Exporting Division
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus’ name.
Your July, 1993 editorial focused on a very important issue, and I fully support your sentiments. While traveling in many missionary areas over recent years, I have come across various instances of the folly of exported division. Let me mention just one case.
Two brethren in our fellowship are employed in the Reserve Bank of Malawi; I see them quite frequently when I visit the bank on business. One of them recently noticed another employee reading Christadelphian literature during a lunch break. He was, of course, surprised and asked if he could assist in any way because he was a Christadelphian himself He was astonished to be told by the reader: I must then be your brother. This newly baptized brother was in another fellowship quite unaware of the many brethren and sisters in Malawi (around 2000 at present). The discovery was obviously a great spiritual boost to all concerned, and the wish was clearly to share fellowship around the Lord’s table.
I discussed the matter with the brethren concerned on several occasions, encouraging the “discovered” brother in particular to join our memorial service. The situation became distressing to him because of pressure from abroad not to join us. He had an admirable sense of loyalty not to go against the wishes of those who had taught him the truth from abroad. But he came to realize that his spiritual life would be greatly helped by joining with those who clearly shared his faith. It was therefore a great joy to see, on my recent visit to Malawi, our new brother participating fully in the memorial service, and thoroughly enthusiastic about it. Furthermore, he discovered that an old school friend was a brother in the Lilongwe ecclesia. It was all very heartwarming to see.
Letters from abroad continued to be directed at him, however, discouraging his membership in the ecclesia. Indeed, I received a letter myself from Britain saying that it would be “unhelpful” and “a hindrance to his spiritual welfare” for the brother to join us. I considered the advice ludicrous in the circumstances — indeed, quite unscriptural — and ignored it. I am convinced that exporters of division are so preoccupied with their own disputes that little heed is given to the spiritual well being of those most affected. The Lord must surely look with pleasure on this joyful fellowship now experienced, and I feel that we intrude upon it at our peril.
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Ron Hicks, Bethesda, MD
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus.
Thank you for sending “Tidings” to the Seoul, Korea ecclesia over the past year. Although there are few members of the ecclesia able to read English well enough to appreciate all the articles, it is good to see a row of magazines representing the Body in the Americas, alongside the Australian and English magazines — a physical witness to our fellowship with brethren and sisters so far away. Thank you for the high spiritual quality of the “Tidings”…
(Regarding) the editorial on exporting division, the sentiment of which was admirable.. .there are as yet no real conflict points (between Christadelphian fellowships) in Eastern Europe…
Sincerely, your brother in Christ,
Steven Cox, Seoul, Korea
Tax Advice Needed
Dear Bro. Don,
Loving greetings in our one hope.
We continue to find the “Tidings” ‘instructional and encouraging. Your editorials have been especially helpful to us.
At a recent CPA conference, the presenter was covering changes in standard deductions effective 1/1/94. He noted that charitable contributions over $500 could no longer be substantiated by a canceled check but must be acknowledged by a receipt from the charity.
If someone has information on this change either confirming or correcting the foregoing, a letter to the “Tidings” would be useful to many of us.
Yours in the Master’s name,
Howard Schlottman, San Diego, CA
We will be pleased to publish any information submitted on this matter.
Allow For Exceptions
Dear Bro. Don:
As individuals, to “allow for exceptions” is part of daily life: as brethren working with brethren, such allowance periodically happens: as ecclesial policy it spells disaster.
Who determines who or what constitutes an “exception” or “exceptional circumstances” or “unusual conditions?”
Practically speaking, there is always the exception, but in no case should the majority have faith or fellowship compromised in accommodating the exception,whether in the ecclesia or the brotherhood. In my view, “tradition” plays no part in the attitude or the decision: rather, God’s principles as articulated by our Lord, serve as the only valid standard –and those principles are both consistent and merciful.
There is little point in having a “hardline” policy as an ecclesia of Christ, whether in exceptional circumstances or not: just as there is no point in vacillating when faced with difficult decisions where fairness, tempered with mercy, demands our utter dedication to the doctrines taught by Christ and explored in detail by the apostles as to their application in a variety of behavioral circumstances.
I cannot agree that “if we withdraw from someone, it may well mean their death forever” — that judgment is reserved as God’s prerogative and has nothing whatever to do with decisions taken as individuals or as an ecclesia of individuals trying to do their best in every case, simple or complex.
