Most Unamended Christadelphian
households recently received a booklet entitled Advocatism Exposed.
The two authors of the booklet were members of the Unamended community for
The title of their booklet reveals their intent and it might
be a noble venture were it not for the fact that they are proceeding without a
thorough knowledge of the history of the differences between the Amended and
Unamended communities. As far as the matter of exposing the position of the
Unamended goes, there have been copious works seeking to accomplish that end
undertaken by the Amended brethren for a century now. In fact, they quoted from
some of those attempts; therefore, they seem to have felt that those works fell
short of the intended goal.
On page VI of the "Introduction" under the
sub-heading, “The Goal," the primary intent of the youthful authors is
exposed. They wish to establish the infallibility of Brother John Thomas, who,
as they say, was God's instrument in bringing the truth to light in these latter
days. We believe that without exception, the Unamended Christadelphians are
united in their respect for the works of Brother Thomas. This respect extends to
the point of believing him and adhering to his admonition as he carefully points
out to his readers to read his works with Bible in hand (Elpis Israel
Page xx of the author's preface). He also admonished his readers to try his
writings by the facts (Elpis Israel p. 282). We believe him and respect
his statement when he said "I claim no divine and miraculous
inspiration" (Eureka Vol iii p. vi of the Preface). To do otherwise
is to dishonor the memory of this noble brother. We believe that God chose him
for his honesty and ability to find and recognize saving truth as he encountered
it. We know, however, that if he had been inspired, such inspiration would have
been revealed to him and he would never have offered such a disclaimer.
Notice also that the authors did not attempt to show the
Unamended to be in error by comparing our position with the Scriptures. They
sought to disprove us by the writings of fallible brethren and their dealings
with certain passages. That is not good Scriptural exegesis.
The authors speak of the understanding of these issues in
1871. Why 1871? The answer to that question reveals the source of the problem.
That is the year Brother Thomas died. In other words, there is resentment
against any variation from anything he may have said or written. Also, the
Unamended are accused by these authors of attacking Brother Thomas in order to
If brethren had not been under attack unnecessarily, it would
not have been necessary ever to mention the fact that Brother Thomas was not
inspired. In order to offset a wrong argument, it sometimes becomes necessary to
show why something that is contended for cannot be accepted. Thus, brethren have
had to prove that our noble Brother does not present the same accuracy as is
found in the Bible. Let it be noticed that in their efforts, the two young
authors have stridently attacked the credibility of Brethren Andrew and
Williams. That, surely, is for the same purpose, is it not? But Brethren Andrew
and Williams are not their favorite pioneers, therefore they seem to feel that
their utilization of the same tactic and motive is noble while ours is not.
The authors seek to establish the idea that all of the
brethren who were involved in initiating the amendment, and/or have agreed to
it, have been honestly consistent throughout the history of the truth's revival.
Also, Brother Andrew is accused of departing on issues on which the brethren had
previously been in complete agreement. That accusation is completely false. We
will consider the two following questions:
1. Did the favorite pioneers of the two authors ever change
their position on anything they had previously written?
2. Have Brother Thomas or Brother Roberts, and those who
allied themselves with Brother Roberts in the controversies remained consistent
with all of their earlier teachings?
In the following pages, the answer to both these questions
will become obvious. That answer will, no doubt, be surprising to our young
critics, but the truth of the matter must be proven beyond a doubt. Let us take
note of Brother Thomas first. We regretfully mention these things, and we do so
only because we have been forced to prove that our Brother was not as accurate
as is the Bible.
The Nature of the Resurrection-Body.
On page xxiv of Elpis Israel we find the
"Publishers Notes." In the 6th paragraph is a reference to the fact
that Brother Thomas, in the original edition of the book, had taught that the
nature of the resurrection-body was to be immortal and incorruptible. Although,
in the preface to the fourth edition, Brother Thomas mentioned his change of
belief, it was up to the publisher's of the 1958 edition to make the change as
noted in that 6th paragraph. Also, let it be noticed that the fourteenth edition
of 1958 was revised. Throughout the last 10 editions, the work has been changed
until it no longer reflects some of the problems which once existed in the work.
The publishers even called attention to a number of the former problems that had
to be changed, although they admit they left some of them intact. Therefore, it
is established that Brother Thomas changed his mind on this issue, as well as on
If, in fact, Brother Andrew changed his views as the authors
allege, did he not have the right to exercise the same prerogative that Brother
On page xxiv of the "Authors Preface," Brother
Thomas reveals that he himself made emendations in order to "place this
revise in accord with the author's latest work ... " This reveals that he
changed his view on a number of things. Should he be excused while Brother
Andrew is to be blamed?
Brother Thomas admirably changed his mind on another matter,
that of the two legs of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. In Elpis
Israel p. 324-325, he identified two of the divisions of Alexander's empire
as the two legs of that image. However, about 15 years later, he identified the
eastern and western divisions of the Roman Empire as the legs of the image. See Eureka
Vol. II p. 382-383, 3 Vol. set. So we see that is it is folly to point to the
writings of a fallible man as the final word on any matter. One person could
point to the statement in Elpis Israel as proof of his favorite
interpretation, while another points to the one in Eureka as proof of
his. Therefore, Brother Thomas is placed in opposition to Brother Thomas. What
folly that would be. We insist that our position be tested by the Scriptures,
not by the writings of other brethren.
Brother Roberts also changed his mind on several matters
during his lifetime. For instance, there is the matter of whether or not there
is "legal" deliverance from the Adamic sentence at Baptism. Their
booklet makes much of this matter while laying the fault entirely at Brother
Andrew's door. So, let us notice Brother Roberts in the Christadelphian
Vol. 15 (1878), page 225 which is spread before me as I write:
"ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS BAPTISM AND THE ADAMIC
G. A. B. (C)--Legally, a man is freed from
Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of
sins; but actually, its effects remain till "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." The case is parallel with what takes place between two nations
at war who arrive at terms of peace. As soon as the treaty is signed, they are
legally at peace, yet the effects of the war are not at once ended, for the
forces of the one remain in the territories of the other until the ratification
of the treaty and arrival of the date fixed for evacuation. Peace between God
and the disobedient is signed, so to speak, when the believing sinner submits to
the righteousness of God in being baptized into the death of His Son; but
war measures are not entirely withdrawn until
the reconciliation is ratified at the judgment
seat of Christ. For further remarks, see the
Christadelphian, July, 1874, page 337 "Condemnation
and Mortality." End of Quotation.
Here Brother Roberts clearly sets
forth a two-fold reason for needing reconciliation
to God -1. legal and 2. disobedience. This
is exactly what the Unamended (Advocatism so
called) are blamed for teaching. Who has
been consistent? Brother Roberts? Hardly! Remember
that the authors on page 80 denied
that Brother Roberts ever taught a legal deliverance
at baptism. The above quotation proves them
On the last night of the
debate, Brother Andrew reminded Brother Roberts
of the above article. Being somewhat embarrassed,
Brother Roberts admitted that he had written
that, then backed off from the term
"legally." In reality, the deletion of
the term, "legally," renders the whole
statement unacceptable to both the Amended and
the Unamended since it teaches a gross error
that neither would accept. At least, the
term, "legally," confines the meaning of
"Adamic Condemnation" to only a portion of
what the sentence entails. Remove the term
"legally,” and one would have to understand
that Brother Roberts believed and taught
the removal of the entirety of the effects
of the Adamic sentence at baptism. No!
He did not wish to be understood
in that manner. One should try to understand
his remarks regarding the similarity with nations
at war without the aspect of legality,
and, see how much sense one can make
of his remarks. By seeking to draw back
from the term "legally" in order to
hide the fact that he was the one
who had changed, he did not notice the
error he was suggesting; a worse error than
the ones he accused Brother Andrew of
believing and teaching.
In questions 688 and 689 of the
debate, Brother Roberts says he must have
gotten the term, "legally," from Brother
Andrew without realizing where the idea
would lead. However, Brother Roberts had set
in type an article by Brother Thomas in
1873, where Brother Thomas taught that Christ,
as the antitype of Aaron, had to legally
"put off” his ordinary attire in order
to "put on" the antitypical priestly
garments. Is it not obvious that he got
that truth from Brother Thomas? That article
is entitled Aaron and Christ and is quoted
later in this response.
Question #691 of the debate reveals
two other issues to which Brother Roberts
had to agree because of what he had previously
written. Notice that the two issues (1.
wiping out of an aspect of Adamic condemnation
at baptism, and, 2. passing out of
Adam into Christ), are matters against which
the young authors have labored in Advocatism
Exposed. Yet, Brother Roberts had abandoned
them leaving them "dangling in mid-air."
However, after the debate when the pressure
was off, Brother Roberts proceeded as though
these admissions were never made, even
claiming in the "Preface" (which was
written after the debate) that he had never
departed from those principles. Everyone who reads
the debate can clearly see that he contended
against those principles nearly all the way
through the debate ... Notice Question #691:
Brother Andrew asks: "What is
wiped out?" Brother Roberts' answer: "Everything
that stands against us in any way whether
from Adam or ourselves."
Question #692: - "Then there is a
passing out of Adam into Christ at baptism?"
Brother Roberts answers: "Certainly."
Question #693: "When a man passes into Christ, what has
he in Adam that he loses when he passes into Christ?" Brother Roberts'
answer: "His relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam
introduced. There is preliminary deliverance at baptism, but it is not actual
till the resurrection."
Is it not now obvious that Brother Roberts was forced to
admit to the very doctrines that "Advocatism" professes because of the
fact that he originally believed and taught the same thing! The two authors are
mistaken as they seek to show that unchangeable, solid rock on which their
favorite pioneers stood while seeking to show the sand upon which they feel
"Advocatism" is built. Actually, the Unamended endorse the
admissions that Brother Roberts made in the answers to those three questions.
Notice also the quotations that were made in their "expose," as they
quoted the later writings of Brother Roberts. This shows that even though he was
caught in a tight spot and made those admissions, he continued after the debate
as though he had not made them.
OUT OF ADAM INTO CHRIST
There has been constant warfare against the Unamended
community because of their position regarding the question of whether or not one
passes out of Adam and into Christ at baptism. Who changed? Was it Brethren
Andrew and Thomas? Was it Brother Roberts? As far as this writer can ascertain,
Brother Thomas never changed his view on it. However, it cannot be denied that
Brother Roberts did and we shall demonstrate that truth with quotations which
clearly tell the story. First, Brother Thomas:
Elpis Israel pages 126-137 Brother Thomas considers two
separate constitutions which he styles 1. THE CONSTITUTION OF SIN, and 2. THE
CONSTITUTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ... On page 132 Brother Thomas says -- "The
two Adams are two federal chiefs; the first being figurative of the second in
these relations. All sinners are in he first Adam; and all the righteous are in
the second, only on a different principle. Sinners were in the loins of the
first when he transgressed; but not in the loins of the latter when he was
obedient unto death." In the next paragraph, Brother Thomas quotes I Cor.
