Debate – The Basis of Salvation

Proposition

The Bible conditions our salvation and eternal rewards upon our individual obedience and virtue, and not upon any merits deriving from the literal death or blood of Jesus Christ.

Megiddo Closing Statement

We of the Megiddo Church feel sad at the path our Christadelphian friends have followed in this debate. Anyone can make statements. Anyone can say “The Bible teaches…,” but the question is what is true? What is the supporting evidence? What does the Bible teach when one looks at it honestly, fairly, without any pre-formed conclusions?

While quoting heavily from the Bible, the Christadelphians go to the Bible to support a position, rather than seeking honestly to learn what God is teaching through His Word. The result: They see what they want to see, rather than the true Biblical teaching about salvation.

But of what value is any belief if it is not founded in the written word of God? Without that solid foundation, any conclusion we may draw is worthless. However popular, it will not secure our salvation unless God is behind it. What the Christadelphians believe or what the Megiddoes believe will not alter the facts one iota. God will bestow salvation just according to His design. We are not making His plans, nor can we execute them. If we have not believed and complied with His program, we will be the losers.

AND…OR?–Christadelphians contend for both sides

Our Christadelphian friends seem to have changed the thesis for this debate, taking the two sides as complementary rather than opposing. In other words, they are choosing to contend for both sides. Most perplexing is their statement that “while we will not be saved without works, we are not saved because of them.” In other words, salvation requires compliance with both sides of the thesis, i.e., a life of obedience and virtue and merits that derive from the literal death or blood of Jesus Christ. If such is their belief, they should not have consented to the thesis as stated.

God is not two-faced, nor is His plan ambivalent. Take, for example, a man in society who is brought into court for alleged misconduct. If he is vindicated by the record of his upright life and character, what need for any penalty or Sacrifice for his sin? So also, if our life of virtue and obedience merits God’s blessing of eternal salvation, where is there any need for merits to be drawn from the death and blood of Jesus Christ? On the other hand, if the sacrifice of Christ is the condition upon which our salvation depends, then what need for virtue and obedience? Truly we might accept the sacrifice of Christ to take away our sins and respond by a life of good works, but this does not make the good life a condition of salvation. And if we believe the Bible, we must acknowledge that God’s demand for obedience is not a voluntary request, nor is it an option. It is a command. If a life of obedience and virtue is not mandated, if it is optional, if it is a “do as much as you can” command, then where is there any force in the divine edict, “Obey and live, disobey and die?” Why Jesus’ warning, “Repent, or else…”(Rev. 2:16)? And why are all His blessings reserved for “Him that overcometh” (Rev. 2:7, 11,17,26; 3:5,12,21)?

The Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles were intensely concerned about human conduct. All preached righteousness, truth, morality, and uprightness as a solid mandate from God. “This do, that ye may live” is repeated again and again through scripture (cf. Eph. 4; Col. 3; Rom. 12; Phil. 3; I Tim. 4:12-16; Ps. 37:8-9,11,29,34,37;Isa. 56:1-2;58:13-14).

If, like the Christadelphians, we state that God wants a life of virtue but that it is not a requirement, we have removed all force from the divine “Thou shalt” and replaced it with a polite “You may.” And what is left? Only a take-it-or­ leave-it-as-you-like obedience that falls far short of the complete devotion Jesus commanded when He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30,31).

Why did Jesus say, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (Luke 13:24). Why the need to “strive” if the righteousness of Christ can be imputed to us? And why Jesus’ stern warning, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5) if Jesus did not emphasize repentance, if we can be countedas righteous when we in reality are not? Such a claim makes God a God of untruth, of dissembling if one time He condemns the evildoer and another time overlooks evil and calls it “good” for the sake of one who was supremely good. Is this the way human institutions operate? Does the bank teller say, “Your check isn’t good, but I will count it as though it were because I have a good check from someone else?”

God is a God of holiness, and He demands holiness in those whom He will choose from the human family. “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (I Pet 1:15,16).

God is a God of perfection, and He demands the very highest standard of moral attainment of which His human children are capable. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Any attempt we may make to explain away these plain Bible teachings, which are supported by hundreds of passages throughout scripture, is only explaining away our opportunity to obtain the salvation which God has offered us.