In cases of withdrawal, often the “they” of your hypothesis precipitated the withdrawal by their offense.
Finally, when it comes to “refusing (or rejecting)” the visitor on the basis of “tradition,” we need to very carefully define who is a “visitor.” Once the facts are known, there will be no call to “casually” exclude that person or persons from fellowship, but rather, the opportunity to unequivocally apply the spirit of truth to the situation — which is the “tradition” in the Lord’s teaching and the measure of our discipleship.
Your brother by grace,
David 0. Millard, Sutton, MA
From The Islands
By request of the editors of the Caribbean Pioneer and underwritten by the generosity of a reader, the Tidings has recently been going to brethren and sisters in Caribbean ecclesias. Following is one of the responses received.
Dear Bro. Don,
Loving greetings in our Lord.
I’m a sister in isolation in Nassau -though maybe not for long– and I wanted you to know what a joy it has been to receive the “Christadelphian Tidings” for the past few months. Very many thanks indeed. This little magazine has given form to my knowledge of a Christadelphian presence in America — and it has been like finding a family member you never knew you had.
I remember your name from the time I was a child going with my Dad (Bro. Stan Howard) to the humble little meeting under someone’s house in New Amsterdam, Guyana…
There is a proposed mini Bible School and campaign planned here for October 23-28, 1993, God willing. Who knows what the future might hold — except his return.
Thank you so much for including me in your mailings — I look forward to seeing more names from my memory take some form!
Your sister by grace,
Penny Cates,
P.O. Box N-993, Nassau, Bahamas
We, too, remember the meeting under the house with the chicken pen behind the speaker’s position. Our time in Guyana was of great benefit to our own spiritual development as we learned much from our contact with the brethren there.
Resurrectional Responsibility
The volume of correspondence on this subject has required much editing of letters and answering a number of points in the general comments that follow. We appreciate the understanding of contributors as we strive to have the magazine serve the readership.
Corrections, explanations, etc.
Two typographical errors were made in the letter by Robert K. Widding (pg. 387, 9/93). His sixth sentence should read: “From thence, it was light, or a correct knowledge of God’s commands, which created responsibility.” We had “From these.” The last sentence in that paragraph should read: “That is to say, once a man achieves understanding, a change of status takes place — from ignorance, which begets ‘perishing without law,’ to knowledge of God’s commands, which begets resurrectional responsibility.” We had “perishing with law.” Our apologies for these mistakes.
Identifying contributors
We neglected to identify Edward W. Farrar (pg. 326, 8/93) as editor of the Advocate magazine which is considered the fraternal magazine of the Unamended fellowship. Such identification would have been a courtesy to him and useful information to our readers.
In connection with this particular topic, some have requested that the fellowship or denominational affiliation of all contributors be identified. In the first place, this is not possible because we do not know everybody who writes, particularly “Letters to the Editor.” There are many recipients of Tidings who are not members of Central Fellowship or any other Christadelphian fellowship. Readers of long standing will remember that the magazine once had an objective of preaching the Truth to Bible students. For that reason, and others, a great variety of denominations are represented by those on the mailing list. Second, we accept anonymous contributions feeling they allow for a greater freedom of expression. In some cases, the writer is anonymous to us as well. Third, we would hope the great majority of Tidings readers are more concerned with well reasoned Biblical evidence than they are with human authorship. (It may be of interest that one Unamended writer quite persuasively argued for the resurrection of unbaptized rejecters.)
Contributions not in accord with BASF
Objections have been received that all material published is not in accord with the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (see note at bottom of inside front cover). Readers should please note that all such material has been in the form of “Letters to the editor” and clearly identified as such. The policy of the magazine applies to articles, such as that by Bro. Alvan Brittle (pg. 282, 7/ 93), but not to letters such as that received from Bro. Farrar.
Why allow discussion on a matter covered in the BASF? With the passage of time, ideas and communities change. The amendment to Clause 24 of the BASF formalized a division in the Christadelphian community. It was adopted within the context of people who were living and ideas which were prevalent 100 years ago. That division has been healed everywhere else except in North America. There is some reason to feel that conditions may be right for a similar healing process to take place between the members of the Central Fellowship and many, if not all, members of the Unamended fellowship. Part of such a process is airing our respective points of view. That is the reason for the present interchange in the Tidings.
