Selected Works
of
Thomas Williams
1974
The Richmond Hall Ecclesia
PREFACE
In these last dark days of Gentile times, the
believer needs the shining light, the steadfast landmark, the sure anchor of
faith which a clear and uncompromising exposition of the word of God can
provide. One of the best and easiest to
be understood pioneer writers was Brother Thomas Williams. His tireless exposition, propagation and
defense of the truth of God’s word has stood as a shining example to succeeding
generations of Christadelphians.
Although most of the articles reproduced
therein are over 70 years old, the reader cannot but be impressed how that time
has undiminished their validity, potency and truth. It is hoped that this work will provide the
believer a helpful aid in his study and walk in the truth.
The Richmond
Hall Ecclesia
October, 1974
CONTENTS
|
Title |
Page |
Scanned
Status |
|
The Origin of the Bible |
1 |
not
scanned yet |
|
The Problems of Life |
93 |
not
scanned yet |
|
The Purpose of God in the Earth |
183 |
not
scanned yet |
|
The Kingdom of God |
199 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Man:
His Origin, Nature and Destiny |
219 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Hell Torments |
239 |
not
scanned yet |
|
The Devil |
265 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Trine Immersion and Feet Washing |
311 |
not
scanned yet |
|
The Divine Sonship of Jesus |
341 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Regeneration |
363 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Rectification |
381 |
not
scanned yet |
|
Adamic Condemnation |
435 |
In
separate file, “Adamic Condemnation” |
|
Open Letter to Brother Brode |
481 |
In
this file |
|
A Rallying Point |
487 |
In
this file |
Efforts
are under way to scan the rest of this book, “Selected Works of Thomas Williams”,
making the files available for use. Most
of Brother Thomas Williams’ work is already posted on the internet on various
sites.
Page
numbers referred to are those in the book, “Selected Works of Thomas Williams”.
pg
481
(published in “The Christadelphian Advocate”)
To the Editor of “The Messenger of the Coming Age.”
Permit me to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of Nos. 1
and 2 of your paper bearing the above title. Readers thereof cannot but be
impressed with your sincerity in what you write and with your good intentions
in freely issuing such a paper. It is the fact that I am so impressed that
prompts me to now write you in reference to some serious errors contained in
the issue No. 2 (just received.) They relate to Adamic condemnation and the
sacrifice of Christ in relation thereto; and they seem partly in unison with
the dangerous doctrine emanating from Buffalo, namely:
1. That natural death
is sufficient to. and does, pay the Adamic penalty.
2. That the sacrifice
of Christ has nothing to do with Adamic condemnation.
3. That baptism relates to personal sins only.
While some of the statements you make affirmatively and
negatively coincide with these serious errors, yet you make other statements,
which are scriptural, and which have been opposed by those whose erroneous
teachings you give expression to. For example, the following will be accepted
by all enlightened brethren
1. When Adam
disobeyed the divine command in Eden, he sinned, and the penalty was death-’
Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return ;‘‘ the law of sin and death
began its work (p. 27). This defines what “the law of sin and death’’ is and
shows that you do riot accept the error that it was the law of Moses.
2. “The
righteousness of God was declared by Christ in his sacrificial death, He being
of the seed of Adam. Abraham and David, a true representative of the condemned
race of Adam ; God wanted to lift sinful
men from their sinful state ?‘This he
does in Christ,” etc. (p. 28). I take this to mean that Jesus was in the
“sinful state,” and that the lifting up took place in him as “a true
representative of the condemned race.” This “lifting” in Christ was His
redemption from a sinful state He and we inherited from Adam and a state which
made redemption necessary as soon as the “state” came to be, and before the
personal sins of the race were committed. Jesus’ redemption from this “state”
was redemption and salvation notwithstanding that He had no personal sins. Do
you go with me this far, Bro. Brode? If not, why not?