But God does not ask what we cannot give. “He knoweth our frame,” and our limited abilities (Ps. 103:14). We are not naturally good; we must grow in moral character to reach the standard He requires. And He gives us time to make this growth. He also has arranged to help us — through prayer, through His Word, through the examples of those who have gone before. Left to ourselves, we could never accomplish the transformation to His moral likeness.

Christadelphians carefully omit key words from scripture quotations

We cannot help but notice in this debate numerous instances where the Christadelphians have carefully omitted a portion of a verse or a key word that does not align with their position. For example: In countering the Megiddo position that the Apostles preached “a need for repentance rather than faith in the blood and death of Christ,” they say, “But Jesus told them to preach ‘remission of sins in his name’ (Luke 24:47).” Then the Christadelphians draw the conclusion: “Remission is through Christ, not just through our personal repentance and obedience.” Here is what seems to be a deliberate omission of the key word “repentance” in Jesus’ statement. Je­sus told his Apostles to preach “repentance and remission of sins in his name.” Remission comes through repentance. To omit the word “repentance” is to be unfair to Jesus. If we can omit words of scripture in this manner, just about any idea may be supported by scripture.

Another example of omitting key words is their citing of I Pet. 1:18-22. “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things…but with the precious blood of Christ [his sacrifice]…unto unfeigned love of the brethren [obedience].” They comment, “The blood of Christ purges our conscience,” But this was not Peter’s statement, if we read it in its entirety. Peter said, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren” (I Peter 1:22). Peter says clearly how we purify ourselves: “By obeying the truth.”

Christadelphians read into the scriptures what is not there

Neither can we overlook a n umber of statements in the Christadelphian rebuttal which read into the scriptures what is not there. For example, they cite our quoting of Isaiah 1:16,17 and reply, “God will make our scarlet-red sins ‘as white as snow…as wool.’ It is Christ who is ‘white like wool, as white as snow.” This is the Christadelphian position, but is this what the prophet Isaiah said? Let us read the next verse: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (vs. 19-20), Here is the condition upon which our scarlet-red sins may become as white as snow: “If ye be willing and obedient,” if we “cease to do evil, learn to do well” (v. 16). There is no hint or suggestion in this passage of any need for or merit in the blood of Christ

We note also the Christadelphian’s comment on our citing of Revelation 22:14. Can anything in this verse possibly be construed as including “our need for the sacrifice of Christ?” Jesus’ words are crystal clear: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.” What is the condition upon which we may have the right to partake of the tree of life? Did Jesus say, Blessed are they who rely upon My sacrifice for their righteousness? No, he said, “Blessed are they that do his commandments.” Any suggestion of the need for Christ’s sacrifice in this passage must be read into it. Jesus did not say it.

Notice also the Christadelphian comment on I John 2:17, “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” They comment that “an integral aspect of the will of God is that we should believe on Christ as a sacrifice provided by God” and refer to John 6:33-40, but in this passage is no mention of the need for Christ’s sacrifice to remove our sins.

Another example of the Christadelphians reading into scripture is their citing of Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by his faith.” They comment, “We are justified by our faith in his [Christ’s] imputed righteousness.” But the passage contains not even the remotest reference to Christ. By whose faith does the just man live? Habakkuk wrote that the just man lives by his own faith.

The Christadelphians grossly distort scripture when they read into Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 any suggestion that He was talking about His sacrificial death and blood. Citing our reference to the parable about the man building on the rock or the sand, they comment that “The rock was Christ,” inferring that Jesus was talking about His blood and death. But no such idea is even hinted in Jesus’ sermon. Jesus said clearly, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them” here is the subject of the parable. Jesus is comparing the man who hears and does with the man who hears and does not do (Matt. 7:24-26). Jesus was pointing up the necessity of both hearing and doing, that hearing alone is not enough.

Another example of the Christadelphians’ reading into scripture is their conclusion about why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s was rejected. Where do they find any evidence that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted because it was an animal sacrifice and Cain’s was rejected because it was “the fruit of the ground?” The answer is nowhere. Under the law of Moses, sacrifices other than animal were accepted, even required (see Lev. 5:11; 7:12; 23:12,13).

Why was Cain’s offering rejected? The Bible does not leave us to wonder. We read that Cain killed Abel because “his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (I John 3:12). And following the rejection of Cain’s offering, the Bible says clearly that it was because sin lay at his door (Gen. 4:7). Any other idea must be read into the scripture, not out of it.

