Resurrectional Responsibility.
Debate At Essex Hall, London
Between brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts
April 3rd and 5th, 1894
Chairman — Brother Lake.
SECOND NIGHT (Continued)
Brother Andrew Questions Brother Roberts.
554. In I Cor. 15:12, Paul says, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” What was the thing that was denied by the Corinthians? Answer: The resurrection that Paul preached.
555. What was the resurrection that Paul preached? Answer: Do you require me to say? The resurrection of men to life eternal, and to condemnation if unworthy.
556. Then the resurrection which they denied was restoration to life? Answer: Nay, nay, it is never used in that limited sense in the Bible.
557. Is not resurrection used in that limited sense in regard to the unjust who are to be raised again to life? Answer: No, it includes much more than that. It is the resurrection of condemnation.
558. Does not that involve restoration to life? Answer: It involves it, but that is a different thing.
559. Then it means it, does it not? Answer: By involution.
560. Does the apostle refute what the Corinthians denied? Answer: Most effectually.
561. Then that which they denied, restoration to life, he refutes? Answer: Excuse me, you are limiting it to restoration to life. I do not admit that.
562. Does he not prove his point by referring to the resurrection of Christ? Answer: Certainly.
563. Does he not show that the resurrection of Christ was necessary to justify those in Him? Answer: Christ’s resurrection was necessary to salvation for all Christ’s disciples afterwards. He did not cut it up into bits. It was a question of being saved or not.
564. Yes, but does he not say that without Christ’s resurrection they died in their sins, and as a consequence are perished? Answer: Certainly.
565. That is equivalent to saying Christ’s resurrection is necessary for their resurrection? Answer: No doubt of it.
566. For their restoration to life? Answer: You are changing the terms. I do not accept your narrow way of putting it.
567. When Christ says, “I am the resurrection and the life,” does he not mean I am the raiser to life and the bestower of eternal life? Answer: No, he does not divide it up in that way.
568. Why does he use two different words? Answer: Because there are two things in it.
569. You must rise before you can have life, and is he not the means of both? Answer: He is the means of both, the life being eternal life.
570. Is not he “the life” on the basis of bloodshedding? Answer: Oh, brother Andrew, speak as the oracles of God.
571. I use his bloodshedding as I defined it in the first instance as being the consummation of an obedient life. Answer: I take it as the Scriptures put it. The shedding of the blood of Christ is only a part. His resurrection is the great thing, it covers all.
572. That is not disputed. Answer: Very well.
573. But was he not raised, or rather did he not become the bestower of immortality on the basis of his having shed his blood and having been raised from the dead? Answer: Not on the basis of that only. You do not put the basis broad enough. It was “by one man’s obedience” over his whole life.
574. At the commencement of last Tuesday evening I gave as one of my definitions this, That “the blood of Christ I shall use 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.” Is it necessary for me to repeat that definition every time I use the expression “the blood of Christ”? Answer: Because of the unscriptural use you make of answers given to a limited question, it is.
575. I am not aware of having made an unscriptural use of the answers at all. Answer: I do not think you are. I believe you are thoroughly honest, but you have got into a bemuddled state of mind on this question.
576. Not at all. Then you think that the dead in Christ, if Christ had not been raised, would perish absolutely? Answer: Certainly. There would be no resurrection; there would be no judge.
577. Are not those who die out of Christ in the same position as those in Christ would be if Christ had not been raised? Answer: By no means, because there is a living Christ who has power over them all to inflict the judgment and wrath of God upon those who deserve it.
578. Those who have not died in Christ? Answer: All flesh, absolutely.
579. Are the dead “flesh?” Answer: Oh, brother Andrew, he is Lord both of the dead and the living.
580. Who are the dead and the living spoken of in Rom. 14:9? Answer: It means those over whom he has jurisdiction, which is co-extensive with the operation of light, as he says, “This is the condemnation, that light is come.”
581. In Rom. 14:7-8 it says, “None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live we live unto the Lord: and whether we die we die unto the Lord, whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s.” Does not that describe all in the same position as the Romans? Answer: It is a glorious truth, I wish we realized it more.
