which to offer us forgiveness.
375. Heb. 9:12, “By his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place.” Is not that equivalent to saying that he was immortalised
by his blood? Answer: I am not here
to strive about words; it is facts that are in question.
376. Is not the holy place here immortality? Answer: “Heaven itself,” Paul says
(Heb.
377. Does it not mean immortality? Answer: Not apart from heaven; it is involved, no doubt.
378. Is not immortality the antitype of the most holy place
in the Mosaic law? Answer: It embraces it, but primarily it is heaven itself.
379. Were not the holy and most holy places in themselves
heavenly places, that is, heaven-like places? Answer: As patterns of things in the heavens, they were.
380. Are we not now in the heavens in the sense in which it
is spoken of in Hebrews and Ephesians? Answer:
Perhaps I misunderstand you.
381. Are we not in the heavenlies now, in that we are in the
antitypical holy place? Answer: Only
in the sense in which we are come to
382. Did not the flesh separate the holy from the most holy
place? Answer: You are now mixing up
literal and figurative language. The holy and the most holy were the literal
things of the Mosaic tabernacle.
383. I thought it would be sufficient to put the matter
concisely? Answer: I do not catch
your meaning.
384. Did not the veil which separated the holy from the most
holy represent the flesh of Christ? Answer:
Yes.
385. Then when he entered into the most holy was he not
beyond the flesh? Answer: No doubt.
386. When it says he entered into the most holy by his blood,
does it not mean that he entered there on the basis of having shed his blood? Answer: No doubt, understanding that in
relation to the will of God.
387. That is the only sense in which I have used the
expression. Answer: No, you detached the blood-shedding from its surroundings.
388. I do not. Answer:
You seem to do.
389. You have misrepresented me by saying so. Answer: We are liable to mistakes, you
know.
390. I used the expression “by his blood” to mean on the
basis, or principle of. Answer: To
me blood is a passive thing. It does nothing, and
therefore to represent it as doing something stultifies my understanding. You
must give me literal facts.
391. What was the object of his shed blood? Answer: It was to declare God’s
righteousness as the basis of reconciliation.
392. That is fully recognized. The question relates to the
basis. Did not Christ enter into the most holy place or immortality on the
basis of the shedding of his blood? Does not that mean that he could not enter
in without? Does it not also mean that the blood cleansed him individually from
corruption which was an impediment to his obtaining eternal life? Answer: I do not deny that.
393. Why did you say that Christ did not die for himself,
apart from others? Answer: Because
you were asking me to consider him in his individual capacity, detached from
the human race, and I refuse to consider him in that capacity.
394. Is it impossible to conceive of the Aaronic high priest
offering for his own cleansing in the first instance? Answer: No.
395. Then is it not equally possible to consider Christ
offering for his own cleansing apart from the cleansing of others? Answer: What is the use of discussing a
case that does not exist?
396. It does exist. Answer:
His work is the saving of mankind, and you cannot discuss him apart from that.
397. If we have two things presented in type, can we not look
at the two things separately in the antitype? Answer: That is a matter of intellectual enterprise; it does not
determine the truth of the case.
398. Is it not of the understanding of this question? Answer: It may be, but you do not help
it by introducing it.
399. I do. We both recognize Christ did not commit
transgression, and that his blood was not required in regard to himself for
anything of that kind. Yet he did shed his blood for himself. What was it then
for which he shed his blood for himself? Answer:
I have answered that several times, Bro. Andrew. He was a mortal man,
inheriting death from Adam.
400. You have answered it by evading it. Answer: By no means. I have not answered it in your precise terms,
which conceal meanings.
401. Did he not require to shed his blood to cleanse himself
from his own sin nature, and has not God made that the basis by which those in
him may be justified from the sin of that nature, and have forgiveness of sins?
Answer: I prefer the Scripture
description of what was done by the death of Christ. The Scriptures never use
the word cleanse in that sense.
402. Never use the word cleanse in regard to physical sin? Answer: Not in that connection.
403. Did not the inanimate things of the Mosaic tabernacle
require to be cleansed, justified, or atoned for by
bloodshedding? Answer: Yes, as a
shadow, doubtless.
404. Was there any moral guilt attaching to them? Answer: You do not require me to answer
that, of course?
405. Then it was for imputed guilt? Answer: It was a ritual prophecy.
406. Does it not teach that the sin nature, which in the
first instance has no moral guilt, requires bloodshedding in order that it may
be cleansed or justified? Answer:
Bloodshedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin.
407. Transgression, you mean? Answer: I mean to say the Scriptures never give it the merely
chemical action that you do.
408. It is not a chemical relation. I express it as it
appears to me. Answer: You represent
it as being brought to bear upon physical nature to produce physical results.
It is always related to moral results. We are justified by faith and are washed
from our sins in his blood in the sense of being forgiven because of our faith
in it.
409. Do we not read about justification and washing? Answer: I have not denied that.
410. Did not Paul say to the Corinthians, “Ye are washed, ye
are justified”? Answer: This is
irrelevant to what I have said.
411. It is quite relevant. Answer: No.
412. In Rom. 5 we read, “By the offence of one, judgment came
upon all men to condemnation.” Can that condemnation be taken away without a
justification relating to that which brought the condemnation? Answer: Certainly not. When that
statement is understood in its full development, there is no difficulty. The
judgment was first upon Adam as a person.
413. And did not that judgment bring condemnation upon all
his descendants for his offence? Answer:
It established a condition of things in which, if posterity ensued, they were
necessarily sinners and therefore condemnation because the universal rule, and
there can be no remission of that condemnation or forgiveness of sin without a
preliminary vindication of God’s authority in the shedding of blood.
414. Are they not under condemnation for the offence of Adam
before they do anything themselves, right or wrong? Answer: They are mortal
because of Adam’s sin.
415. That is not an answer. Are they not under condemnation
for the offence of Adam before they do anything, right or wrong? Answer: God condemns no man for Adam’s
offence in the individual sense. Condemnation comes through it, which is a very
different idea.
416. Do you deny the statement, “By the offence of one,
judgment came upon all men to condemnation”? Answer: No, I do not deny it.
417. You do. Answer:
No, I explain it.
418. Was not the offence of Adam the ground for condemnation
of all men? Answer: Of men that did
not exist?
418a. Yes. Answer: Do not charge God with folly.
419. It is Scriptural? Answer:
Yes, as a matter of terms it may be. You know it is said you can prove anything
in that way. You must rightly divide the word of truth.
420. When babies die, do they die under condemnation? Answer: They were not particularly
considered in the sentence.
421. Do they not die as a result of that condemnation? Answer: Yes, as a result of the
conditions established through it.
422. Are they not “children of wrath,” and do they not die
under the condemnation under which they are born? Answer: They are children who would grow up to be men who would
provoke God’s wrath by disobedience if they lived, but as babies the wrath is
not begun.
423. On what ground do they die? Answer: Because they are mortal.
424. Why are they mortal? Answer: Because of the condemnation to death that Adam brought upon
himself through disobedience.
425. What does that mean? Answer: It means that Adam sinned and Adam was condemned to death,
and they come from him and naturally partake of the mortal condition
established in his nature by the sentence of death.
426. Does it mean they were condemned in him? Answer: Do you mean to say they were
individually considered?
427. No, but that he is the federal head of the community,
all of whom were in him, and all were condemned. Answer: In the Scriptural sense, yes, but not in the sense you are
attempting to establish, namely, the sense of every individual being
contemplated in the sentence.
428. I did not say so. Answer:
You did not make your meaning clear.
Second Night
THE CHAIRMAN (
I now call upon Bro. Roberts
to open tonight’s discussion by questioning Bro. Andrew or a speech.
BRO. ROBERTS: Dear brethren and
sisters, I am afraid that in the dust raised by our somewhat hurly-burly
proceeding on Tuesday evening, the general outline of the argument was obscured
from view, and I will make use of the brief quarter of an hour at my disposal
now to bring it into view, so that the bearing of the questions and answers may
be perceived.
Brother Andrew contends that
no man, however much deserving of punishment, can come forth to the
resurrection of condemnation, unless he first be released from the sentence of
death hereditarily derived from Adam; that that sentence bars the way—that so
long as it is on, he cannot rise, and he must remain in the grave.
The first answer to that is, that it must be wrong because it is in collision with
the fact that men in that position have already been raised by God Himself. The
resurrection of such shows that God does not regard the Adamic sentence as a
barrier if His purpose in any case require the coming
again to life of any son of Adam.
The second objection is that
the view involves the moral enormity that of two men, both deserving punishment,
one deserving it a little and the other deserving it more, the one who deserves
it the more is left unpunished, and the other only comes forth to the anguish
of the second death.
