Agreement with Early Christadelphian Teaching?

The truth as defined in the works of early Christadelphians includes the following checklist:

þ   That knowledge makes men responsible to the judgment seat of Christ, not association with the blood of Christ through baptism. JJ Andrew not only differed with brother Thomas, but he was wrong in teaching that the basis of responsibility is association with the blood of Christ. (John 3:18-19; John 12:48; Mark 16:16; 2Th 1:8; The Apostolic Advocate, 1835, p. 178; Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1861, p. 12-13; Anastasis, p. 41-42; The Revealed Mystery, 1869, #46; The Christadelphian, January 1870, p. 3; The Christadelphian, 1870, p. 226-228; The Christadelphian, March 1868, p. 27)

 

An Advocate correspondent wrote: "My dear brother: I would not normally respond to this email but as I read through your number 1. statement, I could not help but be shocked by the lack of Scriptural proof for your statement. You state 'it is knowledge that makes men responsible to the judgment seat of Christ.' None of the verses used provide any link to this statement--- Your proof verses:

     John 3:18-19 --'but he that believeth not is condemned already,' (What does this prove--that he does not need to be brought to the judgment to be condemned because he is already condemned?)

     John 12:48 - (v47- 'And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: (Christ will not judge him--'the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day' (No reference to knowledge or to the judgment seat of Christ)

     Mark 16:16 -'but he that believeth not shall be damned.' no mention of knowledge--no mention of being damned at the judgment seat)

     2 Thes 1:8 ' taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:' (know not--where is the knowledge-- - Are these individuals resurrected? --or just alive at his coming?--- taking vengeance in flaming fire--? where is the giving of an account before the judgment seat?

     I am sorry, but I think the scriptures provide a much clearer link for the resurrection in Christ. (You know the verses) I would be ashamed if I had to use such remote and vague Bible references to prove my version of truth. In the Hope of the resurrection, bro. ____."

Do the Scriptures Teach that Light or Partial Obedience is the Basis of Resurrectional Responsibility?

     The list of verses from the web site was not intended to be exhaustive but rather to provide a few relevant references. The Unamended brother did not think they were applicable, but it is apparent he made no effort to look at the verses in context. If he had done so, or had he been conversant with those particular verses, I am certain he would not have made some of the statements that he did. I hope the brother will be interested in looking further at those he's taken the time to comment upon.

     In regards to the first verse, John 3:18-19: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

     John 3:19 is one verse of many, which shows that light is the basis of responsibility to God. I do not claim that the two verses of John 3:18-19 contain every vital detail of the resurrection and judgment. I ask the correspondent to notice that in the fifty-eight verses of exposition found in 1st Corinthians 15, that not every essential detail is found there either. If 58 verses fall short of complete exposition, perhaps he will excuse the fact that only two verses are incomplete as well. Will the "dead" literally be raised "incorruptible" or does not Paul pass over discussion of that which is revealed in Romans 14:10 and 2nd Cor. 5:10? Those two verses add details not found in 1 Co 15 and show that the saints will give an account before the judgment seat. But note, those two verses lack detail given in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere.

Because He Hath Not Believed

     In the selective quotation the correspondent has supplied, the context of the condemnation is cut off which destroys the argument of the verse. He wrote, "but he that believeth not is condemned already,' (What does this prove--that he does not need to be brought to the judgment to be condemned because he is already condemned?)". We ask, what is that condemnation? Death? If it is death he is condemned to, then how is it that the condemnation he receives, he receives "BECAUSE he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"? According to the correspondent, "because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" he receives that condemnation which he by birth is already destined to receive.

     There is of course, another way to read the verse that does not confound itself. Other translations make it easier to see: "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Notice again, that the judgment, or condemnation is THE RESULT of not believing ("because") -- not simply because he was born under the constitution of sin. What the verse is clearly saying is that his judgment has already been determined (Dan 12:2; John 5:29; Gal 6:8). The only other verse that has these same two Greek words, 1st Cor. 5:3, uses them in the same way: notice the marginal rendering is "determined already". But having noted this, we do not need this argument, or these verses to make the case. The correction is simply supplied to answer the correspondent's suggestion.

