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.
682. Is a man, when baptized, legally freed from Adamic condemnation? Answer: What do you mean by “legally freed?”
683. I mean that the wrath of God or condemnation pertaining to him as the result of his being descended from Adam is taken away. Answer: It is commenced to be taken away, but nothing more. It all depends; it is a process.
684. But is it not taken away in a legal sense without affecting the physical consequences of that condemnation? Answer: God forgives sins; that is the apostolic description, and I believe it.
685. Yes, but have you never taught that Adamic condemnation is legally taken away at baptism? Answer: I am not aware that I have.
686. Do you recognize this from the Christadelphian of 1878?: “Legally a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of sins, but actually its physical effects remain until this mortal (that is this Adamic condemned nature) is swallowed up in the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his coming. Those whom Christ at that time does not approve are delivered up to death again because of their sins and not because of Adam. Although reconciled in Christ, we remain under the physical effect of Adam’s sentence till we are changed in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump” (page 225). Answer: I fully endorse that.
687. Then a man at baptism is legally freed from Adamic condemnation, and receives, as an additional thing, the remission of his own individual sins. Is that so or not? Answer: You see how nicely you can put a question when you see the point. I mean to say I fully endorse that statement. The word “legally” is a little hazy. I am not quite sure whether I did not borrow that from you, brother Andrew.
688. I do not think that is from me at that time. Answer: What is the date?
689. 1878. Answer: Yes, it is from you then. It was used at the time of the Renunciationist controversy, in which you took a prominent part. I accepted your terms then without particularly considering them, because you were fighting on the right side, but now they are used as the basis for constructing a new theory. I have looked round them, and see what they mean.
690. Do you adhere to this statement that he is legally freed from Adamic condemnation? Answer: I understand God gives the obedient believer a clean slate, as you might say.
691. What is wiped out? Answer: Everything that stands against us in any way, whether from Adam or ourselves.
692. Then there is a passing out of Adam in Christ at baptism? Answer: Certainly.
693. When a man passes into Christ, what has he in Adam that he loses when he passes into Christ? Answer: His relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is a preliminary deliverance at baptism, but it is not actual till the resurrection.
694. Does he not realize, in a legal sense, a justification from the condemnation which he derived from Adam? Answer: The apostolic proclamation of the Gospel has almost nothing to say about that, brother Andrew, but about forgiveness of our sins. If I have expressed an opinion there that favours your present contention, it must have been in reference to some special question put with that phraseology in it which you introduced.
695. Is not a believer, at baptism, made to endorse and morally participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus underwent when he was crucified? Answer: Certainly. He is baptized into the death of Christ in the sense of morally endorsing all that that involves.
696. Is not that endorsing and morally participating in the condemnation of sin in the flesh? Answer: You use a hazy phrase. I agree with Paul’s use of it, but not with yours.
697. This is your phrase in the Christadelphian for 1870. Answer: But not in the way you put it.
698. Is not a believer when he is baptized made to suffer the penalty? Answer: No.
699. Is not he? Answer: No.
700. Do you withdraw from this statement, “Paul says, Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore, in the very act of putting on the name of Christ for the obtaining of the blessings promised, he is made to endorse and morally participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus underwent in the body prepared for the purpose. In this way we are made to suffer the penalty while obtaining the blessings promised” Christadelphian, 1870, page 23. Answer: Ah! “in that way.”
701. That is the way I spoke of before. Answer: That is to say, we identify ourselves with all that was accomplished in Christ. It is not done in us. We merely go through the water, and water does nothing, but God has required it of us.
702. Is there not a doctrinal efficacy in connection with going through the water? Answer: There is a change in God’s mind towards us, if that is what you mean by such language.
703. Is there not a doctrinal efficacy in it? Answer: I do not know what you mean by doctrinal efficacy.
704. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place in regard to Christ? Answer: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.
705. Shedding of his blood and raising him from the dead? Answer: The whole process.
706 In relation to himself, personally, apart from his position as a sinbearer for others? Answer: You cannot take him apart from that position.
707. Have you not taken him apart from that position formerly? Answer: Never.
708. Not in the argument with Renunciationists? Answer: That is too general a question altogether. There never would have been a Christ if there had not been a sin race to be redeemed. If he had been by himself, he would not have required to die at all, if he had been disconnected from our race.
709. What do you mean by that? Answer: I mean if he had been by himself — a new Adam — having no connection with the race of Adam first; not made out of it.
710. But if as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one to whom God granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before he could obtain that salvation? Answer: I refuse the question in that form, because it is an impossible “if.” He was not sent for himself, but for us.
711. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? Answer: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son of David, yes.
712. First from the uncleanness of death that having by his own blood obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others? Answer: Certainly.
713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin-bearer for others Answer: I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.
714. Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free life theory? Answer: Not by me; it might be by you.
715. How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, “made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” if he had not died for himself as well as for us? Answer: He could not.
716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Answer: Oh, certainly.
717. Is it not clear then from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power? Answer: Certainly.
718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh? Answer: No doubt of it.
719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection? Answer: Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least.
720. Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood for himself? Answer: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether.
721. I never introduced that position. Answer: You are unfortunate in not conveying your ideas to me.
722. I never introduced that idea to you. Answer: You asked me to consider him apart from us.
723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam? Answer: That is my point, that you cannot separate him from the work he came to do. There never would have been a Christ at all if he had not been for that work.
724. Then as a descendant of Adam, it was necessary for himself to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life? Answer: I have already answered that question several times.
725. Do you not think it inappropriate for those outside Christ, rejectors of the word, to be brought before the judgment seat with members of his household? Answer: It is not I who am responsible for that inappropriateness. With the servants came the rebels: “Those mine enemies who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.”
726. Have you never thought it was inappropriate? Answer: I have no recollection of having done so.
727. Do you recollect this in Christendom Astray (1884), “Rejectors of the word, who do not come under the law to Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the 1000 years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since they do not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection at the time when account is taken of that household would seem inappropriate. May they not be dealt with at the end?” (page 108) Answer: Ah, that is a mere question as to when they will be dealt with.
728. Is it not inappropriate for them to appear at the judgment seat? Answer: As a mere expression of opinion as to when, it is nothing. I did not remember having expressed that opinion. It is nothing more than a suggestion upon an immaterial point. My views are much more matured now than they were then, much more certain and definite. That was thirty years ago.
729. It is Christendom Astray, only ten years ago, thoroughly revised and rewritten (Preface, p. 4). Answer: Intended to be so, but it was not thoroughly done, owing to incessant other occupation and indifferent health.
730. Then you would not write that now? Answer: It is probable I would not. It is an immaterial point altogether. It is the fact of the resurrection of the disobedient that we want.
731. Was not the law of righteousness which came into operation with Abraham the basis of resurrectional responsibility after his time? Answer: Do you mean to say there was no such basis before?
732. No, I do not. I am applying it to that time. Answer: Certainly, God laid the basis of His plan concerning Christ in Abraham.
733. Was not that, after the time of Abraham, the basis of resurrectional responsibility? Answer: If you mean that there was no absence of that basis before Abraham’s time I am at liberty to answer. The basis was the same, only a new development.
734. Do you believe that all Jews by birth were in the Abrahamic covenant? Answer: Certainly.
735. Are they all to be raised from the dead? Answer: No.
736. But if you say it is on the basis of the law or covenant with Abraham that resurrectional responsibility existed, must not all be raised from the dead? Answer: No. I will say why if you wish it. A man must know the covenant before he is held responsible to its obligations. Millions of Jews know nothing about it to this day, therefore they are not responsible.
737. Do you consider it honourable to publish a reply to a manuscript which has been withdrawn? Answer: Certainly not if it has been withdrawn absolutely.
738. Was it not withdrawn absolutely? Answer: It was withdrawn as inadequate. If you had not said you were going to rewrite it, I should have been glad to put it in the fire.
739. Has not an author a right to withdraw a manuscript without giving his reasons if he wishes to revise it? Answer: If he wishes to withdraw it absolutely, certainly. You did not do so.
740. If he withdraws it for any reason whatever, has he not a right to do so, and does it not preclude the publication of a reply to it? Answer: Not if he had not retired from the position represented by the writing.
741. Would you commend that act in another directed against yourself? Answer: I should not ask such a thing of anybody.
742. Have not I or anyone else the same right to revise, amend, or rewrite before publication, which you have exercised times without number? Answer: Certainly.
Brother Roberts: I should like if I were able in the time remaining to develop what I consider the much larger aspect of this question than what has appeared through the haze of our argumentation. The question of human responsibility has a deeper root than most men recognize. You have to go far back to get at it. You have to go back to the time when there was no man upon earth to wrangle, when there was nothing but an empty planet. God has placed a race upon the earth for His own purpose. God made man for Himself. Man is very much of an abortion as we see him now. But we do not see him now in his final form. When we see him in his final form we see the triumph of the principle that has been before God’s mind, but not before man’s, during all these weary ages of futility and turmoil.
