First Principles & the Statement of Faith
- Tanner Hawkins
- Sep 7
- 26 min read
Updated: Sep 16
You can either watch the exhortation below or read it in full by scrolling past the video:
Many of us likely have a little pamphlet either in the back of our Bible or in our Bible case entitled “Christadelphian Statement of Faith”, or “Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith”. But what is it, why does it exist, and how do we use it?
We’re going to examine first principles – not necessarily the individual principles, but the entire concept itself and the role that the Statement of Faith plays in it. Because these principles are so important, we want to consider them carefully. We’ll look at questions and topics like
What are first principles?
Why does God say they matter?
What is the relationship between first principles and fellowship?
What makes a doctrine a first principle?
What is the Statement of Faith, why does it exist, and how should it be used?
What is a barrier to fellowship (doctrinal example)?
The importance of maintaining Bible fundamentals
What are first principles?
Where do we get the term “first principles”? It was not coined by Christadelphians – it is a Scriptural term and is used by the apostle Paul in the way that we use it today:
Hebrews 5:12 – For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
“The first principles of the oracles of God” is the full title. “First” is archē and means “commencement, chief, beginning, corner”. “Principles” is stoicheion and means “orderly in arrangement, a serial constituent, proposition, element, principle, rudiment.” “First principles” therefore means “basic, fundamental elements”. Hebrews 6:1 refers to them as “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” and as “the foundation”.
There are first principles to every subject. Whenever we learn something new – whether it be carpentry, chemistry, cooking – we are first taught the basics. This is logical because, how can we be successful at doing or learning something unless we first get the basics down? But these fundamentals relate to “the oracles of God”. “Oracle” simply means “utterance”, so these are fundamental elements of the Word of God.
One of the definitions of “first” is “commencement”, signifying the beginning of something. This elementary aspect is seen in our passage. Paul is rebuking the Hebrews for needing the basic fundamentals of the truth taught to them again when they should be going on to more complex aspects of it. They “have need of milk (again), and not of strong meat.” First principles are an important part of “the milk of the Word”, and they represent the core of what every believer should understand and believe.
What, then, are these essential basics of the Bible? Paul lists some in the next chapter:
Hebrews 6:1-2 – Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (2) Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
These are specifically labeled “first principles”, and each should be viewed similar to how we view the definition of the Gospel – “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). The entire hope of mankind is bound up in those two things, and we need to understand each and what’s involved in them. What Paul is sharing here are some of those parts. We won’t delve too deep into each item, but we can summarize them and get a glimpse of what kinds of things are essential principles:
Repentance from dead works – the “change in direction” that God requires of man.
Faith toward God – Man must believe God and all that He has said (Hebrews 11:6).
Baptisms – the means of us coming into covenant, our old man dying in Adam, being raised a new creature in Christ, the condemnation of the law of sin and death fulfilled, being made alive in the law of the spirit of life, receiving the forgiveness of sins, becoming an heir of the promises, and so on. This also involves what is necessary in order for one to be baptized – knowledge and understanding of the fall of the race and what we need salvation from, how Christ made it possible, and what God requires of us.
Laying on of hands – the means by which the Holy Spirit was transmitted and allowed men to record the inspired word of God, prophesy, and perform miracles. This applied only to the Apostles’ day as the spirit gifts would cease once the Bible was completed (Acts 8:18, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10), but it was an important doctrine.
Resurrection of the dead – that there will be a resurrection for people to inherit the promises. This involves how one becomes part of the resurrection (covenant relationship).
Eternal judgment – judgment of those who come into covenant to determine whether they have walked according to the covenant they entered into. The resurrection and judgment are related principles, but they are not the same.
These are at least some of the foundational principles of the truth. It’s possible that this is not intended to be a comprehensive list and that these are merely the matters which the Hebrews needed to have covered again. Nevertheless, all of the important principles are under the umbrella that these cast, and they comprise the details of the Gospel as is shown below. As we will see, these principles cannot be categorized as relating to only “the Kingdom” or “the name of Jesus” because the Kingdom is the why, Christ is the how. They are inseparable elements of our hope.
Why do first principles matter?