Editorial response
Some feel that editorial comments should be made immediately following any letter with which the editor does not agree. Regular readers of Tidings will know that we used to do that. Understandably, such a practice gradually reduced the readers’ willingness to express themselves, as they were always exposed to the editor’s immediate response. We now usually let a point of discussion carry on for a reasonable time before summarizing the matter and giving our own point of view. That has been our approach so far in this case.
On this responsibility matter, however, it may be well to answer letters as they are published and to state in advance our conviction. We believe all those who know the Truth and have been called upon to submit to it, will be raised for judgment. Furthermore, we feel the Bible evidence indicates we should not exclude from a resurrectional judgment those who may not know the whole Truth but have persecuted the people of God. In other words, we feel several factors are involved in God’s determination of who among the wicked will be raised for punishment, including knowledge, baptism, degree of iniquity, attitude and evidence seen.
Is hope for reunion justified?
Dear Bro. Don,
In the August editorial, you suggested that the narrow Unamended view on resurrectional responsibility was a movement away from orthodox theology, giving the readers the impression that our Amended fellowship should be willing to live with this Unamended view.
It is possible to err on both sides of many doctrines in the Truth. On the nature of Jesus Christ, some churches teach he was a pre-existing God and other religious groups claim Jesus was not even God’s son, but just a man. On resurrection, some churches teach that everyone will be resurrected, while the Sadducee’s didn’t think anyone would be resurrected.
On the use of the Old Testament, some churches teach the need to still follow a few of the rituals of the law while other churches claim we shouldn’t use the Old Testament at all. On the subject of baptism, some churches don’t baptize (or sprinkle)while other churches go to the opposite extreme of “baptizing” everyone, including babies.
Many times the truth of a doctrine rests somewhere between the extreme positions. Resurrectional responsibility is no different. If the Unamended today fail to accept there will be a group of people resurrected for judgment who are not in covenant relationship with God, then the same problem still exists today that caused the division in the firs: place.
The Amended fellowship throughout the world have held this to be a vital first principle because it will affect the lives of many people who study the Bible and come to an understanding of the gospel.
About 20 years ago, the Unamended Reunion Committee polled their community with a questionnaire. One of the questions dealt with the three classes of people who would be resurrected to judgment as described by John Thomas in “The Revealed Mystery.” In the report the Unamended committee sent to the Unamended ecclesias on August 19, 1972, they stated: “Though the vast majority of our membership do not believe and teach that there is a class of enlightened rejecters (Dr. Thomas’ `second class’), who will appear at the judgment seat of Christ, only a minority would refuse fellowship to those who believe and teach entirely in accord with Dr. Thomas.”
We wonder now in 1993, has anything changed?
To say, “That God has the power and prerogative to raise from the dead and judge any man in whatsoever time, place and manner that He alone may determine” (pg. 326, 8/93) may sound encouraging at first glance. However, this has been said for years by the same Unamended who also do not think the Bible indicates any enlightened rejecters will be raised for judgment. The statement “that no man can, by his own action or failure to act, immunize himself from the judgments of the Almighty” (op. cit.) again sounds encouraging, until further conversation reveals that many Unamended take this to mean that God will judge enlightened rejecters in this life only!
So, the question still remains , is there evidence today that the majority of the Unamended believe there will be a class of enlightened rejecters raised for judgment at some time and on any basis? This is the issue that must be reconciled. Any attempt to disguise or ignore it benefits no one. This only perpetuates mistrust and fosters ecclesial disunity.
If we have agreement on this issue, then let’s work for reunion; but if not, then we have no basis for a continental reunion today. To proceed in the absence of agreement on this issue is equivalent to adapting the viewpoint that it should no longer be regarded as a first principle.
Your by grace,
Ken, Jim and Roy Styles, Novi, MI
The August editorial quite specifically said we do not agree with narrowing resurrectional responsibility to the baptized only. Our point was that the Unamended view on this subject is distinctively Christadelphian. The conclusion, that Amended and Unamended are two Christadelphian fellowships, was supported by other evidence and is acknowledged in your own letter by speaking about “reunion.” We would never write in such terms regarding the Seventh Day Adventists or the Mormons, for example.
