But men are not only made, or constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, but they become sinners even as he, by actual transgression. Having attained the maturity of their nature, they become accountable and responsible creatures. At this crisis they may be placed by the divine arranging in a relation to His Word. It becomes to them a Tree of Life, inviting them to ‘take and eat and live forever.’ If however, they prefer to eat of the world’s forbidden fruit, they come under the sentence of death in their own behalf. They are thus doubly condemned. They are ‘condemned already’ to the dust as natural born sinners; and secondarily, condemned to a resurrection to judgment for rejecting the gospel of the kingdom of God.”
Thus wrote Dr. John Thomas as found on pages 130 & 131 of the fourteenth edition of his first major work on the Truth of God’s revealed Word, Elpis Israel. All who are familiar with his other written efforts (e.g. Anastasia) are aware of his consistency in setting forth, according to Scripture, that there will be a class of individuals who having a “relation” to God’s Word but “rejecting the gospel of the kingdom of God” will be subject to a “resurrection to judgment.”
Situations invariably arise, and indeed are extant, where the question is posed: “does it make a difference what we believe (in the brotherhood) on this point?” The overwhelming majority of Christadelphians world-wide subscribe to this Scriptural Truth as believed and taught by Dr. Thomas and Bro. Roberts, the early giants in the latter day promulgation of Bible Truth. Thus, because of the shared belief, this majority associates itself with the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith in a mutual fellowship.
As most know, there is a minority group, found mainly in the USA & Canada, which does not associate itself with the BASF but as a matter of practice has retained, as their touchstone of fellowship, the Unamended Statement. This is
due in large part to, and permits, the spectrum of belief which exists in that community on this doctrine. There are members of the minority group who believe on this point, as those who associate with the BASF and there are those who reject the point and teach the absolute contrary. To rationalize the dichotomy of the position is put forth to any who would inquire (particularly the younger inquisitor) that “it really makes no difference what we believe on this element, it’s not that important and therefore we won’t consider it a matter of fellowship.”
In my own personal experience, over a number of years, I have discovered a significant lack of knowledge and/or understanding on the part of many “Unamended” members (who believe as Dr. Thomas & Bro. Roberts) as to why the BASF associated community world-wide does consider it a serious matter and one which could possibly impact the salvation of an individual. In more than one instance, upon explaining to the uninformed “Unamended” why the importance, the result has been one of stunned awareness that to condone teaching in opposition to this principle is at least inconsistent with “one accord and one mind” if not, in the final analysis, very dangerous.
Such experience has convinced me that by refusing to discuss the point at all or giving it a “back of the hand kiss off” is in fact less than honest for anyone who calls themselves a Christadelphian.
Permit me to set a scenario to illustrate the seriousness:
An Ecclesia harbors both (A) one who believes in a resurrectional judgment for anyone (whoever they may be in God’s eyes) who knowingly rejects the gospel of the Kingdom, and –(B) one who believes and teaches it is not God’s intention to raise for judgment any who are not validly baptized. B, in teaching either interested friends or Sunday School scholars, when dealing with the doctrine of resurrection and judgment, makes his position clear and either directly or unwittingly influences such a student to believe he cannot be subject to a resurrectional judgment Possibly for that reason the student consciously decides against baptism. (I have known this to be an actual case) Obviously, if that individual were to appear in a resurrectional judgment because of rejection of God s gracious offer, it would surely not be to receive eternal life but rather the second condemnation spoken of by Dr Thomas
This possibility is bad enough but add to it the potential position into which this puts the teacher of such a doctrine If he was wrong and incorrectly influenced a student (and teachers do influence students) who ends up being condemned, then what might this do regarding the salvation of the teacher ?
The point needn’t be belabored but it is suggested that even the potential of the above scenario is reason enough to consider the gravity of the position any individual or group takes when they subscribe to the status that It doesn’t make a difference what we believe or teach with respect to an unbaptized individual and his or her potential for a resurrectional judgment
Yes, it does make a difference
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One