Why does God require us to understand and believe these specific principles, and are they really so important that our salvation hinges upon our comprehension, belief, and application of them? The Scriptures answer this for us in clear terms:
Romans 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
The Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation”. “Gospel” means “good news” or “glad tidings”, and it’s God’s message of salvation. God has chosen to save man by means of His message. The Bible is therefore called “the word of life” (Philippians 2:16). It’s a call for man to come out of the world and be partaker in His plan. The call has gone out, and for those who respond to His message and follow His requirements, they are reconciled to Him and made heirs of the promises He’s made.
Belief in the Gospel, therefore, is essential to salvation. If we don’t believe it, we can’t be saved through it. But we can’t believe what we don’t know or understand. In order for us to believe the Gospel, we must first understand its basic parts and principles. This is what Paul is writing about in Hebrews 5 and 6 – those basic principles. Some things are considered the “meat” of the Word while others are the “milk”, and while it is good to have the meat, the milk is what is essential and must come first before we can enter into covenant.
In order for our baptism to be a valid one and have fellowship with God, we must have the correct understanding of Bible fundamentals. Without these, we are merely getting wet. This is why we don’t consider those of other religious sects as “brothers and sisters” – we believe that they are not brethren in Christ. Once their understanding is supplemented and corrected, rebaptism is necessary.
We’re given an example of this in Acts 19. Certain disciples who were baptized of John’s baptism did not have the critical cornerstone of Christ in their understanding, but once this was supplied and understood, they were rebaptized (Acts 19:1-5). We are either in Adam or in Christ – there is no middle ground. We must be disciplined and consistent in our application of these principles. First principles are of invaluable nature, and we must remember that they do not belong to us. It is God’s Word and His determination of what the essentials are. We cannot barter, negotiate, or reduce them because we have no right to do so. Reconciliation is only possible on God’s terms, and all that man can do is submit to them or not (Proverbs 23:23).
Believing in these principles not only gives us the understanding that we need – they also create in us the disposition God seeks. If we misunderstand what we need saved from, the nature and power of God, or anything alike, we cannot approach Him correctly. Just think how differently two people would approach God: one who believes he has an immortal soul and is going to live forever, and the other who understands that he is a mortal, feeble creature destined to return to the dust of the earth. Understanding first principles creates the disposition that God requires in those who approach Him, for He has declared, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Leviticus 10:3).
First Principles & Fellowship
Now, those who respond to the Gospel call and enter into covenant enjoy a special relationship with God and His son Jesus. We are part of God’s spiritual family – sons and daughters of God and brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. In covenant, we are no longer estranged from God, but have “fellowship… with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). This special relationship of fellowship extends to our fellow saints, for since we are brothers and sisters of Christ, we are brothers and sisters of one another, and “we have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1:7). Yet there is a responsibility that comes with enjoying this fellowship. Having fellowship with the Father, we are to cease fellowship with wickedness, false teaching, and the things of the world. We are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11). Paul likewise exhorts us,
2 Corinthians 6:14, 17-18 – Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?... (17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (18) And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
God is taking out “a people for His name”, and fellowship with Him therefore entails coming out of the world.
Bro. Thomas Williams was heavily involved in fellowship matters and was a pillar in the truth, and he offers a concise summary of the relationship between first principles and fellowship:
“In order that men might come into fellowship with each other, with Christ, and through and in him with God, the gospel is sent to visit them and take out of them a people for his name (Acts 15:14). The gospel believed and obeyed restores the mind to a oneness with God, and by the act of baptism we are inducted into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, a complete oneness in the whole family in heaven and in earth. Here is a “family circle”. A circle is drawn by the Truth, inside of which there is fellowship; but no fellowship with any or anything outside.” (bold added)
Thomas Williams, “Fellowship – Sunday Morning Address”, The Christadelphian Advocate, May 1893, pg. 99
This responsibility is part of the terms of the covenant we enter into through baptism. We saw that “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” are two first principles, and they’re important because they are the means of Christ determining whether we’ve done our part to his satisfaction or not. It is a weighing of our life in Christ.
Naturally, as it was critical for us to believe the first principles which moved us and allowed us to come into covenant, we must also “continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:23). We cannot change our beliefs, for anything else is “another gospel” which cannot save (Galatians 1:6-9). We can’t fellowship teaching which negates the Gospel of Christ or undermines a first principle, because this robs the Gospel of its life-saving ability.