582. “To this end Christ both died and rose, and revived that he might be Lord of both the dead and living.” Is not the expression “dead and living” there applied to those in the same position as the Romans, and no others? Answer: No.
583. Then context is no guide to the interpretation of single phrases? Answer: Oh yes, sometimes, but not always.
584. Is it not so here? Answer: Certainly not, because “dead and living” is an open phrase. The extent is to be gathered from other passages.
585. How did these Romans become the property of Christ? Answer: You know how they became so. They gave themselves to Christ in the way appointed, by belief and obedience.
586. Did not he become their Lord at that time? Answer: No doubt he did in a special sense, but he had been their Lord before, in the sense of having authority over them.
587. Where is your proof he was their Lord before they were immersed into his name? Answer: I prove it by such statements as God has given Christ power over all flesh.
588. That does not say he is their Lord. Answer: I am not going to quarrel about a word. If power over all flesh is not lordship over all flesh I do not understand you.
589. Peter says some “denied the Lord that bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). Answer: Yes.
590. Was he their Lord? Were they his before they were bought? Answer: He was their Lord before they were bought.
591. Did he not become their Lord at the time they were bought? Answer: If you will tell me in what sense you use the word Lord I will answer you.
592. In the same sense as in Rom. 14:9, and the passage in 2 Peter 2:1, as being the Lord of life. Answer: He is the Lord of life in relation to everyone if they will come and have it.
593. Is he actually now their Lord, the Lord of life, to everyone? Answer: Certainly. He is the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever. His lordship is not interfered with by human refusals.
594. Is he Lord of life in reference to everyone before they are bought by him? Answer: He is the Lord of life absolutely. I cannot draw it into a narrow channel.
595. The Scriptures so draw it. Answer: No, you do; not the Scriptures.
596. “In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive.” Who are the dead in Adam? Answer: Everyone who dies.
597. Who are the “all in Christ” made alive? Answer: All in Christ.
598. Who are the all in Christ? Answer: All those who are become incorporate with him in the plan God has formed. He is the head; they become constituents of his body.
599. Whether faithful or unfaithful? Answer: No, there is a distinction there which Paul does not look at for the moment. He does not speak of the unfaithful in that chapter at all, brother Andrew being witness in articles in the Christadelphian. It is immortalization before his mind.
600. “In Christ shall all be made alive,” does that mean only the faithful? Answer: Yes.
601. Do not the unfaithful remain in Christ until the judgment seat? Answer: In a technical sense. They are not really in him. The Scriptures exhort brethren to continue in Christ. Christ says, “Abide in me.”
602. Does not the antithesis of this imply that as all in Adam die, all in Christ come out of the grave? Answer: I have answered that question.
603. You have not answered it in that form. Answer: Make your meaning clear.
604. Is not the antithesis as all in Adam die, so all who pass out of Adam into Christ rise from the grave? Answer: Paul is speaking of two great divisions. In Adam all die, all, absolutely everyone. So in the other Adam, they will be made alive — made immortal, but none out of him. None out of him will be made alive in the sense of these terms, immortalization.
605. Is not “made alive” used as a parallel to “the resurrection of the dead’? Answer: That question is too general to answer. If you will tie me to a case I will answer.
606. I mean in verse 21, “By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Answer: Yes, in a particular sense. By the resurrection of the dead is meant life forever.
607. Does not the resurrection which is to come through man, or by man, include also the resurrection of the unfaithful? Answer: It includes it. It is a mere momentary episode.
608. Are the unfaithful raised on the basis of Christ’s death and resurrection? Answer: They are raised by Christ. God gave him the power.
609. Are they raised on the basis of Christ’s obedience, death, and resurrection.? Answer: Properly understood, yes.
610. Are the unfaithful raised on the basis of Christ’s obedience, death and resurrection? Answer: Everything Christ does is on that basis.
611. Substantially both faithful and unfaithful are raised on the basis of his shed blood? Answer: You put it too narrowly. Paul says, his blood was shed in vain if he had not risen.