Whosoever Will not Hearken unto My Words

     Some Unamended, seeing the point that "this is the (basis of) condemnation... light", respond "this was addressed to the Jews and does not apply to the gentiles." But there is no clause limiting the statement to the Jews only. The "condemnation" is "that light is come into the WORLD", but "men loved darkness rather than light." It does not say, "only the Jews loved darkness." Indeed, as Christadelphians we understand that Christ was sent as "A light to lighten the Gentiles" (Luke 2:32). But gentiles, sharing the same physical human nature as Jews, "love darkness" as well, "because their deeds were evil".

     There are other scriptures that demand that John 3:19 is not limited to just the Jews. Deuteronomy 18:19 says that "whosoever will not hearken unto My Words which he shall speak in My Name, I will require it of him". It does not say "whosoever of the Jews will not hearken, of him will I require it". But more importantly, the words of Deu 18:19 are drawn upon in Hebrews 12:24-25:

     Hebrews 12:24-25, "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven".

     If our correspondent applies this verse to the "Jews only" then Hebrews 6:20, Heb 9:24, Heb 10:20, and Heb 11:40, to name a few, must also be to the "Jews only". It would be quite useful to have a list of verses and principles that the Unamended claim are "to the Jews only". The effort would be self-defeating once the difference between Jews and gentiles was stated.

     Jew or gentile, "whosoever will not hearken unto My Words which he shall speak in My Name, I will require it of him".

Light is Plainly Declared to be The Basis

     That light brings responsibility is also plainly declared in the following verses:

     These verses prove the relationship between knowledge (light) and responsibility. Responsibility to what? That is answered below.

     The correspondent says: "John 12:48 - (v47- 'And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: (Christ will not judge him--'the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day' (No reference to knowledge or to the judgment seat of Christ)"

Belief and Unbelief Demand Knowledge

     The correspondent says, "No reference to knowledge or to the judgment seat of Christ." Is it really necessary to say the word "knowledge" in the context of "believing" and "believing not" since knowledge must be presented, and either accepted or rejected, for "belief" or "unbelief" to occur? I believe our correspondent will not gainsay that fact. But further, it should be noted that Christ references a specific kind of "knowledge" when he said, "if any man hear MY WORDS" which knowledge our correspondent says there is "no reference to"!

     The correspondent says, "Christ will not judge him". But Christ qualifies the statement "I judge him not". Notice that 1) Christ sets his Word, which was his Father's word (vs 50; Deuteronomy 18:19), as the basis of judgment 2) At Christ's first coming, his appearance was not for the purpose of judgment, but as he says, it was to "save the world" (vs. 47). That is to say, he would make the One Great Offering which would serve as the basis of its future restitution. Christ completes his statement with the words, "the word I have spoken, the same SHALL judge him in the last day". Notice, future tense.

The Last Day

     The correspondent says there is no reference to "the judgment seat of Christ." Perhaps he will be interested in John's use of the phrase "last day". The Greek words are identical in the following verses. There is only one verse in John not listed below where the same Greek words are used and it is clear by looking at it, John 7:37, that it is not speaking of the same "last day" that the following verses speak of:

     Now, with these verses before us, it is quite evident when "the last day" is. So from John 12:48 we learn that "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him" prior to the Resurrection to eternal life of some (6:39, 40, 54), and that those who rejected him, and his words, will be "judged", or condemned, at that same time. Now, the correspondent claims Christ is not to judge the enlightened rejecter, but John 12:48 says "the SAME SHALL judge him in the last day." Seeing that "the Word" is an abstraction and abstractions do not sit on the throne of judgment it is apparent that "the Word made flesh", the One who will have authority over the world, "shall judge him in the last day."

Shall Be!

     The correspondent says: "Mark 16:16 -'but he that believeth not shall be damned.' no mention of knowledge--no mention of being damned at the judgment seat)"

     The correspondent should refer to verse 15.

     I am confident he will admit that "the gospel" of verse 15 is equivalent to that particular "knowledge" which precedes the baptism of verse 16. It is also that which is rejected by a class of men who "believeth not" and who "SHALL BE damned". The KJV, NAB, NAS, NAI, NKJV, YLT, just to name a selection that is at hand, all translate the Greek with a future tense. I know of no other place mentioned in Scripture for this future condemnation to meted out than the judgment seat of Christ. Some who misread brother Thomas will say, "the Great White Throne". This assertion is merely a bad attempt at reconciling Christadelphian teaching with J.J. Andrew's but it does not stand the test of Scripture. 1) The Scriptures show the place of judgment to be the same 2) As brother Thomas shows, the Great White Throne is for national judgment, not the judgment of individuals whereas the bema is for judgment of individuals, not national judgment.

