Question in relation to
“Resurrectional Responsibility”
An Unamended Brother involved with the NASU initiative wrote us the following question in regards to our understanding of the Responsibility issue. He writes:
I have a question
regarding the following concluding paragraph of your "Unamended
Christadelphian" page:
The sponsors of this web site, in contrast to our Amended
counterparts, believe firmly that due to the Condemnation of Death that all men
inherit from Adam (Romans 5), it is only by symbolic contact with the
Blood of Christ (through baptism) that we can find release from the grave,
according to the Laws that God Himself has established and revealed to us
through His word (Romans 8:1, John 3:18, II Timothy 1:10).
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.
Jon 3:18 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.
2Tim 1: 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life
and immortality to light through the gospel:
My question is: You
have made the positive assertion as to who will be released from the grave
"according to the Laws that God Himself has established", but do you
have any verses that explicitly indicate who will not be released
from the grave?
Here is an
illustration of the problem.
The U.S.A. decided
that too many Mexicans were illegally sneaking into the country.They devised a
law that says that any and every Mexican found illegally crossing the
border will be immediately detained for 3 years, then deported. This law
may seem specific and clear. What do they do about the 5 Libyans who they
catch sneaking in amongst a group of 500 Mexicans crossing the border
illegally?
Can it be assumed that
because they aren't specifically included that they are necessarily
excluded?
In your material you
mentioned two categories of Unamended Christadelphians, the "Traditional"
and those who allow that God may raise others. I am trying to
better understand what you call the "traditional" perspective.
Your Brother in
Christ,
-----------------
Our response was as follows:
Getting straight
to the apparent point of your message you ask, "do you have verses
that explicitly indicate who will not be released from the grave?"
Quite frankly I am surprised by this question from you. Since you are
involved with the current NASU effort I would assume that you would be fully
aware of the arguments and scriptural passages that are used by both sides of
the Responsibility argument, therefore you would understand that there are
in fact no scriptural verses besides Isaiah 26:14 (in other words a "thus
saith the LORD") that "explicitly indicates who will not be
released from the grave". But along these lines it should
also be mentioned that we have no explicit passage that state that-
·
there is no immortal soul
·
that there is no supernatural devil/Satan
·
that there is no Trinity
We also
have no "explicit" statement in the
Promises made to Abraham that he would be "resurrected". Who is
to say that the capitol city of the Coming Kingdom couldn't be somewhere else
rather then Jerusalem? How do we come to very solid conclusions
regarding these matters? Is it not by what is "positively"
stated or "positively" inferred? We know Abraham will be
resurrected because there is no other way that he could enjoy the eternal
blessing promised to him. I can't find any explicit verse that
states that the Kingdom will not be centered in
Cairo, London, Washington D.C., etc. But the scriptures do
positively deal with where the Kingdom will be centered. I would hope
that you can see the point that is being made here. Many times what is
only stated in "positive" terms is how we make a doctrinal
stand, not by what is found in the shadows of human speculation.
To
turn your initial question around - What versus can be provided that
explicitly teach that others besides those in covenant relationship will be
raised from the grave? I think you know the answer to that
question. There are none. So on one hand we have the positive
affirmation found in the scriptures that Resurrection comes by being "in
Christ" though there are not any scriptures that explicitly deal with who
will not be raised. Then on the other hand we have absolutely no
scriptural evidence (positive or negative) that refer to those who are out
of covenant being raised for judgment. If we put the two
understandings in the balance which one comes out woefully deficient?
The
scriptures REPEATEDLY and CLEARLY indicate that the Hope of Resurrection is directly
and exclusively connected to the blood of Christ. Jesus
himself rose from the dead through the operation of the "blood of the
everlasting covenant". This is what the scriptures have
revealed to us and it certainly was the urgent message of the Apostles in
preaching the Gospel. Do you need a comprehensive listing of these
passages?
I am
afraid the illustration that you provided does not properly deal with the issue
that we are considering here. Realize that in releasing individuals from
the grave we are talking about God's revealed will and direct power.
We are talking about being "In Christ" or "In Adam".
There isn't any gray area here. Both are exclusive of each
other. Being "In Christ" speaks of a very
explicit status. The Apostles taught "through (in,
Gr.= en) Jesus the resurrection from the dead". They
didn't teach that light or knowledge was the basis of resurrection and that
"you better be baptized to avoid being condemned when you
are resurrected for knowing too much but not acting upon it".
