General Principle — That men are responsible to the resurrection of condemnation who refuse subjection to the will of God when their circumstances are such as to leave them no excuse for such refusal.
Uncertain Detail — But when, in our age, are men in such circumstances? Who can tell but God alone? Some think it is enough that a man have a Bible. Some thing that it is not enough unless the Bible is explained to him (as in a lecture or book). Some think that it is not enough unless the man has capacity to understand the explanation. Some think even that is not enough unless the hand of God is openly shown in certification of the divinity of the Bible, as in the apostolic age, when “the Lord worked with them and confirmed the words with signs following.” What are we to do? Are we to insist upon the precise shade of opinion on a point which no judicious man can be absolutely sure about? All we can be sure about is that when men are “without excuse” knowing the judgment of God (Romans 1:20; 1:32; 2:1); when they have “no cloak for their sin” like the men who saw the miracles of Christ, and yet both “saw and hated Him and His Father” (John 15:22,24), that they will come forth at the resurrection to receive punishment according to the righteous judgment of God. When men admit this, they admit enough for purposes of fellowship as regards this particular point. To insist on more than this is to go too far, and to inflict needless distress and cause unnecessary division. No doubt the men who do so think they are doing God’s service. There is a little excuse for them in the extraordinary doctrine that has been propounded that in the matter of resurrection, God “does not proceed on principles of justice”, but on principles of law, and that if a man have not gone so far in submission and obedience as to be baptized into Christ, Christ has no hold on him, however great and deliberate a rebel he may be. But they go unwarrantable beyond what is just in withdrawing from those who have not received this doctrine, but who are hazy as to the application of the Scriptural rule of responsibility in our particular age.
Zeal is good
Their zeal for a true doctrine is good, but not the shutting of their eyes to the reasonable qualifications that belong to the true view of the subject. They read “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” And they exclaim, “why hesitate”? They forget that these words refer to those who saw the signs. If they say “No, they apply to everybody also”, they have to be reminded that they do not really think so themselves. Do they believe the Mahometans, and the Chinese who “believe not” will be raised to condemnation? Do they think the benighted millions of Christendom who “believe not” will be raised? They do not. They have only to ask themselves “why”? to be reminded of the qualifying fact associated with the words they quote. That qualifying fact was that the men referred to had no excuse for not believing.
God is just
As Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them (and done among them works which none other man did), they had not had sin” (to answer for). “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin” (in rejecting me). God is just. The mere circumstance of believing not, is not a ground for resurrectional condemnation in the absence of those attendant circumstances that demand belief. So with the other statement, “he that rejecteth me, etc.” It has to be qualified by the parenthesis understand, “having seen the works I have done.” But say they, “Where the Gospel has power to save, it has power to condemn; and if the rejectors are not to be raised, what guarantee have we that acceptors will be saved?” The answer is, Where the Gospel has power to save, it certainly has power to condemn; but where has the Gospel power to save? Only where it is known and believed. In that case, it will condemn the man who does not conform to its requirements. But has it power to save where a man is ignorant or uncertain? No enlightened man would say “yes” here, and therefore it will be observed that the conclusion as to the condemning power of the Gospel, where it has power to save, has no application to the class of persons in dispute, viz., men, who in the darkness of the age are uncertain as to the truth, though knowing it in a theoretical manner. Men who say to Christadelphians, “I understand what you believe and it is beautiful; but is it true? If the Bible is divine, no doubt it is true; but I have my reservations as to the Bible.” There is no quarrel as to the men who recognize the Bible as the Word of God, and understanding it, are aware of its demands upon them to repent and submit to the service of Christ; and yet refuse submission because of the present inconveniences of submission. The responsibility of these men to the resurrection of condemnation is without doubt, but where there is one man of this kind, there are hundreds who are in a haze and a maze of uncertainty as to the truthfulness of the truth, though knowing what the truth is, and concerning whom it is not possible to take the ground that they will rise to condemnation at the coming of Christ.
A mistake is made in contending for precise views on a matter that cannot be made precise. Where men admit that rebels and unbelievers who deserve punishment will rise at the resurrection to receive that punishment without reference to the question whether they are baptized or not, they admit all that can righteously be exacted from them. It is impossible for any man to say who are so deserving. We know that God is just, and will do no unrighteousness. When men admit that He will resurrectionally punish the men who are deserving of it, whether baptized or not, it is inadmissible that He should withdraw from them because they are unable to say who are and who are not so deserving.