     The correspondent says: "2 Thes 1:8 'taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:' (know not--where is the knowledge-- - Are these individuals resurrected? --or just alive at his coming?--- taking vengeance in flaming fire--? where is the giving of an account before the judgment seat?)"

     He asks, are these individuals resurrected or just alive at his coming? If the believing are to be saved at a certain time, the language used repeatedly by Scripture indicates that the condemnation of those who "believe not" occurs at the same time: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"; "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:29).

When He Shall Come to Be Glorified

     Our correspondent also cites: "taking vengeance in flaming fire--?" He is again referred to the context.

The Rejecter Giving Account? No... The Public Condemnation of Sin

     The correspondent asks, "where is the giving account before the judgment seat?" First, to be accurate, the enlightened rejecter will not be called to "give account" anymore than the serpent was called to "give account". Both are called before the throne of judgment but neither give an account. Why was the serpent present when Adam and Eve were judged? Notice that he was condemned, but he gave no account of himself. He appeared, yet he had no "covenant relationship" with Yahweh, not even a moral relationship. For greater reasons, the enlightened rejecter will be summoned because he rebelled against God, the provider of Light, the ground of condemnation -- and this with moral faculties where the serpent had none. The enlightened rejecter was called (Acts 17:30) but he did not believe or obey. In that parable that sometimes perplexes Unamended thinking, for the man does not have a soiled garment but no wedding garment at all, we read,

     Like the serpent, the enlightened rejecter is speechless -- he is present, but not called to give an account. What in the parable speaks of the facts found in the future events associated with Christ's return, and what is added to make it parabolic? Clearly the time, the location, the lack of any wedding garment, and his speechlessness are all fitting to the scene, as is the King's judgment upon him because as the next verse tell us, "For many are Called, but few are chosen" (Acts 17:30).

     But let us step back a little and ask, "why even have a judgment-seat?". Couldn't the dead faithful, literally be raised incorruptible? If we think about this, we will understand why the enlightened rejecter must be summoned to appear before the bema. Along the same lines, "why was Christ crucified before both Jew and Gentile?". It was for the same reason. These things are done so that Yahweh's ways, which are just and right and true, are shown to be just and right and true PUBLICLY. How often we are told of something with words to the effect, "that all the earth may know"... they "shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness". Yahweh will not condemn sin privately, particularly at such a climactical event in the unfolding of His plan. It will be a public condemnation of sin and those who CHOSE to follow evil. We are taught the same principle in verses such as 1 Timothy 5:20: "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (also Gal 2:11, Deu 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21 &c). Looking at the Scripture we find this to be a consistent theme: the public condemnation of sin.

  1. Adam, Eve and the serpent: the public condemnation of sin and the typical coat of skin for the redeemed
  2. Noah and judgment upon the world: the public condemnation of sin and the ark of salvation for the redeemed
  3. The offerings on the Day of Atonement: the public condemnation of sin and the redemption of the Israelites
  4. Christ's sacrificial offering: the public condemnation of sin (in the flesh) and his resurrection through his own offering.
  5. Armageddon: the public condemnation of sin through the judgments to be poured out on the 4th beast nations, and the "entering in" to the kingdom of the "sheep nations".
  6. Sodom and Gomorrah: The public condemnation of sin and the typical salvation of Lot
  7. The plagues upon Egypt:  the public condemnation of sin, but not upon Israel (redeemed)
  8. The death of the Firstborn: the public condemnation of sin and the Israelite's Exodus (redeemed)
  9. The Joshua lead wars against the nations: the public condemnation of sin and possession of the Land (redeemed)

