The Voice of Truth
Fourth Quarter 1994
Special Issue

Response to:  Advocatism Exposed

Most Unamended Christadelphian households recently received a booklet entitled Advocatism Exposed. The two authors of the booklet were members of the Unamended community for several years.

The title of their booklet reveals their intent and it might be a noble venture were it not for the fact that they are proceeding without a thorough knowledge of the history of the differences between the Amended and Unamended communities. As far as the matter of exposing the position of the Unamended goes, there have been copious works seeking to accomplish that end undertaken by the Amended brethren for a century now. In fact, they quoted from some of those attempts; therefore, they seem to have felt that those works fell short of the intended goal.

On page VI of the "Introduction" under the sub-heading, “The Goal," the primary intent of the youthful authors is exposed. They wish to establish the infallibility of Brother John Thomas, who, as they say, was God's instrument in bringing the truth to light in these latter days. We believe that without exception, the Unamended Christadelphians are united in their respect for the works of Brother Thomas. This respect extends to the point of believing him and adhering to his admonition as he carefully points out to his readers to read his works with Bible in hand (Elpis Israel Page xx of the author's preface). He also admonished his readers to try his writings by the facts (Elpis Israel p. 282). We believe him and respect his statement when he said "I claim no divine and miraculous inspiration" (Eureka Vol iii p. vi of the Preface). To do otherwise is to dishonor the memory of this noble brother. We believe that God chose him for his honesty and ability to find and recognize saving truth as he encountered it. We know, however, that if he had been inspired, such inspiration would have been revealed to him and he would never have offered such a disclaimer.

Notice also that the authors did not attempt to show the Unamended to be in error by comparing our position with the Scriptures. They sought to disprove us by the writings of fallible brethren and their dealings with certain passages. That is not good Scriptural exegesis.

The authors speak of the understanding of these issues in 1871. Why 1871? The answer to that question reveals the source of the problem. That is the year Brother Thomas died. In other words, there is resentment against any variation from anything he may have said or written. Also, the Unamended are accused by these authors of attacking Brother Thomas in order to discredit him.

If brethren had not been under attack unnecessarily, it would not have been necessary ever to mention the fact that Brother Thomas was not inspired. In order to offset a wrong argument, it sometimes becomes necessary to show why something that is contended for cannot be accepted. Thus, brethren have had to prove that our noble Brother does not present the same accuracy as is found in the Bible. Let it be noticed that in their efforts, the two young authors have stridently attacked the credibility of Brethren Andrew and Williams. That, surely, is for the same purpose, is it not? But Brethren Andrew and Williams are not their favorite pioneers, therefore they seem to feel that their utilization of the same tactic and motive is noble while ours is not.


The authors seek to establish the idea that all of the brethren who were involved in initiating the amendment, and/or have agreed to it, have been honestly consistent throughout the history of the truth's revival. Also, Brother Andrew is accused of departing on issues on which the brethren had previously been in complete agreement. That accusation is completely false. We will consider the two following questions:

1. Did the favorite pioneers of the two authors ever change their position on anything they had previously written?

2. Have Brother Thomas or Brother Roberts, and those who allied themselves with Brother Roberts in the controversies remained consistent with all of their earlier teachings?

In the following pages, the answer to both these questions will become obvious. That answer will, no doubt, be surprising to our young critics, but the truth of the matter must be proven beyond a doubt. Let us take note of Brother Thomas first. We regretfully mention these things, and we do so only because we have been forced to prove that our Brother was not as accurate as is the Bible.

The Nature of the Resurrection-Body.

On page xxiv of Elpis Israel we find the "Publishers Notes." In the 6th paragraph is a reference to the fact that Brother Thomas, in the original edition of the book, had taught that the nature of the resurrection-body was to be immortal and incorruptible. Although, in the preface to the fourth edition, Brother Thomas mentioned his change of belief, it was up to the publisher's of the 1958 edition to make the change as noted in that 6th paragraph. Also, let it be noticed that the fourteenth edition of 1958 was revised. Throughout the last 10 editions, the work has been changed until it no longer reflects some of the problems which once existed in the work. The publishers even called attention to a number of the former problems that had to be changed, although they admit they left some of them intact. Therefore, it is established that Brother Thomas changed his mind on this issue, as well as on some others.

If, in fact, Brother Andrew changed his views as the authors allege, did he not have the right to exercise the same prerogative that Brother Thomas did?

On page xxiv of the "Authors Preface," Brother Thomas reveals that he himself made emendations in order to "place this revise in accord with the author's latest work ... " This reveals that he changed his view on a number of things. Should he be excused while Brother Andrew is to be blamed?

Brother Thomas admirably changed his mind on another matter, that of the two legs of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. In Elpis Israel p. 324-325, he identified two of the divisions of Alexander's empire as the two legs of that image. However, about 15 years later, he identified the eastern and western divisions of the Roman Empire as the legs of the image. See Eureka Vol. II p. 382-383, 3 Vol. set. So we see that is it is folly to point to the writings of a fallible man as the final word on any matter. One person could point to the statement in Elpis Israel as proof of his favorite interpretation, while another points to the one in Eureka as proof of his. Therefore, Brother Thomas is placed in opposition to Brother Thomas. What folly that would be. We insist that our position be tested by the Scriptures, not by the writings of other brethren.

Brother Roberts also changed his mind on several matters during his lifetime. For instance, there is the matter of whether or not there is "legal" deliverance from the Adamic sentence at Baptism. Their booklet makes much of this matter while laying the fault entirely at Brother Andrew's door. So, let us notice Brother Roberts in the Christadelphian Vol. 15 (1878), page 225 which is spread before me as I write:


G. A. B. (C)--Legally, a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of sins; but actually, its effects remain till "this mortal" (that is, this Adamic condemned nature) is swallowed up in the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his coming. Those whom Christ at that time does not approve are delivered up to death again because of their sins and not because of Adam. Although reconciled in Christ, we remain under the physical effect of Adam's sentence till we are "changed in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." The case is parallel with what takes place between two nations at war who arrive at terms of peace. As soon as the treaty is signed, they are legally at peace, yet the effects of the war are not at once ended, for the forces of the one remain in the territories of the other until the ratification of the treaty and arrival of the date fixed for evacuation. Peace between God and the disobedient is signed, so to speak, when the believing sinner submits to the righteousness of God in being baptized into the death of His Son; but war measures are not entirely withdrawn until the reconciliation is ratified at the judgment seat of Christ. For further remarks, see the Christadelphian, July, 1874, page 337 "Condemnation and Mortality." End of Quotation.

Here Brother Roberts clearly sets forth a two-fold reason for needing reconciliation to God -1. legal and 2. disobedience. This is exactly what the Unamended (Advocatism so called) are blamed for teaching. Who has been consistent? Brother Roberts? Hardly! Remember that the authors on page 80 denied that Brother Roberts ever taught a legal deliverance at baptism. The above quotation proves them wrong.

On the last night of the debate, Brother Andrew reminded Brother Roberts of the above article. Being somewhat embarrassed, Brother Roberts admitted that he had written that, then backed off from the term "legally." In reality, the deletion of the term, "legally," renders the whole statement unacceptable to both the Amended and the Unamended since it teaches a gross error that neither would accept. At least, the term, "legally," confines the meaning of "Adamic Condemnation" to only a portion of what the sentence entails. Remove the term "legally,” and one would have to understand that Brother Roberts believed and taught the removal of the entirety of the effects of the Adamic sentence at baptism. No! He did not wish to be understood in that manner. One should try to understand his remarks regarding the similarity with nations at war without the aspect of legality, and, see how much sense one can make of his remarks. By seeking to draw back from the term "legally" in order to hide the fact that he was the one who had changed, he did not notice the error he was suggesting; a worse error than the ones he accused Brother Andrew of believing and teaching.

In questions 688 and 689 of the debate, Brother Roberts says he must have gotten the term, "legally," from Brother Andrew without realizing where the idea would lead. However, Brother Roberts had set in type an article by Brother Thomas in 1873, where Brother Thomas taught that Christ, as the antitype of Aaron, had to legally "put off” his ordinary attire in order to "put on" the antitypical priestly garments. Is it not obvious that he got that truth from Brother Thomas? That article is entitled Aaron and Christ and is quoted later in this response.

Question #691 of the debate reveals two other issues to which Brother Roberts had to agree because of what he had previously written. Notice that the two issues (1. wiping out of an aspect of Adamic condemnation at baptism, and, 2. passing out of Adam into Christ), are matters against which the young authors have labored in Advocatism Exposed. Yet, Brother Roberts had abandoned them leaving them "dangling in mid-air." However, after the debate when the pressure was off, Brother Roberts proceeded as though these admissions were never made, even claiming in the "Preface" (which was written after the debate) that he had never departed from those principles. Everyone who reads the debate can clearly see that he contended against those principles nearly all the way through the debate ... Notice Question #691:

Brother Andrew asks: "What is wiped out?" Brother Roberts' answer: "Everything that stands against us in any way whether from Adam or ourselves."

Question #692: - "Then there is a passing out of Adam into Christ at baptism?" Brother Roberts answers: "Certainly."

