Resurrectional Responsibility.
Debate At Essex Hall, London
Between brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts
April 3rd and 5th, 1894
Chairman — Brother Lake.
First Night.
The Chairman: — I will read to you, brethren and sisters, the subject of discussion and the conditions of debate. The subject is as follows: “That resurrection to the judgment-seat of Christ will comprise some who have not been justified by the blood of Christ.” That proposition brother Roberts will affirm and brother Andrew will deny. The arrangement for speeches is as follows: There will be two quarter-hour speeches, followed by six quarter-hour speeches or questions as each disputant may prefer to employ that time. That is, on this evening, we shall open with two quarter-hour speeches, followed by six quarter-hour speeches or questioning as brother Roberts or Andrew may prefer, and the matter will be opened by brother Roberts. There is this condition attached to the debate, and it is understood that this condition is binding upon all of us: “No partial or complete account, description, or report of the debate to be printed or circulated, either separately or in any publication, without the consent of both disputants, and in the event of such consent being given, each disputant is to be permitted to revise same in manuscript.” I have only one other thing to say, and that is to ask you to express no opinion whatever, neither to approve or disapprove of what you may hear, nor to interrupt the speakers. If any brother should interrupt either speaker, I shall add to that speaker’s time what he may lose by the interruption.
I now call upon brother Roberts to open in a 15 minutes’ speech.
Brother Roberts:—Dear brethren and sisters,—I need not say how far from gratifying it is to me, as probably to you, to be present on such an occasion, and for such a purpose. David says, “How good and how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” The reverse condition must be of the reverse character. We have, in past times, dwelt together in unity as regards the particular issue raised tonight, and if there is any change, it rests — you know where — with brother Andrew, who thinks he has discovered that some things he used to think were true are not true. We need not enquire how he has come to think so. The question for enquiry is, whether his present thoughts are in harmony with the Word of Truth.
He has come to the conclusion that — not the wickedness of men, but the reconciling blood of Christ, is the basis of God’s vengeance; that not “he that believeth not,” but he that believeth, shall be condemned; that not those rebels of mankind who utterly refuse to submit to God are to come under His retributive vengeance in the day of Christ, but only those who make some attempt to submit to His will by bowing down in the presence of His Son and accepting His yoke, confessing His name and seeking to serve Him.
He was not always of this mind. His change of mind might not have necessitated the present meeting, but he has taken steps which involve an attempt to coerce us into the reception of his views, first by propounding an amendment to the constitution in force among those with whom he is in fellowship, and, secondly, by issuing a pamphlet in which, like another before him, he says, though not in the same words, “I renounce what I have believed beforetime” as to the rule upon which God holds men responsible.
I have endeavored to show reasons against the view which he now advocates. I have done so to an extent and in a form that I thought rendered a meeting like this superfluous. The argument is before us on both sides. We are more likely to come to a dispassionate conclusion in the matter by the quiet weighing of arguments than in the heat of personal contest. Nevertheless, it was strongly urged upon me that such a meeting as this was in the interests of the Truth; therefore I consented — not under any conditions — the conditions that have been referred to are not mine. I thought that perhaps it might be that the brethren’s idea who asked me to come here would prove right, that such a meeting might be to the advantage of the truth.
I believe brother Andrew is perfectly sincere in the course he is taking. I hope he may be enabled to think that we who oppose him are not less sincere. However, it is an immaterial matter what we think of each other, the question is, what is the truth in this case? In a phrase, it is defined by Paul that “there shall be a resurrection of the just and of the unjust,” and by Jesus that “those who have done evil,” as well as those who have done good, shall “come forth at the resurrection.”
If it had been left to human estimation as to what was expedient or suitable in the matter of resurrection, we might have come to the conclusion that a great many people in America have come to, and that is, that there need not be any resurrection at all of those who are to be rejected; that no purpose can be served by bringing again to life those who are to be put back into death again. But we dare not come to that conclusion. It is God’s matter, not ours. We can form no opinion on such a subject of any value. It is a mere question of God’s purpose, and what He has declared. Now He has declared the resurrection of the unjust and the evil, and the question is why? On what ground? I am sure I am within the recollection of everyone present, when I say that no ground is alleged in the Bible for resurrection to condemnation excepting unrighteousness and rebellion, and this is not on any mechanical principle.