15:21-22 in connection with the principle.
What do the phrases "in Adam" and "in
Christ" mean? Brother Thomas explains his understanding in Elpis Israel,
"The reader knows what it is to be in a house, and he is
aware that he must pass into it before he can be in it. This is the literal.
Now, suppose we call the house a man; and in answer to the question, 'where is
he?' we say hi is in the man, this would be to speak figuratively, but still
scripturally and intelligibly. Before, however, a person or a nation, or a
multitude of nations could be said to be in the man Abraham, and in the man
Jesus Christ, it is equally clear that they must pass into Abraham and into
Christ. Now although many nations may literally come out of one man, a multitude
of nations cannot literally be packed into one man. When, therefore, nations and
individuals are said to be in Abraham and in Christ, it is manifest that it must
be in a figurative sense. Hence, 'in thee,' 'in him,' and 'in Christ' are
figurative expressions, or terms of constitution...."
ROBERT ROBERTS: We have already
seen from the quotations in the debate
that Brother Roberts admitted to a passing out
of Adam into Christ, because it was proved
in his hearing that he once taught it.
In Christandom Astray, page 409 of the
Logos edition Brother Roberts wrote:
"There are other similar references
to baptism throughout the epistles; but
these are sufficient to show that whatever
may be the difficulty of modern professing
Christians in discovering any significance or
efficacy in the ordinance of baptism, the
apostles saw much in both. They recognized
in it a CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION FROM ONE
RELATIONSHIP TO ANOTHER, -- A REPRESENTATIVE PUTTING
OFF OF THE OLD MAN, OR ADAMIC NATURE,
AND A PUTTING ON THE NEW MAN, OR
CHRIST, WHO IS THE ONE COVERING NAME."
(Emphasis is added).
Now, where is the condemnation
that should be forthcoming from the authors
against Brother Roberts for writing so much
like “Advocatism"? Let us listen closely
and see that it doesn't come forth, for
he is touted in their booklet as a
champion of opposition to Unamended teachings.
We often hear a denial of the fact that Brother Thomas
believed and taught that there was a passing out of Adam when one enters into
Christ at baptism. It is a known fact that Brother Thomas visited personally
with Brother Roberts on several occasions. Brother Roberts knew his mind on
these matters and for a while placed his own understanding in harmony with
Brother Thomas’ view. The principle is present in
Brother Thomas' writings but the exact expression
is not found as far as this writer
has been able to discover. Since he so
clearly set forth the principle, it is
folly to deny the fact because he didn't
say it in the very words some would
demand to see.
There are many more references
that could be produced; however, we can
afford room or only a few in each category.
We move on now to the matter of:
Psa. 58:3--"The wicked are ESTRANGED
from the womb ... "
What is the difference between
alienation and estrangement? Can it be denied
that they are synonyms? Who are the wicked?
Does not Brother Thomas clearly show in
Elpis Israel, pages 126-131, that all who
are born into "the constitution of sin"
are classed as "sinners." Are they not
the wicked? Anyone who is not classed as
righteous by virtue of having entered "the
constitution of righteousness" is considered to
be "the wicked." Since a baby cannot
literally "go astray as soon as they
are born, speaking lies," the Psalmist is
here speaking of the qualities of the flesh
that is inherent in even a new-born infant.
They "are estranged from the womb" says
the inspired Psalmist. It isn't so protests the
opposers of the truth. “Advocatism" is
hereby shown to speak in harmony with divine
inspiration. Who shall we believe? The answer
to that question should be abundantly clear
to us all.
It cannot be said that this
estrangement or alienation is caused by personal
sins as Amended brethren claim in the case
with the so-called rejector. It would be
a very strange thing if God should charge
an infant with transgressing His laws, of
which the infant can know nothing. Even
the Amended brethren teach that "a
man must know of the command to be
baptized before he becomes a rejector of the
word." Surely then, a newborn infant cannot
have received "light" in order to be
accountable for personal sin.
On page 76 the authors made
claim that the subject of alienation was
mentioned in the Old Testament only in Ezek.
23:18. We see now that the concept is
found in Isa. 58:3 and is certainly not
a reference to a state of mind. Of necessity
then, the estrangement in Psa. 58:3 refers
to alienation as a result of natural birth,
the same event that causes God to require
a cleansing ceremony even for mothers who were
defiled by giving birth to a body of condemned,
unclean flesh (Lev. 12th chapter). Can a
thing be defiled or unclean and have
access to the things of God without first
availing itself of God's method of being
considered clean by the Deity?
Among the Amended brethren there
is an absolute refusal to admit that anything
that in any way is defiled or unclean
is in need of an atonement (covering).
That lesson was taught in the Law all
the way through particularly from Lev.
8th through the 15th chapters. Let no one
say that it was just a matter of
healing the condition, as Amended brethren say
concerning the unclean flesh of sin and
saying that a change of nature is all
that is needed. In every instance from Lev.
8th through 15th chapters, even after the
condition was healed, a typical cleansing was
ordered to be effected. After that, the
person was considered to be clean and was
allowed once again to enter in among the
Notice that throughout Lev. 14
there is an often repeated phrase regarding
the person who contacted defilement. That phrase
is "he that is to be cleansed."
Now, Amended brethren insist that all we
need is to change our nature at the
return of Christ, that no typical
cleansing is needed before that time. In
that case, do we understand the phrase
"he that is to be cleansed" to
mean "he that is to be
immortalized"? That would be absurd since,
as long as the uncleanness continued, the
person was quarantined outside the camp, and
could not rejoin the encampment until his
typical cleansing was completed. If the
only cleansing needed is immortality, the individual
had to wait for the return of Christ
before rejoining the encampment of Israel.
Surely, he would be dead before that
time. Can we not see the disregard with
which God's types and shadows have been
treated by the Amended brethren?
This brings up an interesting,
vital point. On page 32 the authors charge-“Williams
and Andrew used shadows and types instead
of using established doctrine to uncover the
types." That charge is absolutely untrue.
Let us have a little fairness as we proceed.
We have shown, and will continue showing,
that the "new departures" Brother Andrew
was accused of fathering, were doctrines
that had been taught by the other pioneers
of the Truth's revival prior to Brother
Andrew's alleged departure. The major change in
Brother Andrew's understanding was that the
so-called rejector would not rise to judgment
at any time, rather than at the end
of the millennium as he formerly believed.
Now, regarding "shadows and types,"
did not the Apostle Paul masterfully use
the shadows and types of the law
in order to carry the Hebrew believers
on to perfection or better understanding? One
could have charged Paul with using shadows
and types to establish doctrine. No, he
did not, but he did make masterful use
of them to unfold the truths that
were embodied in the shadows and types
of the law. The authors parrot Brother
Roberts in saying that Brother Andrew, by
comparing Old Testament types with New Testament
antitypes, was "putting new wine in old
bottles." If this is a fair statement,
the Apostle Paul must be said to have
also been putting new wine in old bottles
when he did the same thing.
Have our young brethren, who authored
the booklet we are responding to, read
the Law of Moses by Bother Roberts? Did he
not do the same thing Paul did; the
same thing Brethren Williams and Andrew did
in utilizing the shadows and types?
Therefore, it should not matter whether it
was Paul, or Brethren Roberts, Williams or
Andrew who pointed to the truths involving
the shadows and types of the Law. Truth
is truth, in whichever way it is established
THE PIONEERS ON ALIENATION
Elpis Israel page 131--Brother Thomas
writes: "Now, the Kingdom of God has
a constitution as well as the Kingdom of
Satan .... Before sinners come under it,
they are characterized as 'without Christ, being
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise, having
no hope and without God (& atheoi,
atheists) in the world'. They are termed
'FAR OFF,' STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, walking in
the vanity of their minds ... "
(Emphasis is added).
Comment: The claim is nearly always
made by the Amended brethren that since
Brother Thomas refers to the sinful walk
of those who were "afar off," "strangers
and foreigners" that he was teaching that
they were in that condition because they
were walking in vanity with their understanding
darkened, etc. That view holds no logic
whatever. Brother Thomas simply refers to the
way they proceeded through life in that
"far off" condition. Would anyone assert
that there was ever a time when those to
whom he refers did not have their understanding
darkened? Were they not born without understanding?
Was there ever a time since their birth
that they had been "nigh" to God;
a time when they had not been "far
off," "strangers and foreigners" If
anyone would so assert that there was
such a time, please tell us when that
was and how it came to be so?
Christendom Astray p. 113-“Jewish responsibility
was greater than that of the CAST OFF
descendants of the rejected groundling of Eden."
(Emphasis is added).
Christendom Astray p. 115 (Logos ed.)
... "The endeavor is to realize, in
the light of reason and Scripture testimony,
the varying shades of responsibility created by
the dealings of the Almighty with A
RACE ALREADY EXILED FROM LIFE AND FAVOR UNDER
THE LAW OF EDEN." (Emphasis is
Comment: Would anyone assert that
Brother Roberts would have said that those
"cast Off descendants were not "cast
off” at the time of their birth; that
they individually became cast off because of
something they had done? Did he not say
in the above paragraph that they were
exiled under the law of Eden? Wasn't that
before even one of those cast off descendants
The Christadelphian Vol. 15 (1878)
p. 225---" ...As soon as the treaty
is signed, they are LEGALLY at peace.”
(Emphasis is added.) Remember that Brother Roberts
was comparing the circumstance of a person entering
Christ (changing his former condition) with the
circumstance of nations at war. Brother Roberts
in the Ambassador (later named the Christadelphian)
Vol. III p. 97 (1866):
"In the order of nature, A
MAN IS BORN INTO THE POSITION OF ADAM,
WHEN CONDEMNED TO RETURN TO THE GROUND, In
this condition, he is an OUT-CAST in
every sense; both as regards present
relation to the Almighty and future destiny.
HE IS AN EXILE AND AN ALIEN; a
mere groundling, existing under a law (of sin
and death) which sends him to his original
nothingness. This is the natural condition
of the race as a whole." (Emphasis is
Comment: This was written and published
by Brother Roberts in response to a
correspondent in 1866 prior to 1871. Now,
who changed his view!
Ways of Providence p. 210 of
the original edition: "A man has not
learnt the ways of God who does not
recognize that most of His dealings with
the children of men in the present
STATE OF RACIAL ALIENATION are performed with
gloved hands." (Emphasis is added).
In 1887 Brother A. T. Janaway
published a book entitled 'Worship in Relation
To The Alien." It was "Republished from
the pages of the Christadelphian, with emendations."