What makes a doctrine a first principle?
The Bible is full of teaching, but some things that are first principles and others are not. What makes a first principle? How do we know if something is a first principle or not?
A first principle is one that is an essential element of the Gospel. If understanding of one of those principles is incorrect, then it makes the gospel “of none effect”. Sometimes a doctrine’s impact on the Gospel is quickly discernible (like the immortality of the soul), but other times they must be considered more carefully. Some might even seem “harmless” on the surface but are seen to wreak havoc once they are considered. A first principle has a significant domino effect on other doctrines. Other non-essential teachings don’t have a significant domino effect.
For example, some believe that those who are raised for judgment to appear before Christ will be resurrected to an incorruptible state (not immortal, but incorruptible), meaning that they are incapable of sin. I believe this is incorrect for a number of reasons, namely
1. This would cause the dead in Christ who are raised and those who are “alive and remain” to stand before Jesus in different states and in a different nature.
2. Elevation to a better nature before judgment is inconsistent with Scripture. The only elevation in nature we’re told about is to the incorruptible, immortal, spirit nature (1 Corinthians 15:53-54).
3. “Incorruptible” means “cannot be corrupted”, and this requires that sin is no longer in the members. Sin will only be removed in us when we are made partakers of the spirit nature.
Nevertheless, this isn’t necessarily a first principle because it still allows man to be both condemned and elevated at the judgment seat depending on the sentence given. Other things like minute details and sequence of events of unfulfilled are not first principle doctrines, even though they are sometimes debated as if they are. We’ll discuss an example that is barrier to fellowship shortly, but let’s first look at
The Statement of Faith – Its Purpose & Use
The Statement of Faith has, at times, been subject to criticism even in the Unamended body, and it’s usually expressed in words like, “We don’t need a statement of faith - those are man’s words. We have the Bible – that’s our statement of faith.”
All of us agree that we believe in the Bible. The trouble is that this isn’t really saying anything. Every sect of Christianity confesses to believe in the Bible, yet what a vast difference there is in their understanding! As we’ve seen, the Bible is full of teaching, but not every teaching is fundamental. If we are to fellowship with one another, we need to be able to concisely define and summarize what we believe to be the first principles of the truth. As Bro. Thomas Williams wrote, “If a man’s faith is worth having, it is worth publishing in a well-defined form; so that others may examine it, accept it or reject it; fellowship it or repudiate it” (The Christadelphian Advocate, October 1891, pg. 256). This is what the Statement of Faith is – a numbered, organized summary of what we believe the Scripture teaches to be the first principles of the truth followed by a large list of Scriptural testimonies to substantiate each point. If one of those principles doesn’t align with Bible teaching, then we ought to throw it away - but we align ourselves with this because it aligns with our beliefs. This is using the Bible. Bro. Williams said, “What are the foundation principles? To be brief, we believe they are stated in the Statement of Faith.” (“What is Fellowship?”, The Christadelphian Advocate, Dec. 1909, pg. 341).
This a wonderful system, but it is not a perfect one. We live in an imperfect world and therefore can’t expect a perfect system, but what we have is the best that we’re able to utilize in these times. The Statement of Faith is important and practical not only because it summarizes our beliefs, but it acts as an effective, efficient way to express our understanding to others. If we had no Statement and were to visit another ecclesia, we would have to explain all that we believe to be essential doctrine to every brother or sister we meet. If you think about it, we would only go through this long process one or two times before we wrote down our beliefs and shared that with others to avoid having to repeat ourselves. The result would be that we each have our own individual Statements of Faith. Then, when we found others who believed just as we do, we would all align under the same Statement of Faith. So, if we were to do away with the Statement of Faith, it would quickly come back. It’s necessary and essential in these times.
If we believe the Statement of Faith is not intended to represent Bible essentials, then what is it for, and what are the essentials? As we’ll see, the original 1877 “Statement of Faith” was created for this very purpose.