Question #693: "When a man passes into Christ, what has he in Adam that he loses when he passes into Christ?" Brother Roberts' answer: "His relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is preliminary deliverance at baptism, but it is not actual till the resurrection."

Is it not now obvious that Brother Roberts was forced to admit to the very doctrines that "Advocatism" professes because of the fact that he originally believed and taught the same thing! The two authors are mistaken as they seek to show that unchangeable, solid rock on which their favorite pioneers stood while seeking to show the sand upon which they feel "Advocatism" is built. Actually, the Unamended endorse the admissions that Brother Roberts made in the answers to those three questions. Notice also the quotations that were made in their "expose," as they quoted the later writings of Brother Roberts. This shows that even though he was caught in a tight spot and made those admissions, he continued after the debate as though he had not made them.


There has been constant warfare against the Unamended community because of their position regarding the question of whether or not one passes out of Adam and into Christ at baptism. Who changed? Was it Brethren Andrew and Thomas? Was it Brother Roberts? As far as this writer can ascertain, Brother Thomas never changed his view on it. However, it cannot be denied that Brother Roberts did and we shall demonstrate that truth with quotations which clearly tell the story. First, Brother Thomas:

Elpis Israel pages 126-137 Brother Thomas considers two separate constitutions which he styles 1. THE CONSTITUTION OF SIN, and 2. THE CONSTITUTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ... On page 132 Brother Thomas says -- "The two Adams are two federal chiefs; the first being figurative of the second in these relations. All sinners are in he first Adam; and all the righteous are in the second, only on a different principle. Sinners were in the loins of the first when he transgressed; but not in the loins of the latter when he was obedient unto death." In the next paragraph, Brother Thomas quotes I Cor. 15:21-22 in connection with the principle.

What do the phrases "in Adam" and "in Christ" mean? Brother Thomas explains his understanding in Elpis Israel, page 241:

"The reader knows what it is to be in a house, and he is aware that he must pass into it before he can be in it. This is the literal. Now, suppose we call the house a man; and in answer to the question, 'where is he?' we say hi is in the man, this would be to speak figuratively, but still scripturally and intelligibly. Before, however, a person or a nation, or a multitude of nations could be said to be in the man Abraham, and in the man Jesus Christ, it is equally clear that they must pass into Abraham and into Christ. Now although many nations may literally come out of one man, a multitude of nations cannot literally be packed into one man. When, therefore, nations and individuals are said to be in Abraham and in Christ, it is manifest that it must be in a figurative sense. Hence, 'in thee,' 'in him,' and 'in Christ' are figurative expressions, or terms of constitution...."

ROBERT ROBERTS: We have already seen from the quotations in the debate that Brother Roberts admitted to a passing out of Adam into Christ, because it was proved in his hearing that he once taught it. In Christandom Astray, page 409 of the Logos edition Brother Roberts wrote:

"There are other similar references to baptism throughout the epistles; but these are sufficient to show that whatever may be the difficulty of modern professing Christians in discovering any significance or efficacy in the ordinance of baptism, the apostles saw much in both. They recognized in it a CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION FROM ONE RELATIONSHIP TO ANOTHER, -- A REPRESENTATIVE PUTTING OFF OF THE OLD MAN, OR ADAMIC NATURE, AND A PUTTING ON THE NEW MAN, OR CHRIST, WHO IS THE ONE COVERING NAME." (Emphasis is added).

Now, where is the condemnation that should be forthcoming from the authors against Brother Roberts for writing so much like Advocatism"? Let us listen closely and see that it doesn't come forth, for he is touted in their booklet as a champion of opposition to Unamended teachings.

We often hear a denial of the fact that Brother Thomas believed and taught that there was a passing out of Adam when one enters into Christ at baptism. It is a known fact that Brother Thomas visited personally with Brother Roberts on several occasions. Brother Roberts knew his mind on these matters and for a while placed his own understanding in harmony with Brother Thomas’ view. The principle is present in Brother Thomas' writings but the exact expression is not found as far as this writer has been able to discover. Since he so clearly set forth the principle, it is folly to deny the fact because he didn't say it in the very words some would demand to see.

There are many more references that could be produced; however, we can afford room or only a few in each category. We move on now to the matter of:


Psa. 58:3--"The wicked are ESTRANGED from the womb ... "

What is the difference between alienation and estrangement? Can it be denied that they are synonyms? Who are the wicked? Does not Brother Thomas clearly show in Elpis Israel, pages 126-131, that all who are born into "the constitution of sin" are classed as "sinners." Are they not the wicked? Anyone who is not classed as righteous by virtue of having entered "the constitution of righteousness" is considered to be "the wicked." Since a baby cannot literally "go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies," the Psalmist is here speaking of the qualities of the flesh that is inherent in even a new-born infant. They "are estranged from the womb" says the inspired Psalmist. It isn't so protests the opposers of the truth. Advocatism" is hereby shown to speak in harmony with divine inspiration. Who shall we believe? The answer to that question should be abundantly clear to us all.

It cannot be said that this estrangement or alienation is caused by personal sins as Amended brethren claim in the case with the so-called rejector. It would be a very strange thing if God should charge an infant with transgressing His laws, of which the infant can know nothing. Even the Amended brethren teach that "a man must know of the command to be baptized before he becomes a rejector of the word." Surely then, a newborn infant cannot have received "light" in order to be accountable for personal sin.

On page 76 the authors made claim that the subject of alienation was mentioned in the Old Testament only in Ezek. 23:18. We see now that the concept is found in Isa. 58:3 and is certainly not a reference to a state of mind. Of necessity then, the estrangement in Psa. 58:3 refers to alienation as a result of natural birth, the same event that causes God to require a cleansing ceremony even for mothers who were defiled by giving birth to a body of condemned, unclean flesh (Lev. 12th chapter). Can a thing be defiled or unclean and have access to the things of God without first availing itself of God's method of being considered clean by the Deity?

Among the Amended brethren there is an absolute refusal to admit that anything that in any way is defiled or unclean is in need of an atonement (covering). That lesson was taught in the Law all the way through particularly from Lev. 8th through the 15th chapters. Let no one say that it was just a matter of healing the condition, as Amended brethren say concerning the unclean flesh of sin and saying that a change of nature is all that is needed. In every instance from Lev. 8th through 15th chapters, even after the condition was healed, a typical cleansing was ordered to be effected. After that, the person was considered to be clean and was allowed once again to enter in among the congregation.

Notice that throughout Lev. 14 there is an often repeated phrase regarding the person who contacted defilement. That phrase is "he that is to be cleansed." Now, Amended brethren insist that all we need is to change our nature at the return of Christ, that no typical cleansing is needed before that time. In that case, do we understand the phrase "he that is to be cleansed" to mean "he that is to be immortalized"? That would be absurd since, as long as the uncleanness continued, the person was quarantined outside the camp, and could not rejoin the encampment until his typical cleansing was completed. If the only cleansing needed is immortality, the individual had to wait for the return of Christ before rejoining the encampment of Israel. Surely, he would be dead before that time. Can we not see the disregard with which God's types and shadows have been treated by the Amended brethren?

This brings up an interesting, vital point. On page 32 the authors charge-“Williams and Andrew used shadows and types instead of using established doctrine to uncover the types." That charge is absolutely untrue. Let us have a little fairness as we proceed. We have shown, and will continue showing, that the "new departures" Brother Andrew was accused of fathering, were doctrines that had been taught by the other pioneers of the Truth's revival prior to Brother Andrew's alleged departure. The major change in Brother Andrew's understanding was that the so-called rejector would not rise to judgment at any time, rather than at the end of the millennium as he formerly believed.

Now, regarding "shadows and types," did not the Apostle Paul masterfully use the shadows and types of the law in order to carry the Hebrew believers on to perfection or better understanding? One could have charged Paul with using shadows and types to establish doctrine. No, he did not, but he did make masterful use of them to unfold the truths that were embodied in the shadows and types of the law. The authors parrot Brother Roberts in saying that Brother Andrew, by comparing Old Testament types with New Testament antitypes, was "putting new wine in old bottles." If this is a fair statement, the Apostle Paul must be said to have also been putting new wine in old bottles when he did the same thing.

Have our young brethren, who authored the booklet we are responding to, read the Law of Moses by Bother Roberts? Did he not do the same thing Paul did; the same thing Brethren Williams and Andrew did in utilizing the shadows and types? Therefore, it should not matter whether it was Paul, or Brethren Roberts, Williams or Andrew who pointed to the truths involving the shadows and types of the Law. Truth is truth, in whichever way it is established and proven.


Elpis Israel page 131--Brother Thomas writes: "Now, the Kingdom of God has a constitution as well as the Kingdom of Satan .... Before sinners come under it, they are characterized as 'without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God (& atheoi, atheists) in the world'. They are termed 'FAR OFF,' STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, walking in the vanity of their minds ... " (Emphasis is added).