3. “When they
are baptized into Christ they die into his death, and then they are acceptable’
unto God, to be candidates for eternal life.” This is good, but do not overlook
the fact that His death was not “natural death.” but sacrificial death, the
only death that would meet the requirements of Adamic condemnation for Christ’s
redemption as well as for ours?
pg
482
Therefore the sacrificial death of Christ must have its root in Adamic condemnation, though it reached also to the personal sins of those He redeems. Your statement correctly and logically leads to this, and I hope you so intended it.
4, “The way to
the tree of life has been restored and blessed are all those who find this way
and do walk worthy . so as to have part in the resurrection of life.’’ This
suggest the question - who-whose sin closed the way of the tree of life ?‘‘ Of
course you will agree that it was Adams sin, ‘Then it follows that the
sacrifice of Christ related to Adam’s sin to the extent of opening the way
which sin closed ; and as soon as we are baptized into Christ-into his death
and resurrection-we are in “the way to the tree of life-”
5. "At our baptism into Christ. which is a symbol of our dying with Him, we receive the remission the remission of our sins that are past., we are then morally in Christ Jesus, but physically we are still in Adam, for we are yet subject to sin and death; but no longer under the law of sin and death.” ‘This properly distinguishes between being in the same physical condition after baptism as before; and being freed, by baptism , from the “law of sin and death.’’ But those who teach the errors of the Buffalo Statement have denied that baptism frees us from the law of sin and death, yet, pretending to agree with Dr. Thomas, while he says that at. baptism we pass from “the constitution of sin to the constitution of righteousness, We are freed’ from the law, the sentence, the penalty, the dominion, the constitution ; but the physical effects remain till the “redemption of the body.” Read Rom. viii.
Now, dear brother, if I have taken your words in the sense you Intended, or if
you agree with the conclusions I reach from your words, then I rejoice with you
in these blessed and beautiful truths. But now I must refer you to those
statements of yours which conflict with these truths, and which seem to give
expression to the dangerous doctrine to which I have alluded. -
1. “He is not baptized for the original sin of Adam ; the holy, righteous God does not hold him responsible ‘for that sin, he has only inherited the consequences of Adam’s transgression : this is the mortal nature, and death comes through this mortality.” Of course you know there is no one believes the absurdity that we are baptized for our personal selves to be pardoned for Adam’s personal sin. But in saying as you have that through Christ “the way to the tree of life is restored you must see that the death of Christ and our baptism into his death have to do with something more than our personal sins; have to do with something that came from Adam’s sin and affected Christ who had no personal sins and yet needed salvation and redemption. You have rightly said that Adam's sin caused “the law of sin and death to commence its work” ; and you have also rightly said that after baptism we are “no longer under the law of sin and death.” Therefore are we not baptized for, in the sense of
pg
483
because of, or on account of, a relation, a condition, an alienation, an uncleanness, a “fall,” a lost state, an exile from paradise that Adam’s sin was the cause of and the only cause of? for all this is true irrespective of personal sins, and these are an added reason in our case, but not in Christ’s baptism and death for Himself. Is not baptism a means of transition, let me ask you, from a state of alienation in Adam to a state of reconciliation in Christ? While God does not hold descendants responsible for the act of their progenitors, as if the former had literally committed the act of the latter, is it not a principle throughout he Bible that descendants are required to make amends for the inherited results of their ancestors, before God will accept them ? Take the ease of an illegitimate the child is not, of course, charged with the actual sin of the parent; but did not the child inherit an evil in being forbidden entry into the congregation of the Lord ; yes, and that, too, to the tenth generation? See Deut .xxiii:2. A leper may not be personally responsible for the sin that caused disease, yet he must suffer the evil results; and in case of a cure, he must make sacrificial amends for it according to the law. Mortality is a leprous, unclean, “sinful flesh” condition in baptism there is a legal washing or cleansing by the word, water, and the blood : so that he who was “unclean, unclean,’’ may approach God and his sanctuary. In other words, he must be clothed with the garments of Christ’s righteousness, so that not only are his own personal sins covered, but the inherited sinful state, the ‘‘nakedness’’ derived from Adam is covered in’ the garments provided, as it were, by the slain Lamb. The shed blood remits and the resultant garment clothes, as typified in Adam and Eve.