Brother Williams referred to this booklet on
page 255 of the September 1908 Advocate.
Note the following from page 4:
"Apart from divine guidance, the
mind of man inevitably works in a way baneful
to himself and displeasing to God. 'There
is a way that seemeth right unto a
man, but the end thereof are the ways
of death.' Of this we have much Bible
proof. Adam discovered it at the expense
of his life; and the law of sin
and death instituted at the time of
the transgression has brought the lesson
down to us. * * * Man was originally made
upright, but he has since 'sought out many
inventions.' Through rebellion at the outset of
his career, HE SEPARATED HIMSELF from divine
favor and intercourse, and became physically
and mentally impure. (Emphasis added).
"The Scriptures are exceedingly emphatic
with regard to the present NATURAL CONDITION
OF MAN. They define it as one of
ALIENATION FROM GOD (Col. 1:21), of WRATH AND
DEATH (Eph. 2:1)." (Emphasis is added).
We could go on and on, quoting
many volumes of pioneer writings with further
proofs that the beliefs of Brethren Andrew
and Williams regarding alienation and reconciliation
were held and propounded by the pioneers
from the beginning of the restoration of
the Truth in the last century up
until just before the turn of the century.
Why do you not find all
of the proofs as to the first proclamations
of the pioneer brethren that we are quoting.
First, not many brethren and sisters have
the old copies of the monthly periodicals
from the last century. Secondly, the brethren
who were involved in amending the Statement
of Faith have gone through and removed
many of the statements these pioneers had
previously made in order to obscure the
truth that they were the ones who had
changed on these issues. It is no wonder that
the two young authors did not find those
works in order to write the things
that are true. They did not have access
This is another area in which the authors have not been fair
with their former Unamended brethren. This is, no doubt, partly due to their
youth, and also because they lack a clear understanding of the issue.
Notice that on page 33 they quote Brother Thomas’ statement
that "original sin is sin in the flesh" and that it is
hereditary. We certainly agree with that
statement as long as one recognizes, as the pioneer
brethren clearly did show that there are further
consequences in possessing sin in the flesh than merely
being sentenced to die.
The authors on page 33, quote
Brother Thomas from pages 128-129 of Elpis
Israel: "If original sin, which is in
facts in the flesh, were neutralized, then all
'baptismally regenerated' babes ought to live
forever as Adam would have done had he
eaten of the tree of life after he
had sinned. But they die; which is proof
that the 'regeneration' does not 'cure their souls,'
and is, therefore, mere theological quackery."
Brethren and sisters in the truth,
we strongly object to the quotation of
this statement in reference to Unamended
doctrine and the comparison of it with
the statement of Brother Andrew in the
next paragraph. This is the same lack of
fairness toward the Unamended position that Brethren
Williams and Andrew encountered in their day.
Let us first point out that
in the quotation, Brother Thomas is not
referring to the matter of atonement for
the natural state of man. Neither is he
referring to the matter of atonement for
past personal sins. He is referring to
the Catholic belief that they can "neutralize"
Original sin in infants when they baptize
them. When have these two authors ever
read a heard a Christadelphian of any fellowship
assert that sin in the flesh is "neutralized"
by baptism? When Brother Roberts taught in
the Law of Moses on page 237 that
the children of Israel had to offer for
their "unclean state as the death-doomed
children of Adam" in order to approach the
Deity did he teach that they were "neutralizing"
that condition? No! and no a thousand more times. Neutralizing
a thing and getting atonement (covering) for it are two very different
From Vol. I, pages 301-304, of Eureka, Vol. I, the 3
volume set, Brother Thomas enumerates 13 principles which he knew the clergy
would oppose. We shall quote Number 12 in part:
"The apostles taught THAT DEATH HAD BEEN CANCELED and
immortality, that is, deathlessness, or life and incorruptibility,
brought to light by Jesus Christ in the gospel of the Kingdom, --THAT THE
WRITING OF DEATH AGAINST THE SAINTS HAD BEEN CROSSED, OR BLOTTED OUT; and
incorruptibility of body and life for them procured by his resurrection as the
earnest of theirs 2 Tim. 1:10...." (Emphasis added)
Did any Unamended speaker or writer ever come this close to
saying that original sin had been neutralized! We shall be more fair with
Brother Thomas than the authors are with us. We know that he meant no such
thing. Can there be any doubt that Brother Thomas was referring to the
"legal" effect of the sentence, a concept that was believed and
preached from the moment of the truth's revival? To deny that fact is to charge
Brother Thomas with teaching the error that, since the death of Christ, death
and the grave have literally been abolished. There is no way of escaping the
truth of this matter. It is more honest to admit to being mistaken than to
charge Brother Thomas with such folly.
PUTTING OFF THE OLD MAN
The way the authors have dealt with the subject of putting
off the old man with his deeds causes them to miss the truth. On page 37 of
their booklet they quote a couple of paragraphs from Brother John Thomas where
he discourses on the "body of the sins of the flesh." The passages
which Brother Thomas cites are Col. 1:9; Eph. 4:22. In neither of the two
passages does the whole phrase "the body of the sins of the
flesh" occur in the Greek manuscripts. The two words "sins of”
are known to have been added by the translators. Brother Thomas was apparently
unaware of this and so set out to explain the meaning of the phrase as though
Paul had actually written the passage as it appears in the Authorized Version.
The authors surely must have known this, yet, they proceeded as though the
phrase is a part of the inspired Scriptures.
To assert that the "body of the sins of the flesh"
means the collective sins of an individual makes Paul remark in Col. 3:9 that
the Colossian brethren had put off the deeds of the old man with his deeds. Now
that is absurd! Two principles are present in the passage:
1. The old man.
2. His deeds.
Brother Roberts, who at first stayed as close to the
teachings of Brother Thomas as a man possibly could, realized the truth of this
matter and freely taught it. On page 409 of Christendom Astray (Logos
Ed.) he wrote:
"There are other similar references to baptism
throughout the epistles, but these are sufficient to shew that whatever may be
the difficulty of modern professing Christians in discovering any significance
or efficacy in the ordinance of baptism, the Apostles saw much of both. They
recognized in it a CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION FROM ONE RELATIONSHIP TO
ANOTHER, --A REPRESENTATIVE PUTTING OFF OF THE OLD MAN, OR ADAMIC NATURE and a
PUTTING ON of the new man, or Christ, who is the one COVERING NAME, in which
when the naked son of Adam is invested, he stands clothed before Jehovah and is
approved in His sight. Of course, this effect is imputative; that is to say, it
is not brought about by the mere act of submersion in water which in itself has
no religious virtue what: ever, but is the result recognized by God when the act
is performed in connection with an intelligent apprehension and affectionate
belief of the truth." (Emphasis is added.)
On page 412 he says--"But when the word was absent from
the mind, the cleansing element was wanting, and the subject of the rite was
The Christadelphian Vol. 10 p. 500--Brother Thomas, in
article entitled "Aaron and Christ," writes concerning how Christ
typically put on the priestly attire. He says--"He was not permitted to
officiate as high priest in his ORDINARY ATTIRE. He must 'put off and 'put on'
the holy linen robe; and had he put this on without bathing his flesh in water
and proceeded to officiate, this unbaptized high priest of Israel would have
been struck with death. When LEGALLY (emphasis added) invested and arrayed, the
Aaronic high priest was 'holiness to Jehovah.’ ”
When Brother Thomas says that the high priest must "put
off' and "put on," what does he mean! We know that by "put
on," he means the priestly robes of which he speaks. But what is put off?
He had just stated that the high priest was prevented from officiating in his
"ordinary attire." Is there any doubt that Brother Thomas speaks in
legal terms here; a concept he mentioned more than once in the article? He says
that this must be "put off." Then he speaks of "putting
on" robes of righteousness. Surely we cannot ignore Col. 3:9 as we consider
this, for Brother Thomas is considering that very concept. The old man is the
ordinary attire, the Adamic constitution. The new man is Christ, for that is
where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free etc. (Gal. 3:26-29).
Every argument we have examined from Advocatism Exposed so
far has been shown to portray a wrong understanding on the part of its authors;
that their reasoning has been fallacious throughout. The pioneers of the last
century have so far agreed with every belief of Brother Andrew, making it
obvious that it was not he who had the change of mind.
THE LEGAL ASPECT 0F THE SENTENCE
One is surely astonished to see such a brisk attack in Advocatism
Exposed against the idea that there was in any way a "legal"
aspect of the sentence which was placed upon Adam. Of course, it is obvious that
during the several months of preparing the booklet, they were caught up in the
spirit of the Amended aversion toward any teachings similar to what they term
"Andrewism." Was the matter of a "legal" aspect of the
sentence peculiar to Brethren Andrew and Williams? Did the concept originate
with them near the turn of the century? Let us see.
It should be clear to all serious students of the Bible that
God has from the outset dealt with his creation through a system of law.
Now how can you have law without dealing with legalities! Rules and commandments
form an important part of any law. The penalties for violations of
rules and commandments involve legalities. Prosecution, execution, abrogation,
condemnation, etc., are all legal terms. Any modification in the sentence
or any related change that is made regarding the terms of the sentence is a
legal matter. Let us see whether the pioneers who are in the favor of the
authors of Advocatism Exposed, were at first as opposed to that
concept as they later came to be.
Brother Roberts: "Legally a man is freed from Adamic
condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives remission of sins"
From the Christadelphian Vol. 15 (1878) p. 225.
Brother Thomas, on pages 131-135 of Elpis Israel compared
citizens of the constitution of sin and those of the constitution of
righteousness with citizens of Britain who wish to become citizens of the United
States of America. One's citizenship has to be in one or the other. He must
either be a citizen of Britain or of the United States. Are we not
speaking of circumstances of birth in this matter? There are many legal
ramifications involved in either remaining in one constitution or becoming a
citizen of the other. One cannot escape the fact that Brother Thomas was very
much aware of the legal aspects of his discourse as he wrote.
Brother Roberts, on page 409 of Christendom Astray (Logos
ed.)--Speaking of baptism, "The apostles recognized in it a constitutional
transition from one relationship to another, --a representative putting off of
the Old Man, or Adam nature, and a putting on of the New Man, or Christ."
It is not possible to read this without recognizing the
legalities involved in it.
The original Declaration---"Baptism ... is the means of
that present (legal) union with Christ" (page 46).
THE STATEMENT OF FAITH: It is a well known fact that Brother
Roberts was responsible for the contents of the Birmingham Statement of Faith.
The authors to whom we are responding made much of Unamended changes, to which
reference is made inside the front cover of the Unamended Statement of Faith. We
invite them to show us one change that has been made that contains anything that
is being used in order to exclude anyone from fellowship at the table of the
Lord. These were changes over which there is no disagreement between Amended and
Unamended fellowships. The change to Proposition xxix removes wording which
might be misused in order to exclude someone from fellowship over the issue. Had
the amendment which was made in 1898 been made for this same purpose the motive
would also have been honorable.