I have felt oppressed and depressed exceedingly by the mechanical nature of the theory propounded by the pamphlet which brother Andrew has written. I do not mean it in any irreverent or flippant sense, but it really seems to me to advocate salvation by machinery. God is kept out of view, and we have a system of mechanical law placed in the foreground. God makes the law certainly, and governs us by it, but there is a great difference between Divine law and human law. In the case of human law, we are obliged to speak of it as an abstraction, as if it possessed powers of its own, because man is so weak, because human memory is so frail, and because the men who appoint the law cannot keep pace with it, cannot be always present with its operation; cannot know those who are related to it either on the favorable side or otherwise. But it is totally different with God. God ever lives, and His power never fails, and His presence is everywhere, and His discernments are infallible, and His rights are absolute. Law is but the expression of His wish and will, design and intention. You never can put the law above God. God is always above law. And you cannot tie Him by any law. If He gave the law of Moses, He took it away; if He gave circumcision, He took it away. If He gave baptism, He will take it away when it has done its purpose. He can alter, or amend, or adapt, or adjust as He pleases to accomplish the objects He proposes. Why, brethren and sisters, where is even the living man who, dealing with his own property, does not claim the right (any lord in his estate, or any petty landlord in any house, in appointing this and that to serve his purpose and convenience) to change his appointments? In making such a change it is not a change in himself, not a change in what he is, but a change in the methods he adopts according as exigencies arise. And so God has revealed to us it is with Him. He says, “At what instant I speak concerning a nation to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will turn from the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation to build and to plant it, if it do evil in My sight that it obey not My voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.”
Now it appears to me that this, what you might call flexibility of Divine intelligence, is not sufficiently recognized by the arguments submitted to us in the pamphlet. Indeed there is an absence of that vivid sense of the living God which is the very essence of the whole system of Divine truth. We are liable to fail in apprehending His living relation to His works, because we see no actual manifestation of him such as we see of man, and we are apt to feel as if there were no life or intelligence with Him such as there is with man. The fact is just the reverse of the appearance, as we shall see when we are subject to that process which Elisha prayed for the young man, “Lord, open the young man’s eyes.” Lord, open all men’s eyes, and they will see that He is the true living Essence and Principle and Power of the universe, and the true discriminating intelligence of all things — the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has appointed him as the judge of the living and the dead.
_____________________
Brother Andrew: I need scarcely say, brethren, that equally with brother Roberts, I very much regret to have to appear here on such an occasion as this. It is not because I have not made an effort to prevent it. I was twelve months in communication with him for the very purpose of preventing conflict. Contention is not a thing which I like, but rather dislike; when, however, conflict is forced upon me in defence of Bible truth, I shall not, and dare not, flinch from it.
Reference has been made to my change of attitude. Yes, a change from a position which I never deemed strong to one which I do deem strong. As to the cause of that change — reference to which has been indirectly made without being specifically stated — I will state it. In contending for the view advocated by brother Roberts it was said by someone that certain ones outside Christ would be raised to judgment through the blood of the covenant. In support thereof a statement was quoted from John’s first epistle, chapter 2, verse 2, that Christ’s blood is a “propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” That determined me to look into the matter thoroughly, for I could see that if it was capable of being supported by such testimony, it set aside fundamental principles of truth. The proposition which has been mentioned was directed specifically against that particular contention, and as you are not all aware of the wording of it, I will read it.
“That Christ having been raised from the dead through his own blood, it necessarily follows that 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.”
I withdrew that resolution, not, as brother Roberts says in his pamphlet, on condition that he replied to my manuscript. I gave no such promise to him. I simply promised to consider the matter. What he wanted me to do was to add some words to the proposition, and I did not see my way to do it. I did consider the matter, and I withdrew the proposition on the basis of the statement that had given rise to it, being previously withdrawn. These are the simple facts and they can be verified if necessary.
It was not for that purpose that brother Roberts came to London to see me. He came at my solicitation solely* in order that we might talk over the whole subject of the manuscript which I had sent to him, and he wrote the reply, because in the limited leisure I have, after being occupied in business all day, there was not time in two brief interviews to discuss the question fully.