     The consistent thread, the typical thread of Scripture, is the public condemnation of sin, and the redemption of those who are "in the Ark". In the face of the unwavering theme of Scripture, the Unamended ask us to believe that those who are under God's authority and have the moral capacity to make the right choices and who KNOW the will of God and are called upon to submit yet reject it -- we are asked to believe that they are not liable to judgment with His other servants -- that these sinners are excluded from the great condemnation of sin that closes the gentile age! What a pernicious teaching this would be to the nations who, in the unfolding of these events, would shortly be under the rule of Christ and the saints. What a message it would send to the succeeding generations! It would teach that men, even though they be Yahweh's property, and even though He has authority over them (and therefore they be His servants), yet they can know His will and choose to disobey Him and then escape condemnation beyond that with which they are born -- the common fate of the unenlightened. And that, despite the fact that they lived in an age when the wicked prosper! Will the Unamended also have us believe that men will be able to reject the Truth and not suffer judgment in the Kingdom (Zec 14:18, Isa 65:20)? If such responsibility will exist during the Kingdom -- as the Scripture plainly declares -- and if it did so under the Law, why a special exclusion for the gentile age and just prior to the establishment of the Kingdom? The Jews lived under the shadows of the Law. Christ, the True Light comes, and now we are told that unbelief and disobedience are more justifiable in our age than during the Mosaic! Think about how this doctrine, what we should call "acceptable rebellion", reflects upon the authority of God and His Word, the honor of Christ, the clarity of the moral law brought in at his appearing, and the call of all men, everywhere, to repent (Acts 17:30).

The Purpose of the Judgment-Seat

    "It is said that 'the Lord knoweth them that are His,' and that, therefore, there is no necessity for a judgment; that 'He discerneth the thoughts and intents of the heart,' and 'needeth not that any should tell him what is in man.' This is true, and marks the difference between the 'judgment seat of Christ' and a human judicature which makes inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. But when this truth is made the means of displacing the necessity for the disclosed purpose of judging the quick and the dead, it is applied with an illogical and a pernicious result. It is illogical, because it by no means follows that the Deity’s omniscient perceptions are not to have official expression, especially when, as in this case, those perceptions affect the standing of those who are the subjects of them, and determine, in the expression of them, their destiny. In all transactions between man and the Deity, there is an invariable accommodation on the part of the latter to the necessities and finite apprehensions of the former. Why did Jehovah allow a faithless generation of Israelites to escape from Egypt under Moses, and go through the miraculous experience of the desert, and finally pronounce condemnation on them, instead of acting on his knowledge, and summarily decimating them in a night like the Assyrians, without warning or explanation? Because he was anxious to bring down to human apprehension the methods of his moral procedure, which he could only do by acting on human modes and processes. Why did he allow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to lurk in the camp for a season, and trouble the congregation by attempting a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, instead of acting on his omniscience, and weeding them out at the beginning of the journey, and so saved the nation from turbulence? Because such a mode of procedure, instead of illustrating and justifying the ways of God to man, would have wrapped them in mystery, and clothed them with the appearance of caprice and injustice. Why did He so long forbear with the Jews in their obstinacy, foreknowing their ultimate rejection of all His messengers and His own Son? Why did Jesus, who discerned 'spirits,' tolerate Judas till he convicted himself by betraying his master? Why did the Spirit suffer Annanias and Saphira to come into the presence of the Apostles, and go through the formality of hearing their own condemnation, before their mendacity was punished with death? In fact, why do things happen at all as they do? Why did not the Deity frame the terrestrial economy of things on such a basis that obedience and not disobedience should have been the law? The whole history of divine procedure, in relation to human affairs, shews that divine omniscience is never allowed for a moment to forestal or displace the natural order of events, but rather sets up and enforces the law by which everything has its full and logical course, before the culminating consequence is reached. This is observable in 'nature' as well as in 'grace.' The forces of the universe play upon each other in the evolution of the results forecast in the divine purpose. The geological transformation of the globe is an illustration. To use a hackneyed but useful phrase, 'God works by means.' He works progressively and by law. He is in strictest harmony with Himself in all the phases of His manifested power throughout His measureless domain.

    "To say, then, that because God knows the righteous from the wicked, he will not bring them to the formality of a judgment, is to reason against every operation of Deity on record. It is true, Deity knows, but is it not necessary that the righteous and the wicked themselves should know? How shall the righteous know themselves approved, and the wicked condemned, and the Deity be justified in the eyes of both, without the declaration of what He knows? The conclusion is therefore in the highest degree illogical." (The Christadelphian, 1867, p26-27)

 

How Much Knowledge?