Comment: The claim is nearly always made by the Amended brethren that since Brother Thomas refers to the sinful walk of those who were "afar off," "strangers and foreigners" that he was teaching that they were in that condition because they were walking in vanity with their understanding darkened, etc. That view holds no logic whatever. Brother Thomas simply refers to the way they proceeded through life in that "far off" condition. Would anyone assert that there was ever a time when those to whom he refers did not have their understanding darkened? Were they not born without understanding? Was there ever a time since their birth that they had been "nigh" to God; a time when they had not been "far off," "strangers and foreigners" If anyone would so assert that there was such a time, please tell us when that was and how it came to be so?

Christendom Astray p. 113-“Jewish responsibility was greater than that of the CAST OFF descendants of the rejected groundling of Eden." (Emphasis is added).

Christendom Astray p. 115 (Logos ed.) ... "The endeavor is to realize, in the light of reason and Scripture testimony, the varying shades of responsibility created by the dealings of the Almighty with A RACE ALREADY EXILED FROM LIFE AND FAVOR UNDER THE LAW OF EDEN." (Emphasis is added).

Comment: Would anyone assert that Brother Roberts would have said that those "cast Off descendants were not "cast off” at the time of their birth; that they individually became cast off because of something they had done? Did he not say in the above paragraph that they were exiled under the law of Eden? Wasn't that before even one of those cast off descendants was born?

The Christadelphian Vol. 15 (1878) p. 225---" ...As soon as the treaty is signed, they are LEGALLY at peace.” (Emphasis is added.) Remember that Brother Roberts was comparing the circumstance of a person entering Christ (changing his former condition) with the circumstance of nations at war. Brother Roberts in the Ambassador (later named the Christadelphian) Vol. III p. 97 (1866):

"In the order of nature, A MAN IS BORN INTO THE POSITION OF ADAM, WHEN CONDEMNED TO RETURN TO THE GROUND, In this condition, he is an OUT-CAST in every sense; both as regards present relation to the Almighty and future destiny. HE IS AN EXILE AND AN ALIEN; a mere groundling, existing under a law (of sin and death) which sends him to his original nothingness. This is the natural condition of the race as a whole." (Emphasis is added).

Comment: This was written and published by Brother Roberts in response to a correspondent in 1866 prior to 1871. Now, who changed his view!

Ways of Providence p. 210 of the original edition: "A man has not learnt the ways of God who does not recognize that most of His dealings with the children of men in the present STATE OF RACIAL ALIENATION are performed with gloved hands." (Emphasis is added).

In 1887 Brother A. T. Janaway published a book entitled 'Worship in Relation To The Alien." It was "Republished from the pages of the Christadelphian, with emendations." Brother Williams referred to this booklet on page 255 of the September 1908 Advocate. Note the following from page 4:

"Apart from divine guidance, the mind of man inevitably works in a way baneful to himself and displeasing to God. 'There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.' Of this we have much Bible proof. Adam discovered it at the expense of his life; and the law of sin and death instituted at the time of the transgression has brought the lesson down to us. * * * Man was originally made upright, but he has since 'sought out many inventions.' Through rebellion at the outset of his career, HE SEPARATED HIMSELF from divine favor and intercourse, and became physically and mentally impure. (Emphasis added).

"The Scriptures are exceedingly emphatic with regard to the present NATURAL CONDITION OF MAN. They define it as one of ALIENATION FROM GOD (Col. 1:21), of WRATH AND DEATH (Eph. 2:1)." (Emphasis is added).

We could go on and on, quoting many volumes of pioneer writings with further proofs that the beliefs of Brethren Andrew and Williams regarding alienation and reconciliation were held and propounded by the pioneers from the beginning of the restoration of the Truth in the last century up until just before the turn of the century.

Why do you not find all of the proofs as to the first proclamations of the pioneer brethren that we are quoting. First, not many brethren and sisters have the old copies of the monthly periodicals from the last century. Secondly, the brethren who were involved in amending the Statement of Faith have gone through and removed many of the statements these pioneers had previously made in order to obscure the truth that they were the ones who had changed on these issues. It is no wonder that the two young authors did not find those works in order to write the things that are true. They did not have access to them.


This is another area in which the authors have not been fair with their former Unamended brethren. This is, no doubt, partly due to their youth, and also because they lack a clear understanding of the issue.

Notice that on page 33 they quote Brother Thomas’ statement that "original sin is sin in the flesh" and that it is hereditary. We certainly agree with that statement as long as one recognizes, as the pioneer brethren clearly did show that there are further consequences in possessing sin in the flesh than merely being sentenced to die.

The authors on page 33, quote Brother Thomas from pages 128-129 of Elpis Israel: "If original sin, which is in facts in the flesh, were neutralized, then all 'baptismally regenerated' babes ought to live forever as Adam would have done had he eaten of the tree of life after he had sinned. But they die; which is proof that the 'regeneration' does not 'cure their souls,' and is, therefore, mere theological quackery."

Brethren and sisters in the truth, we strongly object to the quotation of this statement in reference to Unamended doctrine and the comparison of it with the statement of Brother Andrew in the next paragraph. This is the same lack of fairness toward the Unamended position that Brethren Williams and Andrew encountered in their day.

Let us first point out that in the quotation, Brother Thomas is not referring to the matter of atonement for the natural state of man. Neither is he referring to the matter of atonement for past personal sins. He is referring to the Catholic belief that they can "neutralize" Original sin in infants when they baptize them. When have these two authors ever read a heard a Christadelphian of any fellowship assert that sin in the flesh is "neutralized" by baptism? When Brother Roberts taught in the Law of Moses on page 237 that the children of Israel had to offer for their "unclean state as the death-doomed children of Adam" in order to approach the Deity did he teach that they were "neutralizing" that condition? No! and no a thousand more times. Neutralizing a thing and getting atonement (covering) for it are two very different things.

From Vol. I, pages 301-304, of Eureka, Vol. I, the 3 volume set, Brother Thomas enumerates 13 principles which he knew the clergy would oppose. We shall quote Number 12 in part:

"The apostles taught THAT DEATH HAD BEEN CANCELED and immortality, that is, deathlessness, or life and incorruptibility, brought to light by Jesus Christ in the gospel of the Kingdom, --THAT THE WRITING OF DEATH AGAINST THE SAINTS HAD BEEN CROSSED, OR BLOTTED OUT; and incorruptibility of body and life for them procured by his resurrection as the earnest of theirs 2 Tim. 1:10...." (Emphasis added)

Did any Unamended speaker or writer ever come this close to saying that original sin had been neutralized! We shall be more fair with Brother Thomas than the authors are with us. We know that he meant no such thing. Can there be any doubt that Brother Thomas was referring to the "legal" effect of the sentence, a concept that was believed and preached from the moment of the truth's revival? To deny that fact is to charge Brother Thomas with teaching the error that, since the death of Christ, death and the grave have literally been abolished. There is no way of escaping the truth of this matter. It is more honest to admit to being mistaken than to charge Brother Thomas with such folly.


The way the authors have dealt with the subject of putting off the old man with his deeds causes them to miss the truth. On page 37 of their booklet they quote a couple of paragraphs from Brother John Thomas where he discourses on the "body of the sins of the flesh." The passages which Brother Thomas cites are Col. 1:9; Eph. 4:22. In neither of the two passages does the whole phrase "the body of the sins of the flesh" occur in the Greek manuscripts. The two words "sins of” are known to have been added by the translators. Brother Thomas was apparently unaware of this and so set out to explain the meaning of the phrase as though Paul had actually written the passage as it appears in the Authorized Version. The authors surely must have known this, yet, they proceeded as though the phrase is a part of the inspired Scriptures.

To assert that the "body of the sins of the flesh" means the collective sins of an individual makes Paul remark in Col. 3:9 that the Colossian brethren had put off the deeds of the old man with his deeds. Now that is absurd! Two principles are present in the passage:

1. The old man.

2. His deeds.

Brother Roberts, who at first stayed as close to the teachings of Brother Thomas as a man possibly could, realized the truth of this matter and freely taught it. On page 409 of Christendom Astray (Logos Ed.) he wrote:

"There are other similar references to baptism throughout the epistles, but these are sufficient to shew that whatever may be the difficulty of modern professing Christians in discovering any significance or efficacy in the ordinance of baptism, the Apostles saw much of both. They recognized in it a CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION FROM ONE RELATIONSHIP TO ANOTHER, --A REPRESENTATIVE PUTTING OFF OF THE OLD MAN, OR ADAMIC NATURE and a PUTTING ON of the new man, or Christ, who is the one COVERING NAME, in which when the naked son of Adam is invested, he stands clothed before Jehovah and is approved in His sight. Of course, this effect is imputative; that is to say, it is not brought about by the mere act of submersion in water which in itself has no religious virtue what: ever, but is the result recognized by God when the act is performed in connection with an intelligent apprehension and affectionate belief of the truth." (Emphasis is added.)

On page 412 he says--"But when the word was absent from the mind, the cleansing element was wanting, and the subject of the rite was unwashed."