Three points need to be made in regard to the balance of this letter. We ought to allow for modification in opinions over time. Recent events in the Middle East should convince us of that. Second, let’s keep our thinking straight throughout this discussion: one may not “believe and teach” that knowledge is the basis of resurrection to the judgment seat of Christ yet believe some unbaptized rejecters will be raised for punishment at a different time (note view of Bro. Roberts as cited below). Third, distances on this continent, which are twice as great as the British Isles and Europe (including Russia to the Urals), make a “continental reunion” virtually unattainable. Any healing of a 100 year-old wound requires quiet conversations and warm personal relationships. Highly charged, occasional continental reunion meetings did not facilitate such a process.
Should division continue?
Dear Bro. Don:
…The real question is whether the current division into two fellowships on this issue can be justified from Scriptural principles or precedents. It seems to me that our authors, whose approach is to ask about Biblical fellowship principles and precedents, come out concluding that our current policies are indefensible. On the contrary, all of those who argue for the correctness and necessity of current fellowship practices…cite human sources or Scriptural examples of withdrawal ( e .g. I Tim. 6:3-5; Rom. 16:17-18 and II John 7-11) that apply only to teachers and to situations unlike our own…
Could you find someone to present the best case possible, based on Biblical evidence only, for the correctness of remaining separate from the Unamended and for the correctness of fellowship ecclesia-by-ecclesia rather than person-by-person? Such an article needs to address the apparent precedents set by the apostles when they did not insist on division and separation over the Judaizing issue in Galatians 1 and 2 or over the several serious issues present in some of the ecclesias of Revelation 2 , 3 .
In our one faith,
Jim Bahr, Hopewell, NJ
We would be pleased to publish an article along the lines suggested.
Dear Bro. Don,
…Here is some information of interest. Bro. John Thomas writes: “We believe, that the Scriptures teach the resurrection of the just and of the unjust who have died under times of knowledge, whose knowledge they have accepted: and the resurrection, 1,000 years afterward, of ‘the rest of the dead’ who have intelligently rejected it.. .the rest of the dead are those who never came under a constitution of righteousness; not because they did not know how, but because they refused to do so. Having been enlightened but preferring darkness to light, they will arise to judgment at the end of the millennium.” “Herald of the Kingdom,” 7/1855, pg. 161.
Bro. Roberts writes:
“As to those believing the truth but refusing to acknowledge and submit to it from sinister motives, it is not impossible these may be held responsible… persecutors of the apostolic era would come into the (raised rejecter) class by their rejection of the truth in the presence of miracles. Their cases will probably be dealt with at the close of the 1,000 years…” “The Christadelphian,” 6/1870, pg. 186. “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.” “Christendom Astray,” 1899 edition.
…If it has now become such a vital doctrine, essential to salvation, to believe that these rejecters will stand with the household at Christ’s return, then our pioneer brethren are in jeopardy of their salvation.
In the hope of Israel,
Gardner Howes, Sandwich, MA
When, whether at the beginning or the end of the 1,000 years, the unbaptized rejecter will be raised for punishment is not a vital matter. It is recognizing that some of such a class will be raised that is important to most Amended brethren.
Dear Bro. Don,
Isn’t it sad that we, the Christadelphian body, have wasted so much time and effort concerning a group of people (the enlightened rejecters) who will not be in the kingdom anyway. Imagine if we, for all these years would have channeled our energies and money into preaching that have been spent for meetings and committees. How much would the Christadelphian body have grown?…
I am trying to imagine who is going to debate with the king of kings at the judgment seat as to who is and who is not present as we answer for all the things that we have done in our lives whether they be good or bad. I wonder what our answer will be as to why we did not unite in a joint effort to “preach the gospel to the world”…
Your brother in the one hope,
Sam DiLiberto, Jr., Maplewood, NJ
Yes, it does seem that elsewhere in the world, where the brotherhood has put this problem behind it, there is a more vigorous preaching effort and pastoral work. We would gently remind our readers, however, that such work is carried on using the BASF as the touchstone statement of faith. The Amendment was occasioned by the uncompromising assertion of a particular view on the atonement which, it was insisted, must be accepted for one to remain in fellowship.