Don’t sow strife on plea of Peace
There is the less need for the extreme demands of some on this head, since those who have espoused the extraordinary doctrine that a man must obey God a little before he is punishable, have separated themselves from those who will not receive their doctrine. “But this has not brought peace”, say they. Do they imagine that this other movement is going to bring peace? Behold how much the reverse. They are separating men who ought to remain united because holding the same truth, though made by an artificial contention to appear as if they did not. They are sowing division and bitterness and strife on the plea of producing harmony and peace. They are refusing the friends of Christ because of uncertainty as to how much Christ will punish a certain class of His enemies. And compassing sea and land to make proselytes to this most unenlightened proceeding.
How perfectly melancholy it seems in the presence of the real work of the truth. While the world is up in arms against the Bible, or where not against the Bible, against the doctrines of the Bible, and some good and honest hearts surrender, and joyfully profess faith in the writings of Moses, the prophets and the apostles, and receive the Gospel as preached to Abraham, and expounded by Jesus to the hearers of the apostolic age with all readiness of mind: and they ask for baptism that they may become servants of Christ in the obedience of His commandments, and heirs of the great salvation promised to the faithful. We examine them and find them fully enlightened in “the glorious Gospel of the blessed God”, and we baptize them.
The Extremist and the Newborn
They come to the table of the Lord: an extremist steps forward and says, “Do you believe rejectors of the truth will rise to condemnation?” The newborn says, “I believe the rejectors referred to by Christ will rise.” Extremist: “Will not all rejectors rise?” Newborn: “Not all rejectors I think. The Mahometans reject Christ. I do not expect them to rise.” Extremist: “You are trifling with the question.” Newborn: “I think not. I understand that rejectors were not responsible unless they rebelled against the light knowing the light.” Extremist: “That is just what I mean, but many are hazy who these are: will you promise to withdraw from such?” Newborn: “You put me in a difficulty there. If men believe that the Lord will punish those who deserve it, and that rebels and unbelievers will be excluded from the kingdom of God, I should scarcely feel justified in refusing them because of any little uncertainty they might have as to the Lord’s precise method of dealing with them. It would depend upon the nature of their reasons. If they were to contend that Christ had no hold on rebels unless they are baptized, and that rebels could outwit God, as it were, by refusing to go into the water, and that in fact resurrectional condemnation was only for the obedient, and that the safe way for men when the Gospel comes is to have nothing to do with it, I confess I should look upon that as such a confusion of truth in its most elementary principles as would justify me in refusing identification with it. But if their difficulty was merely as to the precise amount of privilege needful to make an unbeliever responsible, I should hesitate in refusing them. I should, in fact, fear to do wrong in doing so.” Extremist: “Oh, I see you are prepared to compromise the truth for the sake of numbers.” Newborn: “I think you are not justified in that expression of opinion.” Extremist: “I have a right to form my own opinion.” Newborn: “A man may have to answer for wrong opinions of that sort. You judge and condemn where you are forbidden to do so.” If the extremist will walk out under those circumstances, there is nothing for it but to bear it.
Flawless fellowship in the future
This “doctrine of fellowship” (as it is called) is also carried to an excess never contemplated in apostolic prescription. I was called upon by a man in dead earnest who contended there were no such things as “first principles”, and that every detail of truth, down even to the date of the expiry of the papal 1260, should be insisted on as a condition of fellowship. Such outrageous extravagance would not be contended for by every extremist; but in principle, they are guilty of it when they insist on uncertain details, as well as true general principles. Fellowship is friendly association for the promotion of a common object — with more or less of the imperfections belonging to all mortal life. To say that every man in that fellowship is responsible for every infirmity of judgment that may exist in the association is an extreme to which no man of sound judgment can lend himself. There will be flawless fellowship in the perfect faith. Perhaps it is the admiration of this in prospect that leads some to insist upon it now. But it is nonetheless a mistake. This is a mixed and preparatory state in which much has to be put up with when true principles are professed. Judas was a thief, and Jesus knew it, but tolerated him until he manifested himself. Was Jesus responsible while He fellowshipped him? Certainly not. Judas was qualified for the fellowship of the apostolic circle by his endorsement of the common professed objects of its existence, viz, the proclamation of the Gospel of the kingdom in conjunction with Jesus as the accepted “Christ, the Son of the Living God.” His thieving character did not exclude him from that circle till he went and hanged himself. There were men among the Corinthian brethren who denied the resurrection: did Paul charge the brethren with complicity with that heresy because of the presence of such among them? Doubtless their rejection of the resurrection nullified their claim for that place, but still it did not make the true brethren guilty of their false doctrine while merely tolerating them, pending an appeal to Paul.