The amendment to the statement teaches a concept that even
various Amended communities do not believe. They surely do not believe that the
so-called rejector is to appear before Christ to "receive for what
he has done, WHETHER IT BE GOOD OR BAD." (Emphasis added). This
writer has never known an Amended brother who believed that the so-called
rejector could receive for good before the judgment-seat of Christ. But
behold, that is what the amendment teaches.
In fact, the above proposition at first read "That at
the appearing of Christ, His servants .. " That proposition had originally
been in the Ambassador, Vol. III, p. 189 and referred to those in
covenant. It was not intended at that time to refer to rejectors of the
Then, there is the matter of Proposition V which, in both
statements of faith, clearly shows that the sentence from Adam
"defiled and became a physical law of his being." But most Amended
brethren reject that concept. Did they amend it! Oh, no! They couldn't amend the
statement again for that would be too obvious. What did they do? Why,
they modified it with what is called the Carter Cooper addendum which says that
the sentence gave Adam and his descendants "a defiled conscience."
That was designed to do away with the original belief of the pioneers
that man was of a defiled nature and in need of atonement for that
defilement. Now notice proposition viii.
"That these promises had reference to Jesus
Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and
who, though wearing the condemned nature was to obtain title to resurrection, by
perfect obedience, and by dying, ABROGATE THE LAW OF CONDEMNATION for himself,
and all who should believe and obey him .... " (Emphasis added).
Consider now, is the term "abrogate" a legal term
or is it not! It is, and it is a synonym for the term "repeal." Did
this abrogation automatically come to bear upon each individual, or must they
somehow bring it to bear upon themselves in an appointed way., The answer is
obvious. If the law was abrogated by his death, it was in a legal sense; not a
literal sense. Was the sentence to die and return to dust repealed by his death
If so, why do even believers still die and return to dust! Apply the
concept to any aspect of the sentence other than a legal aspect, and you find
yourself with a concept that no one believes or accepts. Will this be agreed to
or does the Statement of Faith need further amendments in order to suit the
On page 10 the authors of Advocatism Exposed seek
to deny the truth that eternal death is the lot of Adam's descendants apart from
association with the sacrifice of Christ. They cannot deny that this was also
taught by Brethren Thomas and Roberts, for many statements are prominent in
their works which establish this fact. We have space for perhaps a couple of
Brother Thomas in Elpis Israel, page 131--"Now,
if the Lord God had made no other arrangement than that expressed in the
sentence upon the woman and the man, they and all their posterity in all their
generations would have incessantly gone to dust and there remained
Comment: Since God did make another arrangement, do
people come under the provisions of the "other arrangement"
automatically, or must they do something in order to benefit from it? The
answer obviously is that no one comes under the provisions of the "other
arrangement" automatically. Therefore, one must somehow bring the
arrangement to bear upon oneself. Since this is true, eternal death is the
result of the sentence upon Adam and Eve, unless the terms of the
sentence are somehow abrogated.
Now hear this from Brother Roberts:
Christendom Astray, p. 110 (Logos ed.)--"Abram, the
idolater, was his own--his own to live,
like the insect of the moment-his own
to die and disappear like the
p. III--"By nature children of
wrath, even as others, they were in the
days of their ignorance "without God
and without hope in the world" (Eph.
ii, 12),'Strangers from the covenants of promise'
(ibid.) 'alienated from the life of God
through ignorance that is in them' (Eph.
iv, 18), living without law, and
destined, as a result of that condition, to
perish without law in Adam; INHERITING DEATH
WITHOUT RESURRECTION (emphasis added)-death without
remedy; having neither the privileges nor
the responsibilities of a divine relationship."
Comment: No pioneer ever wrote
more in harmony with Unamended teachings
than Brethren Thomas and Roberts in the
THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT
"NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD." This
is an astonishing section in which the
two authors of Advocatism Exposed clearly stumble
over a very vital truth. In seeking to
refute the truth concerning the blood of
Christ they present a series of references regarding
the offering of the "body" of Christ.
Their reference to the "body” of
Christ is a concerted effort to offset the
validity of Unamended teachings concerning the efficacy
of the blood of Christ.
Do they not know that the
life is in the blood; that Christ's life
was given as a ransom (Lev. 17:11; Matt.
20:28; Mark 10:45)? That life flowed from
him as he "poured out his soul (life)
unto death" (Isa. 53:12). The blood as
a ransom is only half the truth. The
other half lies in the offering of the
body of Christ (himself) I Tim. 2:6.
Consider these questions: When Jesus
instituted the memorial supper did he present
only the bread? He declared "This is
my body" (Matt. 26:26). Did he not
then present the wine; declaring that "this
is my blood of the new testament"
(covenant) in verse 28?
The brethren, in their attempt
to destroy a portion of the truth, took
another portion and set the two portions
against each other. Every week we all partake
of both these emblems of Christ's sacrifice,
and thereby attest to the truth that it
is by the sacrifice of Christ, the whole
person of Christ, the body and the
blood (life) that redemption is made
possible. It would be as logical to seek
to destroy the truth concerning the offering
of the body of Christ as it is to
destroy the truth concerning the importance of
his blood in the matter.
The problem the authors encounter
in their endeavors is the fact that
they are snatching disjointed statements from
the pages of pioneer writings and trying
to twist the Scriptures to fit all
those statements. That cannot be done without
doing violence to precious truths. As we
are demonstrating, some pioneers said some
things earlier in their lives that were
modified as time progressed and, as their
positions changed. We must not seek to
make the Scriptures accommodate all those
DOES THE BLOOD REPRESENT CHRIST'S LIFE OF OBEDIENCE!
The authors claim that the phrase
"the blood of Christ" refers to Christ's
life of obedience unto death. However,
that is only part of the truth. If
we say that this represents all of the
meaning of the phrase "the blood of
the everlasting covenant," then it would
have been unnecessary for Christ's blood to
have flowed forth from his body along with
the water (John 19:34). Suppose Jesus had
submitted to a Jewish stoning to death,
being buried with the blood still in his
veins. Would that have been an acceptable
sacrifice in order for redemption to be
possible? According to the arguments of
these brethren, one would have to answer
in the affirmative. What shall we do then
about Isa. 53:12 and Heb. 9:22? If it
is true that there is no remission
without the shedding of blood, the blood
had to be shed. But these brethren seek
to trivialize the shedding of his blood
in order to conform to their understandings
of the teachings of Brethren Thomas and
Roberts. Notice these quotations :
Brother Thomas: ... "the King
of the Jews will first manifest his presence,
not to the world at large; which will
not know of his being there, or, if
told the fact, would not believe it; but
to those, whom 'the blood of the
covenant' brings before his tribunal." See
Eureka, Vol. III, p. 585.
Comment: Not only does the above
quotation prove that Brother Thomas taught
that it was the blood of the covenant
that brings one before Christ's tribunal; it
also shows that he used the phrase "blood
of the covenant'' in exactly the same manner
and with the same meaning with which Brethren
Andrew and Williams used it.
But suppose for a moment that we
accept the position of the authors which says
that the phrase "the blood of Christ"
means simply his obedience unto death, i.e.,
his sacrifice. When we read in Heb. 13:20
that God raised him by the blood of
the everlasting covenant, does it change anything
to translate that as-"God raised him by
virtue of his obedience unto death, his
sacrifice"? Does it change anything in Heb.
9:12 to understand that he entered into
the holy place after obtaining eternal
redemption by his own blood (sacrifice)? If
he is our forerunner as Heb. 6:20 declares,
then we must also obtain both resurrection
and redemption by means of his sacrifice
the same as he did. If we can believe
that truth, how then can it be taught,
as some do, that resurrection is certain
if light has been acquired by any
man or woman? The brethren have accomplished
nothing with this thrashing about seeking
to change the meaning of the phrase, "the
blood of Christ." After all is
said and done, it still says the same
thing, no matter how you read it.
An Old Testament passage also connects
the blood of the covenant with coming
forth out of the pit. See Zech. 9:11.
Regarding Brother Thomas' statement:
"those, whom the blood of the covenant
brings before his tribunal," this calls
for further comment. We shall presently
show that he taught the appearance of the
so-called rejector at the end of the millennium;
that the judgment-seat of Christ was at
the beginning of that millennium and the blood
of the covenant brings one before it.
The amendment of 1898 represented a change in
The Christadelphian, Vol. 10 p.
232, speaking of personal sins, Brother Roberts
says--- ... "Finally, John, speaking to
the seven churches of the people taken
from every kindred, tongue, and nation, says
of the Lamb, 'He hath washed us from our
sins in his own blood"'--(Rev. 1,5).
Comment: Did Brother Roberts find
the same fault with the Apostle John's
emphasis on the blood of Christ as he
did with Brethren Andrew and Williams in
his booklet The Blood of Christ? We
see that he did not. The authors
quote Brother Roberts in that work on
pages 11-13 of Advocatism Exposed. Also, it
would be acceptable to understand that Christ
washed us from our sins by his sacrifice,
except for the fact that the way in
which that sacrifice is brought to bear
upon each individual is obscured by that
understanding of the matter. Do we not
typically bring his bloodshedding sacrifice to
bear upon us when we symbolically participate
in his death when we are baptized?
Are we not washed from our personal sine?
John says we are in Rev. 1:5.
Are not our bodies also "washed
with pure water" as Paul declares in
Heb. 10:22? Is not a washing done for the
purpose of cleansing? Why would one wash
if not to initiate a cleansing in any
case! If the washing for personal sins
cleanses, why doesn't the washing of the
body represent a typical cleansing of the body?
In this we have the two-fold reason for
baptism as taught by the pioneers, the
Unamended, and denied by the two authors
and the various Amended communities.
Brother Roberts again on the prominence
of the blood in the Christadelphian, Vol.
10 p. 553, (1873):
"The prominence of 'the blood of
Christ’ is due to the symbolism of the
law which converged and terminated in him.
Bloodshedding was its constant feature in
the slaying of animals from the
foundation of the world. This bloodshedding had
two significances, related one to the other,
and both declarative of a fundamental principle
in the relations between God and man,
and illustrated in the death of Christ,
who was slain for us. The first is
that death is the penalty of sin. The
blood is the life (Lev. xvii, 11-14),
and was, therefore, typical of death.
"But it was typical of
more than death: it was typical of A
VIOLENT MANNER OF DEATH; (emphasis added) for
in natural death, the blood is not shed.