Main issue involves the atonement
Dear Bro. Don,
…The main issue regarding the discussion on “Responsibility” is a difference in teaching on the atonement…Bro. Tim Ryan indicates (8/93, pg. 342) that Bro. Thomas and Roberts hesitated from causing division over the issue of “Responsibility.” While that may be true, Bro. Roberts did act when the issue widened to include atonement matters and after Bro.J . J. Andrew in 1894 introduced a motion for an addition to the Birmingham Statement of Faith to reinforce his views. (“That Christ having been raised from the dead through his own blood, it necessarily follows 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.”) The motion was defeated. Four years later, an amendment to the BSF was passed to block Bro. Andrew’s unscriptural views. Six years later, in 1900, J.J. Andrew produced his own statement of faith stating God cannot raise an enlightened rejecter…
With love in Israel’s hope,
Bryan Pearse, Mississauga, ONT
Dear Bro. Don,
…The roots which make this a divisive problem are clustered around the issue of “Adamic Condemnation” and defining the legacy of sin that passed upon mankind from him. Genetically we are mortal as a result of Adam’s sin. Due to carnal mindedness and ignorance of God’s plan of salvation, we are alienated from him (Eph. 4:17-18).
We need to overcome carnal mindedness through the influence ofGod’ sword and establish covenant relationship with Him through immersion into Christ for the hope of salvation.
In the hope of Israel,
Gil Phillips, Lake Hughes, CA
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings.
We can appreciate that the matter of who will be raised to judgment could be regarded as a marginal one. However, this is by no means the major doctrinal difference separating the Amended and Unamended fellowships. The Unamended doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam affects the most basic of Christadelphian doctrines, those of the atonement, the nature of man and the nature of the Lord Jesus. Nor is this doctrine of inherited guilt “distinctively Christadelphian,” being a movement towards the Catholic teaching of Original Sin…
It seems to us, therefore, that it is the question of the atonement and the nature of man and of the Lord Jesus that should be addressed, when discussing closer links between the two groups (both of which call themselves Christadelphians), rather than the matter of responsibility to judgment — which is a doctrine dependent on the other doctrines.
Your brother and sister in Christ,
Geoff & Ray Walker,
Stoke-on-Trent, UK
(Editors of Bible Student magazine)
Ironically, we seem to work out agreements with each other on the supposedly fundamental issues but have trouble with the “marginal” one.
The BASF as a touchstone
Dear Bro. Don,
…The relevant question is: “Is this really a first principle?” The evidence is that Brothers Thomas and Roberts, while “Amended” in theory, were “Unamended” in practice: that is, they refused to make the matter a test of
Be that as it may, we must face facts as they exist today:
- The BASF, with its amended Clause 24, has evolved into the “touchstone” of fellowship among Central Christadelphians.
- That body, with all its frailties and shortcomings, does constitute over 90% of all Christadelphians worldwide.
- Christadelphians have by now become so fictionalized and fearful of change that the possibility of reorganizing the fellowship of any sizable numbers on any basis other than the BASF is, frankly nonexistent.
The logical conclusion? That any effort toward unifying the “One Body” of Christ today needs to take into account this entrenched primacy of the BASF.
So where does this leave believers who are not sure that “knowledge brings resurrectional responsibility,” and those believers who do accept that premise but are still not sure that the question should be made a “test of fellowship?”
The answer is: They too can, and should, accept Clause 24– as amended — because (contrary to the assertions of some “Amended” brothers) the amendment does not absolutely teach that “all who know the Truth will be raised!”
…If there is uncertainty about “know,” there is much more about the phrase “called upon to submit to it” …to be “called” — scripturally — goes far beyond “knowledge:” “Those he called, he also justified” (Rom. 8:30); “…live lives worthy of God who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (I Thes. 2:12); “…as members of one body you were called to peace” (Col. 3 :15 )…out of more than 100 passages, the concept of “calling” is almost invariably associated with those who go onto be baptized.
…The Amendment is so worded that one might accept it while still not believing that all “enlightened rejectors” will be raised and judged by Christ at his second coming.
..Js everything in the Statement of Faith a true “first principle?” A literal reading of it under such an assumption would lead to some extraordinary conclusions about “first principles.” For example:
- Luke and Acts and Jude (and maybe James) are not part of Holy Scripture, because they are not the writing of either “prophets” or “apostles” (see the Foundation clause)!
- Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, and not after three days (see Clause 13)!
- The future kingdom of God will not necessarily cover the whole earth (Clause 21)!
…The point is this: any man-made document, if subjected to the most intense scrutiny, will reveal defects. And any individual, if subjected to the same kind of examination against an imperfect document, may be found wanting.
…The above thoughts suggest two concluding exhortations, one to each of the two factions:
- Unamended brethren should accept the BASF because it is the only real hope of a unity basis in the brotherhood today and the amendment can be interpreted broadly enough to allow for all reasonable reservations on the subject.