We can realize such a doctrine
in its practical application perhaps better than putting it abstractly. Suppose
you have two sons, William and Henry. They both grow up to manhood, and they
both know God’s demands in the Gospel. William recognizes that if he accedes to
these commands, it will be highly inconvenient for him in a variety of ways,
interfere with his business, interfere with his pleasure and advantage, and he
deliberately says, “I will have nothing to do with it. I know it is God’s will,
but that is nothing to me.”
Henry knowing the same says,
“Yes, it is God’s command. The Word of God has come to me and I will try to
obey it.” He submits to Christ in putting on his name in baptism and in the
undertaking of his service. In the course of time he is overcome, falls away.
The resurrection comes. You are there and you see Henry and you do not see
William. You say, “Henry, my lad, you tried your best, you failed, and here you
are. Where is William? He defied God out and out, and he is not here.” That
illustrates the second point, the moral enormity. It is an imputation against
God, Who is just and true in all His ways.
The next answer is, that Bro. Andrew’s idea cannot be right, because the
enemies of Christ who hated him, who disbelieved in him, who rejected him, are
to come forth to be condemned by him, and to be punished by him. Bro. Andrew
says, Yes, but they are justified from sin by the
sacrifices under the law, retrospectively acted upon by Christ’s death. I say, What! Bro. Andrew? Is it possible that men who hate Christ,
that have no faith in him, that refuse to submit to him, can be justified by
his blood, which means reconciled, which means brought into favor, which means
to stand in God’s grace?
Bro. Andrew himself was
appalled at the issue. If he said “Yes, they can,” then he committed himself to
this monstrous idea, that the enemies and rejectors of Christ are reconciled by
his blood. And if he said “No,” then he was obliged to admit that men not
justified by his blood will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. He saw
the dilemma, and therefore he did not go straight to it. He would not say yes
or no, but compelled me to do a little of that shouting which is the result of
physical weakness and for which I apologize, and which I never indulge in
except through stress of that kind, where there is a refusal to meet the naked
issues of truth.
Now, I wish to show that Bro.
Andrew’s idea is entirely wrong, that the law of Moses
in none of its appointments had any power to justify men from their sins or
release them from death, and in taking very confident and absolutely strong
ground there, I am not advocating a theory of my own. I am not going all round
gathering remote and nebulous inferences from obscure facts and trying to weave
them into a consistent theory. I rely upon the explicit assertions of Paul, who
was guided by the Spirit of God.
To his statements I call your
attention. They are not a few, and they are not ambiguous. “By the deeds of the
law shall no flesh be justified in His sight.” Thus we
read in Rom. 3:20. “If righteousness,” or justification, “come by the law, then
Christ is dead in vain” (Gal.
Now the question is, what was the law given for? Brethren and
sisters, for a purpose that of itself entirely excludes the possibility of the
very thing that Bro. Andrew is contending for. Not that they might be
saved, but that they might be condemned. “What the law saith it saith to them
that are under the law,” not in the sense of keeping the Gentiles out of its
benefits as Bro. Andrew suggested, but that Israel also, the very seed of
Abraham, might be brought under condemnation—“that every mouth may be stopped,
and the whole world become guilty before
God.”
Not the Gentiles only—the
Gentiles were already condemned—the Jews as the seed of Abraham had a possible
position of justification. The law came to condemn them. It is so written. I will
read the statements. “The law entered that the offence might abound” (Rom.
On the face of them, they may
appear strange. At first sight, it is scarcely intelligible that God should
give a law for such a purpose, but when the fact is taken in connection with
the plan of which the law was a part, it appears in a different light. We then
see the plan as a whole. Brethren and sisters, we must take this subject as a
whole, and not in bits. It is through doing it in bits that Bro. Andrew is
making his mistakes. The plan as a whole is outlined in one of these
statements. “The law entered that the offence might abound.” “He hath concluded
all under sin, that He might have mercy upon all.”
BRO. ANDREW: I desire to supplement
what was said on Tuesday concerning the expression “I never knew you.” The word
“knew” in the Greek and English is an elastic word. Sometimes it means a mere
matter of knowing facts; at other times it has a more comprehensive meaning. An
illustration of the latter occurs in John 17:3, “This is life eternal, that
they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent.” To “know” here is not the mere knowledge of a
fact; it embraces an understanding of God and His Son, and all that follows
from that understanding.
Then in regard to the Greek
word, it is defined as follows in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon: “To know,
perceive, to gain knowledge of, mark, person or things, to be aware of, understand.”
Secondly, in Attic prose, “to examine, form an opinion, to decide upon,
determine, approve.” Evidently the
secondary meaning is the one Christ had in his mind then. He did not use it as
a mere matter of knowing that these ones who claimed to be his disciples were
such, but that in consequence of their unfaithfulness he would declare to them
that he never approved of them.
I think in the confusion last
Tuesday there was one question which I did not fully answer, and that was
something to this effect. Can you mention any wicked or unfaithful man in the
Old Testament who was justified through the blood of Christ? It is not, as
suggested by Bro. Roberts, that I was appalled by that or any other question,
and that I saw the dilemma which was involved. I was actuated solely by a
desire to be explicit, and to show in what sense I understood that which was
involved in the question.
I will now state it again, or
more completely. First of all I gave this brief answer to the question: That
all the unfaithful in the Abrahamic covenant previous to the time of Christ,
were justified in shadow during the time that they lived, and that that was
subsequently ratified by the blood of Christ. As regards the enemies to which
attention has been called, last Tuesday I pointed out, in answer to the
questions, that it was not necessary at that time to believe in the blood of
Christ, that the twelve apostles themselves did not believe or understand it,
and yet they were accounted as “clean” (John 13:10).
It was necessary for Jews to
believe in the Abrahamic covenant, and to believe in resurrection as a
preliminary to the fulfilment of that covenant; they
did so believe, and they partook of justification in shadow through
circumcision, and the sacrifices which they offered up. Therefore the argument
that because they hated Christ and had no faith in Him is pointless. They hated
him because he did not realize their expectations, and their hatred brought
upon them condemnation in addition to that which they had previously incurred through
disobedience to the Mosaic law.
The passages which have been
quoted in regard to the deeds of the law not justifying are not at all at
variance with my contention. I never did contend that the deeds of the law of themselves could justify or that the sacrifices and other
ceremonies could of themselves justify. My contention has been that that
justification was in shadow, just in the same way as Christ’s own circumcision
on the eighth day was in shadow, but that these things were subsequently
confirmed by the blood of Christ when he died and rose from the dead.
Bro. Andrew Questions
Bro. Roberts:
429. And
now I will ask Bro. Roberts whether he believes that David and other faithful
men who lived under the law of Moses are included in this expression in Rev.
7:14, “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”? Answer: Yes.
430. Were not David and those faithful ones justified, or
will they not at that time have been justified from their sins by the blood of
Christ? Answer: I have never raised
any objection to the faithful; my objection was to wicked men.
431. Does not that justification include justification from
the Adamic condemnation which they inherited? Answer: Are you speaking of the righteous or the wicked?
432. I am speaking of the righteous. Answer: I have no issue with you as to the righteous.
433. Still, I would like a more specific answer. Answer: That is the fact. It is on the
wicked we differ.
434. Are not wicked and righteous both in the same condition
before they came into reconciliation with God? Answer: Unquestionably.
435. Then as to the faithful who lived under the law, did not
they at birth require justification from the condemnation which they inherited
from Adam? Answer: You limit your
question too narrowly.
436. Never mind whether it is narrow. It is a question. Answer: A baby has no spiritual
relations whatever.
437. Does not a baby require justification? Answer: You cannot justify a baby.
438. Then how is it that Jewish male babies were subjected at
eight days of age to circumcision? Answer:
God chose to establish that as a token of His covenant with them as a nation.
439. Was not that a justification in shadow? Answer: What do you mean by a
justification in shadow?
440. Was it not a justification in shadow from the sin nature
which the child possessed? Answer:
What do you mean by “in shadow”?
441. In contradiction to substance? Answer: Do you mean reality?
442. Well, reality in Christ? Answer: Then I do not know a justification that is not real.
443. Was there not justification under the Mosaic law in shadow in any way whatever? Answer: What do you mean by justification in shadow.
I do not know such a thing. That is one of your inventions.
444. Was there not atonement in shadow? Answer: That same remark applies.
445. Is not the word atonement used in reference to the
Mosaic sacrifices? Answer: Yes.
446. Then when these sacrifices, which are described as
atonement, were offered up, was there not atonement in
shadow? Answer: No, the atonement was real to the extent to which it went.
447. And is not that the same as atonement in shadow? Answer: I do not know what you mean by
atonement in shadow.
448. I mean a representation of the reality that was coming? Answer: If you mean a prophecy I can
understand it.