Christadelphians overlook the general teaching of scripture

If we go to the Bible to support a position, we can easily find isolated statements which, read out of context, seem to be in line with that position. But if we go to the Bible with an open mind to learn what God is teaching us, what can we possibly conclude when we find many hundreds of passages which are clear directives to obedience, holiness, purity, and uprightness of character? How can we miss the strong emphasis on virtue and obedience which the Bible presents by illustration, by example, by parable, by symbol, and by the plainest of statements? What type of persons are commended? Look at Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter and Paul. Why were they esteemed — because of righteousness imputed to them by Christ? No, they are commended because of their own life of obedience and virtue. And “the things written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4).

We may disallow God’s principle to reward every man according to his works, but we find it repeatedly in the Old Testament — in Genesis, in Joshua, in Deuteronomy, in Psalms, in Ecclesiastes, in Isaiah; and in the New Testament — by Jesus in numerous of his parables; by Paul in Romans, in I Corinthians, and in Galatians, and by Jesus again in Revelation. We can say what we think God means by what He says, but if we misunderstand, His meaning does not change, nor will our misunderstanding procure salvation on our terms.

We can say that every reference to the blood in the New Testament is a reference to the literal blood of Christ and deny its symbolic use, but such a position only militates against the entire thrust of scripture. Either we must see the blood of Christ as a symbol of His words and life-giving teaching, or we must establish a contradiction of terms and say that the New Testament authors did not understand the plan of God correctly. I John 1:7 is a case in point. John wrote, “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” John first states a condition: We must “walk in the light as he is in the light.” What need, then, for the blood of Christ, if understood literally? But if we understand the blood as a term for the life-giving word of Jesus, another way of stating how we “walk in the light as he is in the light,” we have a statement in harmony with the general teaching of the Bible, as Jesus himself said: “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3).

Christadelphians make summary statements which contradict scripture

The Christadelphians state, “The moral stature of Christ is unattainable once we have sinned.” This statement is a direct contradiction of the words of Paul: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13). How can we possibly “all come to the stature of Christ” if the least sin blocks the way? But nowhere does the Bible say we cannot attain the stature of Christ once we have sinned. God has a merciful provision for our forgiveness, and no one ever appreciated this fact more than the apostle Paul. He spoke of himself and his brethren as having been forgiven (Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13-14). Any sin can be forgiven, once it has been forsaken (Ps. 130:7; Prov. 28:13; Ezek. 33:14-16). The idea that we are wholly depraved by nature and unacceptable to God because we have all sinned is a doctrine designed by Augustine, not by the God of the Bible. God’s plan is plain: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Is.% 55:7). This passage states two facts: 1) that we will sin; and 2) that our sins need not be fatal, that God will pardon as we reform.

God’s standard vs. human ideas

God’s standard is not like human standards — relative, arbitrary and flexible. The Christadelphians are grossly in error about the use of the word “perfect” in scripture, and their statement in its use “There is no implication of sin­lessness” but rather that it indicates “a point of completion of spiritual development in certain aspects.” They concede that we must “develop toward some point of perfection,” but where is the strong moral imperative in such a statement that we find all through the Bible? Did Jesus say “Develop toward some point of perfection even as your heavenly Father has developed toward some point of perfection” (cf. Matt. 5:48)?

It was written of Zacharias and Elisabeth that they were “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Luke 1:6). It is written of the saints who stand with Christ that they are’ “without guile before the throne of God.” If this does not imply sinless­ness, what is its meaning? Again, the conclusion to the book of Jude reads that Christ will present His faithful “faultless before the presence of his glory” (Jude 24-25). The apostle Paul said of his brethren that he labored “to present you holy and unblameable and unre­proveable in his sight” (Col. 1:22), that he might “present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Paul did not imply moral sinlessness, he stated it. Did God call Abram to walk before Him and develop toward some point of perfection? (See Gen. 17:1) No, He said, “Walk before me and be thou perfect.”