The Christadelphian Vol. 10 p. 500--Brother Thomas, in article entitled "Aaron and Christ," writes concerning how Christ typically put on the priestly attire. He says--"He was not permitted to officiate as high priest in his ORDINARY ATTIRE. He must 'put off and 'put on' the holy linen robe; and had he put this on without bathing his flesh in water and proceeded to officiate, this unbaptized high priest of Israel would have been struck with death. When LEGALLY (emphasis added) invested and arrayed, the Aaronic high priest was 'holiness to Jehovah.’ ”

When Brother Thomas says that the high priest must "put off' and "put on," what does he mean! We know that by "put on," he means the priestly robes of which he speaks. But what is put off? He had just stated that the high priest was prevented from officiating in his "ordinary attire." Is there any doubt that Brother Thomas speaks in legal terms here; a concept he mentioned more than once in the article? He says that this must be "put off." Then he speaks of "putting on" robes of righteousness. Surely we cannot ignore Col. 3:9 as we consider this, for Brother Thomas is considering that very concept. The old man is the ordinary attire, the Adamic constitution. The new man is Christ, for that is where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free etc. (Gal. 3:26-29).

Every argument we have examined from Advocatism Exposed so far has been shown to portray a wrong understanding on the part of its authors; that their reasoning has been fallacious throughout. The pioneers of the last century have so far agreed with every belief of Brother Andrew, making it obvious that it was not he who had the change of mind.


One is surely astonished to see such a brisk attack in Advocatism Exposed against the idea that there was in any way a "legal" aspect of the sentence which was placed upon Adam. Of course, it is obvious that during the several months of preparing the booklet, they were caught up in the spirit of the Amended aversion toward any teachings similar to what they term "Andrewism." Was the matter of a "legal" aspect of the sentence peculiar to Brethren Andrew and Williams? Did the concept originate with them near the turn of the century? Let us see.

It should be clear to all serious students of the Bible that God has from the outset dealt with his creation through a system of law. Now how can you have law without dealing with legalities! Rules and commandments form an important part of any law. The penalties for violations of rules and commandments involve legalities. Prosecution, execution, abrogation, condemnation, etc., are all legal terms. Any modification in the sentence or any related change that is made regarding the terms of the sentence is a legal matter. Let us see whether the pioneers who are in the favor of the authors of Advocatism Exposed, were at first as opposed to that concept as they later came to be.

Brother Roberts: "Legally a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives remission of sins" From the Christadelphian Vol. 15 (1878) p. 225.

Brother Thomas, on pages 131-135 of Elpis Israel compared citizens of the constitution of sin and those of the constitution of righteousness with citizens of Britain who wish to become citizens of the United States of America. One's citizenship has to be in one or the other. He must either be a citizen of Britain or of the United States. Are we not speaking of circumstances of birth in this matter? There are many legal ramifications involved in either remaining in one constitution or becoming a citizen of the other. One cannot escape the fact that Brother Thomas was very much aware of the legal aspects of his discourse as he wrote.

Brother Roberts, on page 409 of Christendom Astray (Logos ed.)--Speaking of baptism, "The apostles recognized in it a constitutional transition from one relationship to another, --a representative putting off of the Old Man, or Adam nature, and a putting on of the New Man, or Christ."

It is not possible to read this without recognizing the legalities involved in it.

The original Declaration---"Baptism ... is the means of that present (legal) union with Christ" (page 46).

THE STATEMENT OF FAITH: It is a well known fact that Brother Roberts was responsible for the contents of the Birmingham Statement of Faith. The authors to whom we are responding made much of Unamended changes, to which reference is made inside the front cover of the Unamended Statement of Faith. We invite them to show us one change that has been made that contains anything that is being used in order to exclude anyone from fellowship at the table of the Lord. These were changes over which there is no disagreement between Amended and Unamended fellowships. The change to Proposition xxix removes wording which might be misused in order to exclude someone from fellowship over the issue. Had the amendment which was made in 1898 been made for this same purpose the motive would also have been honorable.

The amendment to the statement teaches a concept that even various Amended communities do not believe. They surely do not believe that the so-called rejector is to appear before Christ to "receive for what he has done, WHETHER IT BE GOOD OR BAD." (Emphasis added). This writer has never known an Amended brother who believed that the so-called rejector could receive for good before the judgment-seat of Christ. But behold, that is what the amendment teaches.

In fact, the above proposition at first read "That at the appearing of Christ, His servants .. " That proposition had originally been in the Ambassador, Vol. III, p. 189 and referred to those in covenant. It was not intended at that time to refer to rejectors of the word.

Then, there is the matter of Proposition V which, in both statements of faith, clearly shows that the sentence from Adam "defiled and became a physical law of his being." But most Amended brethren reject that concept. Did they amend it! Oh, no! They couldn't amend the statement again for that would be too obvious. What did they do? Why, they modified it with what is called the Carter Cooper addendum which says that the sentence gave Adam and his descendants "a defiled conscience." That was designed to do away with the original belief of the pioneers that man was of a defiled nature and in need of atonement for that defilement. Now notice proposition viii.

"That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing the condemned nature was to obtain title to resurrection, by perfect obedience, and by dying, ABROGATE THE LAW OF CONDEMNATION for himself, and all who should believe and obey him .... " (Emphasis added).

Consider now, is the term "abrogate" a legal term or is it not! It is, and it is a synonym for the term "repeal." Did this abrogation automatically come to bear upon each individual, or must they somehow bring it to bear upon themselves in an appointed way., The answer is obvious. If the law was abrogated by his death, it was in a legal sense; not a literal sense. Was the sentence to die and return to dust repealed by his death If so, why do even believers still die and return to dust! Apply the concept to any aspect of the sentence other than a legal aspect, and you find yourself with a concept that no one believes or accepts. Will this be agreed to or does the Statement of Faith need further amendments in order to suit the Amended communities


On page 10 the authors of Advocatism Exposed seek to deny the truth that eternal death is the lot of Adam's descendants apart from association with the sacrifice of Christ. They cannot deny that this was also taught by Brethren Thomas and Roberts, for many statements are prominent in their works which establish this fact. We have space for perhaps a couple of quotations:

Brother Thomas in Elpis Israel, page 131--"Now, if the Lord God had made no other arrangement than that expressed in the sentence upon the woman and the man, they and all their posterity in all their generations would have incessantly gone to dust and there remained forever."

Comment: Since God did make another arrangement, do people come under the provisions of the "other arrangement" automatically, or must they do something in order to benefit from it? The answer obviously is that no one comes under the provisions of the "other arrangement" automatically. Therefore, one must somehow bring the arrangement to bear upon oneself. Since this is true, eternal death is the result of the sentence upon Adam and Eve, unless the terms of the sentence are somehow abrogated.

Now hear this from Brother Roberts:

Christendom Astray, p. 110 (Logos ed.)--"Abram, the idolater, was his own--his own to live, like the insect of the moment-his own to die and disappear like the vapor..."

p. III--"By nature children of wrath, even as others, they were in the days of their ignorance "without God and without hope in the world" (Eph. ii, 12),'Strangers from the covenants of promise' (ibid.) 'alienated from the life of God through ignorance that is in them' (Eph. iv, 18), living without law, and destined, as a result of that condition, to perish without law in Adam; INHERITING DEATH WITHOUT RESURRECTION (emphasis added)-death without remedy; having neither the privileges nor the responsibilities of a divine relationship."

Comment: No pioneer ever wrote more in harmony with Unamended teachings than Brethren Thomas and Roberts in the above quotations.


"NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD." This is an astonishing section in which the two authors of Advocatism Exposed clearly stumble over a very vital truth. In seeking to refute the truth concerning the blood of Christ they present a series of references regarding the offering of the "body" of Christ. Their reference to the "body” of Christ is a concerted effort to offset the validity of Unamended teachings concerning the efficacy of the blood of Christ.

Do they not know that the life is in the blood; that Christ's life was given as a ransom (Lev. 17:11; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45)? That life flowed from him as he "poured out his soul (life) unto death" (Isa. 53:12). The blood as a ransom is only half the truth. The other half lies in the offering of the body of Christ (himself) I Tim. 2:6.

Consider these questions: When Jesus instituted the memorial supper did he present only the bread? He declared "This is my body" (Matt. 26:26). Did he not then present the wine; declaring that "this is my blood of the new testament" (covenant) in verse 28?

The brethren, in their attempt to destroy a portion of the truth, took another portion and set the two portions against each other. Every week we all partake of both these emblems of Christ's sacrifice, and thereby attest to the truth that it is by the sacrifice of Christ, the whole person of Christ, the body and the blood (life) that redemption is made possible. It would be as logical to seek to destroy the truth concerning the offering of the body of Christ as it is to destroy the truth concerning the importance of his blood in the matter.

The problem the authors encounter in their endeavors is the fact that they are snatching disjointed statements from the pages of pioneer writings and trying to twist the Scriptures to fit all those statements. That cannot be done without doing violence to precious truths. As we are demonstrating, some pioneers said some things earlier in their lives that were modified as time progressed and, as their positions changed. We must not seek to make the Scriptures accommodate all those changes.