449. I mean more than a prophecy? Answer: Then we do not agree.
450. Then there is a vital difference? Answer: Yes.
451. In Heb. 9:13, we read, “If the blood of bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth
to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ who,
through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God”? What is meant there by the
blood of bulls and goats sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh? Answer: Establishing a legal cleanness
from uncleanness created by the law of Moses, which
was a fictitious thing.
452. Legal cleanness? Answer:
Yes.
453. Was all the uncleanness which was the subject of a
cleansing ceremony under the law of Moses, a
fictitious thing? Answer: No.
454. Was there any uncleanness which was not fictitious? Answer: Yes.
455. Will you mention some? Answer: The uncleanness of nature, as involved in child-birth, for
example.
456. That was not fictitious. Is it not the unclean nature
spoken of here, when the apostle says, “The blood of bulls and of goats, and
the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh”? Answer: Impossible, for the law never
did cleanse sin nature.
457. Never did cleanse sin nature? Answer: The cleansing of sin nature is reserved for the
resurrection.
458. Is not this statement made in reference to the law? Answer: Yes.
459. Then what was the nature or effect of the purifying of
the flesh which is spoken of here? Answer:
Those who were purified were recognized as legally clean. It was a shadow
cleanness—all types and shadows.
460. All types and shadows, but there was a legal cleanness? Answer: In the sense in question it was
real—a really recognized legal cleanness.
461. That related to the flesh? Answer: Yes, as in the case of the leper. There it was both real
and fictitious, but in the case of touching an unclean thing, it was
fictitious.
462. Was not the uncleanness of the flesh a real thing? Answer: Yes.
463. Then if the uncleanness of the flesh was a real thing,
is not the uncleanness of the flesh, which the apostle speaks of here, a real
thing? Answer: He does not speak of
it. That passage just draws the distinction that is before my mind. There is a
great difference between the law and Christ.
464. Is not the purification of fleshly uncleanness involved
in verse 14? Answer: Read it.
465. “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God.” Answer:
There is not a passage in the New Testament that more completely disproves your
contention. Paul draws a distinction between the ceremonial purification of the
law and the spiritual purification achieved in Christ.
466. Does not “how much more” mean in addition to? Answer: No.
467. Does not “how much more” include the purification of the
flesh as well as purging the conscience? Answer:
No: it is a comparison of two things.
468. Then if the flesh under the law was unclean, and
required a shadowy purification, where was the shadow, or, where was the
prophecy, if you so like it, in regard to Christ, if our nature does not
require cleansing through blood-shedding? Answer:
Our nature does require cleansing. It will be cleansed at the resurrection, and
that will be because of Christ’s obedience unto death.
469. By immortalisation, do you
mean? Answer: Unquestionably; it is
not cleansed until then.
Bro. Roberts Questions
Bro. Andrew:
470. Bro.
Andrew, are men who “die in their sins” justified from them? Answer:
Do you mean those out of Christ?
471. I mean just what I say. Answer: Men who die in their sins I understand to be men who die in
Adam.
472. I have not asked that. Please answer the question. Answer: Then I must ask for it to be
defined, and I will give a specific answer.
473. Do men who die in their sins die in a state of
justification? Answer: That
expression is used by Paul in regard to those out of Christ—men who die in
Adam.
474. Quite so. I have not forgotten that. Answer the
question, Do men who die in their sins, die in a justified state? Answer: Not out of Christ.
475. Very well. Do you not know that Jesus said of the
Pharisees, “Except ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins”? Answer:
Yes.
476. Did he not also say that they should give an account in
the day of judgment? Answer: Yes.
477. How, according to your theory, are these two things to
be reconciled? Answer: Because they
were unfaithful men who had partaken of justification, in shadow, from Adamic
condemnation.
478. Excuse me, they “died in their
sins”? Answer: Yes.
479. Not justified, how can they awake! Answer: They had become unjustified after being justified.
480. Did they lose it then? Answer: Lose justification?
481. Yes. Answer:
They became unjustified.
482. By whatever means? Answer:
Yes, they became unjust.
483. You said that is the meaning of unjust, those who lost
justification? Answer: Yes.
484. How much better off is a man who has lost a thing than a
man who has it not? Answer: In the
long run he is no better, but in his relationship to God and Christ he is in a
very different position.
485. How so, if his justification is absent, and that you say
is needful for him to awake? Answer:
Because of the justification in the first instance; on that basis he entered
upon probation for eternal life; he was then “bought” from the power of the
death that came through Adam; and his sins committed subsequently have not been
the subject of adjudication.
486. Then you said, I think, that
men were not justified by the blood of Christ until Christ had died? Answer: Yes.
487. Then what is the position of all who died before Christ?
Answer: Those who died without
having entered upon a probation for eternal life
remain in the grave forever.
488. You say no men were justified before Christ shed his
blood, and they died unjustified. If this is not correct, correct me? Answer: I do not quite catch your
meaning.
489. It is very plain, Bro. Andrew. I will try and explain
it. You said a man could not rise from the dead unless he was justified? Answer: Yes.
490. Now you say they died unjustified, and yet they are to
rise. How is that? Answer: O, but
there is a distinction between those who died previous to Christ’s coming
without having entered upon a probation for eternal life, and those who did.
491. I am fixing your mind on the condition you express by
justification? Answer: Yes.
492. I ask you were they justified or not when they died? Answer: Those who died without a probation were not, and will not rise.
493. That is not my question. Before Christ died were they
justified? Answer: They were
justified in shadow when they entered upon a probation
for eternal life.
494. Is justification in shadow a justification in reality? Answer: No.
495. Does it require justification in reality to open the
grave? Answer: Yes.
496. Then how can men come out of the ground who have no real justification? Answer: They cannot for the purpose of appearing before a tribunal
that has to do with the dispensation of rewards and punishments.
497. I have not asked for any purpose; I did not qualify it
in any way. I make it simple. You see you do not like its simplicity? Answer: I must qualify it.
498. Were they justified or not before Christ died? Answer: In shadow they were.
499. Is that real? Answer:
No, but it is made real by the death and resurrection of Christ.
500. When? Answer:
When Christ rose from the dead.
501. At the moment of their death, was that in force for
them? Answer: No, only in shadow.
502. Then they died unjustified? Answer: Not unjustified entirely.
503. Excuse me, they were either justified or not? Answer: They died justified in shadow.
504. But that is not real? Answer: No.
505. It is the real that is necessary? Answer: Yes.
506. Then
they died without being in the real state of justification that opens the
grave? Answer: Now that you say
real, I say yes. Previously you simply said justified, and, therefore, I
qualified it by saying justified in shadow. You confuse me with the varied
words of your questions[5]
507. It is the subject which confuses you. Did those who died
before Christ’s death die justified or not? Answer: Not really.
508. Does it require real justification to come out of the grave?
Answer: Yes, for judgment.
509. How can they come out if they have not had real
justification? Answer: Because the
justification effected through Christ’s blood ratified the shadow justification
which they had before they died.
510. They had not got it when they died? Answer: They had a
shadow justification. The shadow is transformed into reality when the real
justification in Christ took place.
511. Yes, but my question relates to the time of their death.
Answer: They had not real
justification then.
512. Then how can they come out of the grave according to
your theory seeing it requires real justification when a man dies? Answer: Because they had been justified
through their sacrifices in anticipation of what Christ would do.
513. If so, they died really justified, did they not? Answer: There can be no reality in the
matter until the justification in Christ has become a reality.
514. Then they died in a justification not real? Answer: Certainly.
515. Can a justification not real bring a man out of the grave?
Answer: No.
516. Then they could not come out? Answer: Yes, they could.
517. Very well, we will leave that. I ask another question.
Would Christ’s blood have been of any justifying effect without his
resurrection? Answer: No.
518. Then where is the justification power of a sacrifice,
with which no resurrection is connected? Answer:
It has none except shadowy.
519. What is shadowy? Do not deal with clouds. Answer: Like the shadow of my hands on
the wall.
520. It is a prophecy therefore. The real thing is your hand.
Answer: That is so, but the shadow
pictures the outline of the substance.
521. Is it a prophecy? Answer:
It is more than a prophecy.
522. Then it was justification if it was justification. Answer: In shadow it was. It served for
the time being. It is all that was necessary at that time.
523. You are aware, Bro. Andrew, how continually in the
apostolic writings the demands of the truth when complied with are called “obedience.” I will read one or two illustrations
of that. Answer: The act of baptism,
you mean.
524. That is part of it. Answer:
If you mean that, I will accept it without your reading.
525. I prefer to read it. I do not want to deal with shadows.
The apostleship was instituted “for obedience
to the faith,” Paul says, “among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). The gospel was “made
known to all nations for the obedience
of faith” (
526. What did he command? Answer: To repent.
527. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: The command to obey? Certainly.
528. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: After belief.
529. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: After believing.
530. Were they bound to obey? Answer: Yes, after believing.
531. Did God send the command to believing nations? Answer: No.
532. Did He send a command to the nations? Answer: Oh, yes.
533. Is it not those to whom the command is sent that are
bound to obey? Answer: Yes.
534. Were not the unbelieving nations bound to obey? Answer: Yes, after believing. I am
obliged to put that in, or else it may be construed into obeying without
belief.
535. Excuse me. God has commanded all men everywhere, has He
not? Answer: Yes.
536. Is not that contrasted with times of ignorance? Answer: Yes.
537. Are not all men bound to obey when they know it? Answer: Yes.
538. Can they mock God with impunity? Answer: Not if He exercises His right.
539. Can they all mock God with impunity? Answer: Not if He exercises His right.
540. Will He not exercise His right? Answer: He has not said so in the passage which you quote.
541. Has He said it anywhere else? Answer: He has not said so in reference to Gentiles.
542. Let us see. “What shall the end be of those who obey not the gospel?” Answer: What passage is that from?
543. You do not dispute the words, do you? Answer: No, I want the connection.
544. You must remember it surely. It is in Peter. Is Peter a
bad authority? Answer: No, but I
want the connection. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the
house of God, and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that
obey not the gospel of God?” That is the disobedient under probation.
545. I am asking you a question. Answer: I thought I was answering it.
546. What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel? Answer:
On those spoken of there it will be retribution.
547. When? Answer:
At the judgment seat of Christ.
548. Is not their “end destruction”? Answer: Yes.
549. The enemies of the cross of Christ? Answer: Yes.
550. Are the enemies of Christ believers in Christ? Answer: Some of them have been.
551. “Enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is
destruction”? Answer: What passage
is that from?
552. O, Bro. Andrew surely you do not want to refer to it? Answer: I want the connection.
553. It is in Phil. 3:17–18, “For many walk, of whom I have
told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the
cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose
glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” Answer: That is, unfaithful brethren.
Bro. Andrew Questions
Bro. Roberts:
554. In 1
Cor.
555. What was the resurrection that Paul preached? Answer: Do you require me to say? The resurrection of men to life eternal, and to condemnation if
unworthy.
556. Then the resurrection which they denied was restoration
to life? Answer: Nay, nay, it is
never used in that limited sense in the Bible.
557. Is not resurrection used in that limited sense in regard
to the unjust who are to be raised again to life? Answer: No, it includes much more than that. It is the resurrection
of condemnation.
558. Does that not involve restoration to life? Answer: It involves it, but that is a
different thing.
559. Then it means it, does it not? Answer: By involution.
560. Does the apostle refute what the Corinthians denied? Answer: Most effectually.
561. Then that which they denied, restoration to life, he
refutes? Answer: Excuse me, you are limiting it to restoration to life. I do not
admit that.
562. Does he not prove his point by referring to the
resurrection of Christ? Answer:
Certainly.
563. Does he not show that the resurrection of Christ was
necessary to justify those in Him? Answer:
Christ’s resurrection was necessary to salvation for all Christ’s disciples
afterwards. He did not cut it up into bits. It was a question of being saved or
not.
564. Yes, but does he not say that
without Christ’s resurrection they died in their sins, and as a consequence are
perished? Answer: Certainly.
565. That is equivalent to saying Christ’s resurrection is
necessary for their resurrection? Answer:
No doubt of it.
566. For their restoration to life? Answer: You are changing the terms. I do not accept your narrow way
of putting it.
567. When Christ says, “I am the resurrection and the life,”
does he not mean, I am the raiser to life and the bestower
of eternal life? Answer: No, he does
not divide it up in that way.
568. Why does he use two different words? Answer: Because there are two things in
it.
569. You must rise before you can have life, and is he not
the means of both? Answer: He is the
means of both, the life being eternal life.
570. Is not he “the life” on the basis of blood-shedding? Answer: Oh, Bro. Andrew, speak as the
oracles of God.
571. I use his blood-shedding as l defined it in the first
instance as being the consummation of an obedient life. Answer: I take it as the Scriptures put it. The shedding of the
blood of Christ is only a part. His resurrection is the great thing, it covers
all.
572. That is not disputed. Answer: Very well.
573. But was he not raised, or rather did he not become the bestower of immortality on the basis of his having shed his
blood and having been raised from the dead? Answer: Not on the basis of that only. You do not put the basis
broad enough. It was “by one man’s obedience” over his whole life.
574. At the commencement of last Tuesday evening I gave as
one of my definitions this, That “the blood of Christ I shall use to represent the sacrificial death
of Christ as the consummation of an obedient life, unless for the purpose of
argument I may divorce his death from that obedient life.” Is it necessary for
me to repeat that definition every time I use the expression “the blood of
Christ”? Answer: Because of the
unscriptural use you make of answers given to a limited question, it is.
575. I am not aware of having made an unscriptural use of the
answers at all. Answer: I do not
think you are. I believe you are thoroughly honest, but you have got into a bemuddled state of mind on this question.
576. Not at all. Then you think that the dead in Christ, if
Christ had not been raised, would perish absolutely? Answer: Certainly. There would be no resurrection; there would be
no judge.
577. Are not those who die out of Christ in the same position
as those in Christ would be if Christ had not been raised? Answer: By no means, because there is a living Christ who has power
over them all to inflict the judgment and wrath of God upon those who deserve
it.
578. Those who have not died in
Christ? Answer: All flesh, Absolutely.
579. Are the dead “flesh”? Answer: Oh, Bro. Andrew, he is Lord both of the dead and the
living.
580. Who are the dead and the living spoken of in Rom. 14:9? Answer: It means those over whom he has
jurisdiction, which is coextensive with the operation of light, as he says,
“This is the condemnation, that light is come.”
581. In Rom. 14:7–8, it says, “None of us liveth to himself,
and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live we live unto the Lord: and
whether we die we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore or die, we are
the Lord’s.” Does not that describe all in the same position as the Romans? Answer: It is a glorious truth, I wish we realized it more.
582. “To this end Christ both died and rose, and revived that
he might be Lord of both the dead and living.” Is not the expression “dead and
living” there applied to those in the same position as the Romans, and no
others? Answer: No.
583. Then context is no guide to the interpretation of single
phrases? Answer: O yes, sometimes
but not always.
584. Is it not so here? Answer:
Certainly not, because “dead and living” is an open phrase. The extent is to be
gathered from other passages.
585. How did these Romans become the property of Christ? Answer: You know how they became so. They
gave themselves to Christ in the way appointed, by belief and obedience.
586. Did not he become their Lord at that time? Answer: No doubt he did in a special
sense, but he had been their Lord before, in the sense of having authority over
them.
587. Where is your proof he was their Lord before they were
immersed into his name? Answer: I
prove it by such statements as God has given Christ power over all flesh.
588. That does not say he is their Lord. Answer: I am not going to quarrel about a word. If power over all
flesh is not lordship over all flesh I do not understand you.
589. Peter says some “denied the Lord that bought them” (2
Pet. 2:1). Answer: Yes.
590. Was he their Lord? Were they his before they were
bought? Answer: He was their Lord
before they were bought.
591. Did he not become their Lord at the time they were
bought? Answer: If you will tell me
in what sense you use the word Lord I will answer you.
592. In the same sense as in Rom. 14:9, and the passage in 2
Pet. 2:1, as being the Lord of life. Answer:
He is the Lord of life in relation to everyone if they will come and have it.
593. Is he actually now their Lord, the Lord of life, to
everyone? Answer: Certainly. He is
the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat
of this bread he shall live forever. His lordship is not interfered with by
human refusals.
594. Is he Lord of life in reference to everyone before they
are bought by him? Answer: He is the
Lord of life absolutely. I cannot draw it into a narrow channel.
595. The Scriptures so draw it. Answer: No, you do, not the Scriptures.
596. “In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Who are the dead in Adam? Answer:
Everyone who dies.
597. Who are the “all in Christ” made alive? Answer: All in Christ.
598. Who are the all in Christ? Answer: All those who are become incorporate with him in the plan
God has formed. He is the head; they become constituents of his body.
599. Whether faithful or unfaithful? Answer: No, there is a distinction there which Paul does not look
at for the moment. He does not speak of the unfaithful in that chapter at all,
Bro. Andrew being witness in articles in “The
Christadelphian”. It is immortalization before his mind.
600. “In Christ shall all be made alive,” does that mean only
the faithful? Answer: Yes.
601. Do not the unfaithful remain in Christ until the
judgment seat? Answer: In a
technical sense. They are not really in him. The Scriptures exhort brethren to
continue in Christ. Christ says, “Abide in me”.