* I have since refreshed brother Andrew’s memory on this point by showing him the words of his own letter written at the time, recognizing the interview as due to my suggestion. —R. Roberts
See appendix on pages 68-70.—J.J. Andrew
Several passages have been quoted in the address to which you have just listened — “resurrection of just and unjust,” and those “who have done evil” are to “come forth to the resurrection of condemnation.” If I were contending that there was no resurrection of the unjust or no resurrection of those who have done evil, those passages would refute my position. But I do not so contend. I fully recognize resurrection to condemnation of certain ones who have “done evil,” and certain ones who in the Scriptures are styled “unjust,” and therefore these passages are no proof whatever.
Reference has been made to the “mechanical” nature of the “theory.” Well, it may seem so to some minds, but I submit that that is not a correct definition. God is not excluded from my contention. God, and His ways, are the sole basis of all that I have to say upon the subject. How do we know God except by His laws as revealed in His word? How can we know Him in any other way? None whatever. He asks us to judge of Him by His word, and to act in accordance with the laws and principles which He has laid down in that word, and if we are so doing we are as much recognizing God as if we were introducing His name into every sentence we uttered. It is not a case of salvation by machinery, or anything of the kind. Such phraseology is a complete misnomer, like many other statements and definitions which have been given of my position. The point is, what is necessary in the first instance in order to commence a probation for eternal life? Justification, says the Scriptures; otherwise there is no scope for probation; no justification, no probation.
Nothing I have said invalidates God’s prerogative to change His laws. I fully recognize that God has given laws and taken them away; He has a perfect right to do so, unless His promises preclude it. If He has made a promise which precludes the abolition of a law within a certain time, His faithfulness requires that that law shall be kept in operation until the end of that time. Baptism, to which reference has been made, is a case in point. God has laid it down for the present dispensation that baptism is essential for justification; therefore He is precluded by His own faithfulness from justifying any without baptism as long as that law is in operation. But the time will come when it will be taken away. For what object? To supersede it by other laws, embodying other ceremonies for attaining the same end. The “law of sin and death” is still in force; the “law of the spirit of life” has not yet brought the consummation for which it was designed: and therefore while these laws are in operation, God’s faithfulness requires that He shall act in accordance with that which He has embodied in them.
In the course of this debate I shall have occasion to use certain expressions, and for that purpose I will give my definitions of them. It is one of the elements in a controversy to define your terms. “Adam’s sin,” I shall use as meaning “sin in the flesh”; “sin in flesh,” I shall use as expressing the desire to do evil which is in fallen human nature; “the ‘offence’ of Adam,” I shall use as meaning his act of disobedience in Eden: “Adamic condemnation,” as meaning the wrath or disfavor of God for the offence of Adam; “Justification,” as acquittal from imputed or actual guilt; “Reconciliation,” as the removal of divine wrath or disfavor for imputed or actual guilt; “The blood of Christ,” to represent the sacrificial death of Christ as the consummation of an obedient life, unless for the purpose of argument I may divorce his death from that obedient life. The expression, “In Christ,” I shall use as having reference to all who have entered on a probation for eternal life, whether living before Christ’s death or afterwards; the term, “The faithful,” as meaning candidates for eternal life who have pleased God; and the expression, “The unfaithful,” for candidates for eternal life who have not pleased God.
A word or two upon the basis of sound exposition is advisable on approaching this, as other subjects. Fundamental principles must obviously regulate the interpretation of isolated passages. Thus, when a passage will bear two different interpretations, that one must be accepted which is in harmony with the fundamental principle relating to it. Take this for instance in 1 Pet. 1:4, “An inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, reserved in heaven for you.” If the fundamental principle were that the abode of the righteous is in heaven, it would be quite right and necessary to construe that “inheritance” as being the place of abode; but as that is not the fundamental principle, such a construction is opposed to the fundamental principle. Therefore we are compelled to adopt another construction which we all recognize, namely, that the “inheritance incorruptible in heaven” is the eternal life which dwells in Jesus Christ.
Another illustration is found in 1 Cor. 15:52, “The dead shall be raised incorruptible.” At one time it was thought that that embodied immortal resurrection. At the first glance, without taking into consideration other passages of Scripture, it appears to bear that construction. But we apply to that passage the fundamental principle in regard to the judgment seat, and we find that it cannot bear that interpretation; therefore we exclude it, and substitute for a false interpretation the correct one, that “raised incorruptible” extends from the time of coming out of the ground to the bestowal of immortality.