The authors claim that the phrase "the blood of Christ" refers to Christ's life of obedience unto death. However, that is only part of the truth. If we say that this represents all of the meaning of the phrase "the blood of the everlasting covenant," then it would have been unnecessary for Christ's blood to have flowed forth from his body along with the water (John 19:34). Suppose Jesus had submitted to a Jewish stoning to death, being buried with the blood still in his veins. Would that have been an acceptable sacrifice in order for redemption to be possible? According to the arguments of these brethren, one would have to answer in the affirmative. What shall we do then about Isa. 53:12 and Heb. 9:22? If it is true that there is no remission without the shedding of blood, the blood had to be shed. But these brethren seek to trivialize the shedding of his blood in order to conform to their understandings of the teachings of Brethren Thomas and Roberts. Notice these quotations :

Brother Thomas: ... "the King of the Jews will first manifest his presence, not to the world at large; which will not know of his being there, or, if told the fact, would not believe it; but to those, whom 'the blood of the covenant' brings before his tribunal." See Eureka, Vol. III, p. 585.

Comment: Not only does the above quotation prove that Brother Thomas taught that it was the blood of the covenant that brings one before Christ's tribunal; it also shows that he used the phrase "blood of the covenant'' in exactly the same manner and with the same meaning with which Brethren Andrew and Williams used it.

But suppose for a moment that we accept the position of the authors which says that the phrase "the blood of Christ" means simply his obedience unto death, i.e., his sacrifice. When we read in Heb. 13:20 that God raised him by the blood of the everlasting covenant, does it change anything to translate that as-"God raised him by virtue of his obedience unto death, his sacrifice"? Does it change anything in Heb. 9:12 to understand that he entered into the holy place after obtaining eternal redemption by his own blood (sacrifice)? If he is our forerunner as Heb. 6:20 declares, then we must also obtain both resurrection and redemption by means of his sacrifice the same as he did. If we can believe that truth, how then can it be taught, as some do, that resurrection is certain if light has been acquired by any man or woman? The brethren have accomplished nothing with this thrashing about seeking to change the meaning of the phrase, "the blood of Christ." After all is said and done, it still says the same thing, no matter how you read it.

An Old Testament passage also connects the blood of the covenant with coming forth out of the pit. See Zech. 9:11.

Regarding Brother Thomas' statement: "those, whom the blood of the covenant brings before his tribunal," this calls for further comment. We shall presently show that he taught the appearance of the so-called rejector at the end of the millennium; that the judgment-seat of Christ was at the beginning of that millennium and the blood of the covenant brings one before it. The amendment of 1898 represented a change in that teaching.

The Christadelphian, Vol. 10 p. 232, speaking of personal sins, Brother Roberts says--- ... "Finally, John, speaking to the seven churches of the people taken from every kindred, tongue, and nation, says of the Lamb, 'He hath washed us from our sins in his own blood"'--(Rev. 1,5).

Comment: Did Brother Roberts find the same fault with the Apostle John's emphasis on the blood of Christ as he did with Brethren Andrew and Williams in his booklet The Blood of Christ? We see that he did not. The authors quote Brother Roberts in that work on pages 11-13 of Advocatism Exposed. Also, it would be acceptable to understand that Christ washed us from our sins by his sacrifice, except for the fact that the way in which that sacrifice is brought to bear upon each individual is obscured by that understanding of the matter. Do we not typically bring his bloodshedding sacrifice to bear upon us when we symbolically participate in his death when we are baptized? Are we not washed from our personal sine? John says we are in Rev. 1:5.

Are not our bodies also "washed with pure water" as Paul declares in Heb. 10:22? Is not a washing done for the purpose of cleansing? Why would one wash if not to initiate a cleansing in any case! If the washing for personal sins cleanses, why doesn't the washing of the body represent a typical cleansing of the body? In this we have the two-fold reason for baptism as taught by the pioneers, the Unamended, and denied by the two authors and the various Amended communities.

Brother Roberts again on the prominence of the blood in the Christadelphian, Vol. 10 p. 553, (1873):

"The prominence of 'the blood of Christ’ is due to the symbolism of the law which converged and terminated in him. Bloodshedding was its constant feature in the slaying of animals from the foundation of the world. This bloodshedding had two significances, related one to the other, and both declarative of a fundamental principle in the relations between God and man, and illustrated in the death of Christ, who was slain for us. The first is that death is the penalty of sin. The blood is the life (Lev. xvii, 11-14), and was, therefore, typical of death.

"But it was typical of more than death: it was typical of A VIOLENT MANNER OF DEATH; (emphasis added) for in natural death, the blood is not shed. Violent death includes death, but death does not necessarily include violence. Bloodshedding includes both ideas. But why was it necessary that both should be thus prominent in the law? Because death had a double hold upon those for whom Christ was to die. They are hereditarily mortal because they inherit: their being from one who was condemned to death because elf sin; and THEIR OWN NUMEROUS OFFENSES RENDER THEM LIABLE TO A VIOLENT DEATH (emphasis added) decreed by the law. Christ came under both curses, and discharged them both by the shedding of his blood. He came under the first in being born of the same condemned stock 'of this man (David's) seed.' He came under the second in the act of crucifixion; for the law declared the man 'accursed of God' (Deut. xxi, 23), who hung on a tree; and the Spirit in Paul applies this to Jesus. --(Gal. iii, 13). Hence the shedding of his blood comes to be expressive of his whole work, even more completely in a verbal sense than his death; in as much as the shedding of his blood tells us he not only died but died violently. The literal shedding of his blood by the nails and spear of Rome was the Spirit's ritual in the one great offering, connecting the offering with the slain beasts of the Mosaic law, and repeating the symbolism set forth from the beginning in the shedding of their blood; in the same way as the rending of the temple vail coincided with his death---(Matt. xxvii:51). The shedding of his blood would not have availed had he not died; and the crimson fluid would have been of no value to any human being, had it been caught in a bottle and preserved, as it oozed from the lacerated flesh. Its 'preciousness' lay in the precious results it effected for us by the favor of God; and its cleansing power lies not in its physical nature, but in our spiritual perception of what God connected with it, and faith in His assurance of what He will do for us, if we submit to this vindication of his way towards men ... "

Comment: Throughout the writings of the apostles and the writings of brethren Thomas and Roberts, the phrase blood of Christ appeared repeatedly. They all used it in the same manner Brethren Andrew, and Williams did. No one, including Brethren Andrew and Williams ever used the phrase in the sense of touching the literal, crimson fluid which flowed forth from Christ's body as he bled. However, because of Brother Robert's changed position and his need to cover the fact that he had changed, he struck out and falsely accused others of using the phrase in a manner they never intended. Our young critics have done the same thing. All should have known better. It was the fact that Christ had shed his blood in the course of being slain after a life of sinless obedience to God that accomplished the necessary results.

Notice the following article by Brother Thomas entitled "Aaron and Christ" in the Christadelphian, Vol. 10, (1873), pages 500-503. We quote the article in part:

"Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness’-Jesus.

"Jehovah (that is 'I shall be' Ex. iii, 15) said to Moses, 'See that thou make what thou wast caused to see, after their pattern, showed thee in the mount' (Ex. xxv, 40), which things, Paul says, are only 'the image and shadow of heavenly things,' as God said to Moses; and elsewhere he said that the Jews have the model of the knowledge and of the truth in the law,' from which, and other passages that can be adduced, it is evident that the following proposition is true, namely,

“That the Mosaic system of righteousness is symbolic of the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ, Definition: by 'Mosaic system of righteousness,' is meant, all that is necessary to sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, but which could not free the conscience from sin. To impart this carnal purification to the worshipper, a high priest and his household distinct from the other classes of the Jewish nation, LEGALLY (Emphasis added) inaugurated and sanctified, were necessary; also a tabernacle, sacrifices, washings & c . . Definition: by the 'righteousness of God' is meant a justification from all past sins, devised and enjoined by God."

To interrupt this quotation for a moment, would the two brethren charge Brother Thomas with putting new wine in old bottles since he did the same thing Brethren Andrew and Williams are charged with doing when they applied the principles of the law to things in Christ? He continues to do this while adding more of what is styled by our critics---“the errors of ‘Advocatism.’ ” Brother Thomas continues:

"Jesus, being the anointed seed long promised of God, was, therefore, the High Priest who was to arise after the similitude, likeness or order of Melchizedec, and to sit upon his throne as a priest upon his throne, and to bear the glory, --(Zech. vi). This being so, he would have; at some future time, to occupy the place formerly occupied by Aaron; and as the Aaronic inauguration was representative of the Melchizedec, Jesus had to be consecrated after the same example or type, that in so doing, he might antitypically fill the representation of the law.

"Aaron was forbidden to enter the most holy place of the tabernacle without being adorned and glorified with garments of splendor and holiness, and therefore styled 'holy garments.' Nor was he permitted to enter even when habited with these, unless he had been previously baptized, upon pain of death. The law said 'he shall wash his flesh in water and so put them on.' He was not permitted to officiate as high priest in his ordinary attire. He must ‘put off’ and 'put on' the holy linen robe; and had he put this on without bathing his flesh in water and proceeded to officiate, this unbaptized high priest of Israel would have been struck with death. When LEGALLY (emphasis added) invested and arrayed, the Aaronic high priests were 'holiness to Jehovah,' and the representative of the Holy and just One in his character and priestly office; though oftentimes, as in the case of Caiaphas, by practice of unjust and wicked men. The symbolism relative to the high priest was the 'righteousness' to be fulfilled by Jesus before he could enter upon his functions by 'the power of an endless life' as high priest over the household of God, and afterwards over the twelve tribes of Israel.