602. Does not the antithesis of this imply that as all in
Adam die, all in Christ come out of the grave? Answer: I have answered that question.
603. You have not answered it in that form. Answer: Make your meaning clear.
604. Is not the antithesis as all in Adam die, so all who
pass out of Adam into Christ rise from the grave? Answer: Paul is speaking of two great divisions. In Adam all die,
all, absolutely everyone. So in the other Adam, they will be made alive—made
immortal, but none out of him. None out of him will be made alive in the sense
of these terms, immortalization.
605. Is not “made alive” used as a parallel to “the
resurrection of the dead”? Answer:
That question is too general to answer. If you will tie me to a case I will
answer.
606. I mean in Verse 21, “By man came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead.” Answer:
Yes, in a particular sense. By the resurrection of the dead is meant life
forever.
607. Does not the resurrection which is to come through man,
include also the resurrection of the unfaithful? Answer: It includes it. It is a mere momentary episode.
608. Are the faithful raised on the basis of Christ’s death
and resurrection? Answer: They are
raised by Christ. God gave him the power.
609. Are they raised on the basis of Christ’s obedience,
death and resurrection? Answer:
Properly understood, yes.
610. Are the unfaithful raised on the basis of Christ’s
obedience, death and resurrection? Answer:
Everything Christ does is on that basis.
611. Substantially both faithful and unfaithful are raised on
the basis of his shed blood? Answer:
You put it too narrowly. Paul says, His blood was shed
in vain if he had not risen.
612. Then when the Scriptures say that certain ones had
washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, is not that too narrow a form of
describing it? Answer: Not in that
connection. They are represented in a perfect state, and the question is, How did they get there. In a figure, they were washed, not
literally, but by a figure. We want to know what is behind the figure, and that
is that Christ submitted to an ignominious death because the Father required
it, as the basis of approach to men for proposals of reconciliation.
613. Although a figure is distinct from that which is
literal, does not a figure represent a reality? Answer: Doubtless.
614. If the Scriptures use a figure of speech to describe a
reality, is it not permissible for me to do so? Answer: It all depends on how you do it. “This is my body” is a
Bible figure, but the Roman Catholics use it in a wrong way, and you are using
this phrase in a wrong way.
Bro. Rroberts Questions
Bro. Andrew:
615. When
Christ said concerning the Gospel which he sent the apostles to preach, “He
that believeth not shall be condemned,” what do you think he meant? Answer:
I believe he meant that the Jews to whom the apostles
were then sent, if they did not believe, should be condemned.
616. Would it not apply to all those to whom the Gospel was
preached? Answer: Not to Gentiles.
617. Was not the same Gospel preached to Gentiles as to Jews?
Answer: Yes, but the Jew was already in covenant with God, and were required to
believe that which was afterward submitted.
618. Was not the Gospel a savour of death unto death to
Gentile as well as Jew? Answer: In
the sense used by the apostle.
619. What sense is that? Answer:
That is a long passage and it would take some time to go into the full
explanation.
620. Give it as briefly as you can. Tell it me in substance,
you know. Answer: He is writing to
those in the truth, and his preaching was in regard to those a savour of death
unto death in the unfaithful, and of life unto life in regard to the faithful.
621. Excuse me, he says “in them that perish.” Is that a
description of those who have been justified? Answer: They that perish are Gentiles out of Christ.
622. Quite so, and to the one, that is those who perish, “we
are the savour of death unto death.” What is the meaning of it? Answer: “In them that are saved”
applies to the faithful, “them that perish” to the unfaithful.
623. Excuse me, you have changed
your answer. Answer: How so?
624. I appeal to the shorthand writer. Answer: I said it before I saw the connection.
625. Then you think “them that perish” is a description of
people who are justified? Answer: In
that case.
626. Who are “those that are lost”? Answer: Is that here?
627. Never mind where. Tell me what is the meaning of it? Answer: I like to see the connection.
628. “Them that are lost.” Do not
you know where it is? Answer: I
forget now.
629. The next chapter but one. Answer: “Hid to them that are lost.”
630. Who are they? Answer:
Those outside.
631. What is the difference between “them that are lost” and
“them that perish”? Answer: Those
outside who are lost never attain to anything beyond the present condition.
632. Would they perish? Answer:
Yes.
633. What is the difference then between them that are lost
and them that perish? Is there a difference? Answer: There is a difference this way. There will be perishing at
the judgment seat for those who are condemned.
634. Is that what Paul means? Answer: I think so.
635. You are not sure? Answer:
I think it is. I won’t be sure. The passage is based upon a Romish custom, the
full details of which I cannot just call to mind. It is figurative language,
and must be interpreted in accordance with the custom upon which it is based.
636. My question is not related to any custom, but to whom is meant. Who are they? Answer: Those outside.
637. Them that perish are not those outside? Answer: In this connection, I think
not.
638. You are not sure? Answer:
I won’t be sure.
639. Very well. Let us take another case. What was the terror
of the Lord that Paul preached? Answer:
To Jews.
640. What was it? Answer:
The coming retribution upon them as a nation.
641. Did he teach that in his Gospel preaching? Answer: Yes, he and Peter speak of it.
642. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade
men.” Answer: In that case it refers
to those in Christ.
643. What is the terror of the Lord for them? Answer: Condemnation at the judgment
seat of Christ.
644. The second death? Answer:
Yes.
645. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade
men”? Answer: Yes.
646. Did he persuade brethren? Answer: Yes, he was persuading or exhorting the Corinthians at that
time.
647. Did he not persuade Gentiles? Answer: Ah, he is not speaking of that persuasion here.
648. Did he persuade them? Answer: Certainly.
649. About the terror of the Lord? Answer: He spoke to them about it, he included it.
650. What terror had the judgment seat to them, if they had
no relation to it? Answer: He did
not preach the judgment seat as a terror to the Gentiles. You cannot adduce a
passage of Scripture to that effect.
651. Did he preach the Gospel to Felix? Answer: He did, at least he spoke to him of “righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come.”
652. Was not that the Gospel? Answer: Oh yes, you can get the Gospel out of it.
653. Paul did not know anything else than the Gospel in his
preaching, did he? Answer: No.
654. He preached the Gospel to Felix? Answer: Yes.
655. Did Felix tremble? Answer:
Yes.
656. Why? Answer:
Because of what Paul spoke.
657. What about? Answer:
He roused the conscience of a wicked man and made him tremble.
658. Why? Answer:
Because of the picture which he drew of coming judgment.
659. What picture did he draw that could affect Felix? Answer: He could draw a picture of
judgment to take place which would affect Felix, seeing that he was connected
with the nation upon which they were to come.
660. Felix might die next day, then
he would have no relation to it? Answer:
Yes.
661. Did Paul speak of a judgment that possibly had no
relation to him? Answer: It was
quite possible for Paul to picture coming judgments in such a way as to
frighten Felix. Felix need not necessarily believe that he would die the next
day. It is not likely he did.
662. No; but my question is, that Felix recognized that the
judgment to come of which Paul spoke had a bearing upon him because he
trembled? Answer: Yes.
663. You put it that possibly it had none? Answer: O, no.
664. Certainly you admitted it? Answer: It might or might not.
665. Exactly. Then Paul spoke to Felix about a judgment that
might not come upon him? Answer: If
Felix, as a natural man, looked forward to living to that time, it would affect
him, especially as his wife was a Jewess.
666. I know that is what you say. It is very unlike Paul’s
talking about judgment. I will give you a few specimens of his allusions to
judgment. Answer: I dare say I am
familiar with them.
667. Can you give me one case in which he speaks of judgment
to come upon the nation? Answer: I
cannot call one to mind. I think Peter does.
668. I refer to Paul, either in speeches or letters. Answer: Paul was sent to Gentiles.
669. I am speaking of Paul’s attitude to a Gentile, and I ask
you whether, in Paul’s letters or speeches, he speaks of such a judgment as you
refer to? Answer: Both he and Peter
speak of God’s vengeance or judgment being poured out at that time.
670. Where? Paul please. Answer: Won’t Peter do?
671. No; not for this particular case, because it is Paul
that is in question. We see Paul reasoning before Felix of judgment to come,
and you say he is speaking of a thing he never speaks of in any of his letters
or speeches, and I ask you on what ground you say he talked to him about the
destruction of
672. On what ground, seeing that there is a judgment to come,
which he does speak of, and he never speaks of the one you say he referred to.
Why do you come to that conclusion? Is it not your theory that compels you? Answer: Not necessarily.
673. What then? Answer:
Because it was within a few years of that event, and Felix was associated with
the nation very closely through his wife.
674. Was not that a very immaterial “judgment to come”
compared with the terror of the Lord connected with the judgment seat of
Christ? Answer: It was not very
immaterial to the Jews who underwent it.