It has also been remarked that ecclesias the 1st Century did not use a Statement of Faith, so we shouldn’t either. We have no record of those early ecclesias having a written Statement, but it’s possible that they did have one and we simply don’t have record of it – we don’t know. It seems, though, that they had a different method. Instead of a brother carrying a Statement of Faith whenever he travelled to other ecclesias, the brother would have a letter of recommendation by his ecclesia that would show him to be in good standing both doctrinally and in conduct (2 Corinthians 3:1, 1 Corinthians 16:3, Romans 16:1-2). This is a practice that I believe would be helpful today, particularly in cases when we’re visiting an ecclesia for the first time.
There are, however, two specific limitations to the Statement of Faith which come to mind, and we would do well to recognize them. Both are the result of it being penned by man. The first relates to word choice. The wording used can sometimes be open to interpretation, and so various views can potentially arise. That being said, it was carefully crafted to avoid this as much as possible, and the Statement most of us use today underwent some light editing by Bro. Thomas Williams to clarify some statements and remove these issues. Each clarification that was made change is notated in the front of the document, and we’ll look at that in a moment.
The other limitation lies in the fact that man has compiled this list. To the very best of our ability, we have narrowed down what we believe the Bible teaches to be the minimum understanding of fundamentals sufficient for one to enter covenant through baptism, but God is the ultimate judge. Have we included too many principles, or not enough?. We must work according to the Scriptures and our conscience, and in this age of corruption and imperfection, this is all we can do. Conscience as informed by the Scriptures is an important element in this. We emphasis conscience, not emotion. That being said, I believe what we have is as correct as we can attain. What we have has withstood the scrutiny of decades of questioners.
Brother Albert Hall was the editor of The Advocate in 1930, and he explained the importance of the Statement of Faith and its proper place:
“A Statement of Faith defines what is believed to be the import of this and other elements of the gospel. There are doctrines essential for salvation and others which are not. These are all found in the Bible, but are not so classified. A Statement defines what is considered to be the Bible teaching concerning these… When a candidate seeks baptism it is not sufficient for him to say, “I accept the Bible,” or “I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” It is necessary to find out whether the understanding of these things is in accordance with “the first principles of the oracles of God.” An ecclesia accepts a Statement of Faith as defining its concept of what is essential, and as the Truth contained therein must be understood and believed by those seeking baptism—the Statement in this way becomes a Basis of Fellowship. Not only for those seeking baptism, but for those also who have already received the Gospel. If “there was a time when no Statement of Faith existed,” this does not, however, prove that there is no need for one now to meet the circumstances pertaining to the Ecclesias. So many errors have been promulgated by those claiming to have the faith of the Christadelphians that the only safe course is to have a Statement defining what we believe and what we reject. We show thereby what we believe to be the “unity of the Spirit.” All who are like-minded will seek to have "fellowship one with another,” and so manifest "the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.” (bold & underlined added)
Albert Hall, “Should a Statement of Faith be a Basis of Fellowship?”, The Christadelphian Advocate, April 1930, pgs. 106-107
The Statement of Faith – A Short History
To understand where we are today and to navigate the future as best as possible, it is both helpful and important for us to understand the history of this important document.
The first official arrangement of beliefs was written by Bro. John Thomas in 1867 and called The Synopsis of the One Faith Taught by the Apostles. It was not a “Statement of Faith” as we think of it and not necessarily intended to act as a basis of fellowship as it is quite brief. The goal was merely to illustrate the truth was as compared to the corrupted teaching of Christendom.
A decade later in 1877, these concepts were compiled along with the other essential doctrines in what we refer to as the original Statement of the One Faith. The actual title is much longer than this. It was also called The Birmingham Statement of Faith as it arose out of the ecclesia in Birmingham, England. As it states on the first page, this document was intended to form “the basis of fellowship among Christadelphians” and was therefore more comprehensive than The Synopsis, including all of the things which we believe to be first principles. It’s comprised of doctrines to be believed and those to be denied. Newer additions include the commandments of Christ as well.
This was the Statement of Faith of all Christadelphians until the lates 1890s. At that time, a certain group began to teach and enforce the doctrine that anyone who knows the Word of God will and has been called will be raised for judgment alongside the saints regardless of whether they are baptized or not – a class they called the “enlightened rejector”. Those insisting upon this doctrine amended the Statement of Faith in January of 1898 to include this as a first principle. It was therefore titled The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF). We’ll examine what this was in a moment, but what ensued was the separation of fellowship between those who were originally baptized into the same faith.