The Christadelphians apparently overlook the fact that the Bible is a translated work, and that one must check the meaning of a word in its original language. The case in point is a passage about King Asa, that he was “perfect of heart all the days of his life” yet still he sinned (II Chron. 15:17). The Chris­tadelphians use this statement to buttress their position that “perfect” does not mean “without sin.” However, if we check the original Hebrew word translated “perfect” in II Chron. 15:17, we find that it is not the same word translated “perfect” in Gen. 17:1, where God called Abram to be perfect, or where it is written that Noah was perfect (Gen. 6:9), or that God’s way is perfect (II Sam. 22:31; Deut. 32:4), or that the offerings brought to the tabernacle had to be “perfect,” The word “perfect” used to describe Asa is shalem, and means “friendly, just, peaceable, quiet, whole” (Strong’s Concordance). The word used for “perfect” in all the other above-mentioned passages is tamiym, and means “pious, entire; integrity, truth, without blemish, complete, full, sincerely sound, without spot, undefiled, upright.” These definitions describe the standard which God ultimately requires in His human children, and which the statement about Asa does not weaken.

The Christadelphians object strongly to any idea of “meriting” eternal rewards. It is foreign to their thinking, but it is not foreign to the Scriptures. The saints are described as being “accounted worthy to obtain that world” (Luke 20:35,36). And Jesus said He would walk with some in white because “they are worthy” (Rev. 3:5). Paul admonished his brethren to “walk worthy of the vocation” by which they were called (Eph. 4:1-2). In fact, the believers will be called to judgment to receive according to what they have done, whether good or bad (II Cor. 5:10).

In Summary

In this debate, we have touched upon only a small part of what the Bible teaches about salvation. And this subject is only one among the entire teaching of scripture. If anyone is interested in learning more about this or any other topic of scripture, we will be pleased to send you our Set of Booklets on Bible Topics. Write to: The Megiddo Church, 481 Thurston Road, Rochester, NY 14619.

What is the conclusion of this debate? It all comes down to an honest appraisal of the facts. We can read the Bible with a pre-drawn position in mind, and try to fit everything we read to the supporting of that position; or we can come to the Bible with an open and honest heart and mind, eager to learn what God wants us to know. But whatever conclusions we draw, God will not change. His plan is fixed, and we feel compelled to set aside our own ideas and in the words of scripture, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12;13-14). Whatever we believe, our final accounting is to God. And He will judge us, not by the merits of Christ but by what we ourselves have done.

We have no wish to make a difference just for the sake of differing. We differ because we feel we must, because we are very serious about salvation. Everything of this world is temporary. Life is brief, and we love life. We love it so much that we want more of it. But only God can give life, and for this reason, we do not want to rely on any man-made creed. We want to be sure that what we are staking our future upon is really of God.

A little more time will decide this debate. Jesus Christ  is coming, as Judge, Savior and King, and He will make known God’s glorious plan to the ends of the earth. Then all will be compelled to acknowledge His way of salvation and will be invited to participate. For that Day we are eagerly, humbly, earnestly preparing and praying. “Even so come, Lord Jesus.”

Christadelphian Closing Statement.

The seeker for truth will have noticed many fundamental doctrines that underlie the Christadelphian position in this debate. We believe that Christ was our representative, of human nature, who was of morally perfect character. We are all mortal and we are all personally sinners. We all need to be saved from our mortality and from our sins; we cannot save ourselves. Even Jesus, while being free of personal sin, needed redemption from his mortal condition (Heb. 9:12). By association with Christ’s death and resurrection, shown by water bap­tism and a life of conformity to his words, we can share in his exaltation to immortality at his return. Because Christ was our representative, we are to share in his commitment to God. We are to identify with his crucifixion by putting sin to death in our lives; we are to identify with his resurrection by living in newness of life. If we fail to do this, we openly demonstrate that we do not truly believe in him (Rom. 6:4,11-12).

Megiddo’s smoke-screen

Knowing this, Megiddo is surely putting up a smoke-screen by claiming that Christadelphians have the neo-pagan view of the atonement held by orthodox Christendom. They know we believe that Jesus is not God but that he is an immortalized man. He was one of us and that is why he is now an effective representative. This is basic to the power and truth of the Bible doctrine of the atonement.

As one of us, Jesus showed us how to overcome sin in our lives. And, because he understands our struggle against human nature, he is wonderfully suited to help us now in our times of need for spiritual help (Heb. 4:15-16).

