It is argued by some Christadelphians that some of the points of belief which we hold are erroneous; and hence they are rejected in favour of the ‘correct’ belief. When we attempt to discuss the evidence with them for or against either stand, the rejoinder is often given; “Well, the issue is not really important.” By their refusal to discuss the evidence they say, in effect, that whilst the belief is important, the means by which the belief is arrived at (the evidence) is not important. This type of reasoning is fallacious, and used only as a means of evading the issue. The person who points out that the issue is not important has no evidence for his own case.
Let us take the case of the extent of the Flood. The statement might be made: The Flood was local, and the reason given might be: There is no Biblical or archaeological evidence for a universal Flood.
It is clear that (2) is as important as (1), for it is illogical to argue that something is true whilst denying the force of any evidence which is used to prove the conclusion. Facts are based upon evidence, not the lack of it. If evidence such as (2) is unimportant, so is the conclusion (1). But if it is accepted that (2) is false, but that (1) is nevertheless true, there is blatant inconsistency. We might call it hypocrisy.
What is being said is, in effect, “There is no evidence to support the theory that the Flood was local; nevertheless the Flood was, in fact, local.” (The two statements are mutually contradictory.)
We are not here primarily concerned with what is true concerning the extent of the Flood, the literality of the serpent or any such matter, but rather are we concerned to establish a consistent attitude to these types of issue.
Clearly there is also inconsistency in the attitude which says to one who holds an error unsupported by evidence, “I don’t mind you believing what you like about this matter, which we say is unimportant, as long as you do not preach it from the platform.” Those who say this may themselves hold a differing view, which they feel they have evidence for, or they would not hold it; nevertheless, they do not consider the issue important. Their inconsistency lies in the fact that they believe something for which they think there is evidence, and may even accept the importance of the evidence, while denying the issue itself to be important.
There are here two inconsistent attitudes – that of the speaker of the error, who may hold the issue to be important, but deny the importance of the evidence; and that of the hearer, who may accept the importance of the evidence, but deny that the issue itself is important.
The dangers of this hypocrisy are many. Faith is based upon an ability to trust God. If God is inconsistent, how can we trust Him? And by denying our own inconsistency, we suggest that it is God Who is inconsistent.
Fellowship is based on common beliefs, not on tolerated differences in belief. If the common beliefs are removed, then the basis of fellowship is removed at the same time, and the brotherhood just crumbles, as there is no binding influence. If this is doubted, examine any of the churches which are not concerned about doctrine, and note how much fellowship they manifest. How many Baptists know other Baptists 100 miles away?
When the basis of fellowship is removed, desire to preach as a unit diminishes; after all, what is the point of preaching if it does not matter what you believe? And, finally, instead of having a body which is full of life, we end up with a corpse from which all life and vitality has departed and that corpse could be you or me. A corpse is no use to God; it cannot praise Him, and will ultimately be cast into outer darkness. What price compromise? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
The choice is ours whilst we still have some spark of life left in us.
Luke 13:5 – “Except ye repent you shall all likewise perish”