If a man lend himself to the evil projects of others and wish them well in them, no doubt they are as responsible for those projects as if they actually promoted them with their own personal labors. This is the principle to which John gives expression when he says, “He that biddeth him (the holder of false doctrine) Godspeed, is partaker of his evil deeds.” But the principle is carried too far when it is made applicable to the individual diversities and idiosyncrasies of a community concurring in a common object and a common doctrine and a common service, and having fellowship one with another in the promotion of these common things. Men thus associated together are not responsible for each other’s peculiarities or doubtful thoughts on matters of uncertain detail. They are responsible only for what they wittingly espouse. They would be responsible for the admission of a Mahometan, or a papal idolator, or an orthodox denier of the Gospel, as such. They are not responsible for every shade of opinion that may dwell in the breast of a man admitted on account of his professed subjection to the truth. It is nothing but monstrous to contend for a fellowship-responsibility of this sort. In fact, it would make fellowship impossible. It would turn ecclesial life into an intolerable inquisition instead of a source of comfort and edification and help and joy, from the sharing of a common state.
The Bible inspired
It is asked, why did you take such strong ground then, with regard to fellowship, on the question of inspiration? Wise men do not require an answer. If there are those who feel they require it, here it is. The question of the inspiration of the Bible is a question of whether it is God speaking or man: a question of whether we may trust absolutely to what we read as a divine authority, or whether it may possibly be the vagaries of unenlightened human brains. Such a question goes right to the foundation. It is the first of all first principles, for without the absolute reliability of the Bible, there is no such thing as a first principle possible. For any doubt to exist on this question was to render fellowship impossible on various strong grounds. Such a doubt was raised in harmony with the widespread rot that prevails under various learned auspices in the religious world. It was espoused wrongly by some in our midst; by many others who do not profess to receive it there was an unwillingness to refuse it fellowship. Consequently, we had either to tolerate the currency of a doctrine quietly and gradually destructive of all truth in our midst, or refuse to have anything to do with it and stop up all leak-holes by insisting not only on the right doctrine, but on the refusal of toleration to the wrong.
To contend for the equal applicability of such measures to the question of the responsibility of rebels and unbelievers, does certainly seem to indicate an inability to distinguish between things that differ. A brother’s uncertainties on the subject is an affair of interpretation of the Lord’s acknowledged Word. He does not deny the Lord’s utterances: he asks what do they mean? This is a position to be treated in a very different manner from the attitude that calls in question the authenticity of the Lord’s words. And any misapprehension he may labor under as to the meaning of the words does not affect any general truth in the case, but merely the application of such truth in detail. He does not say, “I believe rebels and unbelievers will go unpunished if they are not baptized.” He says, “I certainly believe they will be punished, whether baptized or not, in all cases in which the Lord thinks they are deserving of it. But”, adds he, “I see the Lord makes blindness a reason for exemption, and ignorance of the words and works of Christ a reason for exemption. And therefore I feel in a state of uncertainty as to how much the Lord will punish various classes of unbelievers in a day like ours when all is so dark.” To apply to such a position the stringent measures called for by the denial of the complete inspiration of the Bible indicates a fogginess of mental vision.
We have not changed
Upon which, there rises the exclamation: “How are the mighty fallen! What a change in the position of Brother Roberts with reference to the question of fellowship!” We can endure such objurgations because they come from the mouths of well-meaning men, and because they are based upon entire misapprehension. We have changed in nothing since the day we commenced the active service of the truth. In the beginning, we had to deal with men who were prepared to compromise first principles in fellowship. To every disease its own remedy. We took a line of argument suitable to the exigency. But now, there is another extreme of an equally destructive character in another way. It is an extreme requiring another kind of argument. Have we changed because we take a line of argument suited to a new dilemma? There are several sides to a camp. When the attack is on the north, the troops are sent that way in defence. Is the general inconsistent because when the attack next time comes from the west, he withdraws his troops from the north, and sends them to the new point of attack ? We are sorry for all the brethren affected by the varying tactics of error (for this is an error of action of a very serious character: if it is not an error of doctrine). It is an offence against the little ones believing in Christ, of which he expressed such great jealousy. It may be forgiven as Paul’s persecution of the disciples was forgiven: but for the time being, it is a great offence which we refuse to share. There is nothing for it but to wait. We are all helpless in these periodic fermentations, and must bear them as well as we can and come through them with as little friction as possible in comforting prospect of the Master Hand that will soon take the helm, and give to the world peace, after storm; and to His accepted brethren, rest after the exhausting toils of this great and terrible wilderness.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One