675. “Compared with!” are my words—compared with the terror
of the Lord that you have admitted is associated with the judgment seat? Answer: It was not equal to that.
676. Do you think he spoke of the smaller terror, and left
out the larger? Answer: It was a
large terror to the nation involved in it.
677. I am speaking of Felix. Answer: Felix was living in the land where these judgments were to
be poured out.
678. Then you cannot prove that Paul spoke to Felix of the
destruction of
679. I can, for that was all his talk, and he was here
engaged on his one business with Felix. That will do on that. Why do you draw a
distinction between them that are lost and them that perish? I think I know the
reason, but I ask you? Answer: Well,
the same word is not always used in reference to the same person or thing in
different passages.
680. That is not answering the question. Answer: In regard to them that are lost, obviously it refers to
those outside, because “the Gospel is hid” from them.
681. Quite so. You saw that, when you looked at the context,
and you think that when Paul was speaking a few verses before of them that
perish he meant a different class to them which are lost. Why do you draw the
distinction? Is it not your theory? Answer:
No, it is the context.
Bro. Andrew Questions Bro. Roberts:[6]
682. Is a
man, when baptized, legally freed from Adamic condemnation? Answer:
What do you mean by “legally freed”?
683. I mean that the wrath of God or condemnation pertaining
to him as the result of his being descended from Adam is taken away. Answer: It is commenced to be taken
away, but nothing more. It all depends; it is a process.
684. But is it not taken away in a legal sense without
affecting the physical consequences of that condemnation? Answer: God forgives sins; that is the apostolic description, and I
believe it.
685. Yes, but have you never taught that Adamic condemnation
is legally taken away at baptism? Answer:
I am not aware that I have.
686. Do you recognize this from the Christadelphian of 1878?
“Legally a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth
and receives the remission of sins, but actually its physical effects remain
until this mortal, (that is, this Adamic condemned nature) is swallowed up in
the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his coming. Those whom
Christ at that time does not approve are delivered up to death again because of
their sins and not because of Adam. Although reconciled in Christ, we remain
under the physical effect of Adam’s sentence till we are “changed in the
twinkling of an eye at the last trump” (page 225). Answer: I fully endorse that.
687. Then a man at baptism is legally freed from Adamic
condemnation, and receives, as an additional thing, the remission of his own
individual sins. Is that so or not? Answer:
You see how nicely you can put a question when you see the point. I mean to say
I fully endorse that statement. The word “legally” is a little hazy. I am not
quite sure whether I did not borrow that from you, Bro. Andrew.
688. I do not think that is from me at that time. Answer: What is the date?
689. 1878. Answer:
Yes, it is from you then. It was used at the time of the Renunciationist
controversy, in which you took a prominent part. I accepted your terms then
without particularly considering them, because you were fighting on the right
side, but now they are used as the basis for constructing a new theory. I have
looked round them, and see what they mean.
690. Do you adhere to this statement that he is legally freed
from Adamic condemnation? Answer: I
understand God gives the obedient believer a clean slate, as you might say.
691. What is wiped out? Answer:
Everything that stands against us in any way, whether from Adam or ourselves.
692. Then there is a passing out of Adam into Christ at
baptism? Answer: Certainly.
693. When a man passes into Christ, what has he in Adam that
he loses when he passes into Christ? Answer:
His relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is a
preliminary deliverance at baptism, but it is not actual
till the resurrection.
694. Does he not realize, in a legal sense, a justification
from the condemnation which he derived from Adam? Answer: The apostolic proclamation of the Gospel has almost nothing
to say about that Bro. Andrew, but about forgiveness of our sins. If I have
expressed an opinion there that favours your present contention, it must have
been in reference to some special question put with that phraseology in it
which you introduced.
695. Is not a believer, at baptism, made to endorse and
morally participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus
underwent when he was crucified? Answer:
Certainly. He is baptised into the death of Christ in the sense of morally
endorsing all that that involves.
696. Is not that endorsing and morally participating in the
condemnation of sin in the flesh? Answer:
You use a hazy phrase. I agree with Paul’s use of it, but not with yours.
697. This is your phrase in the Christadelphian for 1870. Answer: But not in the way you put it.
698. Is not a believer when he is baptized made to suffer the
penalty? Answer: No.
699. Is he not? Answer:
No.
700. Do you withdraw from this statement, “Paul says, Know ye
not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his
death? Therefore in the very act of putting on the name of Christ for the
obtaining of the blessings promised, he is made to endorse and morally
participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus underwent in
the body prepared for the purpose. In this way we are made to suffer the
penalty while obtaining the blessings promised” (Christadelphian, 1870, page
23). Answer: Ah! “in
that way.”
701. That is the way I spoke of before. Answer: That is to say, we identify ourselves with all that was
accomplished in Christ. It is not done in us. We merely go through the water,
and water does nothing, but God has required it of us.
702. Is there not a doctrinal efficacy in connection with
going through the water? Answer:
There is a change in God’s mind towards us, if that is what you mean by such
language.
703. Is there not a doctrinal efficacy in it? Answer: I do not know what you mean by
doctrinal efficacy.
704. What is the antitype of making an
atonement for the holy place in regard to Christ? Answer: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.
705. Shedding of his blood and raising him from the dead? Answer: The whole process.
706. In relation to himself, personally, apart from his
position as a sin-bearer for others? Answer:
You cannot take him apart from that position.
707. Have you not taken him apart from that position formerly?
Answer: Never.
708. Not in the argument with Renunciationists?
Answer: That is too general a
question altogether. There never would have been a Christ if there had not been
a sin race to be redeemed. If he had been by himself, he would not have required
to die at all, if he had been disconnected from our
race.
709. What do you mean by that? Answer: I mean if he had been by himself—a new Adam—having no
connection with the race of Adam first; not made out of it.
710. But if as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one
to whom God granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before
he could obtain that salvation? Answer:
I refuse the question in that form, because it is an impossible “if.” He was
not sent for himself, but for us.
711. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer
up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? Answer: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, and a son of David,
yes.
712. First from the uncleanness of death that having by his
own blood obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others? Answer: Certainly.
713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin-bearer
for others? Answer: I do not admit
that: I cannot separate him from his work.
714. Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free
life theory? Answer: Not by me, it
might be by you.
715. How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which
God laid upon him in his own nature, “made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” if
he had not died for himself as well as for us? Answer: He could not.
716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Answer: Oh, certainly.
717. Is it not clear then from this
that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin
power? Answer: Certainly.
718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh? Answer: No doubt of it.
719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification
through his shed blood and resurrection? Answer:
Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least.
720. Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to
shed his blood for himself? Answer:
That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a
new Adam altogether.
721. I never introduced that position. Answer: You are unfortunate in not conveying your ideas to me.
722. I never introduced that idea to you. Answer: You asked me to consider him
apart from us.
723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam? Answer: That is my point, that you
cannot separate him from the work he came to do. There never would have been a
Christ at all if he had not been for that work.
724. Then as a descendant of Adam, it was necessary for
himself to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life? Answer: I have already answered that question several times.
725. Do you not think it inappropriate for those outside
Christ, rejectors of the Word, to be brought before the judgment seat with
members of his household? Answer: It
is not I who am responsible for that inappropriateness. With the servants came
the rebels: “Those mine enemies who would not that I should reign over them,
bring them hither and slay them before me.”
726. Have you never thought it was inappropriate? Answer: I have no recollection of
having done so.
727. Do you recollect this in Christendom Astray (1884),
“Rejectors of the Word, who do not come under the law to Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the 1000 years.
It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from
themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since they do not
become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection at the time
when account is taken of that household would seem inappropriate. May they not
be dealt with at the end?” (p.108). Answer: Ah, that
is a mere question as to when they will be dealt with.
728. Is it not inappropriate for them to appear at the
judgment seat? Answer: As a mere
expression of opinion as to when, it is nothing. I did not remember having
expressed that opinion. It is nothing more than a suggestion upon an immaterial
point. My views are much more matured now than they were then, much more
certain and definite. That was thirty years ago.
729. It is Christendom Astray, only ten years ago, thoroughly
revised and rewritten (Preface, p. 4). Answer:
Intended to be so, but it was not thoroughly done, owing to incessant other
occupation and indifferent health.
730. Then you would not write that now? Answer: It is probable I would not. It is an immaterial point
altogether. It is the fact of the resurrection of the disobedient we want.
731. Was not the law of righteousness which came into
operation with Abraham the basis of resurrectional responsibility after his
time? Answer: Do you mean to say
there was no such basis before?
732. No, I do not. I am applying it to that time. Answer: Certainly, God laid the basis
of His plan concerning Christ in Abraham.