They taught that if you wanted to be resurrected that it had to be
"through" (in) Christ. There isn't the ambiguity in God's laws
that often appear in men's laws. The problem in this matter is only
isolated to your illustration and has nothing to do with the clear
and fluid teaching of the Scriptures.
Our
ecclesia believes that the only hope man has of a resurrection from the
grave is through Christ. I believe that point is
clearly made on the web site. If others believe that God might
raise some due to His own purpose or prerogative apart from any laws
that He has revealed then we cannot make an issue out of that as long
as they do not make the error of placing an uncovenanted individual
at the Bema of Christ or think that we are raised due to light rather then the
combination of light (knowledge) and covenant making - not forgetting the
necessity of faith.
You had
questions concerning our definition of what a "traditional" Unamanded
belief is. I believe if you consider the context of what was written
there is little room for question. It was stated in our explanation that,
"The traditional
portion of the Unamended Community continues to contend that it is only through
contact with the sacrificial work of Christ (through the waters of baptism)
that there is any hope or guarantee of rising from the dead at Christ's
return. (I Thessalonians 4:13-18). Though there are Unamended that
believe that God, based upon His own power and not by any laws that He has
revealed, may raise some outside of covenant relationship to receive
some special condemnation separate from the Judgment Seat of Christ, it is
agreed that anything beyond what God has clearly revealed (that the "dead
in Christ" will be raised) is mere speculation at best and not a test of
fellowship."
There is
not "two categories" (as you seem to want to infer) listed here
by us as being traditional or non-traditional. Those who
believe that God "may raise some outside of
covenant relationship...separate from the Judgment Seat of Christ" are
not labeled as something else as long as they believe that "it is only through contact with the sacrificial
work of Christ (through the waters of baptism) that there is any hope
or guarantee of rising from the dead at
Christ's return." This was Thomas
William's belief (who did not believe in the "Enlightened
Rejector") throughout his tenure as editor of the Advocate and
has always been the position of the Advocate, which has historically or
traditionally been the voice of the Unamended community. My collection of
Advocates go all the way back to 1885 so I know this to be true. I also
have regularly attended four different bible schools within the Unamended
community throughout my life and know that no other belief besides
understanding the connection between covenant making and Resurrection as
should concern us is tolerated. To be a
traditional Unamended individual is to understand and embrace this
point. This is why the Unamended Community exists because of its
resistance to follow slipping trends in the understanding of the Atonement
and its refusal to go along with the idea that it is light alone that
makes us responsible to the Judgment Seat of Christ. If an
individual does not believe what we describe as "traditional"
Unamended belief then you are not Unamended but something else.
As you must realize the Responsibility issue is not as simple as some may wish to make it. There are different views of Resurrectional Responsibility. There have always been some views that have been tolerated within the Unamended community, but there are other views of the issue that nullify the atoning efficacy of Christ's shed blood that have not been allowed to be taught within the community.
I hope
this clarifies for you where we stand in regards to this issue. If you
wish to be provided with historical information or scriptural passages I would
be pleased to provide them for you.
-----------------------------
Additional Comments:
By such a question as this coming from one who should understand and represent the doctrinal interests of the Unamended community in the NASU effort, we cannot help but get the impression that long held beliefs in regards to the Responsibility Question within the Unamended community would not be tolerated if the NASU initiative were to be adopted across the continent. The fact remains that the traditional Unamended understanding (or what is termed by the Amended community as the “Advocate” position in regards to this issue even though such a belief was accepted previous to the division of 1898) is considered to be false doctrine by the Central Fellowship. The Unamended fellowship has consistently contended that the act of entering a Covenant with God through the blood of Christ is what makes us responsible to the Judgment Seat or bema of Christ. The Amended (to the extent of this writer’s knowledge) continue to contend that “light” or “knowledge” alone makes an individual (baptized or unbaptized) liable to appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ. It seems obvious that the Amended community is not willing to move on this point especially since the NASU document concedes that the BASF will be the standard for world-wide fellowship and also that no connection is made in the NASU wording that recognizes the relationship between covenant making and resurrection. It is too bad that the Unamended fellowship cannot be as firm on the issue of Resurrectional Responsibility on our side of the doctrinal fence as the Central fellowship is on theirs. They seem to show very little interest in compromising on this issue, so why do we?
It is disheartening to see some within the Unamended community cast doubts on Unamended beliefs regarding this subject. This should raise the question in our minds as to whether or not the Unamended members of the NASU committee really represent the beliefs of the Unamended fellowship or if they see that the only real way to achieve “unity” with the firm stand taken by the Central Fellowship on this issue is by a capitulation to the Amended view on the subject?
Aaron Thomas