Want Some Answers ???


Dear John, thanks for the reply.

You say Christadelphians simply don’t hold the beliefs I claim. From my email you make a summary and refute those points. May I comment further?

1. Yes, I advocate the "Gospel of Grace" rather than the "Gospel of the Kingdom". There’s a difference between these and Christadelphians emphasize one, ignoring the other. You respond,

>>The "Gospel of Grace" has no contradiction with the "Gospel of the Kingdom"<<

[1] Gospel (good News) to Israel.
Half the contents of the Bible relate to one nation – Israel. They were in covenant with God enjoying specific promises. The Messiah [who was expected at every Passover] was to come and rule on the throne of David setting-up an earthly kingdom of splendour and power. The Jews hoped the Messiah would come and "….rescue [them] from the hand of [their] enemies" [Luke 1:74]. This was the Gospel [good news] of the kingdom to Israel (with a distinction between Jew and Gentile) [Isa.11:11-12 14:1 Zeph.3:14-15 Jer.23:5-6 16:14-15 32:37-38 Lk.1:31-33 Ac.15:14-16 Rom.11:1,11, 24-26].

[2] Good News to all.
When Israel rejected the Messiah the Holy Spirit turned to the Gentiles with the Gospel of God’s grace. The ‘good news’ was Christ's coming "to give [the] knowledge of SALVATION … by the remission of… SINS" [Lk.1:77]. "I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand … how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [the OT] and was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." [I Cor.15:1-3]

This good news of God’s grace wasn’t preached while Christ was on earth for He had not risen. The church began in Acts 2 [Mt.16:18 Eph.3:5-10] it’s message is the Gospel of Grace, NOT of the Kingdom Gospel. With no distinction between Jew and Gentile the Church is to take this message to the whole world. So to emphasize the kingdom and not the gospel is a big mistake.

The next point – 2. I exhort that Christians are saved by grace and not by works. You write,

>>there is not one Christadelphian who would claim that either you were incorrect on this point. I assure you we make no such claim. If you have found this thought in literature published in our name, then I can only suggest that it was poorly written.<<

Correct, they do not make the “claim”. But under examination it is an obvious and refutable part of their salvation doctrine. Answer me this, Can I lose my salvation? Yes or no? The Christadelphian H. Tennant wrote, "This work of salvation continues throughout the life of the disciple. He is saved finally because he has held fast to the lifeline secured in Christ" [pg.212 "The Christadelphians What they Believe and Teach" Birmingham 1986].

This “work of salvation" is not according to grace but “because” someone “has held fast” [did the right things, faithful, etc]. This is a salvation by works and effort. The Bible says, ‘by grace ye are saved, not of yourselves” [Eph.2:8]. Perhaps you could explain what that verse means?

In the web site Statement of Faith there’s many subtle references to a salvation by works. Clause 16 reads, “That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being there upon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded”.

I doubt Christadelphians are God’s children at all. Roberts wrote, “The Holy Spirit is given to none in the present day” [pg.83,86 Christendom Astray]. Universally Christadelphians deny the Trinity, the personality of the Holy Spirit and don’t accept the Holy Spirit as a person. The Bible says, “The Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” [Rom.8:9].

That means, those who do not have the Spirit of God are not God’s Children, they are not saved. So you could know the Scriptures perfectly and all about salvation yet do “not belong to Christ”. And by insisting Christ is someone other than Who He claimed, means that He has a warning to you. “Ye shall die in your sins if ye believe not that I AM He”.

3. I claim a distinction between immortality and eternal life. And “
we agree that a distinction exists”. I’m glad we agree. The Bible clearly states, “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. [1 Jn.5:11-12]. The term eternal life ‘eionion zoes’ [the present possession of every believer in Christ] means ‘conscious fellowship’. It does not end at death in annihilation and it means the eternal security of the believer is clearly taught in Scripture.

