Elsewhere in this issue of The Tidings there is an article explaining how the study day on resurrectional responsibility came about in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Many of our unamended brethren and sisters have asked us to explain the Bible verses which we believe support the belief that the unbaptized rejector of God’s word will come forth at the resurrection for judgment. Bro. Ron Abel in his three talks discussed many of these verses and so it was thought that the best way to respond to these requests was to print excerpts from his address. We wish we had the space to print them all in full but those interested in hearing more can order the tapes. Here is the first installment of excerpts of Bro. Ron Abel’s talks taken from the tapes.
Our Doctrines are Taught in Scripture
“When you look at the historical record of the Christadelphian community, there’s hardly been a doctrine that the Christadelphians hold that is not, at some time or another, been questioned by the churches of Christendom. And after all, we are Christadelphians today because we agree that the doctrines believed by us are taught in Scripture. And that not only are they believed by us but they can be shown to be true against the best minds in Christendom. So we should hardly treat the doctrine of Resurrection and Responsibility any differently. And therefore, it should be with candor and openness with the Word of God that we consider this subject too.
For us as Christadelphians, we’re concerned that we don’t abandon what is truth and compromise that. On the other hand, we must be careful that we don’t place burdens, unnecessary obstacles, in the path of men who could meet on a basis that would be necessary and a minimum basis for salvation. One only has to have experience or have preached the Truth in countries where education is minimal, where people live in hardship and poverty, to see the great error of Expansionism where one could easily put unnecessary obstacles in the faith of those who would come to the Gospel.”
Bro. Abel then lists seven theories that have to do with the Doctrine of Judgment, beginning with the orthodox churches belief in the immortality of the soul, eternal security, immortal emergence, the second chance theory, the view that ultimately all will be saved, Andrew-ism, and finally the seventh which Bro. Abel called insufficient evidence. Concerning the seventh theory Bro. Abel goes on to say.
Looking at the Insufficient Evidence Theory
“Now the last view, respectively, we’d like to take a look at because there may be some here who hold this view and we’d like to consider this view in our analysis today. The view that says, “Well, we are certain that all of those who are baptized will be raised for judgment but there is some uncertainty about those who are not baptized. And so we think that there is nothing, legally, that would prevent their being raised but we don’t think that there is sufficient weight in Scripture to prove that those outside covenant relationship will stand in the day of judgment to give an answer of the deeds of the body. So, that view is the 7th view. We have to see the context then in which this last point, number 7, relates to the whole of our consideration of the doctrine of resurrectional responsibility. Now when you look at this subject in Scripture you will find that the subject is most frequently associated with hope. And I am sure that that is a logical proportion when we look at the doctrine of resurrection. It is hope from perishing in the grave.
And of course, that goes right back to our father, Abraham, into a well-known first principle consideration for us, where God says in Genesis 13:15 (in the context where Abraham is promised all the land he could see northward, southward, eastward, and westward.) “. . . all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever.” Now what we notice about this promise of God is that resurrection is implied. It is not stated. It is not there that God directly tells him, “Abraham, you’re going to be raised from the grave.” But it’s implied that if he’s going to receive the land forever then, of course, he has to rise from the dead. And as for us, if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. As we come to Romans we see that Christ was sent to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. Part of the Abrahamic covenant therefore deals with a resurrection, implied. And when you put all the rest of the passage together then you find a large number of passages that look at resurrection from the point of view of hope.
Resurrection is a Means to an End
So resurrection, it is a means to an end: Life eternal in the Kingdom of God. But the subject that we are looking at now in our analysis today, relates to a slice of the doctrine of resurrectional responsibility. And so for the large part of the doctrine of resurrection, that is not a consideration today. We’re looking at the responsibility apart where resurrection, the judgment, is depicted as a threat; where our liability is incurred on the part of a person; or where our responsibility accrues to a person by virtue of what they know or what they do.
And that is the issue that will preoccup us today. Our considerations in this analysis will take us to certain key passages. Others could be used but these certainly represent the strongest passages, in my opinion, on this doctrine of resurrectional responsibility. They are Romans 1 & 2, John 12, 1 Peter 4, Acts 24, II Thessalonians 1.