2. You say : “When Christ shed his blood on the cross, it was a sacrifice for the many sins of his brethren; Christ had no sin, and therefore the shedding of his blood was not for himself; but he redeemed himself and all his brethren (Adam included) from Adams condemnation in, restoring the way to the tree of life.”
Now, my dear brother, did He not “redeem himself” by shedding his Blood? Is it not true that, “For the joy that was set before him, He endured the cross ?“ “Redeemed himself” from what? Not from personal sins, for he had none. You correctly answer, “From the Adamic condemnation,” which you also rightly say we are freed from legally or relatively, when you say that after our baptism we are “no longer under the law of sin and death.” (p. 30). Why then do you say of, Christ that “the shedding of his blood was not for himself ?“ This is what the “free life” theory declared. Is it not a fundamental principle that for Christ to die ‘for us as a representative (not as a substitute) he must himself have been involved in the evil which made his redemptive death a necessity? If, as you correctly say, “he redeemed himself and his brethren,” did he not die for them and Himself for the same thing-the same redemption? From what did he redeem Himself if it was not from the fallen, sinful
pg
484
flesh state which Adam’s sin caused, and was the only cause of? Was not his death then for, or because of, or on account of what Adams sin had produced? Is it not therefore true that Christ did die for (to redeem) himself for the same reason he died for us, with an added reason in our case? If our baptism is into his death, which you are careful rightly to say and repeat, does not baptism stand related in our behalf to His death in the same sense that his death stood related to him? Think this out fully, and it must be seen that the necessity of redemption through Christ arose from Adam’s sin, Adams’s fall, Adam’s exile, Adam’s alienation, Adam’s estrangement-in short, if redemption was exemplified in Christ himself then redemption was a necessity irrespective of personal sins and therefore the primary cause of that necessity is in Adam’s sin and fall. In other words, if Christ required’ redemption in the absence of personal sins, then if every individual of Adam’s race had been free from personal sins. They would still have required the same redemption, and again we see that personal sins are additional to a necessity for redemption, which already existed-an aggravation of an already existing evil. With this out of view no one can understand the plan of salvation; one who is baptized with a view only to the pardon of his personal sins submits to a baptism as useless as is the dipping of Campbellites and Baptists
3. You further erroneously say. “The penalty for Adams original sin was death, this penalty every descendant of Adam inherits. Christ included; a natural death, suffices for this penalty in all cases" .’’ Then strange to say, you add, “When Christ died he freed himself from this Penalty, and, in a figure, he freed all his brethren, because when they are baptized into him they die with him and rise to newness of life.
This all very nicely put except the ‘‘natural death" part, which is as a fly in the ointment. “Natural death suffices” ‘does it ? Suffices for what, brother? It suffices for oblivion, truly; but not for redemption out of death. For redemption out of death nothing would suffice but sacrificial death. If Christ had refused to die the sacrificial death, and waited for natural death, all that the natural death would have sufficed for would have been His oblivion. There is no redemptive power in natural death, because there is no merit in it. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up-” “Who for the joy that. was set before him endured the cross.” ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” “The lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” “Coats of skins” should not be forgotten, nor the “firstling of Abel’s flock,” nor all the sacrifices of the law which pointed to the sacrificial death which alone would suffice; and so our baptism represents voluntary sacrificial death, hence resurrection ; and without this “natural death” would hold us eternally. “By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead We are in the first by birth, we are in the second by being "born again"
pg
485
4. You stumble again, dear brother, when you say, “All human beings lose the right to obtain eternal life by committing sin” (p. 33). You cannot lose that which you have not. If “all human beings lose the right to eternal life by committing sin,” then they have the right to eternal life until they lose it by committing sin I cannot think you believe what you say here; but it appears so much like the many efforts put forth of late to relegate our relation to Adamic sin into obscurity that I call your attention to the absurdity of it. Adam did the “losing” for us all, and we are “by nature the children of wrath,” and “without Christ., being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants or promise, without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. ii :16). “By one offense judgment came upon all men unto condemnation” (Rom. v :18). Here again you see that we are born in Adamic bankruptcy, and so again it is clear that redemption has its root in the Adamic sin which caused the fall.