733. Was not that, after the time of Abraham, the basis of
resurrectional responsibility? Answer:
If you mean that there was no absence of that basis before Abraham’s time I am
at liberty to answer. The basis was the same, only a new development.
734. Do you believe that all Jews by birth were in the
Abrahamic covenant? Answer:
Certainly.
735. Are they all to be raised from the dead? Answer: No.
736. But if you say it is on the basis of the law or covenant
with Abraham that resurrectional responsibility existed, must not all be raised
from the dead? Answer: No, I will
say why if you wish it. A man must know the covenant before he is held responsible
to its obligations. Millions of Jews know nothing about it to this day,
therefore they are not responsible.
737. Do you consider it honourable
to publish a reply to a manuscript which has been withdrawn? Answer: Certainly not if it has been
withdrawn absolutely.
738. Was it not withdrawn absolutely? Answer: It was withdrawn as inadequate. If you had not said you
were going to rewrite it, I should have been glad to put it in the fire.
739. Has not an author a right to withdraw a manuscript
without giving his reasons if he wishes to revise it? Answer: If he wishes to withdraw it absolutely, certainly. You did
not do so.
740. If he withdraws it for any reason whatever, has he not a
right to do so, and does it not preclude the publication of a reply to it? Answer: Not if he had not retired from
the position represented by the writing.
741. Would you commend that act in another directed against
yourself? Answer: I should not ask
such a thing of anybody.
742. Have not I or anyone else the same right to revise,
amend, or rewrite before publication which you have exercised times without
number? Answer: Certainly.
BRO. ROBERTS: I should like if I
were able in the time remaining to develop what I consider the much larger
aspect of this question than what has appeared through the haze of our
argumentation. The question of human responsibility has a deeper root than most
men recognize. You have to go far back to get at it. You have to go back to the
time when there was no man upon the earth to wrangle, when there was nothing
but an empty planet. God has placed a race upon the earth for His own purpose.
God made man for Himself. Man is very much of an abortion as we see him now.
But we do not see him now in his final form. When we see him
in his final form we shall see the triumph of the principle that has been
before God’s mind, but not before man’s, during all these weary ages of
futility and turmoil.
You see it in connection with
the very first man. Adam was not there in the Garden of Eden merely to enjoy
himself: he was there to give pleasure to God as well. God had made man for His
own pleasure and He takes pleasure in those who fulfil
the design of Creation. The condition of that pleasure is not the performance
of ceremony, not technicality, but compliance with His will, the rational
subjection of an independent will to God’s will.
And so He said to Adam, “Thou
shalt not eat.” It was the simplest form in which the principle could be
brought to bear, and Adam when passing that tree would remember,“I must not touch that. It was God who commanded me
not to.”
Now, has that principle been
set aside? O, brethren and sisters, look at the
terrible history of man since then—disorder, confusion, disorganization of man
with man, tears and blood, the misery of man is great upon him. He was sent out
of
But God did not leave the thing
there. If the thing had been left there, there would have been nothing for it
but death, and I grant then, no possibility of anyone
coming out of the grave afterwards, if God had done and said no more. He did
not surrender His claim on man’s submission. He had a plan even in man’s fall.
He was “made subject to vanity by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope”. There is hope in that purpose from the
beginning. God had it before His mind from the very beginning.
But along with that hope there
was the other side. Privilege always brings responsibility. To whom much is
given, of them much shall be required. We see this principle illustrated all
down the stream of the ages since. For although Adam’s posterity were condemned
to death, death reigned over them although God did not hold them accountable
for Adam’s sin, as it is said, “they had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression,” yet He had spoken to them as He did to Adam, and they
were responsible to what He said.
We are not much enlightened in
regard to the amount and the extent of His communications from Adam to Noah,
but we know He did speak, for all flesh corrupted His way upon the earth. What
was the finish of it? The flood, the destruction of them all.
But was that a complete closing of the account? No. Noah was saved from that
flood, but Noah will be saved with another salvation. People were drowned in
that flood, but Enoch tells us that “the Lord cometh with 10,000 of His saints,
to execute (another) judgment upon all,
to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which
they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly
sinners have spoken against Him.”
To what extent that second
judgment will be administered we cannot say. Nobody knows to what extent
individuals forming that population knew God’s will. God is a reasonable Being.
He is the very essence of reason. That servant which knew his Lord’s will and
did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes if he did it not (BRO. ANDREW:—The
servant?). Yes; but, Bro. Andrew, it is a parable, mind you, and illustrates a
principle. Beaten with many stripes because he knew, whereas
the other, who did not know, is beaten with few. There is the
principle—knowledge. “This is the condemnation, that light is come … and men
loved darkness rather than light.” This is the ground of condemnation. Christ
says, “if ye were blind, you should have no sin.”
Leaving the flood, we come
down to
The same remark applies
afterwards concerning that coming destruction and judgment, although the extent
of it we cannot know, because of our ignorance of the application of this
reasonable rule that knowledge makes men responsible. “I did it ignorantly,”
says Paul, “therefore I obtained mercy.” The theory which we are invited to
adopt just clouds that all over, and makes God disregard knowledge. That is to
say, “Go into the water and I have got hold of you, but if you defy Me to the
extent of setting Me and My Son at utter defiance, and you keep out of the
water, I cannot touch you.” It is absurd!
Come down to the seven nations
of
Now we come to the apostolic
age, when we have the incipient fulfilment of the
prophecy of “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see
it”. The final manifestation is reserved, but it began then, so there was an
extension of Divine operations. Those of the families God had not “known”, He
now proposed to know. That is Paul’s expression. “After ye have known God, or
rather, are known of Him, how turn ye again to the
weak and beggarly elements”. “We are ambassadors for Christ as though God did
beseech you by us. We pray you in Christ’s stead, be reconciled to God”.
Nay, He commanded them to
repent. “The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth
all men everywhere to repent; because He hath appointed a day in which He will
judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained, whereof He
hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised him from the dead”. So
the responsibility of the Gentiles towards God which had not existed before
comes in. But it is regulated by the reasonable principle which God regards,
“If ye were blind ye should have no sin”. The man “who understandeth not is
like the beasts that perish”. The man that “wanders out of
the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead”.
We are not dealing with those
cases, brethren, we are agreed about those, I think. The question is where the
light comes. The question is where the understanding exists. The case in question
is where the Word of God comes to a man’s door. God knocks at his door.
“Behold! I stand at the door and knock”. The man knows God is there, knows what
God says, and replies, “No, I won’t”.
I beg to make one personal
explanation, referring to the representation of Bro. Andrew on Tuesday night.
It is really very unimportant; I almost feel humiliated to refer to it, but as
it is possible this discussion may be published, the whole facts of the case
ought to appear. It is that Bro. Andrew has forgotten the facts about my visit
to
It was I that proposed it, on
receiving his voluminous manuscript, for I shrank from the task of writing the
answer it would have required, and I had much confidence in Bro. Andrew’s lucency I felt sure that if we came face to face, I should
succeed in dispelling the mists of the paper. I therefore proposed to see him.
I admit that he consented with great alacrity, and proposed to pay the
expenses. I said, “No, I cannot consent to that,” but we made a compromise by
which he paid half and I paid the other half. We came together twice. He spoke
as if it was his proposal. It is not so. I have his letters and he has mine,
and it is just possible that in the stress of so many things he may have
forgotten how the case stood.
With regard to another matter,
my statement that he withdrew his resolution on my consenting to answer his paper, is absolutely true. It was my proposal to Bro.
Andrew. At the close of our conversation I said, “Well, Bro. Andrew, I will
tell you what I propose. You withdraw that resolution, and I will undertake to
answer your article in writing.” He agreed to that, but truly he did require
that some statement that had been made by someone else should be withdrawn
before he did so. Bro. Andrew would not cause me willingly to appear in a light
that is not true. I fully recognize his honesty, and I think I have given him
cause to admit mine during very many years.
BRO. ANDREW: If these statements
can be borne out, I will admit I have forgotten some of the circumstances to
which Bro. Roberts refers, but according to my present memory, I did propose
for him to come and see me, but I will let that remain in abeyance. I cannot,
however, recognize the statement that the writing of his reply was based upon
any promise of mine to withdraw my resolution. I promised to consider the
matter. I made no specific promise at the time.
At first sight this subject
may seem to be an unimportant one; that is, the question as to whether any
outside Christ shall be raised from the dead. But a closer examination leads to
a different conclusion. It affects not only the question of unbaptized
rejectors of the Word but the position of baptized believers; first as to the
change which takes place when they enter on their probation, and second as to
the relationship that they occupy to Christ during probation. That is to say,
previous to probation are they under God’s wrath for what they have done, and
for what they have inherited? If they are, then the baptism takes away the
wrath in both cases. If they are only under God’s wrath for what they have
done, then there is no need for the taking away wrath for anything else; in
fact, there is no wrath to take away, in regard to what they are by inheritance
or nature. Apparently, that is the distinction which this question has brought
to the front as to the respective beliefs of different brethren.