4. On point 4 there’s "
“no disagreement whatsoever”.

Your final comment deals with the most serious matter for you. You devote most of your letter to it. The main problem as you see it, is not so much that I misunderstood Christadelphians, but it’s the ‘
tone’ of my letter. You point out how much you agree with my letter but the ‘tone’ offends. Did you hear the sound of my voice when I typed? You write,

>>My single disagreement with you was the entire tone with which you wrote your email. I understand that you clearly feel very strongly about those things which you believe, and this is indeed commendable and exemplary that your faith forms such an important kernel to your life. But never forget that the people to whom you are preaching and witnessing also hold beliefs dear to their hearts: it is not charitable to make the default assumption that anyone who does not believe identically to yourself is the deliberate promulgator of false and dead doctrine<<

The subject of salvation is so important I wrote for a response. It’s hard to feel sorry, after reading your web site. Your web site insults my Saviour and dishonours Him. “All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father [Jn.5:23]. How should I respond to those who "preach another gospel"? (Gal.1:8) How many would have replied had I not been so sharp? After having read the website so carefully it’s corruption was obvious, it infuriated me to write. But know this, cults are FAR MORE critical of every major Christian doctrine and those who hold them! By simply believing the Trinity doctrine R.Roberts describes me as “incapable of giving God the glory”, “corrupt”, “shallow”, “deluded”, and a “bigot”, and threatens God’s judgment. Mansfield is no better.

>>The tone with which you communicated yourself was, one feels, some distance away from the one which has been recommended for us to use in these instances. Paul trains Timothy to be a teacher, and advises him to teach those who hold different opinions in this way: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose..." (2 Timothy 2:24-25)<<

I’m not Timothy teaching “those who hold different opinions”. There’s a difference between ‘opinion’ and "another gospel". Paul says "let them be accursed" (Gal.1:8). Jude says, be ready to “earnestly contend for the faith” [Jude 3]. Paul says, “rebuke sharply” those in error [Titus 1:13]. He opposed Peter’s dissimulation publicly [Gal.2:14]. And concerning “false brethren” had no toleration [Gal.2:4-5].

Would you say Jude demonstrated an insensitive "
tone" when attacking heretics? [vs.8-9] On the Christadelphian website there are no subtle differences of “opinion” but major, fundamental deviations from traditional Christianity. It’s not I who must explain myself; Christadelphians must explain themselves. They “promise much, but produce nothing’ [Jude 12].

Nothing yet has convinced me Christadelphians are not “the victims of a spiritual deception” or open-minded. And nothing indicates they “know the Saviour”. Do you know the Saviour? When I ask this, why does this trouble you? You write,

>>Consider particularly the latter comment. To make this comment necessitates that your opinion of the knowledge of the Saviour is absolutely devoid of error, whilst any other opinion is obviously and necessarily wrong<<

I have never claimed ‘absolute’ knowledge. But “one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I can see” [Jn.9:25]. The burden of sin is gone. The Apostle John wrote, “These things have I written …..that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life [1 Jn.5:13]. I know Jesus is my Saviour. “The Spirit himself testifies with [my] spirit that [I am God's child]” [Rom 8:16]. Apparently you don’t have the Holy Spirit within or know the Saviour. So I understand why you can’t conceive it possible, how I can know and be certain, but I am. And I want you to know the Saviour in this real and dear way. This could be the only time you have to accept Christ as your Saviour. Do it now, don’t wait.

Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me” [Jn.14:6]. Because I know the Saviour, and have “the truth”. And don’t need to search the maze of Christadelphianism with it’s labyrinth of ‘conditions’ for salvation, will deceive and leave one dissatisfied at life's end.

It’s unlikely you will write again John. It’s difficult to challenge the truth. And truth is something Christadelphians don’t have, because “the truth” is not a something but a Someone. It’s not a “system” of thought, but a Person. So indeed, I hope and pray you come to know the Saviour. You don’t need religion John you need the Saviour.

Kind Regards.


His Reply