Because he did not sin, he did not personally deserve to die and therefore God raised him from the dead. In the mercy of God, we, who do deserve to die, can benefit from the righteousness of Christ by belief in him, baptism into his name and a faithful life (Rom. 5:18,­19). Furthermore, we have made it perfectly clear that a belief in Christ must result in a right pattern of life. If it does not, we will be rejected at the judgment seat of Christ. Obedience does matter to our salvation. This is not the orthodox view of the atonement, it is the biblical one.

The Christadelphians reject the idea that we are once saved, always saved. We believe that our individual effort is mandatory if we are to remain in the way of life. Megiddo knows this and is simply raising a smoke-screen when it ignores our beliefs in this regard.

Works alone?

Megiddo’s position is that our salvation depends “wholly upon what we do, i.e. our own virtue and obedience.” Because they have this “works only” idea, they deny the connection between forgiveness of sins and Christ’s death. We have shown that Megiddo’s view is denied by specific Bible statements.

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his [God’s] grace…For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 1:7; 2:8-9). “The kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us… though Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace…” (Titus 3:4-7).

God says salvation is by grace through faith, not by works of righteousness which we have done. Understandably, Megiddo has not addressed such passages as they clearly contradict Megiddo’s contention that salvation depends wholly upon our own virtue.

How can Jesus be our Savior (and why does “Jesus” mean savior?) if we effect our own salvation? The redeemed praise Christ, “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and has redeemed us to God by thy blood.” Why would they offer such praise if they were saved wholly by their own virtue? The salvation and forgiveness of those who lived before Christ was dependent upon the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:15). Why is this true if salvation is a matter of individual obedience without reference to Christ’s blood? Why is salvation dependent upon the resurrection of Christ, after he had set the example (I Cor. 15:12-21)?

Be thankful for grace

Megiddo says we must become perfect. If Megiddo is right, no one but the Lord Jesus will be saved. Consider Abraham– “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6 NIV). After this time, Abraham did not behave flawlessly: at age 85, he shared Sarah’s doubt, taking her handmaid to conceive an heir; fourteen years later, he doubted that he and Sarah could have children at an advanced age and, that same year, he deceived the Philistine, Abimelech, regarding the status of Sarah (Gen. 16:2; 17:17; 20:2). Abraham’s faith was very great and led him to offer Isaac, trusting God would raise Isaac from the dead. It was not adequate, however, to result in unblemished conduct. According to Megiddo, Abraham could not be considered righteous until he had reached a point of sinlessness. Thankfully, that is not the way God works.

Consider Moses– “By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharoah’ s daughter…By faith he forsook Egypt…Through faith he kept the passover…(he) obtained a good report through faith…” (Heb. 11:24,27,28,39). Yet within a few months of his death, Moses committed a very serious sin which led to his exclusion from entering Palestine at that time (Num. 20:12). Like many people whom God saves, Moses did not steadily improve throughout life to a point of sinlessness (cp. Asa, Jehoshaphat and Josiah, noting their last recorded action is a transgression, II Chr. 11,12; 20:37; 35:22). Megiddo’s message that we must reach a point of no more sinning is not the Bible’s message.

Consider ourselves — the great command is to love one another. Of love it is said, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor” (Rom. 13:10). Who would ever dare say they do not, even by thoughtlessness, occasionally work hardships and ill on others. Despite good intentions, forgetfulness and insensitivity (part of our human nature) make it impossible for us to reach a point of not sinning.

Megiddo claims forgiveness comes when we overcome a sin and transgress no more in that way. Such reasoning may apply to robbery and drunkenness but it hardly applies to being thoughtless, insensitive or sarcastic. Just when we think we are exhibiting love, we realize we thoughtlessly caused much trouble to another person. When considering the finer virtues, scripture confirms what is an observation of sincere believers: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not is us” (I John 1:8).

Imputed righteousness is forgiveness

The truth is that when we believe and are baptized into Christ, we enter into a most blessed relationship with God. He forgives us our sins; He counts our faith for righteousness; He considers us part of His own family. He works with us and helps us develop personal holiness, unless we forsake the Truth and persist to walk in sin.

Megiddo rejects the idea of imputed righteousness. In doing so, they reject the forgiveness of sins, because having righteousness imputed to us simply means one’s sins are forgiven. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:5-8).

This is not a mystical matter of someone else’s righteousness being attributed to us. In the gracious purpose of God, this is a matter of the forgiveness of our sins being made possible through the righteousness of Christ. In other words, God counts our attitude of faith as righteousness and deals with us as if we were actually righteous. In Bible terms, we thus have a righteousness that is of God.