Violent death includes death, but death does
not necessarily include violence. Bloodshedding includes
both ideas. But why was it necessary
that both should be thus prominent in the
law? Because death had a double hold upon
those for whom Christ was to die. They
are hereditarily mortal because they inherit:
their being from one who was condemned
to death because elf sin; and THEIR OWN
NUMEROUS OFFENSES RENDER THEM LIABLE TO
A VIOLENT DEATH (emphasis added) decreed by
the law. Christ came under both curses,
and discharged them both by the shedding
of his blood. He came under the
first in being born of the same condemned
stock 'of this man (David's) seed.' He came
under the second in the act of crucifixion;
for the law declared the man 'accursed
of God' (Deut. xxi, 23), who hung on
a tree; and the Spirit in Paul applies this
to Jesus. --(Gal. iii, 13). Hence the shedding
of his blood comes to be expressive of
his whole work, even more completely in
a verbal sense than his death; in as much
as the shedding of his blood tells
us he not only died but died violently.
The literal shedding of his blood by the
nails and spear of Rome was the Spirit's
ritual in the one great offering, connecting
the offering with the slain beasts of
the Mosaic law, and repeating the symbolism
set forth from the beginning in the
shedding of their blood; in the same way
as the rending of the temple vail
coincided with his death---(Matt. xxvii:51). The shedding
of his blood would not have availed had
he not died; and the crimson fluid
would have been of no value to any
human being, had it been caught in a
bottle and preserved, as it oozed from the
lacerated flesh. Its 'preciousness' lay in the
precious results it effected for us by
the favor of God; and its cleansing power
lies not in its physical nature, but in
our spiritual perception of what God
connected with it, and faith in His
assurance of what He will do for
us, if we submit to this vindication of
his way towards men ... "
Comment: Throughout the writings of
the apostles and the writings of brethren
Thomas and Roberts, the phrase blood of
Christ appeared repeatedly. They all used it
in the same manner Brethren Andrew, and
Williams did. No one, including Brethren
Andrew and Williams ever used the phrase
in the sense of touching the literal, crimson
fluid which flowed forth from Christ's body
as he bled. However, because of Brother
Robert's changed position and his need to
cover the fact that he had changed, he
struck out and falsely accused others of
using the phrase in a manner they never
intended. Our young critics have done
the same thing. All should have known
better. It was the fact that Christ
had shed his blood in the course of
being slain after a life of sinless obedience
to God that accomplished the necessary results.
Notice the following article by
Brother Thomas entitled "Aaron and Christ"
in the Christadelphian, Vol. 10, (1873), pages
500-503. We quote the article in part:
"Thus it becometh us to fulfill
"Jehovah (that is 'I shall
be' Ex. iii, 15) said to Moses, 'See
that thou make what thou wast caused to
see, after their pattern, showed thee in
the mount' (Ex. xxv, 40), which things,
Paul says, are only 'the image and shadow
of heavenly things,' as God said to Moses;
and elsewhere he said that the Jews have
the model of the knowledge and of the
truth in the law,' from which, and other
passages that can be adduced, it is evident
that the following proposition is true,
“That the Mosaic system of righteousness
is symbolic of the righteousness of God
in Jesus Christ, Definition: by 'Mosaic system
of righteousness,' is meant, all that is
necessary to sanctify to the purifying
of the flesh, but which could not
free the conscience from sin. To impart
this carnal purification to the worshipper,
a high priest and his household distinct
from the other classes of the Jewish
nation, LEGALLY (Emphasis added) inaugurated and
sanctified, were necessary; also a tabernacle,
sacrifices, washings & c . . Definition: by the
'righteousness of God' is meant a justification
from all past sins, devised and enjoined by God."
To interrupt this quotation for
a moment, would the two brethren charge
Brother Thomas with putting new wine in
old bottles since he did the same thing
Brethren Andrew and Williams are charged with
doing when they applied the principles of
the law to things in Christ? He continues
to do this while adding more of what
is styled by our critics---“the errors of ‘Advocatism.’
” Brother Thomas continues:
"Jesus, being the anointed seed
long promised of God, was, therefore, the
High Priest who was to arise after the
similitude, likeness or order of Melchizedec,
and to sit upon his throne as a
priest upon his throne, and to bear the
glory, --(Zech. vi). This being so, he would
have; at some future time, to occupy the
place formerly occupied by Aaron; and as
the Aaronic inauguration was representative of
the Melchizedec, Jesus had to be consecrated
after the same example or type, that in
so doing, he might antitypically fill the
representation of the law.
"Aaron was forbidden to enter
the most holy place of the tabernacle without
being adorned and glorified with garments of
splendor and holiness, and therefore styled
'holy garments.' Nor was he permitted to enter
even when habited with these, unless he
had been previously baptized, upon pain
of death. The law said 'he shall wash
his flesh in water and so put them
on.' He was not permitted to officiate
as high priest in his ordinary attire.
He must ‘put off’ and 'put on'
the holy linen robe; and had he put
this on without bathing his flesh in water
and proceeded to officiate, this unbaptized high
priest of Israel would have been struck
with death. When LEGALLY (emphasis added)
invested and arrayed, the Aaronic high
priests were 'holiness to Jehovah,' and the
representative of the Holy and just One
in his character and priestly office; though
oftentimes, as in the case of Caiaphas,
by practice of unjust and wicked men. The
symbolism relative to the high priest was
the 'righteousness' to be fulfilled by Jesus
before he could enter upon his functions
by 'the power of an endless life' as
high priest over the household of God,
and afterwards over the twelve tribes of
. . . "Jesus, with the sin
of the world thus defined, rankling in
his flesh, where it was to be condemned
to death when suspended on the cross (Rom.
8, 3), came to John as the 'Ram
of Consecration," that his inwards AND HIS
BODY (emphasis added) might be washed according
to the law,--(Ex. xxix, 17, 22). Both those
representations of the law and the prophets
could not have found their antitype in
Jesus, if in the days of his flesh
he had possessed a holier or purer nature
than those for whom he was bruised
in the heel. His character was spotless;
but as being the seed of the woman,
of whom no clean flesh can be born
(Job xxv,4), and seed of Abraham which is not
immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his mother was flesh and blood (Heb.
ii,14), which Paul styles 'sinful flesh,' or flesh full of sin, a PHYSICAL
QUALITY (emphasis added) or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called
'sin' because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of
transgression. 'God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.' (2 Cor. v,21).
"In this view of the matter, the sin-bearer of the world
indicated was a fit and proper subject of John's baptism of repentance for
remission of sins. The holy and undefiled disposition of Mary's son was granted
to him for repentance, in fulfilling the symbolical righteousness of the
law WHEN HE DESCENDED INTO THE JORDAN (emphasis added) to enter into the
antitypical robe of righteousness, with which he must of necessity be invested
before he could enter into the most holy as high priest, after die order of
" ... But the symbolic righteousness of the Mosaic law
not only required the high priest to put on the holy vestments by having his
body baptized, but it also commanded his household to be baptized into theirs
also ... Aaron and his family were their nation's priestly household; and it was
the office of the high or chief priest to make atonement or reconciliation,
first for himself, then for his household, and lastly for all the congregation
of Israel; but admission into the holy was only permitted to the baptized; they
must bathe their flesh in water, and so put on their holy garments.
Hence, all Israel's priests were immersed persons ...
"Now, Jesus speaking of himself and others, said, Thus
it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.' It is, therefore, necessary for
all 'his house' to do as he did, but with this modification of the significancy
of the deed, namely: he was baptized as the initiative of his own holiness,
sacrificial and priestly; they must be baptized into his ... "
. . . "Shall it be said that it was necessary for the
Melchizedec High Priest, who was innocent of transgression, and who for thirty
years, had enjoyed the favor of God and man, to be immersed in a baptism of
repentance for remission of sins; but that it was not necessary for the
pious, who would compose his household, WHO ARE SINNERS BY NATURE AND PRACTICE?
(emphasis added). Nay if it were indispensable for Jesus to be buried in
water, that he might begin an (official) career of holiness to Jehovah in coming
up out of it, it is infinitely more that all should tread in his
steps of perfect faith and obedience, who would be invested with 'ROBES WASHED
WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB (emphasis added), having their loins girt around
with the girdle of truth and having on the breastplate of righteousness,
and their feet shed with the preparation of the gospel of peace, and in
their hands the helmet of salvation. An immersed High Priest requires an
immersed household. There is one law for both, as there was one baptism for
Jesus and his apostles; on whom, as upon all others of the household, the
necessity is imperative to fulfill all righteousness foreshadowed in Aaron and
his sons. There is no discharge from this necessity for Jew or Gentile; 'for it
behooveth us to fulfill all righteousness."' End of quotation.
We ask the reader's forgiveness for the long quotation but it
would have been unthinkable not to include as much of the article as possible.
As one can clearly see, in this one article published in 1873, Brother
Thomas teaches nearly all of the doctrines that are found in what the two critics
have styled Advocatism. We have seen in this article how Brother
Thomas expertly discoursed on how the types of the law were found in Christ and
his work, in preparation for a probationary life, and entering into the most
holy by means of his own blood; his own sacrifice. We do not think that we will
hear the charge from the authors that he was putting new wine in old bottles;
the charge which was made against Brother Andrew, and which they copied from
Brother Roberts' book entitled Resurrection to Condemnation. If we do
not, we will recognize that the two brethren are respecters of persons. Since
this is not characteristic of God, it must not be characteristic of his servants
THE SECOND DEATH
Brother Thomas explained the phrase "the second
death" in more than one way, as is explained by the two brethren on pages
40- 41. On page 41, however, they deny that baptism can be termed "first
death." For that matter, where do they find a passage in which the phrase
'(first death" appears! Where is a passage where the phrase "first
death" is associated with any death (whether literal or symbolic) that
takes place this side of the judgment-seat of Christ? However, can any
one deny that such a concept is found in the Bible? Although they may wish they
could, they cannot prove to us from the Scriptures that the principle of the
"first death" does not refer to the symbolic death of baptism by which
we are associated with the actual death of Christ. Rom. 6:3-6 certainly
associates baptism with our having died with Christ and taking part in his
sacrifice symbolically. (See also Rom. 6:7, 8, 11; Col. 3:3). They can criticize
Brother Andrew's position, but they cannot disprove it.