. . . "Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom. 8, 3), came to John as the 'Ram of Consecration," that his inwards AND HIS BODY (emphasis added) might be washed according to the law,--(Ex. xxix, 17, 22). Both those representations of the law and the prophets could not have found their antitype in Jesus, if in the days of his flesh he had possessed a holier or purer nature than those for whom he was bruised in the heel. His character was spotless; but as being the seed of the woman, of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job xxv,4), and seed of Abraham which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his mother was flesh and blood (Heb. ii,14), which Paul styles 'sinful flesh,' or flesh full of sin, a PHYSICAL QUALITY (emphasis added) or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called 'sin' because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression. 'God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' (2 Cor. v,21).

"In this view of the matter, the sin-bearer of the world indicated was a fit and proper subject of John's baptism of repentance for remission of sins. The holy and undefiled disposition of Mary's son was granted to him for repentance, in fulfilling the symbolical righteousness of the law WHEN HE DESCENDED INTO THE JORDAN (emphasis added) to enter into the antitypical robe of righteousness, with which he must of necessity be invested before he could enter into the most holy as high priest, after die order of Melchizedec ....

" ... But the symbolic righteousness of the Mosaic law not only required the high priest to put on the holy vestments by having his body baptized, but it also commanded his household to be baptized into theirs also ... Aaron and his family were their nation's priestly household; and it was the office of the high or chief priest to make atonement or reconciliation, first for himself, then for his household, and lastly for all the congregation of Israel; but admission into the holy was only permitted to the baptized; they must bathe their flesh in water, and so put on their holy garments. Hence, all Israel's priests were immersed persons ...

"Now, Jesus speaking of himself and others, said, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.' It is, therefore, necessary for all 'his house' to do as he did, but with this modification of the significancy of the deed, namely: he was baptized as the initiative of his own holiness, sacrificial and priestly; they must be baptized into his ... "

. . . "Shall it be said that it was necessary for the Melchizedec High Priest, who was innocent of transgression, and who for thirty years, had enjoyed the favor of God and man, to be immersed in a baptism of repentance for remission of sins; but that it was not necessary for the pious, who would compose his household, WHO ARE SINNERS BY NATURE AND PRACTICE? (emphasis added). Nay if it were indispensable for Jesus to be buried in water, that he might begin an (official) career of holiness to Jehovah in coming up out of it, it is infinitely more that all should tread in his steps of perfect faith and obedience, who would be invested with 'ROBES WASHED WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB (emphasis added), having their loins girt around with the girdle of truth and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and their feet shed with the preparation of the gospel of peace, and in their hands the helmet of salvation. An immersed High Priest requires an immersed household. There is one law for both, as there was one baptism for Jesus and his apostles; on whom, as upon all others of the household, the necessity is imperative to fulfill all righteousness foreshadowed in Aaron and his sons. There is no discharge from this necessity for Jew or Gentile; 'for it behooveth us to fulfill all righteousness."' End of quotation.

We ask the reader's forgiveness for the long quotation but it would have been unthinkable not to include as much of the article as possible. As one can clearly see, in this one article published in 1873, Brother Thomas teaches nearly all of the doctrines that are found in what the two critics have styled Advocatism. We have seen in this article how Brother Thomas expertly discoursed on how the types of the law were found in Christ and his work, in preparation for a probationary life, and entering into the most holy by means of his own blood; his own sacrifice. We do not think that we will hear the charge from the authors that he was putting new wine in old bottles; the charge which was made against Brother Andrew, and which they copied from Brother Roberts' book entitled Resurrection to Condemnation. If we do not, we will recognize that the two brethren are respecters of persons. Since this is not characteristic of God, it must not be characteristic of his servants (Acts 10:34).


Brother Thomas explained the phrase "the second death" in more than one way, as is explained by the two brethren on pages 40- 41. On page 41, however, they deny that baptism can be termed "first death." For that matter, where do they find a passage in which the phrase '(first death" appears! Where is a passage where the phrase "first death" is associated with any death (whether literal or symbolic) that takes place this side of the judgment-seat of Christ? However, can any one deny that such a concept is found in the Bible? Although they may wish they could, they cannot prove to us from the Scriptures that the principle of the "first death" does not refer to the symbolic death of baptism by which we are associated with the actual death of Christ. Rom. 6:3-6 certainly associates baptism with our having died with Christ and taking part in his sacrifice symbolically. (See also Rom. 6:7, 8, 11; Col. 3:3). They can criticize Brother Andrew's position, but they cannot disprove it.

We have already offered quotations which prove that the pioneers originally taught that baptism was the symbolic death of the old man and the birth of the new man. It cannot be denied that those quotations prove their awareness of the fact that there was a need for "legally putting off the old and legally putting on the new." The pioneers clearly saw a two-fold need for atonement in baptism. Notice again :

The Christadelphian, Vol. 15, p. 225 (1878)--Brother Roberts wrote: "Legally, a man is freed from the Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of sins ... "

Temple of Ezekiel's Prophecy, 1887 ed, p. 76--"The provision for baptism, in addition to the provision for sacrifices in the Temple, would indicate the current existence of these two ordinances. This will not be a matter of surprise to those who remember that there are two classes of sins from which the human race needs deliverance. First those to which men are related by reason of RACIAL DESCENT (Rom. 5:12-14); second, individual trespasses. IN IMMERSION THERE IS RECOGNITION OF THE FIRST; (emphasis added) and, by the offering of sacrifice, there is confession of the second."

Note: The above paragraph no longer appears in Brother Sulley's book as it appeared in earlier editions. It should be obvious why the two authors were unable to locate early agreements with Unamended teachings; at least, not many can be located. Many of the older works have been changed in order to obscure the fact that it was not Brother Andrew who changed on several subjects; rather, it was those who initiated the amendment who changed. The only point on which Brother Andrew clearly changed was his statement that God could not raise the rejector. This writer knows of only one or two persons in the entirety of Unamended Christadelphian who is willing to say that God does not have the prerogative to make an exception if he so chose to do so.

However, it is evident that before the Andrew / Roberts controversy, the pioneers would not have considered the statement that God could not raise the so-called rejector, to be placing a limit on the power of God. Notice the following by Brother Roberts in The Blood of Christ p. 18:

"How can He be so kind and gracious and long suffering, and permit us to approach Him, without vindicating His righteousness, and asserting His greatness HE CANNOT; HE DOES NOT." (emphasis added). Brother Thomas Williams wrote similarly in "Regeneration." We quote from Selected Works of Thomas Williams, p. 372:

"Why did not God unconditionally and without a process make one complete sweep and pardon all? We answer, HE COULD NOT. Could not! some exclaim. No, He could not. God cannot stultifiy His own attributes. He had decreed that the sin of a federal head should bring death upon all the descendants of that head; and since this decree was by Divine justice it could not be set aside by any means out of harmony with Divine justice." (Emphasis added).

But some brethren point to the miraculous raisings from the dead in the past. Elijah raised the widows son (I Kings 11:17-24). Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:38-44). Paul raised Eutycus (Acts 21:9-12). However, every single person on whom the miracle of raising from the dead was performed, was at least under a temporal covenant with God. Where is an instance of God raising up an uncovenanted Gentile from the dead? Every individual had undergone some kind of operation or ceremony that resulted in an en- trance into a relationship with God; and into his law and/or covenant. Further, those were special raisings apart from the general rule. Those who were raised cannot be said to have experienced "the" resurrection, for that event is in the future. Note Brother Thomas Williams' statement from page 177 of Life and Works of Thomas Williams.

“The resurrection, as I have set before you tonight, is really the only resurrection that is worth talking about. I say the resurrection, so far as that is concerned, has nothing whatever to do with any single individual except such as are in Covenant with God."

Is it heresy for Brethren Andrew and Williams to say that "God cannot," while it is true and acceptable for Brother Roberts to say that "God cannot"? Some seem to think so. However, we shall not at all agree to that biased and one-sided attitude. There should be no problems in understanding if we consider such statements (including Brother Andrew's) in the context in which they are all written.

J. J. Andrew in the Christadelphian, Vol. 10 (1873), p. 427. This was proofed and set in type by Brother Roberts.

“The third objection (to the free life theory ed.) in effect affirms that justification is necessary before anyone condemned in Adam can be placed on probation. This is perfectly correct. But, to comprehend it we must know what justification means. Justification is of two kinds, typical and actual; typical justification is the performance of some ceremony which represents the reality; actual justification consists of a change of nature--from flesh and blood to spirit ... "

On page 428 Brother Andrew writes concerning the sentence upon Adam and Eve--" ... so he superseded it by the skins of animals. Without this or some other mode of justification, the sentence of death would doubtless have been inflicted upon them immediately, in which case they would have had no descendants ... he provided them with a provisional justification which enabled them to appear in his sight ... "

Page 429--"Since the death of Christ the shedding of blood, either animal or human, has not been necessary in order to effect typical justification. The blood of Christ having been shed, all that is required on the part of those desirous of entering a justified state is submission to a ceremony symbolic of his death and resurrection, by which they practically acknowledge they are under sentence of death, and that they can only be relieved from it by the death of Christ ... "

He continues: "God required him to submit to another mode of justification--one which, unlike circumcision, involved the exercise of his own free will. This consisted of immersion in water by John the Baptist ... "

"The baptism of John was a cleansing ceremony, or means of justification instituted on account of sin; those who submitted to it were baptized 'confessing their sins' ---(Matt. iii,6). But Jesus had no sin of his own to wash away; therefore his immersion must have been on account of Adam's sin. His submission to it was a practical confession not only that he was under Adamic condemnation, but that he could not be released from it until he had died. It was thus to him a type of his future justification. He was morally pure, but physically impure; and his immersion was a representation of the mode by which on account of his moral purity, he was to be physically justified."