So this introduces for us the question “How do you know when you really arrive at a first principle ?” And, anyone who has wrestled with this question will know that it is not very easily answered. Our first comment is that the terminology “first principle” is most likely borrowed from Hebrews where as you know in Hebrews 5:12, the writer to the Hebrews says, “. . . for though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s Word.” So first principle is that basic building block in one’s understanding of God and His great plan of salvation. And there in Chapter 6 Paul says, “. . . Let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ” and he says, “go on to maturity.” and he speaks in verse 2 about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
Now there are many areas of Bible teachings about which Bible students disagree. There may be areas of interpretation, for example, who the King of the North is; whether the flood was universal or whether it was restrictive. There are interpretations that effect our understanding of prophecy, and so on. But when we are dealing with an elementary doctrine, a first principle doctrine, it is one that is more directly associated with the Gospel.
Another criteria for a first principle, we suggest, is it’s frequency of use. Now there are certainly important things in Scripture that occur only once. But surely, when we look at the number of expositions that we have in Scripture, the recorded speeches of the Apostle Paul, where on a variety of circumstances he stood up and preached the gospel message, we can surely tell what is a first principle by the frequency of the occurrence of the particular doctrine.
Another characteristic of a first principle that we suggest is that it affect’s one’s attitude. Now there are statements that are right and true but they don’t directly effect one’s attitude. Let’s take for example, the statement that the Kingdom will last 1000 years. Now that statement of fact finds it’s way into the statement of faith because obviously the kingdom lasts for a certain duration. But some treat Revelations as a symbolic book and that a symbolic number, as a period of time. When we look at a first principle teaching, it is one that affects our attitude more directly than a secondary principle. And when we say our attitude we are referring to our attitude in particular toward God and His saving grace in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Bro. Abel then begins his exposition on Romans chapter two. This is a long and detailed explanation which we will have to save for another issue. Instead, we have chosen to finish this particular article by quoting his remarks on second Thessalonians 1.
“Second Thessalonians 1 deals with the persecution of the Thessalonian Ecclesia. We well remember from the background recorded of the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica that Paul and the preachers of the gospel suffered terribly at the hands of their opposes. 2 Thessalonians 1:4, “Therefore we ourselves boast of you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God.” Now we remember that phrase, “the righteous judgments of God,” from Romans 2, how God’s righteousness was declared in the gospel and how it was evidenced in judgment. When ? Well he says, “that you may be worthy of the Kingdom of God for which you are suffering since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at in all who have believed because our testimony to you was believed.”
The events of Thessalonica in Acts 17 tells us of how there was a response to the preaching of the gospel by Paul and Silas, and a great many of the devout Greeks and, we read here, “not a few of the leading women.” But the Jews were jealous; they took some wicked fellows, or lewd fellows of the baser sort, their rabble as they gathered up a crowd, they began to attack the house of Jason and so on. The believers suffered at the
There’s a Group Unbaptized Which God Holds Liable to a Resurrection
hands of these persecutors of the Ecclesia. So we see evident in 2 Thessalonians 1 that there’s another group under which God holds people liable to a resurrection and a judgment. These were the persecutors of God’s Ecclesia. We read here that indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you. Now he doesn’t give a detailed extent of the knowledge of these afflicters, he doesn’t tell us they were enlightened rejectors, it just simply says that they were those who afflicted the Ecclesia. God’s view of their actions was that he deemed it just to pay with affliction those who afflict you. The context requires that this take place at the return of Christ, “When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”
Now it might appear that it could be read in context that when referring to those who do not obey God, it may relate to people that were living at the time when Jesus returns. But if that were the case, it would make no relationship between those who were the persecutors of the Ecclesia. So again, the flow of thought in 2 Thessalonians 1 would seem to require that the persecutors of the Ecclesia would be repaid on the basis that “vengeance is mine, I will repay said the Lord.” That wasn’t the right or perogative of the Ecclesia; God will look after that matter, and therefore, they would be the subject of a resurrection because they were responsible to it for their persecution of the Ecclesia. ..”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One