Another fundamental principle is, that “what the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law” (Rom. 3:19). That is spoken of the law of Moses, but it is a principle applicable to what God has spoken under other circumstances as well. The writings of Moses and the prophets were a law to fleshly Israel, and what they said was spoken only to them. References there were, it is true, to outside nations, but these were specifically mentioned, and unless specifically mentioned, none but those that were under that law were under any obligation in regard to it. So likewise the apostolic epistles are a law to the brethren of Christ. Hence what is said in these epistles, sometimes in the third person, unless those outside are specified, is applicable solely to the brethren of Christ.
Brother Roberts Questions Brother Andrew.
1. Brother Andrew, who are the unjust? Answer: In the first instance all men are unjust, but the unjust referred to in connection with resurrection are those who have been justified, and subsequently become unjustified.
2. What do you mean by subsequently becoming unjustified? Answer: Sinning, and not obtaining forgiveness.
3. Are we always to understand the phrase “the unjust” in the apostolic writings in that sense? Answer: No, because we read of Christ dying for the unjust.
4. Quite so, and it says there shall be a resurrection of the unjust. Now, then, why do you discriminate between one and the other? Answer: Because in writing to the brethren of Christ, reference is made to both faithful and unfaithful, and the term unfaithful is identical with the unjust, who are spoken of as appearing before the judgment-seat.
5. Will the enemies of Christ be present at the resurrection? Those who rejected him, who did not believe in him, who had no faith in him? Answer: The Jews living in his day will.
6. I did not say the Jews, but the enemies of Christ. Answer: I must ask you to define who they are.
7. The enemies of Christ who rejected him, who did not have faith in him. Will they be present at the resurrection? Answer: What enemies?
8. The enemies I have defined, who rejected him, and had no faith in him. Will they be present at the resurrection? Answer: Jews or Gentiles?
9. You know, brother Andrew, what I mean. I mean Jews or Gentiles who had no faith in him, who rejected him, who were his enemies. Will any of them, Jews or Gentiles, be present? Answer: The Jews will.
10. They will? Answer: Yes.
11. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the previous sacrifices they had offered up.
12. Excuse me, that is not my question. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Justification by the blood of Christ after the blood has been poured out extends backward.
13. Does it extend to the unfaithful? Answer: Yes.
14. Where is the proof of that, that the unfaithful are justified by the blood of Christ — the unbelieving? Answer: In Heb. 9:15 we are told, “For this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
15. Does not that refer to those who are to receive the promise? Answer: Yes.
16. Will the unfaithful receive the promise? Answer: No.
17. Does that refer to them? Answer: It applies in principle to all who have been related to the promise.
18. Does it refer to the faithful or unfaithful? Answer: The faithful.
19. Will the unfaithful be present at the resurrection? Answer: The unfaithful will be present.
20. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Through the sacrifices which they offered up.
21. That is not my question. Are they justified by the blood of Christ — those who have no faith in him? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation.
22. Without any faith in Christ? Answer: Yes, but not from their subsequent individual transgressions.
23. Are they in any sense justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Yes.
24. Who have no faith in it? Answer: Through the sacrifices they offered up.
25. Who have no faith in it? Meet the question. Answer: It was not necessary to believe in Christ’s blood before it was poured out. The apostles themselves did not understand and believe it, and yet they were “clean” (John 13:10) previous to it taking place.
26. Do you say then that sacrifices under Moses could justify men from their sins unto life eternal? Answer: Not without the blood of Christ.
27. And how is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Is it not by faith? Answer: Certainly, by faith and sacrifice.
28. These men had no faith. Christ said they had no faith. Answer: They had some, for they believed in the resurrection.
29. Excuse me, in Christ they had no faith, “Ye have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). My reference is to these — were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They believed in the resurrection.
30. Answer my question. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation.
31. Yes or no, brother Andrew? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation through the sacrifices which they had offered up.
32. That is not my question. My question is, By the blood of Christ? Answer: From Adamic condemnation.
33. Answer the question, yes or no? Answer: Yes, from Adamic condemnation.
34. By the blood of Christ? Answer: From Adamic condemnation, but not from their subsequent individual transgressions.
35. From anything? Answer: From Adamic condemnation.
36. How was the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: Through sacrifice.
37. Not by faith? Answer: They had faith in regard to the Abrahamic covenant, they believed in the resurrection, but they rejected Christ as the one through whom it was to come. They had faith, but it was not sufficient for eternal life.
38. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation.
39. You are not answering the question. Answer: I must define my terms, certainly.
40. My terms are clearly defined, the issue is very simple. You wish to evade it, and go round it. Come to the point. Were these enemies of Christ justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Yes, when Christ died, his blood ratified the sacrifices which they had offered up, and thereby justified them from Adamic condemnation.
41. Do you teach, then, that a man can be justified by the blood of Christ, who has no faith in it? Answer: Not now, certainly. We live in a different dispensation.
42. These Scribes and Pharisees—were they not contemporary with the blood of Christ? Answer: Not before it took place.
43. After? Answer: Yes.
44. Are they to be present at the judgment? Answer: Yes.
45. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: No.
46. Can you point me a case in the Bible where a sinner has been justified before Christ’s death by Christ’s blood? Answer: The faithful, to whom reference is made in Heb. 11.
47. I said sinners, the unfaithful. Can you point me to a case in the Bible where an unbelieving sinner before Christ, has been justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: He is justified through the sacrifices he offered up.
48. That is not the question. Can you point me to a case? Answer the question. Answer: I am answering.
49. No, you are not. Give me a case where a sinner, an unbelieving man, was justified by the blood of Christ, before the days of Christ by sacrifice or anything else. Answer: Of course he was not justified by the blood before it was poured out; I never affirmed such an absurdity.
50. You stick to that? Answer: He was not justified previously.
51. You stick to that? Answer: Justification comes when Christ’s blood is shed, as a result of what a man did in his lifetime.
52. Now then, will there not, amongst the unjust that are to be raised, be a large contribution from the generations before Christ? Answer: O, yes.
53. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified in shadow by the sacrifices which were offered up, and subsequently when Christ’s blood was poured out they were justified in substance.
54. When? Justified in the grave? Answer: What?
55. Dead men justified? I am speaking of those who died before Christ came, who were unjust, were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They had entered the name of salvation.
56. You are not answering the question. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Yes, when the blood was poured out.
57. You said no before. Answer: That they were not justified before Christ’s blood was shed. They were justified by sacrifices, and the blood of Christ ratified these sacrifices.
58. In the case of a sinner, of an unfaithful man, brother Andrew? Do you say that? Answer: Justified from Adamic condemnation when he commenced his probation.
59. An unfaithful man justified? Answer: Justification was through the sacrifices he offered up, and the sacrifices were ratified by the sacrifice of Christ.
60. Yes, but you are not dealing with a person, you are speaking of a process. An unbelieving, unjust man who died before the days of Christ, was he justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: Not from his own sins.
61. Was he justified by the blood of Christ? Is it not a plain issue? Answer: Certainly.
62. Say yes or no. Answer: He was justified from Adamic condemnation.
63. I have not asked in what sense. Yes or no? Answer: It is necessary to define it.
64. The time now is to answer questions, you can give explanations afterwards. Yes or no? Answer: He is justified from Adamic condemnation.
65. An unbelieving sinner was justified through the blood of Christ? Answer: What do you mean by an unbelieving sinner.
66. You understand the terms. Answer: I have never said an unbelieving sinner. It was necessary previous to Christ to enter into the Abrahamic covenant by belief and the offering of sacrifice. When that took place a man entered upon a probation for eternal life, and that act was subsequently ratified by the blood of Christ.
67. My question relates to the unjust, brother Andrew, not to the faithful men at all, but the unjust who are to be present at the resurrection by your own admission. Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: From the sin.
68. Yes or no? You can explain afterwards. Yes or no? Were they? Answer: From the sin.
69. You refuse to answer the question. Yes or no? Answer: I am answering your question.
70. You are evading it. Say yes or no. Do you refuse to answer? Were these men justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: You define what you mean by unbelieving sinners.
71. I have defined my terms. You understand what I mean. I ask you to say yes or no. Do you refuse to answer? Answer: No.
72. Then answer yes or no. You can explain afterwards. Answer: I must explain in the answer.
73. I want yes or no. Answer: If you take unjustified sinners to be those who are justified in the first instance, Yes. Their justification by sacrifice was subsequently confirmed by the blood of Christ.
Brother Roberts: Brother Andrew refuses to answer the question.