The issue of fairness

Megiddo claims that God is fair and will deal with us “exactly” as we deserve. If that were true, no one would have a chance as we are all sinners and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

Forgiving sins is not fair; it is merciful. As already indicated, Megiddo speaks of forgiveness of specific sins when a person ceases to commit that kind of sin. In acknowledging even this form of forgiveness, Megiddo concedes the whole fairness issue. We do not want fairness, we want mercy.

Being judged according to our works is speaking in relative, not absolute terms. Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David were upright men, all of whom will be saved (Heb. 11:39-40). Yet they all sinned and came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). They were upright in that, after their commitment to God, they “walked before thee (the LORD) in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart” (I Kgs. 3:6). They committed sins, but sin was not the pattern in which they walked (I Jn. 1:6-7).

God is fair in that He is not biased by race, economic condition or social standing. He is fair in that He saves those who believe Him and walk in His way, but He will destroy those who disdain His commands. Thankfully, He does not give us “exactly” what we deserve, for all we deserve is death. As Paul says, “0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:24).

The typology of the Mosaic law

Because Megiddo believes that every type has a spiritual, abstract anti-type, it has to deny that the Mosaic institutions pointed forward to the Lord Jesus, except for the obvious type of the high priest. The New Testament points out that many other aspects of the law also typified Christ. Jesus is also the antitypical altar (Heb. 13:10). And the bodies of the animals who were burnt “without the camp” pointed forward to Christ, who “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb. 13:11,12).

Megiddo asks where is it “that Jesus was typified by anything other than the high priest?” The whole of Hebrews 7 – 10 show that Jesus was typified by the sacrifices: “(Jesus) needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself…Nor yet that ye should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others: for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many…we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-12).

The point could not be more clearly stated. The daily sacrifices typified the Lord Jesus as did the annual ones on the day of atonement. He was the antitypi­cal burnt, sin and trespass offering as well as the antitypical scapegoat. Megiddo’s challenge is clearly answered.

The passover lamb pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. True, it was not a sacrifice for sin and the unblemished animal is an exhortation to personal obedience. The fact is not changed, however, that the blood of the slain lamb saved from death those who relied upon it. This aspect of the ritual is directly applied to Christ: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (I Cor. 5:7).

Figurative language

There are many passages, as Megiddo admits, which “seem to say that the literal death of Christ is instrumental in our salvation.” To explain these away, Megiddo has gone down a tortuous path of twisted semantics and fallacious logic. They seek to “prove” that the references to Christ’s death and resurrection refer only to an example which we should follow by spiritually dying to the flesh, rather than also being the means of atonement for our sins.

Megiddo asserts that the typical is literal while the antitypical is spiritual. The inaccuracy of their assertion is obvious. They admit that the Lord Jesus is an antitypical, yet literal, high priest. The vine is a symbol of Israel, but this does not mean that the vine is not a literal plant, nor does it mean that Israel is something symbolic. “At the second time Joseph was made known unto his brethren” (Acts 7:13), as Christ will be accepted at his second coming by his Jewish brethren, having been rejected by them 2,000 years ago. Thus the life of Joseph has a literal antitype. Melchizedek was a non-Levitical priest, and a king of Jerusalem. As such, he typified Christ (Heb.7). This does not mean Christ will be only a symbolic priest and king. The wine represents Christ’s literal blood. If Christ meant us to see the wine as symbolizing only his exemplary life rather than his literal blood, he would have said, “This is my way of life.” Substitute “way of life” for “blood” and his words make no sense: “this is my blood [way of life] which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Our salvation is based upon his literal death, for “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

Megiddo equates the “word” with the “blood” of Christ. They say: “The blood cleanses and the word cleanses. Therefore, the blood is the word.” But I wash with soap, and I wash with water. But this does not mean that soap is water. Again, they fail to appreciate that the end product, i.e. cleansing and salvation, results from a number of different factors, not just one (i.e. obedience to the word). Obedience to the word is a necessary response to “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

While there is much figurative language in scripture, we make a grave mistake if we fail to see the literal reality that underlies the powerful lessons expressed in figures of speech.