612. Then when the Scriptures say that certain ones had washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, is not that too narrow a form of describing it? Answer: Not in that connection. They are represented in a perfect state, and the question is, How did they get there. In a figure, they were washed, not literally, but by a figure. We want to know what is behind the figure, and that is that Christ submitted to an ignominious death because the Father required it, as the basis of approach to men for proposals of reconciliation.
613. Although a figure is distinct from that which is literal, does not a figure represent a reality? Answer: Doubtless.
614. If the Scriptures use a figure of speech to describe a reality, is it not permissible for me to do so? Answer: It all depends on how you do it. “This is my body” is a Bible figure, but the Roman Catholics use it in a wrong way, and you are using this phrase in a wrong way.
Brother Roberts Questions Brother Andrew.
615. When Christ said concerning the Gospel which he sent the apostles to preach “He that believeth not shall be condemned,” what do you think he meant? Answer: I believe he meant that the Jews to whom the apostles were then sent, if they did not believe, should be condemned.
616. Would it not apply to all those to whom the Gospel was preached? Answer: Not to Gentiles.
617. Was not the same Gospel preached to Gentiles as to Jews? Answer: Yes, but the Jew was already in covenant with God, and were required to believe that which was afterward submitted.
618. Was not the Gospel a savour of death unto death to Gentile as well as Jew? Answer: In the sense used by the apostle.
619. What sense is that? Answer: That is a long passage and it would take some time to go into the full explanation.
620. Give it as briefly as you can. Tell it me in substance, you know. Answer: He is writing to those in the truth, and his preaching was in regard to those a savour of death unto death in the unfaithful, and of life unto life in regard to the faithful.
621. Excuse me, he says “in them that perish.” Is that a description of those who have been justified? Answer: They that perish are Gentiles out of Christ.
622. Quite so, and to the one, that is those who perish, “we are the savour of death unto death.” What is the meaning of it? Answer: “In them that are saved” applies to the faithful, “them that perish” to the unfaithful.
623. Excuse me, you have changed your answer. Answer: How so?
624. I appeal to the shorthand writer. Answer: I said it before I saw the connection.
625. Then you think them that perish is a description of people who are justified? Answer: In that case.
626. Who are “those that are lost?” Answer: Is that here?
627. Never mind where. Tell me what is the meaning of it? Answer: I like to see the connection.
628. “Them that are lost.” Do not you know where it is? Answer: I forget now.
629. The next chapter but one. Answer: “Hid to them that are lost.”
630. Who are they? Answer: Those outside.
631. What is the difference between “them that are lost” and “them that perish?” Answer: Those outside who are lost never attain to anything beyond the present condition.
632. Would they perish? Answer: Yes.
633. What is the difference then between them that are lost and them that perish? Is there a difference? Answer: There is a difference this way. There will be perishing at the judgment seat for those who are condemned.
634. Is that what Paul means? Answer: I think so.
635. You are not sure? Answer: I think it is. I won’t be sure. The passage is based upon a Romish custom, the full details of which I cannot just call to mind. It is figurative language, and must be interpreted in accordance with the custom upon which it is based.
636. My question is not related to any custom, but to whom is meant. Who are they? Answer: Those outside.
637. Them that perish are not those outside? Answer: In this connection I think not.
638. You are not sure? Answer: I won’t be sure.
639. Very well. Let us take another case. What was the terror of the Lord that Paul preached? Answer: To Jews?
640. What was it? Answer: The coming retribution upon them as a nation.
641. Did he teach that in his Gospel preaching? Answer: Yes, he and Peter speak of it.
642. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” Answer: In that case it refers to those in Christ.
643. What is the terror of the Lord for them? Answer: Condemnation at the judgment seat of Christ.
644. The second death? Answer: Yes.
645. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade Men?” Answer: Yes.
646. Did he persuade brethren? Answer: Yes, he was persuading or exhorting the Corinthians at that time.
647. Did he not persuade Gentiles? Answer: Ah, he is not speaking of that persuasion here.
648. Did he persuade them? Answer: Certainly.
649. About the terror of the Lord? Answer: He spoke to them about it, he included it.
650. What terror had the judgment seat to them, if they had no relation to it? Answer: He did not preach the judgment seat as a terror to the Gentiles. You cannot adduce a passage of Scripture to that effect.