We have already offered quotations which prove that
the pioneers originally taught that baptism was the symbolic death of the old
man and the birth of the new man. It cannot be denied that those quotations
prove their awareness of the fact that there was a need for "legally
putting off the old and legally putting on the new." The pioneers clearly
saw a two-fold need for atonement in baptism. Notice again :
The Christadelphian, Vol. 15, p. 225 (1878)--Brother
Roberts wrote: "Legally, a man is freed from the Adamic condemnation
at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of sins ... "
Temple of Ezekiel's Prophecy, 1887 ed, p. 76--"The
provision for baptism, in addition to the provision for sacrifices in the
Temple, would indicate the current existence of these two ordinances. This will
not be a matter of surprise to those who remember that there are two classes of
sins from which the human race needs deliverance. First those to which
men are related by reason of RACIAL DESCENT (Rom. 5:12-14); second,
individual trespasses. IN IMMERSION THERE IS RECOGNITION OF THE FIRST; (emphasis
added) and, by the offering of sacrifice, there is confession of the
Note: The above paragraph no longer appears in Brother
Sulley's book as it appeared in earlier editions. It should be obvious why the
two authors were unable to locate early agreements with Unamended teachings; at
least, not many can be located. Many of the older works have been changed in
order to obscure the fact that it was not Brother Andrew who changed on
several subjects; rather, it was those who initiated the amendment who changed.
The only point on which Brother Andrew clearly changed was his statement that
God could not raise the rejector. This writer knows of only one or two
persons in the entirety of Unamended Christadelphian who is willing to say that
God does not have the prerogative to make an exception if he so chose to do so.
However, it is evident that before the Andrew / Roberts
controversy, the pioneers would not have considered the statement that God could
not raise the so-called rejector, to be placing a limit on the power of God.
Notice the following by Brother Roberts in The Blood of Christ p. 18:
"How can He be so kind and gracious and long suffering,
and permit us to approach Him, without vindicating His righteousness, and
asserting His greatness HE CANNOT; HE DOES NOT." (emphasis added). Brother
Thomas Williams wrote similarly in "Regeneration." We quote from Selected
Works of Thomas Williams, p. 372:
"Why did not God unconditionally and without a process
make one complete sweep and pardon all? We answer, HE COULD NOT. Could not! some
exclaim. No, He could not. God cannot stultifiy His own attributes. He had
decreed that the sin of a federal head should bring death upon all the
descendants of that head; and since this decree was by Divine justice it could
not be set aside by any means out of harmony with Divine justice."
But some brethren point to the miraculous raisings from the
dead in the past. Elijah raised the widows son (I Kings 11:17-24). Jesus raised
Lazarus (John 11:38-44). Paul raised Eutycus (Acts 21:9-12). However, every
single person on whom the miracle of raising from the dead was performed, was at
least under a temporal covenant with God. Where is an instance of God raising up
an uncovenanted Gentile from the dead? Every individual had undergone some kind of
operation or ceremony that resulted in an en- trance into a relationship
with God; and into his law and/or covenant. Further, those were special raisings
apart from the general rule. Those who were raised cannot be said to have
experienced "the" resurrection, for that event is in the future. Note
Brother Thomas Williams' statement from page 177 of Life and Works of Thomas
“The resurrection, as I have set before you tonight, is
really the only resurrection that is worth talking about. I say the resurrection,
so far as that is concerned, has nothing whatever to do with any single
individual except such as are in Covenant with God."
Is it heresy for Brethren Andrew and Williams to say that
"God cannot," while it is true and acceptable for Brother Roberts to
say that "God cannot"? Some seem to think so. However, we shall not at
all agree to that biased and one-sided attitude. There should be no problems in
understanding if we consider such statements (including Brother Andrew's) in the
context in which they are all written.
J. J. Andrew in the Christadelphian, Vol. 10 (1873),
p. 427. This was proofed and set in type by Brother Roberts.
“The third objection (to the free life theory ed.) in
effect affirms that justification is necessary before anyone condemned in
Adam can be placed on probation. This is perfectly correct. But, to comprehend
it we must know what justification means. Justification is of two kinds, typical
and actual; typical justification is the performance of some ceremony
which represents the reality; actual justification consists of a change
of nature--from flesh and blood to spirit ... "
On page 428 Brother Andrew writes concerning the sentence
upon Adam and Eve--" ... so he superseded it by the skins of
animals. Without this or some other mode of justification, the sentence of death
would doubtless have been inflicted upon them immediately, in which case they
would have had no descendants ... he provided them with a provisional
justification which enabled them to appear in his sight ... "
Page 429--"Since the death of Christ the shedding of
blood, either animal or human, has not been necessary in order to effect typical
justification. The blood of Christ having been shed, all that is required
on the part of those desirous of entering a justified state is submission to a
ceremony symbolic of his death and resurrection, by which they
practically acknowledge they are under sentence of death, and that they can only
be relieved from it by the death of Christ ... "
He continues: "God required him to submit to another
mode of justification--one which, unlike circumcision, involved the exercise of
his own free will. This consisted of immersion in water by John the Baptist ...
"The baptism of John was a cleansing ceremony, or means
of justification instituted on account of sin; those who submitted to it
were baptized 'confessing their sins' ---(Matt. iii,6). But Jesus had no sin of
his own to wash away; therefore his immersion must have been on account of
Adam's sin. His submission to it was a practical confession not only that
he was under Adamic condemnation, but that he could not be released from it
until he had died. It was thus to him a type of his future justification. He was
morally pure, but physically impure; and his immersion was a representation of
the mode by which on account of his moral purity, he was to be
One can only shake the head in bewilderment to note that
Brethren Andrew and Roberts worked together in such harmony in 1873 and
continued to do so for another twenty years while Brother Andrew wrote in this
manner, with Brother Robert's approval. As we have seen, what he said in the
above quotations agree perfectly with Brother Thomas' writings concerning Aaron
and Christ. However, after 1894, Brother Roberts strongly opposed all that he
had approved in previous years. This should tell us that there was some other
motive involved than doctrinal difference.
The claim that the brotherhood had been unanimously united in
what is now known as the "Unamended doctrine," except that, some
believed that the rejector would rise for judgment at the end of the millennium
while others did not believe the rejector would rise at all.
Brother John Thomas--writing of those who refuse to come
under a constitution of righteousness to God says: "These are 'the rest of
the dead who live not again till the thousand years are finished.' At the end of
that period they rise, and, commingling with the Gog and Magog rebels, they are
then 'tormented day and night to the age of the ages ... in the post millennial
'lake of fire' which; 'devours' those adversaries. "Herald of the
Kingdom and Age to Come Vol. 4 p. 91.
Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. IV (1867), p.
70--"Rejecters of the word, who do not come under law to Christ by belief
and obedience, may be reserved till the close of the thousand 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 rime when
account is taken of that household would be inappropriate. M ay they not be
dealt with at the end?"
Comment: The series of articles entitled "Judgment
Seat of Christ" from which the above quotation is taken, became part
of Christendom Astray. During the Andrew-Roberts debate Brother Roberts
said that he had changed his mind about that statement. Do the readers
recall that cries that have gone up over Brother Andrew's so-called "change
of mind"? Why is it acceptable for Brother Roberts to have a change of mind
when it is heresy for Brother Andrew to also have a change of mind should he
have done so? Isn't this matter a little one-sided?
TWO CLASSES BEFORE THE JUDGMENT
SEAT OF CHRIST
Brother Thomas in Eureka, Vol. iii, p. 659 --"The
reader will remember that before the judgment-seat of Christ in the wilderness
of Teman, there were TWO CLASSES OF SAINTS IN CHRTST JESUS constitutionally; the
one class consisting of the called, and chosen, and faithful;" or as Paul
styles them in I Cor. Iii,12, 'gold, silver, and precious stones,' which are
made manifest as such in the day when things are revealed by fire; and the other
class consisting of 'the called,' but not ‘chosen' because not 'faithful'; or,
as Paul styles them in the same place, "wood, hay, and stubble."
Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. ii (1865), p.
303--"There are only TWO CLASSES among those who are raised at the
revelation of Israel's king--those who come forth to the resurrection of life,
and those who come forth to the resurrection of condemnation. The first being:
constituents of the Bride, the Lamb's wife, will share with him the
dominion he comes to establish, and be immortal 'kings and priests unto God,' to
reign with Christ a thousand years; the second become subject to 'the second
Brother J. J. Andrew in the Ambassador Vol. iv (1867),
p. 290-291--"Resurrection of two classes ... the just and the
unjust--will be judged by Jesus Christ at his appearing and his kingdom, but we
have also seen that they are all to stand before his judgment-seat to render an
account of their probationary career, before approval or condemnation. To do
this, they must be raised from the dead; so that those two facts are
alone sufficient to prove that the resurrection at the second advent comprises
two classes--the righteous and the wicked." ... p. 291-- ... "Here
then are two classes distinctly spoken of as being raised from he dead at
the second advent ... "
Question: Would Brother Roberts have printed the above
article by Brother Andrew after the year 1894? We know that he would not have
done so, yet they were in agreement from the 1860s into the 1880s. Who
changed? The matter is too obvious to even require an answer.
Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. III (1866), p.
189: "In continuation of the programme sketched out on pages 13-15, of the Ambassador,
(July, 1864), we invite our readers to the consideration of the proposition
contained in the fourth paragraph in the enumeration of 'the things concerning
the kingdom of God,"' viz:
"That at the appearing of Christ. HIS SERVANTS, faithful
and unfaithful, dead and living, of both classes, will be 'judged according to
their works,' and receive in body according to what they have done, whether it
be good or bad." (Emphasis added).
Brother Roberts in the Ambassador Vol. IV (1867) pages
23-24:--"We have seen that resurrectional responsibility was limited
to those who were related to the word of the God of Israel. The promises and
precepts conferred privilege and imposed responsibility, having reference to
resurrection. They formed a basis for that awakening from the dust to
everlasting life, and shame and everlasting contempt, foretold to Daniel, and
implied in many parts of the writings of Job, David and Solomon."
Note: One would have to look long and hard in current
works of Amended Christadelphians to find such teachings. Who has
changed? The Unamended clearly have not, and so, they really do deserve to be
designated by the term "Unamended."
Volumes have been written on both sides of the issue
concerning the responsibility question. From 1983 through the three or four
ensuing years, the Voice of Truth published a number of articles on the
subject, showing what had been originally taught and who changed and became
intolerant of their brethren. There is no need to write more on the subject of
responsibility. The authors have been clearly mistaken as they have read,
copied, and printed charges against what they call Advocatism. We turn,
finally, to their treatment of what they deem to be:
In this section each Scripture which the authors consider to
have been wrested by Unamended brethren is marked off by Roman numerals in the
manner utilized in Advocatism Exposed.
(I) Gal. 3:24-25--"Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."
The two brethren have a rather slanted, private
interpretation of the Greek term Paidagogos which is translated
"schoolmaster" in Gal. 3:24, 25. They seek to give the term another
meaning, one, which cannot be substantiated. Paul clearly said to the Galatian
brethren that the law had been their teacher or instructor. The word is
translated “instructors" in I Cor. 4:15. Also, if one will read the
Second Quarter 1983 Voice of Truth it can be seen from the pen of
Benjamin Wilson, the author and translator of the Diaglott, that Brother Thomas
was instrumental in much of the work of translating that work ... the Diaglott
renders Gal. 8:24 as follows:
"That the law had been our Pedagogue to lead to Christ,
that we might be justified by faith."