5. You surely cannot mean what you say in the following: “May the thought be far from all people that are desirous of pleasing God, that Christ did shed his blood for the purification of his flesh on account of the original sin of Adam.”
You give Dr. Thomas and Bro. Roberts proper credit for what
you have learned from them : but you had forgotten them when you made this
statement were did. the “sinful flesh” of Christ come from if it was not the
fruit of “The original sin of Adam?” Was there anything purified in Christ? Did
he ever have an impure character to purify? No. ‘Then if there was any
purification in respect to Christ of any sort what was it, Brother Brode,’? I suppose it is safe to say that
when we obtain that for which we are waiting “the. redemption of the body”
(Rom. viii.)-our bodies will be purified, in that He will “change our vile
bodies and fashion them like unto his own glorious body.” What sin caused the
impure state of all who are born in sin and shapen in iniquity? Now as to the
purification of Christ’s flesh from the sinful state inherited from Adam’s sin,
let Paul speak: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without the shedding of blood there is no remission. It was therefore necessary
that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these For Christ,” etc. Was he one of the “heavenly
things” purified by the “better sacrifice?’ You employ a peculiar term on p 27,
but it shows that you then had the true thought, and I wish you would transfer
it to the above statement correctively. Here it is: “In this state (mortal)
Adam was sent forth from the garden, in order that he should not eat from the
tree of life, and thereby DISINFECT MORTALITY and live forever.”
Then mortality was so impure that it needed “disinfection.”
Whose sin made it so? Did Christ partake of this same mortality which Adam’s
sin so corrupted that it needed “disinfection” by eating of the tree of
pg
486
life? If so, and you will not deny this, then by
what means did Christ “disinfect” His mortality; if He “did not shed his blood
for the purification of his flesh an account of the original sin of Adam?”
Now, brother Brode, I write this to you to warn you of the
danger of subverting the truth in the little paper you have been generous
enough to publish freely. It is a pity for good intentions to be worse than
wasted. I have no reason to entertain the least animosity towards you, and I
hope you will receive this in the spirit in which it is written. Dangerous
departures from the truth have of late taken place, and it is the duty of
everyone who loves the purity of the Truth to warn, expose and correct. It is
in the discharge of this duty I send you this ‘‘open letter” in the hope that
it will serve the desired end in your case and be of some help in keeping your
little messenger in the path of truth ; also that it will warn others and help
to a better understanding of what the sacrifice of Christ and baptism into His
death are designed to save us from.
Faithfully your
brother in the Lord for the Truth in its purity,
Thomas Williams.
------------------
pg 487
EDITOR’S VISIT TO ENGLAND AND
WALES.
-----------------------
(Continued from page 279.)
Upon our return from Birmingham to Mumbles we resumed the duty and pleasure of visiting brethren and friends in the peninsula of Gower, of which we have some interesting things to write after we have more fully explained our procedure in matters specially pertaining to the affairs of the Truth.
Looking out, mentally, over the deplorable state of the One
Body on the British isles, the question kept pressing itself upon us, What can
be done? If time allowed we felt that we would like to start out on a journey
and from the press and platform cry aloud and spare not, in the hope of
rallying some to the old standard of truth; but at least a period of twelve
months would be required for such a work, and at present it is beyond our
reach, hawing many other duties to attend to. In the hope of reaching a few who
have the courage of their convictions, we wrote the following, entitled ‘‘A
Rallying Point,” but had not sufficient time to circulate it. it appears for
the first time in print, and it will be printed in tract form for free and
extensive circulation. Those who can help in this we believe will he doing a
good work. Let them apply for copies and they will be supplied freely.