Example and exhortation

Christadelphians look to Christ as the great example to follow. But he is more than an example, he is the Savior. We agree that there is much exhortation to personal godliness in the death and resurrection of Christ. Megiddo has done a good job of pointing that out. But there is redemption as well as exhortation in the cross and the resurrection to glory that followed. Megiddo sees the exhortation but needlessly rejects the redemption.

Tragically, if a person rejects redemption in Christ he is still in his sins. No matter how much right doctrine a person may believe, no matter how holy he might live, he remains unforgiven: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood…where is boasting then: it is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith” (Rom. 3:23-27).

The great irony is that personal right­eousness will only be developed by those who rely upon God in faith rather than upon their own virtue and obedience. By being forgiven in Christ, we have a right relationship with God in which He helps us to develop the fruits of the spirit. In addition, we are motivated by His love in giving Christ and by Christ’s love in giving himself.

If we yield ourselves to the word and work of God, striving to cooperate with Him in the molding of our characters, our faith brings forth righteousness (Gal. 5:5-6). “The just shall live by faith” speaks of how the just become just. They do so through faith in God. Consequently, they do not look at the goodness that develops as their virtue. They do not feel such goodness warrants God’s favor, for they know any virtue they have is attributable to God in their lives.

Being forgiven in Christ precedes the development of such personal holiness. “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared” (Psa. 130:3-4). Knowing we are forgiven, every sin does not rest as a crippling burden on our minds (Heb. 9:14). If we are not walking in sin but are walking in Christ, the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin; we thus rejoice as forgiven people (I John 1:7).

There is no conflict between redemption by faith in Christ and the development of personal holiness. When rightly understood, our growth from repentant to upright people is dependent upon our forgiveness. The Megiddo approach is much like Rabbinic Judaism which started with the demand of obedience and pointed to forgiveness and sonship as its goal. The gospel starts with the free gift of forgiveness and sonship through faith and points to righteousness as its goal.

The need for baptism

Failing to acknowledge our need to be associated with Christ’s literal death, Megiddo rejects the need for immersion into Christ in its steps to salvation. Again, this is a tragic mistake. Immersion into Christ is when the forgiveness of sins begins: “Buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses…” (Col. 2:12-13 RSV).

If we are faithful to our commitment, God has designated this act as the starting point for a life of forgiveness and the development of the fruits of the spirit.

Conclusion

This debate has shown the need to have a framework upon which to hang all our Biblical research. It has shown the need to understand the whole system of basic doctrinal truth which is in scripture. Just one major mistake, in one element of that system, leads to a denial of the basic Gospel message. It is tragic that Megiddo members have so many elements correct, but are astray on this fundamental issue of the atonement. We Christadelphians would dearly like to have more contact with anyone who is seeking the full system of truth. I would be delighted to send a free copy of our 360 page book Bible Basics to any who care to write to me and I will discuss any questions concerning the matters presented in this debate. My address: 108 Amblecote Road, London S.E.12 9TS UK or Box 305, Franklin, MI 48025.

In the course of this debate, we have touched upon most of the main elements of the true Gospel. Man needs redempnon because he is mortal and because all of us have sinned. Our redemption was made possible by God through Christ, our redeemer, the promised descendant of Eve, Abraham and David who was to destroy sin’s power. Being of our nature and acting as our representative, he destroyed sin in the very arena of sin’s dominion, his human nature. Thus he was not of God’s nature, neither did he physically exist before his birth.

By water baptism into his death and resurrection, we become “in Christ” (hence “Christadelphians” — brethren in Christ). We, therefore, live now in the spirit of the resurrection, walking “in newness of life” (Rom 6:11).

In grace, we have been granted for­giveness of sin by being “in Christ,” but we still have the very real possibility of falling from grace. Our personal right­eousness springs from a firm faith in Christ’s redeeming work for us. We strive to endure the daily crucifixion of the flesh which being “in Christ” en­tails, knowing that “if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.” We therefore look forward to his return to establish God’s kingdom on earth when our warfare with sin will be over. We eagerly anticipate the day of resurrec­tion and judgment, believing that, through the forgiveness of our sins in Christ we will stand “faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.” In that day, we will realize, even more than we do now, the degree to which “God was in Christ…not imputing our iniquities unto us.” In that day, we will express our praise for God’s redemption through Christ even more powerfully, with far greater intellectual clarity and vigor: “To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”