One can only shake the head in bewilderment to note that Brethren Andrew and Roberts worked together in such harmony in 1873 and continued to do so for another twenty years while Brother Andrew wrote in this manner, with Brother Robert's approval. As we have seen, what he said in the above quotations agree perfectly with Brother Thomas' writings concerning Aaron and Christ. However, after 1894, Brother Roberts strongly opposed all that he had approved in previous years. This should tell us that there was some other motive involved than doctrinal difference.

The claim that the brotherhood had been unanimously united in what is now known as the "Unamended doctrine," except that, some believed that the rejector would rise for judgment at the end of the millennium while others did not believe the rejector would rise at all.


Brother John Thomas--writing of those who refuse to come under a constitution of righteousness to God says: "These are 'the rest of the dead who live not again till the thousand years are finished.' At the end of that period they rise, and, commingling with the Gog and Magog rebels, they are then 'tormented day and night to the age of the ages ... in the post millennial 'lake of fire' which; 'devours' those adversaries. "Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come Vol. 4 p. 91.

Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. IV (1867), p. 70--"Rejecters of the word, who do not come under law to Christ by belief and obedience, may be reserved till the close of the thousand years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet since they do not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection at the rime when account is taken of that household would be inappropriate. M ay they not be dealt with at the end?"

Comment: The series of articles entitled "Judgment Seat of Christ" from which the above quotation is taken, became part of Christendom Astray. During the Andrew-Roberts debate Brother Roberts said that he had changed his mind about that statement. Do the readers recall that cries that have gone up over Brother Andrew's so-called "change of mind"? Why is it acceptable for Brother Roberts to have a change of mind when it is heresy for Brother Andrew to also have a change of mind should he have done so? Isn't this matter a little one-sided?


Brother Thomas in Eureka, Vol. iii, p. 659 --"The reader will remember that before the judgment-seat of Christ in the wilderness of Teman, there were TWO CLASSES OF SAINTS IN CHRTST JESUS constitutionally; the one class consisting of the called, and chosen, and faithful;" or as Paul styles them in I Cor. Iii,12, 'gold, silver, and precious stones,' which are made manifest as such in the day when things are revealed by fire; and the other class consisting of 'the called,' but not ‘chosen' because not 'faithful'; or, as Paul styles them in the same place, "wood, hay, and stubble." (Emphasis added).

Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. ii (1865), p. 303--"There are only TWO CLASSES among those who are raised at the revelation of Israel's king--those who come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who come forth to the resurrection of condemnation. The first being: constituents of the Bride, the Lamb's wife, will share with him the dominion he comes to establish, and be immortal 'kings and priests unto God,' to reign with Christ a thousand years; the second become subject to 'the second death.’”

Brother J. J. Andrew in the Ambassador Vol. iv (1867), p. 290-291--"Resurrection of two classes ... the just and the unjust--will be judged by Jesus Christ at his appearing and his kingdom, but we have also seen that they are all to stand before his judgment-seat to render an account of their probationary career, before approval or condemnation. To do this, they must be raised from the dead; so that those two facts are alone sufficient to prove that the resurrection at the second advent comprises two classes--the righteous and the wicked." ... p. 291-- ... "Here then are two classes distinctly spoken of as being raised from he dead at the second advent ... "

Question: Would Brother Roberts have printed the above article by Brother Andrew after the year 1894? We know that he would not have done so, yet they were in agreement from the 1860s into the 1880s. Who changed? The matter is too obvious to even require an answer.

Brother Roberts in the Ambassador, Vol. III (1866), p. 189: "In continuation of the programme sketched out on pages 13-15, of the Ambassador, (July, 1864), we invite our readers to the consideration of the proposition contained in the fourth paragraph in the enumeration of 'the things concerning the kingdom of God,"' viz:

"That at the appearing of Christ. HIS SERVANTS, faithful and unfaithful, dead and living, of both classes, will be 'judged according to their works,' and receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad." (Emphasis added).

Brother Roberts in the Ambassador Vol. IV (1867) pages 23-24:--"We have seen that resurrectional responsibility was limited to those who were related to the word of the God of Israel. The promises and precepts conferred privilege and imposed responsibility, having reference to resurrection. They formed a basis for that awakening from the dust to everlasting life, and shame and everlasting contempt, foretold to Daniel, and implied in many parts of the writings of Job, David and Solomon."

Note: One would have to look long and hard in current works of Amended Christadelphians to find such teachings. Who has changed? The Unamended clearly have not, and so, they really do deserve to be designated by the term "Unamended."

Volumes have been written on both sides of the issue concerning the responsibility question. From 1983 through the three or four ensuing years, the Voice of Truth published a number of articles on the subject, showing what had been originally taught and who changed and became intolerant of their brethren. There is no need to write more on the subject of responsibility. The authors have been clearly mistaken as they have read, copied, and printed charges against what they call Advocatism. We turn, finally, to their treatment of what they deem to be:


In this section each Scripture which the authors consider to have been wrested by Unamended brethren is marked off by Roman numerals in the manner utilized in Advocatism Exposed.

(I) Gal. 3:24-25--"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."

The two brethren have a rather slanted, private interpretation of the Greek term Paidagogos which is translated "schoolmaster" in Gal. 3:24, 25. They seek to give the term another meaning, one, which cannot be substantiated. Paul clearly said to the Galatian brethren that the law had been their teacher or instructor. The word is translated “instructors" in I Cor. 4:15. Also, if one will read the Second Quarter 1983 Voice of Truth it can be seen from the pen of Benjamin Wilson, the author and translator of the Diaglott, that Brother Thomas was instrumental in much of the work of translating that work ... the Diaglott renders Gal. 8:24 as follows:

"That the law had been our Pedagogue to lead to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

No translation (this writer has checked many) renders the passages, as the authors would like to see it. They all teach that the law was an instructor, leading to or bringing them, to Christ.

We feel certain that they do not wish to rebuke Brother Thomas as they are doing with the rest of us. Here is how he understood the matter:

Speaking of the law, Brother Thomas writes: "It was added because of transgressions, 'till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.’ It was a 'schoolmaster' until Christ; but when 'the things of the name of Jesus Christ' were manifested for faith, or, as he expresses it, 'after that faith is come,' Israel is no longer under a schoolmaster." (Elpis Israel p. 236)

The Ambassador, Vol. IV, p. 23 (1867)--Brother Roberts writes: "The majority of mankind, particularly in the rude and barbarous times that required THE SCHOOLMASTER LESSONS of the Mosaic law, were in circumstances of pure misfortune. Born under condemnation in Adam and left to the poor resources which in all its history has never originated anything noble apart from the ideas set in motion by 'revelation,' they were unable to elevate themselves above the level on which they stood as any tribe of animals" (Emphasis added).

We must not forget that the two brethren wrote their booklet to "expose" as they believe, that Advocatism no longer agrees with Brethren Thomas and Roberts. The above quotations show who no longer agrees with Brother Thomas, and for the most part, Brother Roberts in the early days of the truth's revival.

It is surely unthinkable that anyone would deny that the law was a schoolmaster, an instructor, especially in view of the fact that the Apostle Paul, throughout his epistle to the Hebrews, demonstrated how the Mosaic Law had taught by means of types, of Christ and things in Christ. Also, these authors should well know how Brother Roberts wrote the book, Law of Moses explaining through several hundred pages how the law of Moses had taught the principles of truth which were contained in the law. Surely, this is a new thing under the sun that we are witnessing.

II Rom. 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit."

The brethren quote right through the last ten words in the above passage as though they were part of verse 1. In many Greek manuscripts those ten words are omitted as they are in the Diaglott. The Scoffield Bible has a footnote which reads:

"The statement ends with "Christ Jesus." The last ten words were evidently copied from V. 4, where they properly express the result of 'no condemnation,' not its cause."

The Revised Standard version omits the ten words and Moffatt’s translation does as well. Notice Adam Clarke's comment regarding the last ten words:

"The last clause is wanting in the principle MMS., versions and fathers. Griesbach has excluded it from the text; and Dr. White says, Certissime delenda; it should most undoubtedly be expunged. Without it, the passage reads thus: There is, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; for the law of the Spirit of Life, & c' ... 'this explanatory clause was added by some copyist ''it does not appear to have made an original part of the text; and it is most likely that it was inserted here from the fourth verse."' (Clarke's Commentary, Vol. VI, p. 94).