Brother J. J. Andrew’s name is freely used by some on both
sides of the Atlantic to arouse prejudice. This was the method employed to
prejudice the brethren against us, because we reserved an outspoken statement
as to the matter of fellowship between brother Andrew and myself, pending the
expected opportunity of a personal interview. I could not say whether brother
Andrew would fellowship me Or not; and if I construed the Statement of Faith he
has issued literally and without modification, with the fact that I had refused
to make the responsibility question a test of fellowship it seemed to stand in
the way mutually. Was it not therefore the part of wisdom for me to hold the matter
in reserve till a personal interview could be had, since that was soon to be
possible? And was it fair and right for brethren to scoff and take advantage of
my reservation in the case?
The personal interview was had, and a correspondence kept up
during our stay in England; and my questions and brother Andrew’s answers as
given herein will show the results; and now I may freely ask the brethren in
all the world to read carefully brother Andrew’s answers and then decide
whether they can, with the fear of God before their eyes, refuse him
fellowship. Let all reflect upon his answers and read carefully this “Rallying
Point” and I feel sure that all truth-loving intelligent brethren will not
hesitate to take the stand suggested and continue on it-the stand we have
occupied since the Truth’s revival and upon which all the good work has been
done since the days of Dr. Thomas.
A RALLYING POINT.
In view of the divided state of the brethren of the British
Isles it has become difficult for one to go from place to place without offence
on one side or another. This deplorable state of things has arisen largely of
late from disputes and differences on Adamic condemnation and justification in
Christ, and the “third class resurrection” theory. The result is the existence
here of no less than seven different bodies-’’Partial Inspirationists,”
Renunciationist,” extremists on third class resurrection, those who agree with
the latter partly, but who allow “doubters,” those who do not make the third
class matter a test of fellowship, and
pg
488
those
called “The Andrew Party.” What a
wilderness to travel in The brethren in America hive succeeded in keeping these
troubles from their shores to the extent that before the discussion on the
Adamic and third class question, they were ecclesially almost a unit. At present most of them stand firmly on the
old foundation occupied for forty years, and I believe this is the wise and
only safe position to-day, a positron which, to be brief, I would call The Old
Birmingham Statement of Faith and Basis of Fellowship’’ While some refuse to
formally accept any “Statement,” except the Bible, It is agreed that the
‘‘Statement” referred to gives expression to a position clear enough, broad
enough, and narrow enough for the present practical workings of the Truth.
The Chicago ecclesia, to which I belong, accepted this (with
a few verbal corrections) years ago, and there they stand to-day. I. believe
the time has come for those who desire peace to rally and declare themselves in
this country, as they have in America, against the hair-splitting strife that
is now rampant in making a test of fellowship on the question of whether one
believes that a few unbaptized Gentiles will be raised from the dead to be
punished or receive justice otherwise as God may see fit. Whether the Old
Statement is formally accepted or not, it is the best to refer to as a quick
and brief way of declaring the position occupied, and of finding a rallying
point on which to stand. Cannot all
reasonable, peace-loving brethren in all parts of the world take this
stand and therefrom invite those who have
departed from it to return and take a new start and work together? In
doing this it is not necessary to call up what was said and done in years past,
and demand admission that this one did wrong or that one did right when the
fire of controversy was kindled. Let all ask, Where do we stand now? and all who stand now where we stood before
the disputes started can well afford to let the days of controversy drop out of
sight without one mortal frail man prostrating himself at the feet of others as
mortal and frail as himself.
Since the more recent matters of controversy are the present
cause of division it will be well to give statements from brethren in different
parts of the world, as going to show that they are practically in agreement
with ‘‘The Statement of Faith of the Christadelphians. ‘‘ First, here are
QUESTIONS BY BRO. WILLIAMS
ANSWERED BY BRO. J. J. ANDREW.
1.-Do not the
words, ‘Because thou hast * * * eaten of the tree * * dust thou art and unto dust salt thou
return’’ declare the death referred to in the words ‘Thou shalt surely die’’?
Ans.-Gen. ii: 17 declares the penalty of death, and the death of Gen. iii: 17-19 is that penalty, but modified by (or because of) Gen iii:15..
2.-When Paul
says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men’’ is he not referring to that death which was intended by
the words, ‘In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”?