No translation (this writer has checked many) renders the
passages, as the authors would like to see it. They all teach that the law was
an instructor, leading to or bringing them, to Christ.
We feel certain that they do not wish to rebuke Brother
Thomas as they are doing with the rest of us. Here is how he understood
Speaking of the law, Brother Thomas writes: "It was
added because of transgressions, 'till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made.’ It was a 'schoolmaster' until Christ; but when 'the
things of the name of Jesus Christ' were manifested for faith, or, as he
expresses it, 'after that faith is come,' Israel is no longer under a
schoolmaster." (Elpis Israel p. 236)
The Ambassador, Vol. IV, p. 23 (1867)--Brother Roberts
writes: "The majority of mankind, particularly in the rude and barbarous
times that required THE SCHOOLMASTER LESSONS of the Mosaic law, were in
circumstances of pure misfortune. Born under condemnation in Adam and left to
the poor resources which in all its history has never originated anything noble
apart from the ideas set in motion by 'revelation,' they were unable to elevate
themselves above the level on which they stood as any tribe of animals"
We must not forget that the two brethren wrote their booklet
to "expose" as they believe, that Advocatism no longer agrees
with Brethren Thomas and Roberts. The above quotations show who no longer agrees
with Brother Thomas, and for the most part, Brother Roberts in the early
days of the truth's revival.
It is surely unthinkable that anyone would deny that the law
was a schoolmaster, an instructor, especially in view of the fact that
the Apostle Paul, throughout his epistle to the Hebrews, demonstrated how the
Mosaic Law had taught by means of types, of Christ and things in Christ. Also,
these authors should well know how Brother Roberts wrote the book, Law of
Moses explaining through several hundred pages how the law of Moses had
taught the principles of truth which were contained in the law. Surely, this is
a new thing under the sun that we are witnessing.
II Rom. 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the
The brethren quote right through the last ten words in the
above passage as though they were part of verse 1. In many Greek manuscripts
those ten words are omitted as they are in the Diaglott. The Scoffield Bible has
a footnote which reads:
"The statement ends with "Christ Jesus." The
last ten words were evidently copied from V. 4, where they properly express the
result of 'no condemnation,' not its cause."
The Revised Standard version omits the ten words and Moffatt’s
translation does as well. Notice Adam Clarke's comment regarding the last ten
"The last clause is wanting in the principle MMS., versions
and fathers. Griesbach has excluded it from the text; and Dr. White says, Certissime
delenda; it should most undoubtedly be expunged. Without it, the passage
reads thus: There is, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in
Christ Jesus; for the law of the Spirit of Life, & c' ... 'this explanatory
clause was added by some copyist ''it does not appear to have made an original
part of the text; and it is most likely that it was inserted here from the
fourth verse."' (Clarke's Commentary, Vol. VI, p. 94).
Although the same ten words appear in verse 4, they do not
belong in Paul's consideration in verse 1. We must, therefore, recognize that in
this chapter, Paul is summing up what he had considered in previous chapters of
this epistle to the Romans. Throughout nearly all of chapter 5 he had considered
condemnation (katakrima) from Adam. Chapters 6 and 7 deal entirely with
personal sins. Therefore, as he begins his summary in chapter 8, he deals with
the matter of Adamic condemnation first, then moves on to the consideration of
We invite the authors to show us where the Greek term, katakrima,
is even once clearly associated with personal sins. If they can furnish us
with even one example, we shall be happy to mail it out for them along with the Voice
of Truth. The truth of the matter is that katakrima only occurs 3
times in the Scriptures. In Rom. 5:16, 18 it is twice shown to have come upon us
as a result of the works of one man, Adam. In the third occurrence (Rom. 8:1) it
is shown that it no longer rests upon those who are in Christ. Paul passes on
from the matter of condemnation from Adam. By verse 4, those nine words
are applicable to the matter he is addressing at that point. If any writer had
the liberty of moving phrases about in a text, from verse to verse, he could
prove just about any proposition he wanted to. "Some copyist" copied
those words from verse 4 because they did not understand the point Paul
was making. Unfortunately, the two authors have encountered the same problem.
The two brethren assert "If we were free from the katakrima
which was the sentence 'dying thou shalt die' we would no longer be
mortal." If the two authors will remember the quotations we have advanced
from the pioneers of the truth, in whom they seem to have much confidence, they
should not fall into that error. The pioneers all originally agreed that there
was preliminary, symbolic deliverance at baptism. God reckoned the symbol to be
sufficient until the real deliverance becomes a fact.
At the end of the next to the last paragraph of that
section, at the top of page 83, the authors admit that there is a way that we
are free from condemnation, adding that we do not have possession of that tree.
In this they show their refusal to accept what all Christadelphians have
always accepted and believed. Some have pulled back from the early conclusions
of the pioneers because they have had a personal axe to grind, so to speak. That
is not sufficient reason to do violence to the Scriptures nor to the early
writings of the pioneers.
(III) Psalms 50:5 "Gather my saints together unto me,
those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."
In this section we find an astonishing thing. After battling
against the idea that the gathered will all be saints, and for many pages
seeking to establish the infallibility of Brother Thomas, the brethren quote him
in the closing paragraph of that section. Notice that the paragraph places
Brother Thomas in perfect harmony with the Unamended position they are seeking
Brother Thomas wrote, "we have not now to do with this;
but with the bema, or Supreme Court, the judicial bench, styled in Rom. 14:10,
and 2 Cor. 5:10 'the Judgment Seat of Christ.' ALL WHO HAVE MADE A COVENANT WITH
YAHWEH BY SACRIFICE, AND IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE WILL BE
GATHERED (Psa. 50:5) AND STAND BEFORE THIS. (Eureka, Logos ed. Vol. 5 p.
234; Vol. III p. 585 of the 3 Vol. set)" (Emphasis added).
We can do no more toward refuting their dealing with this
passage than they did themselves in quoting Brother Thomas, who is shown to be
in perfect harmony with what they style Advocatism. If “Advocatism"
has wrested this Scripture by using it to prove that the "saints"
in Isa. 50:5 are those who will appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,
Brother Thomas also wrested the passage since he placed the same interpretation
on it that we have.
(IV) I Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.":
The quotations we have made from Brother Thomas and others
prove that they taught exactly the same thing that the Unamended has contended
consistently for throughout the years since the Truth's revival regarding the
message contained in that verse.
The authors argue that only persons who shall be subject of
a pardon of life are in view in I Cor. 15th chapter. They seem unaware that
Paul, in verses 12-19, is considering the plight of even the faithful if Christ
has not risen from the dead, a finishing of the work of redemption. Apart from
this work of Christ, Paul is showing that we are without hope. Verse 22 is in
perfect harmony with that consideration and the pioneer brethren originally
taught this truth. In Adam, all die. However, in Christ, since we are not
without hope, all in Christ will be made alive; they who have fallen asleep in
Christ are not perished.
(V) Heb. 13:20--"Now the God of peace, that brought
again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”
Here again the authors have brought themselves into
opposition to Brother Thomas who wrote in harmony with the position of
Advocatism so called. In this matter the authors line up with Brother
Roberts against the position of Brother Thomas. Brother Roberts, in contending
against the teachings of Brother Andrew, took a position regarding which Brother
Thomas had made clear, unambiguous statements. Let us remember that the
quotations we presented proved that Brother Roberts was at first in harmony with
Brother Thomas' position that the so-called rejector of the word would rise at
the end of the thousand years. By the 1890s, however, he had changed his
doctrine regarding what brings one before the tribunal of Christ.
Let us recall the words of Brother Thomas in Eureka, Vol. III, p. 585:
... "The KING OF THE JEWS will first manifest his
presence, not to the world at large; which will not know of his being there, or,
if told the fact, would not believe it; but to those, whom 'the blood of the
covenant' brings before his tribunal ... "
On the same page he shows how some come to this judicial
bench and are turned away in shame. Heb. 13:20 shows how the blood of the
covenant (his sacrifice) brought Jesus out of the grave. Heb. 9:12 shows that
this same blood (of his sacrifice) was necessary for his having obtained eternal
redemption and entrance into the most holy. He is our forerunner (Heb.
6:20). If Christ's sacrifice was the means by which
he himself obtained resurrection and/or immortality,
it is on the same basis that we
will each obtain the same.
Of course, the authors are
insinuating, as Brother Roberts did, that there
are other passages, which circumvent the necessity
of the blood of the covenant in
order to be in the resurrection. This writer
will be most happy to discuss with the
authors, any passage which they think relates
to resurrection apart from Christ's sacrifice,
i.e. symbolic contact with the blood of
(IV) Gen. 2:17 "But of the
tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for
in the day that they eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die."
In 1873 Brother Roberts proofed
and set in type an article to which
we have already called attention. Brother Andrew,
in that article said in reference to
God supplying coats of skins for Adam and
Eve--“Without this or some other mode of
justification, the sentence of death would doubtless
have been inflicted upon them immediately, in
which case they would have had no descendants."
(The Christadelphian, Vol. 10, p. 428).
Brother Roberts was not at all bothered
by their slight difference on the subject
at that time.
This writer subscribes to the position
indicated in the phrase "dying thou
shalt die." I believe that a process was
clearly indicated by these words. Yet, I
do not see any reason to reject the
possibility that there was a secondary meaning
in God's words, as often is the
case. This writer's belief that there was
a process indicated in those words has
no annulling effect upon any of the
teachings of the so-called Advocatism group. Again,
this writer is willing to discuss with
them any annulling effect that they think
this agreement will have on the subject.
(VII) Psa. 49:20--"Man that is
in honor and understandeth not is like
the beasts that perish."
This writer feels that this passage
is not needed to prove the non-resurrectional
responsibility of the rejector. There are so
many more passages which are more to the
point. Frankly, I have never quoted the passage
in connection with that question.
However, the authors say--it is
"an excellent proof that it is by
men's understanding God's law that they become
accountable and responsible to the judgment-seat
of Christ." They further state that "the
man that does understand is not like the
beasts." They cannot prove by the
Scriptures any such proposition.
Is a man who understands and is
not baptized, a son of God, or a
son of Adam? He surely cannot be said to
be a son of God in view of John
1:12. Solomon, in Eccl. 9:3-6, shows that those
who die while being a "son of
Adam" have "no more portion in anything
that is done under the sun." So
first, they must show us how a man ceases
to be a son of Adam by simply knowing
some principles of truth. This they cannot
They end that section with this
statement- "There is a purpose in the fact
that they do not perish as the beasts
for 'there shall be a resurrection of the dead,
both of justified and unjustified ones' (Acts
Can anyone show us in the
passage where Paul said that unjustified ones
who know the truth and are not baptized
will have a resurrection? They assume a
lot in order to get the rejector into
the matter. We know that there are many,
many millions of people on this earth.