In 1909 in response to the Amendment, Bro. Thomas Williams was moved to clarify some statements in the original Birmingham Statement of Faith and remove any unclear words. This did not change the teaching, but rather removed any ambiguity due to word choice. Bro. Williams also suggested removing the word “Birmingham” because it did not relate only to that location, and Birmingham was also the ecclesia that “amended”. This updated version of the Statement was therefore called The Christadelphian Statement of Faith (CSF). It is also sometimes called The Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith (BUSF) because its teaching had not changed, whereas the other group amended their beliefs.
The Amendment
As concisely as we can, we’ll cover what this change was and why it’s a first principle depending on how it is held. It concerned the class which was labeled “enlightened rejectors”, although definitions of what “enlightened” means varied. Some define it as those who simply “hear” the word while others define as those who “understand” it but reject it. This variety of thought still exists today among the Amended, some even admitting that we cannot know who falls into this category. Either way, the question related to whether God would judge those who had heard the Word and been called but did not enter covenant.
The original position of the Christadelphians regarding the “enlightened rejector” was that it was an “open question” whether God would raise some who were not in covenant. God could raise whoever He pleases even though He has not said that He will and indicates that He will not, so we will not limit His power or prerogative. But if He did, it would be on a different basis and a different time than those in covenant. The “enlightened rejector” was therefore not included anywhere in the Statement of Faith. The original 1877 statement relating the judgment was Section D –
“That at the appearing of Christ, his servants, faithful and unfaithful, dead and living of both classes, will be summoned before his judgment seat to "be judged according to their works;" "and receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad…”
“Servants” meant that only those in covenant were intended, and the faithful and unfaithful of this group were to be judged according to their works. But sometime between 1877 and the 1890s, it became Article 25 and these two words were dropped and changed to “the responsible”:
“That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (faithful and unfaithful), dead and living of both classes, will be summoned before his judgement-seat “to be judged according to their works”…
This was still referred only to those in covenant by the words “faithful and unfaithful”. Only those who have committed themselves to Christ in baptism can be judged on whether they remain faithful or not. This article is in our Statement of Faith today (the CUSF or BUSF). But in 1898, the group that would soon call themselves “Amended” made an arbitrary change to that article and numbered it 24, which afterward read,
“That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living—obedient and disobedient—will be summoned before his judgement-seat "to be judged according to their works"…
The word “responsible” was kept, but its definition was changed to refer not to those in covenant, but to those who “know” the will of God and are called upon to submit to it. While this might seem like a small detail, this drastically changes the reason for and mode of resurrection as we’ll see. It’s also important that even though this drastic change was made to the article, no additional proofs were supplied to support it.
Why the Amendment is a Barrier to Fellowship
The question is, why does this represent a barrier to fellowship? This represents a first principle issue not only because it is a different Statement of Faith that was changed from what was previously accepted as essential, but because it has a disastrous effect on other first principles. The Statement of Faith represents what we believe to be the necessary doctrines to come into covenant and fellowship with God, and so changing those principles nullifies fellowship. While this might sound extreme, it certainly was not viewed as such by those who left the original body, and it does in fact constitute separation. Let’s examine why.
It is first critical to note that this is not the only difference between the “stated positions” of the Unamended and Amended communities. Not necessarily every person in one group shares different views on these subjects, but they have been publicized as the stated positions as if to represent the majority. The complete list of differences in generally stated positions are
The Nature of Man – the state of natural man and what needs atonement
The Nature & Sacrifice of Christ – whether Christ shared this same condemned, unclean nature and was in need of atonement
Baptism – its meaning and purpose; what it accomplishes and why it is necessary
Covenant Relationship – its meaning, purpose and efficacy
Resurrectional Responsibility – who will be raised to stand before the judgment seat
These are all important, but if we had to rank them by significance, resurrectional responsibility and the enlightened rejector is the least important issue which separates the Unamended and Amended. The first four items are far more impactful and significant, but since resurrectional responsibility is the official change that was made to the Statement of Faith and resurrection is stated by Paul to be a first principle (Hebrews 6:2), that’s what we’ll consider.