     Historically, one of the last refuges this discussion leads to is the argument of "how much knowledge is required". Since we are not given a way of measuring knowledge in the Scripture, the lack of this specificity is positioned as the basis of blunting the doctrine that "light brings responsibility". If I may say, this argument is either naive or disingenuous. Using similar argument, we could blunt any doctrine of Scripture. The wise will not engage in destroying the Ideas set forth in Scripture by the Divine mind -- for they are recorded for our instruction and guide to behavior. Even if the degree of knowledge was defined some way in Scripture, of what use would it serve? Can any man honestly claim to be able to read the mind or thoughts of another person, particularly of one who has rejected the Gospel? Furthermore, the Unamended recognize a standard basis of knowledge in the Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith -- which, incidentally, has been amended more than the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. It seems obvious that if frail mortal man can determine a level of knowledge required to baptize a sinner, that the Almighty God can, without much effort, determine the basis of knowledge and circumstances on which He will act. Brother Robert Roberts wrote, "We need not concern ourselves with the individual application of responsibility in its details. It is not possible for us to make such an application, for it would require a degree of knowledge that belongs only to God. We can only discern the general principles which Christ, as a judge, will apply. The principles are clear in character, though nebulous in human application. You truly say that God acts on definite principles. It is a definite principle that where a man knows His requirements and refuses them, he is answerable to God for his refusal. But who but God can say where this knowledge exists in sufficient degree in given cases. God is just, and will do no unrighteousness. Condemnation and punishment are for rebels, and not for incapables—from whatever cause. A man unable to see the truthfulness of the truth, and hesitating for fear of making a mistake, is not a rejecter but a blind man, and therefore has no sin to answer for, as Jesus says (Jno. 9:41). Such also would be the case of a quick-seeing man who might be morally incapable of yielding to the demands of the truth. But we might make mistakes in these applications. It is best to leave them. It is safest to bind ourselves by the word of Christ, as defining those who rise to condemnation, 'He that believeth not,' 'He that rejecteth,' descriptions which the new theory reverses, or else does worse by saying that a different Gospel is preached to the Gentiles from the Gospel that was preached to the Jews; or else that the moral relations of Jew and Gentile are different, when Paul says they are the same. No constructive interpretations can be right which go so directly in the face of the explicit words of revelation."

The Scripture vs. Unbelief

The correspondent asks if the location of 2 Th 1:7 is the judgment seat? The context plainly shows that this occurs "when he shall come to be glorified in his saints". If we had no access to Romans 14:10 and 2nd Cor. 5:10, we might say, "what judgment seat?". We might turn to 1st Cor. 15 and explain the process given there,

     The correspondent wants to have a single verse that proves every principle of resurrection and judgment, God's "version of truth". We cannot produce a one-verse, two-verse or fifty-eight-verse-chapter proof that will meet his demands because God did not provide us or him with such. Rather, we have presented a reasonable number of verses that must be placed side by side, principle upon principle, to arrive at the Truth. That is how the Christadelphians were founded, not upon myopic views of a single verse or verses, viewed out of context, with no reference to other applicable scriptures. Ironically, if we made the same demands upon our correspondent that he has made upon us, it would be revealed that he cannot quote any one-verse proof, or fifty-eight-verse-chapter proof that demonstrates his "version of truth".

     Furthermore, this process has revealed that the basis of his belief, in part, is denial. What I mean to say is that he can only deny certain explicit declarations of Scripture. The denial is so extreme that he has employed arguments such as "knowledge" not being the prerequisite object of "belief" and "unbelief"! Not only logic supplies what he denies, the previous verse, Mark 16:15, supplies it. When the Bible makes an affirmation of Truth, and the hearer of that Truth denies its veracity, the Bible calls this "unbelief". It is sad to imagine anyone standing before the Throne of judgment telling Christ about "remote and vague Bible references". The "Bible references" will no longer be "remote" or "vague" when one sees off in the distance the speechless congregation of sinners (1Pe 4:18) whose judgment was determined of old (Amo 3:7). "The wise shall understand" (Dan 12:10) is a principle of far-reaching application. The correspondent denies the plain declarations of the Scripture so as to maintain his presuppositions -- a blindness of heart common to mankind but only curable by humbly seeking for "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD" (Deu 8:3; Mat 4:4). To base one's faith, even in part, on denial of Scripture affirmation is shaky ground because the basis of the Truth is affirmation:

     "And this IS the condemnation, that light IS come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light" (John 3:19), "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words...the word that I have spoken, THE SAME SHALL judge him in the last day" (John 12:48); "he that believeth not SHALL be damned" (Mark 16:15-16); "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven... taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who SHALL be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).

