There is a tendency among the new generation of Christadelphians of today to exaggerate the importance of present-day evangelists such as Billy Graham (in the past it was Moody, Sankey, or Spurgeon), and it is quite understandable judging from the vast numbers who assemble to hear them to suppose it to be a sign of success, but is it? True we must be respectful and indeed grateful for what good they do by their efforts; but their evangelism is usually an appeal to the heart more than to the head and prompts the question as to which is the more important for lasting results: impulse of heart-feeling which flares up in a flame for a time then gradually subsides back to normal—a few brands of course may be preserved—or a deep-seated understanding indelibly impressed on the sensorium regarding positive truth revealed by the Almighty. Sensational appeal always has the advantage over sober reflection, which latter brings responsibility and maybe some sorrow, but sorrow endureth but for the night and in the morning gives way to the healing rays of the bright sun.
Doctrine or morals with regard to Christian fellowship: This is a question which we find difficult to answer. Will salvation depend on the mental ability to comprehend Truth, as against Error which may be conscientiously entertained? Taking Christianity as the highest form of individual and social conduct, there are vast numbers who endeavor to conform to that standard whilst entertaining unwittingly errors which are subversive of divinely revealed truth. It is quite natural to suppose that such persons would be more acceptable to God than others who perceive truth but are careless regarding their manner of life. In one thing, however, we can all agree upon, whether we have a correct conception of truth or not, and it is that it is incumbent on every professing Christian to strive to do what is right: it is also written no evil-doer will inherit the Kingdom of God (1st Cor. 6. 9-10; 1st John 3. 15) ; conversely “the righteous shall enter into life eternal” (Matt. 25. 46). Why then refuse fellowship on account of an idea? Let me ask another question which I think should decide the issue: can we or ought we to deny a divinely revealed truth? Are we entitled to consider gross error with indifference? But our Christian friends would not confess to holding errors, so we must turn to God’s word and see.
Firstly, take the very foundation truth plainly unfolded in the Bible—”All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3. 23) or again, “Death hath pressed upon all men for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5. 12). A churchman may not question these quotations but by his philosophies he most emphatically nullifies the basic truth underlying them, thus—the word of God declares, “Thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2. 1 7) ; the voice of the church declares, “Thou shalt not surely die” (Gen 3. 4), and in order to escape the dilemma it is urged that death in these cases signifies a spiritual relationship, a cutting off from the life of God, but Genesis 3. 19 expressly defines death to mean a return to earth, which logically gives rise to the idea of the need of salvation.
Death, then, is an insuperable barrier to the continuance of life; how, then, it will be asked, can we surmount this barrier to a life beyond the grave? We have a complete and clear answer by Paul in his letter to the Romans—FAITH. Since we have no claim on God for a future life God has graciously offered to accept FAITH in his promises as a standard of righteousness (Rom. 4. 5). But surely the apostle does not mean that we can behave as we like providing we have FAITH: Oh, no—he goes on to say, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. 6. 1-2). Now the reason why faith was substituted for works is given in Rom. 4. 21: “Abraham being fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform, therefore (because he trusted in the faithfulness of God) it was imputed to him for righteousness.” Here, then, lies the crux of the question: Abraham believed certain things which God promised him—which was the foundation of his faith and trust and it was incorporated in the Christian church. This imputed righteousness was not for Abraham alone; it was intended for all those who adopted the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4. 23-24).
A responsibility therefore rests on those who understand that faith to publish it to those who know it not; but we find that Christians of the highest moral standards seem ignorant of it or make no account of it! The testimony regarding it however is quite clear: thus in Paul’s letter to the Galatians 3. 8 the Gospel was preached to Abraham in the following words, “In thee shall all the nations be blessed”. In this brief statement is enshrined the Messianic idea, speaking of a time of blessing to come on earth which we find described at length in the Psalms and the Prophets, as for instance Psalms 72 and 96 or Isaiah 2. 35, and many other places. Jesus as the Messiah is stated by Paul to be the one to bring about these blessings (Gal. 3. 16), and that is why we read so much about the return of Jesus to establish his kingdom.
There is but one way in which we may participate in these blessings (specifically recorded in Gal. 3. 27-29): by baptism as practiced in those days: “And if ye be Christ’s then are ye ABRAHAM’S SEED and heirs according to the promise.” These promises, then, form the basis of the gospel.
The churches do not connect salvation with these promises nor do they attach any special importance to baptism: in view, then, of the express testimony by God’s prophets, can it be supposed that the virtues of a Christian life alone can cancel out the faith of Abraham as a saving faith? Or on the other hand is one who embraces that faith excused from observing Christian conduct? This must be our answer to the question as to whether we can join other Christians in their fellowship, however virtuous they may be, or with their errors they unsuspectingly hold.
Last of all there is an unbridgeable gulf in that the churches preach the Deity of Jesus which contravenes the grandest truth of Hebrew Scripture: the unity of God. Jesus was truly the most virtuous and godlike of all the sons of Adam, but he was not the creator of the cosmos; he was, however, the creator of a new order: HIS CHURCH. He has indeed been very highly exalted, as we read in Acts 5. 31: “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a PRINCE and a SAVIOUR.” When Jesus comes back to earth there will be “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men”.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One