651. Did he preach the Gospel to Felix? Answer: He did, at least he spoke to him of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.”
652. Was not that the Gospel? Answer: Oh yes, you can get the Gospel out of it.
653. Paul did not know anything else than the Gospel in his preaching did he? Answer: No.
654. He preached the Gospel to Felix? Answer: Yes.
655. Did Felix tremble? Answer: Yes.
656. Why? Answer: Because of what Paul spoke.
657. What about? Answer: He roused the conscience of a wicked man and made him tremble.
658. Why? Answer: Because of the picture which he drew of coming judgment.
659. What picture did he draw that could affect Felix? Answer: He could draw a picture of judgment to take place which would affect Felix, seeing that he was connected with the nation upon which they were to come.
660. Felix might die next day, then he would have no relation to it? Answer: Yes.
661. Did Paul speak of a judgment that possibly had no relation to him? Answer: It was quite possible for Paul to picture coming judgments in such a way as to frighten Felix. Felix need not necessarily believe that he would die next day. It is not likely he did.
662. No; but my question is, that Felix recognized that the judgment to come of which Paul spoke had a bearing upon him because he trembled? Answer: Yes.
663. You put it that possibly it had none? Answer: O, no.
664. Certainly you admitted it? Answer: It might or might not.
665. Exactly. Then Paul spoke to Felix about a judgment that might not come upon him? Answer: If Felix, as a natural man, looked forward to living to that time, it would affect him, especially as his wife was a Jewess.
666. I know that is what you say. It is very unlike Paul’s talking about judgment. I will give you a few specimens of his allusions to judgment. Answer: I daresay I am familiar with them.
667. Can you give me one case in which he speaks of judgment to come upon the nation? Answer: I cannot call one to mind. I think Peter does.
668. I refer to Paul, either in speeches or letters. Answer: Paul was sent to Gentiles.
669. I am speaking of Paul’s attitude to a Gentile, and I ask you whether, in Paul’s letters or speeches, he speaks of such a judgment as you refer to? Answer: Both he and Peter speak of God’s vengeance or judgment being poured out at that time.
670. Where? Paul please. Answer: Won’t Peter do?
671. No; not for this particular case because it is Paul that is in question. We see Paul reasoning before Felix of judgment to come, and you say he is speaking of a thing he never speaks of in any of his letters or speeches, and I ask you on what ground you say he talked to him about the destruction of Jerusalem? Answer: On that occasion?
672. On what ground, seeing that there is a judgment to come, which he does speak of, and he never speaks of the one you say he referred to. Why do you come to that conclusion? Is it not your theory that compels you? Answer: Not necessarily.
673. What then? Answer: Because it was within a few years of that event, and Felix was associated with the nation very closely through his wife.
674. Was not that a very immaterial “judgment to come” compared with the terror of the Lord connected with the judgment seat of Christ? Answer: It was not very immaterial to the Jews who underwent it.
675. “Compared with!” are my words — compared with the terror of the Lord that you have admitted is associated with the judgment seat? Answer: It was not equal to that.
676. Do you think he spoke of the smaller terror, and left out the larger? Answer: It was a large terror to the nation involved in it.
677. I am speaking of Felix. Answer: Felix was living in the land where these judgments were to be poured out.
678. Then you cannot prove that Paul spoke to Felix of the destruction of Jerusalem. Can you? Answer: I can no more prove that than you can prove he spoke of the judgment seat of Christ.
679. I can, for that was all his talk, and he was here engaged on his one business with Felix. That will do on that. Why do you draw a distinction between them that are lost and them that perish? I think I know the reason, but I ask you? Answer: Well, the same word is not always used in reference to the same person or thing in different passages.
680. That is not answering the question. Answer: In regard to them that are lost, obviously it refers to those outside, because “the Gospel is hid” from them.
681. Quite so. You saw that, when you looked at the context, and you think that when Paul was speaking a few verses before of them that perish he meant a different class to them which are lost. Why do you draw the distinction? Is it not your theory? Answer: No, it is the context.