You see it in connection with the very first man. Adam was not there in the Garden of Eden merely to enjoy himself: he was there to give pleasure to God as well. God had made man for His own pleasure and He takes pleasure in those who fulfil the design of creation. The condition of that pleasure is not the performance of ceremony, not technicality, but compliance with His will, the rational subjection of an independent will to God’s will. And so He said to Adam, “Thou shalt not eat.” It was the simplest form in which the principle could be brought to bear, and Adam when passing that tree would remember, “I must not touch that. It was God who commanded me not to.”
Now, has that principle been set aside? O, brethren and sisters, look at the terrible history of man since then — disorder, confusion, disorganization of man with man, tears and blood, the misery of man great upon him. He was sent out of Eden because he rebelled against God’s will. The penalty was heavy both in its living form and in its finish, in a state of trouble to which he was banished and in the ending of that trouble in death.
But God did not leave the thing there. If the thing had been left there, there would have been nothing for it but death, and I grant then, no possibility of anyone coming out of the grave afterwards, if God had done and said no more. He did not surrender His claim on man’s submission. He had a plan even in man’s fall. He was “made subject to vanity by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope.” There is hope in that purpose from the beginning. God had it before His mind from the very beginning. But along with that hope, there was the other side. Privilege always brings responsibility. To whom much is given, of them much shall be required. We see this principle illustrated all down the stream of the ages since. For although Adam’s posterity were condemned to death, death reigned over them although God did not hold them accountable for Adam’s sin, as it is said, “they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” yet He had spoken to them as He did to Adam, and they were responsible to what He said.
We are not much enlightened in regard to the amount and the extent of his communications from Adam to Noah, but we know He did speak, for all flesh corrupted His way upon the earth. What was the finish of it? The flood, the destruction of them all. But was that a complete closing of the account? No. Noah was saved from that flood, but Noah will be saved with another salvation. People were drowned in that flood, but Enoch tells us that “the Lord cometh with 10,000 of His saints, to execute (another) judgment upon all, to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” To what extent that second judgment will be administered we cannot say. Nobody knows to what extent individuals forming that population knew God’s will. God is a reasonable being. He is the very essence of reason. That servant which knew his Lord’s will and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes if he did it not (Brother Andrew: — The servant?). Yes; but, brother Andrew, it is a parable mind you, and illustrates a principle. Beaten with many stripes because he knew, whereas the other, who did not know, is beaten with few. There is the principle — knowledge. “This is the condemnation, that light is come . . . and men loved darkness rather than light.” This is the ground of condemnation. Christ says, “If ye were blind, you should have no sin.”
Leaving the flood, we come down to Sodom and Gomorrah, — Lot vexed with the unrighteous conversation of the wicked. God did not regard them as beasts that perish. He never rained fire and brimstone on elephants and tigers, but He did upon the corrupt inhabitants of Sodom, which shows He held them responsible.
The same remark applies afterwards concerning that coming destruction and judgment, although the extent of it we cannot know, because of our ignorance of the application of this reasonable rule that knowledge makes men responsible. “I did it ignorantly,” says Paul, “therefore I obtained mercy.” The theory which we are invited to adopt just clouds that all over, and makes God disregard knowledge. That is to say, “Go into the water and I have got hold of you, but if you defy Me to the extent of setting Me and My Son at utter defiance, and you keep out of the water, I cannot touch you.” It is absurd!
Come down to the seven nations of Canaan. Here we have the same principle. “Ye are not going into this land because of your righteousness,” said Moses to Israel, “but because of the wickedness of those nations.” “Do not as they do, because of their abominations have I visited the wickedness of these nations upon them.” God demurred to these nations enjoying His beautiful land without reference to His will, to the pleasure of which all things should be subordinated.
Israel went in. They had special privileges. The same principle brought special retribution. “Jerusalem has changed my judgment more than any nation.” “You only have I known of all these families, therefore I will punish you for your iniquities,” that is, in a very special way. He did not mean He would not punish the others, for He expressly says He will punish the others. “Behold, I begin to bring evil upon the city which is called by My name, and shall ye be unpunished? You shall not be unpunished. I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth.”