According to the teaching of
the Scriptures, the wrath of God rests upon men by their birth, as well as
subsequently by their evil deeds. By their birth they are under condemnation to
death. At baptism the wrath is taken away, and consequently the condemnation in
a legal sense, in regard to both aspects of sin, is also taken away. They then
stand in Christ completely clothed with his righteousness, no longer tainted
legally with that which they had previously, whether sin committed or sin
inherited.
According to the opposite view
there is at baptism only a taking away of the wrath of God for the evil deeds
committed, and then there is to be a course of well-doing in order to nullify
the sin-nature which has been inherited. That involves this unscriptural
position, that probationary well-doing can counteract or nullify the sin
nature. It cannot do anything of the kind. Probationary well-doing is to obtain
eternal life, and to avoid condemnation in the future. It cannot take away
condemnation in the future. It cannot take away condemnation in reference to
the past; to say that it does is to say in effect that good deeds can nullify
bad ones: this the Scriptures do not teach, apart from blood-shedding. There
must be blood-shedding in order that condemnation arising from sin may be taken
away.
The question is also important
because it affects many passages of Scripture relating to judgment. The belief
I am opposing leads to a perverted view of many of them, and hence it is that
we have passages quoted from the epistles and applied to those outside such as
“whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge”, as if God purposes to bring to
the judgment seat of Christ any of that class outside Christ. This passage,
together with several others quoted by Bro. Roberts, applies solely to those in
Christ.
The principles which determine
this question are, 1st: That the death arising out of Adam’s offence is, in the
absence of justification, without end; 2nd: That resurrection is through Christ
on the basis of justification from sin. Man brought death through disobedience,
including blood-shedding. Therefore, resurrection is on the basis of that which
was effected by him. Inasmuch as Christ was at birth
in the same position as his brethren, and as he was raised from the dead
through the redemptive work he effected, so are they,
and thus resurrection does not comprise those who do not come within the scope
of that redemptive work.
The third principle is that
the judgment seat is for the purpose of making known whether those who have
been candidates for eternal life are deserving of that
life or of a judicial death. In regard to those outside Christ there is no such
as determining of whether they are worthy of either the one or the other, and
therefore there is no fitness in bringing them before a tribunal specially so
provided. To bring them to that tribunal is to transform the judge, in relation
to them, into a mere executioner, and that is not the object of the judgment
seat. They can give no account at that judgment, and there is no necessity for
them to be asked a word, or utter a word. If they are brought there, their very
presence will be evidence as to what they are about to undergo, whereas in
regard to the members of Christ’s household it will not be known what is their
individual destiny until they have rendered their account, and Christ, as the
judge, has pronounced the verdict in relation to that account.
Therefore I say, as Bro. Roberts
said 10 years ago, that it is “inappropriate” and out of harmony with God’s
arrangements that there should appear before a tribunal established for such a
purpose, men who have no relationship whatsoever to its judicial process and no
relationship to the eternal life which will be bestowed upon some. (Bro.
Roberts: 30 years ago. It was intended to be rewritten, but it was not
rewritten, only revised, and I was too fatigued with other literary occupation
to do it very thoroughly. It is very much altered from previous editions.)
In dealing with the question
of immortal resurrection, this principle of the judgment seat constituted the
very foundation argument, namely, that because it was a tribunal to decide upon
one of two destinies, therefore the resurrection to that judgment seat must be
mortal. That same principle is applicable to this question, and excludes from
such a position those who have not been brought into a relationship which
admits of the bestowal of eternal life. There is no judicial process required
for them. Whatever responsibility towards God they may have incurred by reason
of what they have done or failed to do during their lifetime is limited to this
life. Bro. Roberts has quoted a number of instances of judgments in the past. I
fully recognise them, but when were they bestowed?
There was no judicial ceremony before their infliction, no account-giving, and
no judgment seat—God simply poured out His judgments upon them as wicked
beings, and that is what He has designed for all who are outside Christ.
What is the origin of the
teaching I am combatting? It originates in the mortal
sentiments, which constitute part of the thinking of the flesh, and which are
blind until instructed by the intellectual faculties. Hence it is that those
who believe with Bro. Roberts exhibit such a great amount of moral indignation
in support of their contention. But the same moral indignation has been
exhibited in time past as the foundation of other and more egregious errors.
When life only in Christ was
proclaimed, some years ago, it aroused the same kind of moral indignation. From whom? From believers in eternal torments, who also said
it was a most demoralizing thing to affirm that men who had committed all
manner of enormities—drunkenness, theft and even murder—should absolutely
perish without being brought before a judgment seat, supposed to be provided
for the whole human race. This, we are told, was most demoralizing. Is it any
evidence or argument that God so designed it?
Neither is such reasoning
evidence upon this occasion. Life only in Christ, and
resurrection only through Christ stand upon precisely the same basis. Life only
in Christ is through his redemptive work, and resurrection only through Christ
is likewise through his redemptive work. Life only in Christ is bestowed on the
basis of that redemptive work, and resurrection is also put into operation on
the same basis. Christ was a forerunner in regard to both. A
forerunner of all who have been justified from sin, in being raised from the
dead; and a forerunner of the faithful portion in being the recipient of
immortality.
To those who never partake of
justification from sin he can clearly be no forerunner, because they are left
in Adam; they are never transferred into Christ. Those who come into him enter
upon a probation as he did. He was brought from the
dead on the basis of his redemptive work, and so will they, all of them; the
one class to receive immortality, and the other to receive condemnation. Those
who are outside that redemptive work cannot come forth.
They are in Adam. Christ has
never “bought” them. They never come within the scope of his blood, and
therefore he is not their Lord to judge them. The power given to him over all
flesh is a power to be exercised when he comes to take possession of his
inheritance; power over all flesh then living on the inheritance; and he will
exercise it by pouring out judgments on the wicked in this life, not by
resurrection from the dead.
All who died in Adam have come
under the operation of a law which God decreed in the first instance; and there
they are left. Whereas probationers come forth, and he asks them how they have
acted since they became his. They are servants, and the fact that servants
knew, and are brought before the judgment seat in order to give an account, is
no evidence that those who are not servants will also be brought before that
judgment seat to give any account.
The mere use of the word “know” taken from its context,
is no evidence in regard to those outside Christ. We must confine passages of
Scripture to those to whom they are related, otherwise
we shall fearfully mangle them.[7]
Appendix Concerning
Events Mentioned on Pg. 148
J.J. ANDREW: Since
the debate, reference has been made to the correspondence between myself, with the result of showing that he first mooted “the
possible need of a conversation” between us about the manuscript I had sent
him, and that thereupon I invited him to
R. ROBERTS: The words “possible need of” are Bro. Andrew’s
words quoted from his rejoinder to my letter of proposal. They are not mine.
They may represent the impression made upon his mind by my proposal: this is
correctly stated in my proposal; they do not represent the spirit of my
proposal: this is correctly stated in my speech above, and would doubtless
appear from my letter of
J.J. ANDREW: The following extracts
are all that we can find on the matter: “
R. ROBERTS: Our memories are not
in accord as to details, but I have no suspicion of Bro. Andrew intentionally
misrepresenting facts. It is easy to forget when men are so
fatiguingly busy as both Bro. Andrew and I are. In
this case, where documentary proof was available, Bro. Andrew’s memory was not
proved the best. Per contra, I was more likely to have a correct memory of my
own movements and objects than he. I should not have troubled about his
manuscript if it had not been for his ecclesial proposition—threatening division;
the getting rid of the latter was my anxiety.
J.J. ANDREW: Bro. Roberts’ letter
of July 11th (which I had forgotten at the time of the debate) was written
after reading a portion only of my manuscript, and before he was likely to have
known of my ecclesial proposition. It was written, while from home, on a
letter-card, and being apparently unimportant, was doubtless destroyed by me as
soon as answered. My reply reflects its tenor, and, I believe, also its
phraseology, and gives definite shape to the suggestion it contained for a
conversation on the subject-matter of my manuscript.
FRANK G. JANNAWAY: I can
fully endorse Bro. Roberts’ version of the incident, having, prior to the above correspondence, sent him a copy of Bro.
Andrew’s intended “ecclesial proposition,” together with a letter in reference
thereto, which evidently caused the letter of July 11th, 1892, to be written.
My copying book contains copy of a letter, dated
J.J. ANDREW: Then I was not treated
with the candour to which I was entitled. I should
never have asked Bro. Roberts to come to
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]