Why is the amendment a first principle issue and barrier to fellowship? Let us first consider Bible teaching on the subject, and the effects of the amendment will be seen. I realize that this is a very concise summary which is deficient of multiple important points, but we’ll be brief for time’s sake.
The entire race is under the condemnation of death, and it is sin and death from which man needs salvation. In order for man to escape the eternal return to dust, God sent His son Jesus as the redeemer of the race to offer man an escape from the eternal grave. Jesus overcame sin and offered himself as a sacrifice for sin, and God therefore raised him up so that others, through Jesus, could be raised up as well (Romans 6:3-6). Christ attained the resurrection and immortality first, and it is on the basis of Jesus being raised from the dead that others of the race can be raised. Christ is therefore called our “forerunner”, “the firstfruits of them that slept”, “the first begotten of the dead”, “the firstborn among many brethren”, and so on (Hebrews 6:20, 1 Corinthians 15:20, Revelation 1:5, Romans 8:29). His resurrection is so critical to that of the rest of the race that Paul says,
1 Corinthians 15:16-18 – For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: (17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Those who are asleep in Adam are perished already because they came under no life-offering law, but if Christ is not raised, then even those who sleep in him won’t be raised either. The basis of Christ’s resurrection and salvation is the same basis by which we can attain it – otherwise all of these titles of him being “first begotten”, “first born”, and “forerunner” mean nothing because it teaches another way. How then was Jesus raised? Was it because of his “enlightenment” by the truth? The Scriptures couldn’t give us the answer in a clearer format:
Hebrews 13:20 – the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus… through the blood of the everlasting covenant.
It was by his own blood that Jesus was raised in accompaniment with the oath God had made (Acts 13:33-35). Had his blood not been shed, not even he could be raised or given immortality. Since Jesus is our forerunner and was raised by means of his blood, man must come into contact with it somehow. How is this done? In baptism – the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection in Christ. It is on account of the oath and the blood of the covenant that man is therefore raised, nothing else. Covenant relationship is the only basis on which God has showed that He will raise man (John 11:25).
Another result of the enlightened rejector teaching is that the Gospel becomes a threat to those who do not come into covenant, for if one hears the Word and doesn’t obey, they will be raised for refusal at the judgment seat only. They have no hope as they are not in Christ, so why raise them at all? This gets to why resurrection is even necessary.
Resurrection is simply a means to an end. God offered hope to perishing man that involves them living forever, and this hope was offered through His promises – everlasting life in the land. Since many of the heirs have died, this requires that they must be raised to life again. This is why resurrection is necessary. Resurrection is therefore promised on the basis of the hope. We cannot separate resurrection from the hope of the Kingdom – and those who never obtain a title to inheritance in the Kingdom through baptism have no hope of the Kingdom. But since we are sinful beings, we have to be judged to determine whether we’ve remained faithful to the covenant we made with God, and there is therefore, by necessity, a judgment. We must put resurrection and judgment in their proper place. Resurrection is promised is so man can have the hope of eternal life and inherit the Kingdom, not so he can be judged. Judgment exists out of necessity to determine worthiness and dispense reward. Christ does not want to judge people, he needs to because a covenant was made and terms were agreed to. The amendment makes judgment the focus.
There are yet many other problems with the amendment which we don’t have time to go into depth with, but we can summarize a few results and issues with this doctrine as follows:
If knowledge of the truth, not the blood of Christ, is what allows us to be resurrected, then Jesus is not essential to resurrection. Man can be resurrected outside of Christ.
If Jesus was raised by the blood but man is raised because of “knowledge”, then man is raised on a different basis than Jesus, nullifying him as “the first begotten of the dead”, “the first born among brethren”, and our “forerunner”.
It separates resurrection from the covenants of promise and makes it merely about judgment.
We will be judged according to works, specifically those done “in his (Christ’s) body” (2 Corinthians 5:10). Those not in covenant are not part of “Christ’s body” and have no works to be judged of. They’d be judged for not abiding by a covenant they never agreed to.
If the dead are raised because they have heard and not obeyed the Word, can they be saved? If so, then this teaches salvation outside of the blood of Christ and covenant relationship. If not, then for what purpose are they given life again?
Placing those who only heard the word alongside those in covenant lumps the “unsanctified” and “sanctified” into the same group, showing a misunderstanding of what baptism is and does.