How many of that total population have
been justified? There are hardly enough
to notice, are there? How does one who
uses this passage in the manner they do
stop short of universal resurrection? It is impossible
to do so. The earth is mostly populated
by those who have not been justified, and
there are only a few who have. Don't those
two groups make up the total population
of the earth?
There is no (VIII) or (IX)
in their booklet and they have two (Xs).
(X) Rom. 6:6--Col. 3:9-Eph. 4:22-2nd
'knowing this that our old man
is crucified with him, that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin' (Rom. 6:6).
'lie not to one another, seeing
that ye have put off the old man
with his deeds' (Col. 3:9).
'That ye put off concerning the
former conversation the old man which is
corrupt according to deceitful lusts' (Eph. 4:22).
'Therefore, if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old things
are passed away; and behold, all things
are become new' (2nd Corinthians 5:17).
Now they seek to brush all
this away with a simple, erroneous claim that
the phrase "the old man" means the
collective sins of an individual. We dealt
with this earlier and showed the fallacy
of it; also that Brother Thomas disagreed
with it, and Brother Roberts at the first
had opposed it.
Is anyone willing to cast away
sound logic and accept these weak explanations?
Will anyone assert that Paul was saying
in Col. 3:9 that "ye have put off
personal sin along with personal sin's deeds?
What foolishness! Away with such errors as
are being offered to us. Away with the
invitation to let the two brethren who
hold such positions guide us to the
(X) Number two. I Thess. 4:13-14
'Behold I would not have you to be
ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep,
that ye sorrow not, even as others which
have no hope. For if we believe that
Jesus died and rose again, even so
them which sleep in Jesus will God bring
The dead in Christ are assured
a resurrection. Those who are faithful will
be raised; so will those who are unfaithful
to their covenant. Paul's point is that
the death of those loved ones is not
final. They had entered the covenant and
had not perished forever as those who had
died without a covenant.
When Paul used the phrase, "those
who have no hope," was he referring
to baptized, but unfaithful ones? It is
doubtful that any of us has the ability
to know for certain who will be crowned
with immortal glory. Paul could know regarding
his own salvation (II Tim. 4:8), but it
is very doubtful that God revealed to him
the identity of everyone who will be
saved. He was simply assuring them that
the death of those loved ones was not
final. He was comforting them with the
fact that their loved ones would rise again;
that there was at least hope that each
individual would be among the glorious cloud
of believers who would be "ever with
the Lord." He did, however, specify
that it was "those in Christ"
who would come forth. That is a fact,
no matter how much some brethren wish
to change it.
(XI) "For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his
death, we shall also be in the likeness
of his resurrection. (Anastasis)."
Notice the last sentence of their
fifth paragraph of this section: "Here
anastasis refers to the whole process
of being raised from the dust and made
like unto the Father."
We hope that every reader
will have paid close attention to their
attempt to meet the issue on this passage.
The editor of Logos in 1960 sought to
escape the testimony of Paul in this passage
by asserting the same answer that these
two authors have--i.e., that Paul was speaking
of awakening to life eternal the same as
Christ did. In effect, we gave him
the same response we shall give now. His
only response to us was to ask our
name, shake our hand and without a word,
turn and walk away.
Let us for a moment grant their
suggestion that Paul referred to resurrection
to life eternal. Now, stop and think. Does
one Christadelphian anywhere believe that everyone
who is baptized and subsequently dies will
be resurrected to life eternal? Is it not
a truth that some who have been baptized
will be resurrected to condemnation? But according
to the explanation we have been offered,
if we have been baptized, we will be
"raised from the dust and made like
unto the Father." Have they now moved
so far away from Unamended Christadelphia
(Advocatism) that they now agree with the
popular churches, which teach "once in grace,
always in grace"? That is surely the
only conclusion we can reach if it is true
that once a person is baptized, he is assured
of eternal salvation.
But of course, we know that
they do not any more believe that than
they believe that a horse can fly. In their
attempt to escape Unamended truth, they
have offered explanations that lead to conclusions
they themselves should reject. Surely, under these
circumstances, we must reject their offer
to be our tutors; assisting us in arriving
at the same conclusions they have reached.
Our prayer is that they will agree to
come and let us reason together. Perhaps
we may be of assistance to them. We
surely wish it to be so.
ARE WE COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED?
Because of Paul's words in
Acts 17:31, Amended brethren insist that baptism
is commanded by God and that as
soon as a man hears of it, he is
under law to God and must be baptized
in order to escape resurrection to
condemnation. There are problems with that
1. Amended brethren try to deny
that their arguments lead to universal resurrection.
However, we must realize that the gospel
was preached to every creature under heaven
during the time of the apostles. (Col.
1:23). Therefore, the doctrines of Amended Christadelphia
requires the resurrection of every living soul
in the world of the first century
2. The Greek term paralegal
means "to announce, declare etc." Brother
Roberts made an interesting statement on this
subject in the Ambassador Vol. IV (1867),
p. 25. This writing later was incorporated
into Christendom Astray. This statement appears
on page 117 of that work--logos edition.
“An INVITATION has gone out to
the ends of the earth, for people of
any 'kindred and nation, and people, and
tongue,' to become servants of the Messiah
and heirs of the kingdom which God
has promised to them that love him..."
3. Acts 17:31 speaks of judging
"the world." Now, Amended Christadelphia does
not believe that the whole world is
to be gathered before the judgment seat
of Christ at his appearing and his kingdom.
Therefore, this passage proves too much for
them and would, therefore, teach a doctrine
which they reject. The words of Paul
in the passage is a quotation of number
of passages relating to the rule of Christ
over the earth. The term "judge" many
times relates to the concept of a ruler's
reign over a nation or nations. (See Ruth
1:1; Matt. 19:28). Paul, in the passage
is alluding to the concept found in
such passages as Psa. 9:8; 67:4; 72:4;
96:13; 98:9; Isa. 11:3-4.
WHAT HAVE WE FOUND?
After examining the history of
the division between Amended and Unamended communities,
we have seen that:
1. Brother Andrew's so-called departures
were the positions he had held from
the beginning, except for the fact
that he once had also believed that the
rejector would rise at the end of the
thousand years. He did change on that issue
and came to see that the Scriptures
never clearly taught their resurrection at
any time. However, Brother Roberts also
changed his mind in that he decided
that the rejector would arrive at the same
judgment-seat and on the same basis
as saints in Christ.
2. Brother J.J. Andrew and other
pioneer brethren believed and taught the so-called
errors which the Amended brethren later accused
him of teaching, charging him with
changing his mind.
3. Brother Andrew continued to
believe and teach the things upon which
they were once agreed.
4. The brethren who amended the
Statement of Faith changed their teachings
on many things while becoming intolerant of
some matters on which they had once
varied only slightly in their perception.
5. That nearly every issue on
which Brother Andrew was accused of departure,
Brother Thomas can be quoted in agreement
with Brother Andrew.
6. That during and after the
debate, Brother Roberts wrote differently and
gave different explanations than he formerly had
7. That in so doing, many
of his later explanations differ from that
of Brother Thomas.
8. That Unamended Christadelphia (Advocatism)
today stands exactly where the
Christadelphians stood prior to the 1890s
regarding Condemnation from Adam, on the
atonement, and who will appear before the
judgment-seat of Christ at his appearing and
SOME REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE?
On page I of the "Introduction"
they say: "At the end of this document,
it will become evident to every candid
reader that the perception and understanding
of the Unamended on the above mentioned
points are in utter opposition to the original
Christadelphian position. It will not be
maintained by the honest reader that the
Unamended body is in fact 'unchanged' from
the truth as expounded in 1871."
In view of the quotations we
have made from the pioneer writings it
will be seen by "the honest reader"
that the above statement is utterly false
and misleading. Let "the honest reader" remember
the article by Brother John Thomas in the
Christadelphian entitled "Aaron and Christ."
That article was published two years after
1871, namely in 1873. The positions set
forth in that article are in agreement
with Unamended teaching on nearly every subject
that is in dispute between the two communities.
It is a certainty that if Brother Roberts
had believed differently than what Brother Thomas
expressed in that article, he would never
have printed it. Neither would he have
printed it if he thought that Brother Thomas'
view at the time of his death was
not in harmony with what the article taught.
They state further on page II
of the preface: "We have known some
who would not look into the issues that
divided Christadelphians because they were afraid
of where rightly divided truth would lead
Are the two brethren telling us
that those to whom they refer actually
told them that they were afraid to look
into the issues? If they were not so told,
then the authors are stating their own
impression about the matter and are unfairly
attributing that to the "some" in
We ask the reader to notice
where such a "looking into the issues"
as we have outlined in this response to
them has led us. It has led to the
discovery that Unamended Christadelphia stands
almost in the exact doctrinal position
where the pioneers stood from the
beginning, including the year 1871. If the
two authors looked into the issue themselves,
it is obvious that they were either
very biased in their examination, or they
conducted a very incomplete investigation.
In view of the fact that
the booklet so completely misrepresented the truth
and made so many false charges, we protest
very strongly that they so boldly placed
those untruths and false charges into so
many Christadelphian households. Many of
the brethren will not have the source material
needed to enable them to recognize the
utter erroneousness of the entire booklet.
We must at this point, resist
the temptation to go on and on.
Practically every page of Advocatism Exposed
contains errors and charges that practically
demand response and refutation. It takes more
pages to answer a charge than it does
to initiate the charge, for, as Brother
Williams said in one of his debates:
"a child can take a hammer and in
one minute, damage a wall to an extent
that it would take an expert carpenter
days to repair."
We wish to thank the ecclesias
that are standing with us in this matter.
It is a very expensive matter to produce
and mail this "Response" to every Christadelphian
household and the Voice of Truth does
not have sufficient funds to accomplish what
has to be done. The work is going
forth because the ecclesias have recognized the
threat that has been posed and have risen
in support of the defense of the
truth. A number of donations have been
made, however, we still have a
substantial short-fall and are in need of
financial support for this response.
We know that for the sake
and defense of the truth we have
been forced to write in a straight-forward
and frank manner. We mean no offense.
We took none when they wrote in the
same manner. We offer them the hand
of friendship, and if only they will
grasp it, perhaps we can reason these matters
and hopefully, finally be of one mind.
Should we turn our backs on each other
without at least making this effort, surely
God will not be pleased. We close this
response with the invitation of the Deity,
which is recorded in Isaiah 1:18:
"Come, and let us reason together,
saith the Lord; though your sins be as
scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they
shall be as wool." This is the result we wish for us all. May God guide us
and bless us to that end.
Wayne R. Tanner