Now we come to the apostolic age, when we have the incipient fulfillment of the prophecy of “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it.” The final manifestation is reserved, but it began then, so there was an extension of Divine operations. Those of the families God had not “known”, He now proposed to know. That is Paul’s expression. “After ye have known God, or rather, are known of Him, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements.” “We are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us. We pray you in Christ’s stead be reconciled to God.” Nay, He commanded them to repent. “The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; because He hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised him from the dead.” So the responsibility of the Gentiles towards God which had not existed before comes in. But it is regulated by the reasonable principle which God regards, “If ye were blind ye should have no sin.” The man “who understandeth not is like the beasts that perish.” The man that “wanders out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” We are not dealing with those cases, brethren; we are agreed about those, I think. The question is where the light comes. The question is where the understanding exists. The case in question is where the Word of God comes to a man’s door. God knocks at his door. “Behold! I stand at the door and knock.” The man knows God is there, knows what God says, and replies, “No, I won’t.”
I beg to make one personal explanation, referring to the representation of brother Andrew, on Tuesday night. It is really very unimportant; I almost feel humiliated to refer to it, but as it is possible this discussion may be published, the whole facts of the case ought to appear. It is that brother Andrew has forgotten the facts about my visit to London. It was I that proposed it, on receiving his voluminous manuscript, for I shrank from the task of writing the answer it would have required, and I had such confidence in brother Andrew’s lucency I felt sure that if we came face to face, I should succeed in dispelling the mists of the paper. I therefore proposed to see him. I admit that he consented with great alacrity, and proposed to pay the expenses. I said, “No, I cannot consent to that,” but we made a compromise, by which he paid half and I paid the other half. We came together twice. He spoke as if it was his proposal. It is not so. I have his letters and he has mine, and it is just possible that in the stress of so many things he may have forgotten how the case stood.
With regard to another matter, my statement that he withdrew his resolution on my consenting to answer his paper, is absolutely true. It was my proposal to brother Andrew. At the close of our conversation I said, “Well, brother Andrew, I will tell you what I propose. You withdraw that resolution, and I will undertake to answer your article in writing.” He agreed to that, but truly he did require that some statement that had been made by someone else should be withdrawn before he did so. Brother Andrew would not cause me willingly to appear in a light that is not true. I fully recognize his honesty, and I think I have given him cause to admit mine during very many years.
(Note: See Appendix)
Brother Andrew: If these statements can be borne out, I will admit I have forgotten some of the circumstances to which brother Roberts refers, but according to my present memory, I did propose for him to come and see me, but I will let that remain in abeyance.
I cannot, however, recognize the statement that the writing of his reply was based upon any promise of mine to withdraw my resolution. I promised to consider the matter. I made no specific promise at the time.*
* See appendix on page 68.
At first sight this subject may seem to be an unimportant one; that is the question as to whether any outside Christ shall be raised from the dead. But a closer examination leads to a different conclusion. It affects not only the question of unbaptized rejectors of the Word but the position of baptized believers, first as to the change which takes place when they enter on their probation, and second as to the relationship that they occupy to Christ during probation. That is to say, previous to probation are they under God’s wrath for what they have done and for what they have inherited? If they are, then the baptism takes away the wrath in both cases. If they are only under God’s wrath for what they have done, then there is no need for the taking away wrath for anything else; in fact, there is no wrath to take away, in regard to what they are by inheritance or nature. Apparently, that is the distinction which this question has brought to the front as to the respective beliefs of different brethren.
According to the teaching of the Scriptures the wrath of God rests upon men by their birth, as well as subsequently by their evil deeds. By their birth they are under condemnation to death. At baptism the wrath is taken away, and consequently the condemnation in a legal sense, in regard to both aspects of sin, is also taken away. They then stand in Christ completely clothed with his righteousness, no longer tainted legally with that which they had previously, whether sin committed or sin inherited.
According to the opposite view there is at baptism only a taking away of the wrath of God for the evil deeds committed, and then there is to be a course of well-doing in order to nullify the sin nature which has been inherited. That involves this unscriptural position, that probationary well-doing can counteract or nullify the sin nature. It cannot do anything of the kind. Probationary well-doing is to obtain eternal life, and to avoid condemnation in the future. It cannot take away condemnation in reference to the past; to say that it does is to say in effect that good deeds can nullify bad ones: this the Scriptures do not teach, apart from blood-shedding. There must be blood-shedding in order that condemnation arising from sin may be taken away.
The question is also important because it affects many passages of Scripture relating to judgment. The belief I am opposing leads to a perverted view of many of them, and hence it is that we have passages quoted from the epistles and applied to those outside, such as “whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge,” as if God purposes to bring to the judgment seat of Christ any of that class outside Christ. This passage, together with several others quoted by brother Roberts, applies solely to those in Christ.