Ans. ----- The
death mentioned in Rom. v: 12 1 consider to refer to the death described in
Gen. iii: 17- 19
3.-Is not this
the death we are all under and from which Christ came to redeem us ?
Ans.-----The death from which Christ came to redeem us I consider to be the death of Gen. iii: 17-19.
4--When Paul says, “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law,’’ and then represents the redeemed as rejoicing upon their triumph, through Christ, over death and the grave, is he not referring to
pg
489
the “law” which said
“Thou shalt surely die,” to the death that came by its transgression and to the
redemption therefrom?
Ans.-I look upon I. Cor. xv: 55,56 as referring to the death which came upon mankind as the result of Adam breaking the law of Gen. ii: 17.
5.-Is not the subject as involved in these questions sufficient for faith and fellowship without entering into the question of whether or not Adam incurred a “violent death,” so long as it is admitted that God required that Christ should die the death of the cross as a means of redemption for him and for us?
Ans.-I do not
look upon the question of Adam incurring a violent death as being necessary for
either immersion or fellowship, but as an item of increased knowledge, which
proves the perfect justice of God in imposing on His Son the death of the
cross.
6.-If it is
understood and believed that Adam’s disobedience brought condemnation and death
upon the entire race, Christ included, and that through Christ’s obedience,
even unto the death of the cross, there is deliverance therefrom, would you
make the question of whether or not God will raise ‘‘enlightened Gentiles” a
test of fellowship?
Ans.-The
question of making resurrection of Gentiles out of Christ a test of fellowship
depends upon the way it is held. If it be recognized that Adam brought death
upon their entire race by his sin, that baptism into Chris frees men from the
permanent power of death, and that such of the baptized as die will rise
through their relationship to Christ, but that it is possible God may, by His
independent power, raise some others, I should not consider it a barrier to
fellowship. But if it be contended that some Gentile out of Christ will be
raised the same basis as those in Christ, this contention would be a barrier to
fellowship.
-------------------
BROTHER FORD’S PROPOSITIONS.
1.-That all
men inherit sin in their flesh (sinful or defiled flesh) whereby they are
alienated from God and inherit the condemnation to death passed upon Adam.
2.-That they
are additionally condemned because of their wicked works.
3.-That
notwithstanding, God desires them to be reconciled to Him and has worked to
that end.
4.-That Jesus,
by inheriting sinful or defiled flesh, inherited the condemnation pertaining to
that state.
5.-That he put
away his sin nature and escaped from the condemnation pertaining to it by the
shedding of his blood.
6.-That upon
the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, God freely forgives the sins committed, and
removes the alienation resulting from their sin-nature state of all those who
receive the covering He has provided.
7-That this
release from the claims of sin in its two-fold form, confers a right or title
to release from the state of toil, sorrow, sin-nature and death which men
inherit from Adam.
8-That this
right or title is obtained solely by virtue of what Christ has accomplished,
his righteousness being accounted to us at immersion because of our faith in
His scheme and purpose.
----------------------
SUBMITTED BY
THE CHICAGO ECCLESIA
TO BRETHREN WALKER AND SULLEY
UNDER THE
HEADING, “WE WILL TRY AGAIN.”
1.-Will you admit that Christ had to offer a sin offering for himself? If so, we agree.
pg
490
2. Will you admit that since he had no personal sin to offer for, his offering for himself was for the relation or condition of things which Adam’s sin brought, in which Christ was born, and out of which he could not escape without offering for himself? If so, we agree.
3. Will you admit that since Christ’s inherited
condition from Adam necessitated his offering for himself, our inherited
condition from Adam required the same “one offering” his did? If so, we agree.
4.-Will you
admit that in dying Christ made the one offering for himself for the reason
stated, and that we were included in the benefits of that offering which was
made for the same reason for us as for him-a sin not personal? If so, we agree.
5. Will you
admit that since the death of Christ redeemed man from a lost state resulting
from Adam’s sin, it redeems us from the same ? If so, we agree.