     The unsound doctrines introduced by Thomas Williams and J.J. Andrew concerning the law of sin and death, resurrectional responsibility &c. are built upon denial: "knowledge not mentioned", "to the Jews only and not the gentiles", "judgment seat not mentioned" &c while the vulgar implications of the doctrine of "acceptable rebellion" are whitewashed.

     If the correspondent is genuinely interested in trying to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" then he will consult the books and articles that have been published on the topic. Or will he will follow his own logic, and the demands he placed upon us, and forthwith demand of the Christadelphians that they prove the judgment seat from 1st Cor. 15:52... and as the logical consequence, join the Church of God? I sincerely hope not. Others verses could be produced, though if these are not sufficient, though one rose from the dead, yet some would not believe.

     By our sins alone we deserve death, "Who shall stand when he appeareth?". But it is easier to hold sound doctrine than to perfectly "keep under" (1Co 9:27) our body of sin and death. Therefore the wise will "let God be true" so that in the day of judgment "thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

     1 Peter 4:18 And if the (1) righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the (2) ungodly AND the (3) sinner appear? -- 1-2-3

þ The Edenic penalty in the garden of Eden as specifically outlined in Elpis Israel (page 68) is ‘dying thou shalt die’. Muth te muth means dying thou shalt die and the penalty threatened was the penalty Adam received: the process of death, not an immediate violent death which was substitutionally carried out on an animal. JJ Andrew’s teaching concerning the penalty not only differed from brother Thomas, he was also wrong.

þ   That contrary to JJ Andrew’s teaching, a Divine Covenant is not a mutual agreement. (Jer. 11:3; Deu. 4:13; Psa. 105:8; Gal. 6:7; Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, p. 172).

þ   Contrary to JJ Andrew’s teaching, even though we are baptized, we are still physically and federally ‘in Adam’. We continue under the ‘constitution of sin’ so long as we are mortal. (1st Corinthians 15:21-23; Rom. 8:10,11; Eureka, Logos ed., vol. 1, p. 30; Elpis Israel, p. 76; Eureka, Logos ed., vol. 3, p. 256; Elpis Israel, 1904 ed., p. 147, 1949 ed., pp. 132-133; Elpis Israel, p. 143)

þ   Contrary to some Unamended brethren’s teaching, we are not released from the law of sin and death till the resurrection. (Romans 7:23-25; Romans 7:22; Elpis Israel, p. 137; Eureka, Logos ed., vol.1, pp. 247-249; Elpis Israel, p. 42)

þ   We are not released from sin in the flesh till the resurrection. (Rom 8:3; Romans 7:23-25; Romans 7:22; Elpis Israel, pp. 128-129; Mystery of the Covenant of the Holy Land Explained, pp. 9-10; Elpis Israel, p. 42)

þ    ‘The unjust’ class includes all members of the human race who are not classed with ‘the just’. (1Co 6:1; 1Pe 3:18; The Christadelphian, January, 1870, p.3; Anatolia, 1854, p. 35-36; Elpis Israel, ch. 8)

þ   Contrary to JJ Andrew’s teaching, no legal defilement is removed at baptism. That baptism is not a carnal ordinance. That original sin is not removed at baptism (1 Peter 3:21; Catechesis, pp. 6,7; #45; Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, p. 149; Eureka, Logos Ed., vol. 2 p. 261; Elpis Israel, p. 129; Elpis Israel, pp. 128-129)

þ   That contrary to JJ Andrew’s teaching, Christ was never a ‘child of wrath’. (2Co 5:19)

þ   That contrary to JJ Andrew’s teaching, Christ was never alienated from God. (2Co 5:19; Col 1:21)

þ   That Christ bore our sins in the sense that he was made sinful flesh. (2Co 5:21; Heb 2:16; Rom 8:3)