The principles which determine this question are, 1st: That the death arising out of Adam’s offense is, in the absence of justification, without end; and 2nd: That resurrection is through Christ on the basis of justification from sin. Man brought death through disobedience; man brought resurrection through obedience, including blood-shedding. Therefore, resurrection is on the basis of that which was effected by him. Inasmuch as Christ was at birth in the same position as his brethren, and as he was raised from the dead through the redemptive work he effected, so are they, and thus resurrection does not comprise those who do not come within the scope of that redemptive work.
The third principle is that the judgment seat is for the purpose of making known whether those who have been candidates for eternal life are deserving of that life or of a judicial death. In regard to those outside Christ there is no such thing as determining whether they are worthy of either the one or the other, and therefore there is no fitness in bringing them before a tribunal specially so provided. To bring them to that tribunal is to transform the judge, in relation to them, into a mere executioner, and that is not the object of the judgment seat. They can give no account at that judgment, and there is no necessity for them to be asked a word, or to utter a word. If they are brought there, their very presence will be evidence as to what they are about to undergo, whereas in regard to the members of Christ’s household it will not be known what is their individual destiny until they have rendered their account, and Christ, as the judge, has pronounced the verdict in relation to that account. Therefore I say, as brother Roberts said ten years ago, that it is “inappropriate” and out of harmony with God’s arrangements that there should appear before a tribunal established for such a purpose, men who have no relationship whatever to its judicial process, and no relationship to the eternal life which will be bestowed upon some. (Brother Roberts: –30 years ago. It was intended to be rewritten, but it was not rewritten, only revised, and I was too fatigued with other literary occupation to do it very thoroughly. It is very much altered from previous editions.)
In dealing with the question of immortal resurrection, this principle of the judgment seat constituted the very foundation argument, namely, that because it was a tribunal to decide upon one of two destinies, therefore the resurrection to that judgment seat must be mortal. That same principle is applicable to this question, and it excludes from such a position those who have not been brought into a relationship which admits of the bestowal of eternal life. There is no judicial process required for them. Whatever responsibility towards God they may have incurred by reason of what they have done or failed to do during their lifetime is limited to this life. Brother Roberts has quoted a number of instances of judgments in the past. I fully recognize them, but when were they bestowed? There was no judicial ceremony before their infliction, no account-giving, and no judgment seat — God simply poured out His judgments upon them as wicked beings, and that is what He has designed for all who are outside Christ.
What is the origin of the teaching I am combatting? It originates in the moral sentiments, which constitute part of the thinking of the flesh, and which are blind until instructed by the intellectual faculties. Hence it is that those who believe with brother Roberts exhibit such a great amount of moral indignation in support of their contention. But the same moral indignation has been exhibited in time past as the foundation of other and more egregious errors. When life only in Christ was proclaimed, some years ago, it aroused the same kind of moral indignation. From whom? From believers in eternal torments, who also said it was a most demoralizing thing to affirm that men who had committed all manner of enormities — drunkenness, theft and even murder — should absolutely perish without being brought before a judgment seat, supposed to be provided for the whole human race. This, we are told, was most demoralizing. Is that any evidence or argument that God has so designed it? Neither is such reasoning evidence upon this occasion. Life only in Christ and resurrection only through Christ stand upon precisely the same basis. Life only in Christ is through his redemptive work, and resurrection only through Christ is likewise through his redemptive work. Life only in Christ is bestowed on the basis of that redemptive work, and resurrection is also put into operation on the same basis. Christ was a forerunner in regard to both. A forerunner of all who have been justified from sin, in being raised from the dead; and a forerunner of the faithful portion in being the recipient of immortality. To those who never partake of justification from sin he can clearly be no forerunner, because they are left in Adam; they are never transferred into Christ. Those who come into him enter upon a probation as he did. He was brought from the dead on the basis of his redemptive work, and so will they, all of them; the one class to receive immortality, and the other to receive condemnation. Those who are outside that redemptive work cannot come forth. They are in Adam. Christ has never “bought” them. They never come within the scope of his blood, and therefore he is not their Lord to judge them. The power given to him over all flesh is a power to be exercised when he comes to take possession of his inheritance; power over all flesh then living on the inheritance; and he will exercise it by pouring out judgments on the wicked in this life, not by resurrection from the dead. All who died in Adam have come under the operation of a law which God decreed in the first instance; and there they are left. Whereas probationers come forth, and he asks them how they have acted since they became his. They are servants, and the fact that servants knew, and are brought before the judgment seat in order to give an account, is no evidence that those who are not servants will also be brought before that judgment seat to give any account.
The mere use of the word “know” taken from its context, is no evidence in regard to those outside Christ. We must confine passages of Scripture to those to whom they are related, otherwise we shall fearfully mangle them.
End of Second Night of Debate