6.-Will you
admit that by one man (Adam) we are all in a lost state, and that Christ’s
death redeems us from that same lost Adamic state, as well as from our personal
sinfulness? If so, we agree.
7.-Will you
admit that the death of Christ made reconciliation with God possible for us,
and that without it there could have been no reconciliation? If so, we agree.
8. -Will you
admit that when we are baptized, we are “baptized into Christ’s death” and that
thereby we are reconciled to God because we thereby partake of the efficacy of
the one offering which Christ made for himself and for us? If so, we agree.
9.-Will you
admit that in dying ‘‘for our sins” he made an offering to God, which by our
baptism into his death will avail for the remission of ‘‘our sins”--personal
sins-as well as for that for which he offered for himself? If so, we agree.
10.-Will you
admit that when reconciled to God by baptism into Christ, we are bought, or
purchased from the relationship to Adam under which we Were born, and that
consequently the death which came through Adam’s sin is deprived of permanent
power over us? If so, we agree.
[The 10th is added by
brother J.J, Andrew, who endorses the ten propositions.-T. W.]
------------------------
TO BRETHREN WALKER AND SULLEY
by THE CHICAGO ECCLESIA
UNDER THE HEADING
“WE WILL
ADMIT.”
1.-That the
phrase “guilty of Adam’s sin” is misleading and should not be used, not,
however, that we condemn Dr. Thomas for his use of it with the explanation he
gives of the sense in which he used it. Will this do?
2.-While we believe that Christ’s baptism was a symbol of his death, and that thereby he symbolically passed into his death, we admit that he would never have been freed from the lost Adamic state in which he was born if he had not made the one offering by actually dying upon the cross. Will thus do?
3-While we
believe that in baptism we are fully reconciled to God, and that we receive the
efficacy of the one offering Christ made for himself and for us and for our
personal sins, to the extent that we are clothed from the nakedness of sin and
consequently brought nigh to God, all this will go for nothing if we are not
worthy of the redemption of our bodies when Christ comes. Will thus do?
4.-We believe
that men are responsible for light and sometime for darkness, and that God will
do justly with all; that the most important thing for us to realize is our own
responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ. If a brother’s conscience
pg
491
requires him to go into details as to when and where he thinks God will punish some out of Christ, we would not hinder him so long as we are assured that believers seek baptism for the love of the Truth as well as from fear of the consequences, whatever they may be, of not accepting it by baptism. Will this do?
------------------------
We submit these statements so that it might be seen that in no sense do they differ from the Old Birmingham Statement of Faith, and that it might be evident to the brethren at large that if there has been any departure from what has been accepted as truth in Christadelphian literature, it has been by those who oppose what is here set forth, first in brother Andrew’s answers, second in brother Ford’s propositions, and third in the statements submitted to brethren Walker and Sulley by the Chicago ecclesia. Brethren, examine all these carefully and then decide for yourselves, in the fear of God and free from all human restraint and prejudice, whether there is anything unscriptural in them and whether it is not decidedly wrong for any intelligent brother or any sound ecclesia to cause or countenance separation from those who stand on these truths.
Upon the Old Birmingham Statement, with these statements to
show perfect agreement therewith and, of course, with the Word of God, cannot
brethren in all the world unite in the bonds of truth and love; and then
valiantly work for the progress of the Truth? Now is the time for every one
having the courage of his conviction to speak and to act, so as to be found
faithful when the Lord shall appear.
It would be well to change the name “Birmingham Statement of
Faith” to “The Statement of Faith of the Christadelphians,” and thus rid
ourselves of local names, and then cast aside all other statements and cease
incessant statement writing and statement amending. I do not mean that this
would end all our troubles, but it would lessen them, and it would take out of
the hands of editors and others, to a large extent, the power of suddenly
setting the brethren all afire with a spirit of strife and schism and of
dictating new tests of fellowship’ over which logicians rack their brains, and
plain people stand astounded. Statements of faith must not be formulated to
suit stalwarts or “babes in Christ” will be squeezed out and honest, plain
fisherman and other Sons of hard toil will not be able to enter.