- Amended brethren should stop trying to make their particular interpretations of the amendment a test of fellowship for everyone else.
George Booker, Austin, TX
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus.
…The BASF and the Carter-Cooper addendum have established themselves as the generally accepted basis of fellowship for worldwide Christadelphia… There is no way that the brethren in North America can be successful in changing the basis of fellowship…God will indeed determine who will be raised to judgment and whether some of them will be unbaptized is certainly not a matter given us to know in individual cases.
Yours in the service of the brotherhood,
Harry Pearce, Strathfield, AUST
Consider the evidence
Dear Bro. Don,
…The late brother, John Carter, summed up the sufficiency of scripture evidence concerning the resurrection and judgment in the February, 1952 issue of “The Christadelphian.” He had just reviewed a reprint of “The World’s Redemption” by the Unamended brother, Thomas Williams. Bro. Carter then wrote, “A group of passages is given to show that the resurrection will include some who attain to life and some to condemnation: but why the absence of scripture citations in the other case (the view that only those who come under the law of the spirit of life — i.e. those who have been baptized)will be raised? The answer is that they cannot be produced”…
Your brother in Christ,
Ash Higham, Bloomington, IN
Dear Don,
The following may be helpful…
I believe that God has revealed His intention to raise and judge mankind for purposes of rewarding those who obeyed Him and condemning those who disobeyed Him. Scripture reveals that all will not be raised but gives little guidance as to why they will not be held responsible other than to describe them as lacking understanding as the “beasts that perish” (Psa. 49:20) which suggests gross ignorance of God’s will. I am not aware of any scripture that excludes people from being raised and judged because they have not been baptized.
I believe it is important to know and teach this principle because belief in a future reward or punishment leads to a desire to learn God’ swill and obey it. It is the motivating moral principle in God’s word. Confusion on this matter can play into our natural desire to be free of rules and obligations, free to serve ourselves.
We are free to ignore this principle, and rejoice in our heart, and do what is right in our own eyes, “but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.”
Unless someone disagrees with the above principle, and wishes to assert another, I find little profit in debating the fine points of all the possible alternative meanings of every scripture that leads me to this conclusion…
With love in Christ,
Ken Sommerville, Northridge, CA
Christ and resurrection
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus’ name.
..Is Bro. Farrar accusing us of not believing in the resurrection, or that Christ was not raised, and therefore our resurrection is on some other basis?…
Baptism represents an emulation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. By God’s grace, we shall be raised because we have dedicated our lives to Christ and obeyed the command to be baptized into his death, burial and resurrection. What could be clearer? We have no theory that denies the connection between the resurrection of Jesus and our resurrection.
Yours with brotherly affection,
Stan Newton, Huntington Beach, CA
See the article by Bro. Paul Wade earlier in the magazine and the quote from J.J. Andrew in the letter from Bro. Bryan Pearse. Scripture emphasizes resurrection to eternal life not resuscitation to face judgment and Amended brethren pick up on that emphasis. With an eye to the ultimate goal of life, elliptic phrases are frequently used in scripture and by us. These can lead to misunderstanding unless we carefully consider all that is said and believed about resurrection and judgment. No, we were not being accused of erroneous beliefs.
Knowledge makes the difference
Dear Bro. Don,
…(Extended quotes from “Anastasis” by Bro. John Thomas are supplied developing the doctrine that unbaptized rejectors will be raised for punishment. We would commend that pamphlet on this topic.)
To add to what is written in “Anastasis,” we quote some words of Christ and no one can ignore what he meant: “Now you say you see, therefore your sin remaineth” (John 9:41)…
Bro. John Brewis, Ft. Erie, ONT
Response to Bro. Farrar
…The basis of resurrectional accountability is not focused on in the OT neither is resurrection itself as the word does not appear in the OT…
“I am the resurrection and the life” (Jesus to Martha John 11:25). Would it have been appropriate for Jesus to have said, “I am the resurrection for the damnation and the life of man?” Only the positive aspect of the resurrection was addressed here.
…In Acts 2 the subject is Christ and his authority to forgive and save. Peter addressed the subject of accountability in Acts 3:23.
(A basic question has been addressed to the editor, “Why does God raise anyone for punishment?” which will be addressed next month, Lord willing.)
Strong’s Concordance