It turns the Gospel into a threat. Hearing the Word means that they better be baptized, or else they will be resurrected and judged for condemnation.
Please note – all of this results from just one “small” difference in the Statement of Faith and does not even take into account the other more substantial differences between the Amended and Unamended. Withholding fellowship from those who hold this doctrine is the only course we can maintain particularly since it is an understanding of the first principles which makes our baptisms valid.
The Unamended position on the “enlightened rejector” is perfectly stated in the words of Bro. J.J. Andrew in an interview Bro. Thomas Williams. Bro. Williams. He said,
“The question of making resurrection of Gentiles out of Christ a test of fellowship depends upon the way it is held… If it be recognized that Adam brought death upon the entire race by his sin, that baptism into Christ frees men from the permanent power of death, and that such of the baptized as die will rise through their relationship to Christ, but that it is possible God may, hy His independent power, raise some others, I should not consider it a barrier to fellowship… But if it be contended that some Gentiles out of Christ will be raised on the same basis as those in Christ, this contention would be a barrier to fellowship.” (bold added)
Bro. J.J. Andrews in Interview with Bro. Thomas Williams, recorded in The Christadelphian Advocate, Aug. 1900, pg. 276
Maintaining Bible Fundamentals
There is great danger to the Unamended body of being influenced by the world, particularly the increasing liberalism. It seems that the conversation and emphasis on these principles has been minimized, unintentionally by some, but intentionally by others – particularly some seeking “unity”. In observing the reunion efforts between the Unamended and Amended communities over the decades, Bro. James Farrar (now Advocate editor) summed the situation up effectively in a pamphlet entitled Seven Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of Faith. He says,
“The issue is whether, through the course of years, the unamended community has been worn down, and now sees the larger, worldwide fellowship of the amended community as a thing to be sought after. When a succession of efforts to bring about a continental reunion failed because of genuine differences in understanding, those who could not accept this verdict have changed the method in seeking to achieve this result. Instead of trying to effect a full reunion, on a common continental basis, the approach now is to try to work for the assimilation of the unamended ecclesias into the amended fold piecemeal, brother by brother and ecclesia. Whether this approach will be any more successful than the previous ones which failed is in or hands to determine.” (bold added)
James Farrar, Seven Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of Faith, Nov. 1995, pg. 7
This was written almost 30 years ago, and where are we today? It seems this approach has been more successful, but what is the culprit? Ten years before Seven Reservations was published, Bro. John Peake wrote a letter to the Unamended ecclesias to express his concern for the body:
“I have deep concern for the survival of our Unamended Christadelphian community. Today there seems to be far less concern for the purity of the truth entrusted to us by such of our pioneers as John Thomas, Robert Roberts, and Thomas Williams than is held by an ever-widening group of our members for a superficial, social harmony. In my estimation this is the resultant of several forces, chief among which are (1) the rapidly changing social, moral and religious standards of the world and (2) neglect by our members of serious, devoted study of the Holy Scriptures.” (bold added)
John Peake to “Fellow Christadelphians Concerned with Preservation of Saving Truth”, May 24, 1985
Are these merely issues of the past, or are they still with us today? Society has changed much in the 40 years since this was written, and these issues are even more relevant to our day than they were back then, particularly since fewer understand the differences and are voicing this concern. If there is a solution, it is certainly found in recognizing the issues and taking steps to correct them, and this means giving attention and emphasis to these foundational principles.
Ecclesiastes 10:18 – By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.
We must decide – are these the foundational principles on which the spiritual house of God is built, or are they not? If they are not, then we have some serious searching to do. But if they are, we must ensure that we are grounded in them and hold them up for the world to see. They cannot be bartered or traded for anything – they are a pearl of great price that we are to possess dearly and which are the very foundation of our salvation (Matthew 13:45-46). As Bro. Robert Roberts observed,
“Experience over a wide and constantly fermenting field (of ecclesial activity) shows that unless there is resolute adhesion to the position of Divine wisdom, recovered with muff difficulty during the last two generations, there is a danger of losing it all; not all at once, but point by point - one point at a time till all is gone.”
Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1896, pg. 429
Hebrews 2:1 – Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