Those who have read THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE will have
seen that the old position is the one most of the brethren in America have
contended for throughout the late discussion, and they carefully avoided the
two extremes some have gone to. On the “ responsibility question,” Proposition
XXV. of the Statement, with the attitude maintained towards it for years
without trouble, was and is good enough without new or “amended” additions.
At first, Adamic condemnation and the relation thereto of
the sacrifice of Christ was the point of attack by brethren Walker and Sulley;
but the answers given to their various printed circulars and the matter as
condensed in the foregoing statements from brethren Andrew and Ford and from
the Chicago Ecclesia, seem to have driven them to the last stand-that of
resurrectional responsibility of enlightened Gentiles. Let us therefore make a
comparison on this question between the position herein set forth and that of
olden times when all accepted the Birmingham statement. At that time brother Roberts
said, in Christendom Astray”
Rejecters of the Word, who do not come under the law of Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the thousand years. It does not, seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from them
pg
492
selves 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?”
Here brother Roberts says rejecters are” not under the law
of Christ;” that they are not “constituents of the household of faith;” and
that therefore their being raised and judged upon the same basis and at the
same time as that of the household is “inappropriate.’’
Now see how this agrees with brother Andrew in answer to
question 6 above:
If it be recognized that Adam brought death upon the entire
race by his sin, that baptism into Christ frees men from the permanent power of
death, and that such of the baptized as die will rise through their relation to
Christ, but that it is possible God may, by His , independent power, raise some
others. I should not consider it a barrier to fellowship."
In these statements there is a careful distinction between
the possible resurrection of those out of Christ and the certain resurrection
upon a definite basis of those in Christ, which surely no one instructed in the
Scriptures will object to, and this has been carefully guarded in Proposition
XXV. of the Old Birmingham Statement, by the words “faithful and unfaithful,”
“both classes.” Also in “The Good Confession:” “ How will the two classes
(those who “take on the name of a Christ by belief and baptism”) be dealt
with?” * * * “At the coming of Christ he will gather his household to judge
them.” This keeps the matter of the resurrection of the household within the
law governing their resurrection and judgment; and yet does not interfere with
brother Roberts’ “may they (the rejecters) not be dealt with at the end” (of
the thousand years; nor with brother Andrew’s “but that it is possible” etc.;
and moreover and better than all, Christ himself was careful in his parabolic
pictures of the judgment of the household to represent two classes-”Virgins,”
wise and foolish “fish” in the net, good and bad; “servants,” profitable and
unprofitable, etc. Therefore in this we can safely find a rallying point on
thus present vexing question; and with these statements before our eyes how can
we advocate division if we agree with them? If there has been a departure by
some from these old lines and well-established principles to the extent of
turning brother Roberts’ ‘‘may they not’’ into a first and fundamental doctrine
shall we as a body stand still and let the Truth suffer from such an
uncalled-for division, or shall we cry aloud and spare not, every man doing his
duty, to rally to the old standard and rousing the brethren to realize that the
words of the Lord through the prophet Jeremiah are still to time point, amid
their sound should still be sent out in till the world: “Stand in the ways, and
see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye
shall find rest for your souls’’ (Chap. v: 15).
The brethren in America, foreseeing the danger when the
Responsibility Question broke out, quarantined it by passing resolutions not to
allow the question to be forced upon them as a test of fellowship, and the
report of these resolutions had the desired effect in keeping most of the
ecclesias on the old basis. Those in England or. in any other part of the world
who desire the welfare of the cause of truth and harmony on time old basis,
would do well to resolve to take a bold stand; and the pages of the
CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE will be open
for reports and for any letters that will be a help toward, the desirable end
aimed at in this “Rallying Point.”
Faithfully
your brother and fellow-laborer in the Lord,
THO.
WILLIAMS,
Editor
of THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE, 834 Gist St., Chicago, Ill.,
U. S. A.
------------------------
-The
thoughtful and industrious man is always about to do. When either beginning or
ending, his Interest is in the sequel.
He asks “What is next to do to go on?” and “What is next to do to begin
something else?”