Although the same ten words appear in verse 4, they do not belong in Paul's consideration in verse 1. We must, therefore, recognize that in this chapter, Paul is summing up what he had considered in previous chapters of this epistle to the Romans. Throughout nearly all of chapter 5 he had considered condemnation (katakrima) from Adam. Chapters 6 and 7 deal entirely with personal sins. Therefore, as he begins his summary in chapter 8, he deals with the matter of Adamic condemnation first, then moves on to the consideration of personal sins.

We invite the authors to show us where the Greek term, katakrima, is even once clearly associated with personal sins. If they can furnish us with even one example, we shall be happy to mail it out for them along with the Voice of Truth. The truth of the matter is that katakrima only occurs 3 times in the Scriptures. In Rom. 5:16, 18 it is twice shown to have come upon us as a result of the works of one man, Adam. In the third occurrence (Rom. 8:1) it is shown that it no longer rests upon those who are in Christ. Paul passes on from the matter of condemnation from Adam. By verse 4, those nine words are applicable to the matter he is addressing at that point. If any writer had the liberty of moving phrases about in a text, from verse to verse, he could prove just about any proposition he wanted to. "Some copyist" copied those words from verse 4 because they did not understand the point Paul was making. Unfortunately, the two authors have encountered the same problem.

The two brethren assert "If we were free from the katakrima which was the sentence 'dying thou shalt die' we would no longer be mortal." If the two authors will remember the quotations we have advanced from the pioneers of the truth, in whom they seem to have much confidence, they should not fall into that error. The pioneers all originally agreed that there was preliminary, symbolic deliverance at baptism. God reckoned the symbol to be sufficient until the real deliverance becomes a fact.

At the end of the next to the last paragraph of that section, at the top of page 83, the authors admit that there is a way that we are free from condemnation, adding that we do not have possession of that tree. In this they show their refusal to accept what all Christadelphians have always accepted and believed. Some have pulled back from the early conclusions of the pioneers because they have had a personal axe to grind, so to speak. That is not sufficient reason to do violence to the Scriptures nor to the early writings of the pioneers.

(III) Psalms 50:5 "Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."

In this section we find an astonishing thing. After battling against the idea that the gathered will all be saints, and for many pages seeking to establish the infallibility of Brother Thomas, the brethren quote him in the closing paragraph of that section. Notice that the paragraph places Brother Thomas in perfect harmony with the Unamended position they are seeking to discredit.

Brother Thomas wrote, "we have not now to do with this; but with the bema, or Supreme Court, the judicial bench, styled in Rom. 14:10, and 2 Cor. 5:10 'the Judgment Seat of Christ.' ALL WHO HAVE MADE A COVENANT WITH YAHWEH BY SACRIFICE, AND IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE WILL BE GATHERED (Psa. 50:5) AND STAND BEFORE THIS. (Eureka, Logos ed. Vol. 5 p. 234; Vol. III p. 585 of the 3 Vol. set)" (Emphasis added).

We can do no more toward refuting their dealing with this passage than they did themselves in quoting Brother Thomas, who is shown to be in perfect harmony with what they style Advocatism. If “Advocatism" has wrested this Scripture by using it to prove that the "saints" in Isa. 50:5 are those who will appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, Brother Thomas also wrested the passage since he placed the same interpretation on it that we have.

(IV) I Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.":

The quotations we have made from Brother Thomas and others prove that they taught exactly the same thing that the Unamended has contended consistently for throughout the years since the Truth's revival regarding the message contained in that verse.

The authors argue that only persons who shall be subject of a pardon of life are in view in I Cor. 15th chapter. They seem unaware that Paul, in verses 12-19, is considering the plight of even the faithful if Christ has not risen from the dead, a finishing of the work of redemption. Apart from this work of Christ, Paul is showing that we are without hope. Verse 22 is in perfect harmony with that consideration and the pioneer brethren originally taught this truth. In Adam, all die. However, in Christ, since we are not without hope, all in Christ will be made alive; they who have fallen asleep in Christ are not perished.

(V) Heb. 13:20--"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

Here again the authors have brought themselves into opposition to Brother Thomas who wrote in harmony with the position of Advocatism so called. In this matter the authors line up with Brother Roberts against the position of Brother Thomas. Brother Roberts, in contending against the teachings of Brother Andrew, took a position regarding which Brother Thomas had made clear, unambiguous statements. Let us remember that the quotations we presented proved that Brother Roberts was at first in harmony with Brother Thomas' position that the so-called rejector of the word would rise at the end of the thousand years. By the 1890s, however, he had changed his doctrine regarding what brings one before the tribunal of Christ. Let us recall the words of Brother Thomas in Eureka, Vol. III, p. 585:

... "The KING OF THE JEWS will first manifest his presence, not to the world at large; which will not know of his being there, or, if told the fact, would not believe it; but to those, whom 'the blood of the covenant' brings before his tribunal ... "

On the same page he shows how some come to this judicial bench and are turned away in shame. Heb. 13:20 shows how the blood of the covenant (his sacrifice) brought Jesus out of the grave. Heb. 9:12 shows that this same blood (of his sacrifice) was necessary for his having obtained eternal redemption and entrance into the most holy. He is our forerunner (Heb. 6:20). If Christ's sacrifice was the means by which he himself obtained resurrection and/or immortality, it is on the same basis that we will each obtain the same.

Of course, the authors are insinuating, as Brother Roberts did, that there are other passages, which circumvent the necessity of the blood of the covenant in order to be in the resurrection. This writer will be most happy to discuss with the authors, any passage which they think relates to resurrection apart from Christ's sacrifice, i.e. symbolic contact with the blood of the covenant.

(IV) Gen. 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that they eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

In 1873 Brother Roberts proofed and set in type an article to which we have already called attention. Brother Andrew, in that article said in reference to God supplying coats of skins for Adam and Eve--“Without this or some other mode of justification, the sentence of death would doubtless have been inflicted upon them immediately, in which case they would have had no descendants." (The Christadelphian, Vol. 10, p. 428). Brother Roberts was not at all bothered by their slight difference on the subject at that time.

This writer subscribes to the position indicated in the phrase "dying thou shalt die." I believe that a process was clearly indicated by these words. Yet, I do not see any reason to reject the possibility that there was a secondary meaning in God's words, as often is the case. This writer's belief that there was a process indicated in those words has no annulling effect upon any of the teachings of the so-called Advocatism group. Again, this writer is willing to discuss with them any annulling effect that they think this agreement will have on the subject.

(VII) Psa. 49:20--"Man that is in honor and understandeth not is like the beasts that perish."

This writer feels that this passage is not needed to prove the non-resurrectional responsibility of the rejector. There are so many more passages which are more to the point. Frankly, I have never quoted the passage in connection with that question.

However, the authors say--it is "an excellent proof that it is by men's understanding God's law that they become accountable and responsible to the judgment-seat of Christ." They further state that "the man that does understand is not like the beasts." They cannot prove by the Scriptures any such proposition.

Is a man who understands and is not baptized, a son of God, or a son of Adam? He surely cannot be said to be a son of God in view of John 1:12. Solomon, in Eccl. 9:3-6, shows that those who die while being a "son of Adam" have "no more portion in anything that is done under the sun." So first, they must show us how a man ceases to be a son of Adam by simply knowing some principles of truth. This they cannot do.

They end that section with this statement- "There is a purpose in the fact that they do not perish as the beasts for 'there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of justified and unjustified ones' (Acts 24:15)."

Can anyone show us in the passage where Paul said that unjustified ones who know the truth and are not baptized will have a resurrection? They assume a lot in order to get the rejector into the matter. We know that there are many, many millions of people on this earth. How many of that total population have been justified? There are hardly enough to notice, are there? How does one who uses this passage in the manner they do stop short of universal resurrection? It is impossible to do so. The earth is mostly populated by those who have not been justified, and there are only a few who have. Don't those two groups make up the total population of the earth?

There is no (VIII) or (IX) in their booklet and they have two (Xs).

(X) Rom. 6:6--Col. 3:9-Eph. 4:22-2nd Cor. 5:17

'knowing this that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin' (Rom. 6:6).

'lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds' (Col. 3:9).

'That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts' (Eph. 4:22).

'Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; and behold, all things are become new' (2nd Corinthians 5:17).

Now they seek to brush all this away with a simple, erroneous claim that the phrase "the old man" means the collective sins of an individual. We dealt with this earlier and showed the fallacy of it; also that Brother Thomas disagreed with it, and Brother Roberts at the first had opposed it.

Is anyone willing to cast away sound logic and accept these weak explanations? Will anyone assert that Paul was saying in Col. 3:9 that "ye have put off personal sin along with personal sin's deeds? What foolishness! Away with such errors as are being offered to us. Away with the invitation to let the two brethren who hold such positions guide us to the saving truth.

(X) Number two. I Thess. 4:13-14 'Behold I would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.'

The dead in Christ are assured a resurrection. Those who are faithful will be raised; so will those who are unfaithful to their covenant. Paul's point is that the death of those loved ones is not final. They had entered the covenant and had not perished forever as those who had died without a covenant.

When Paul used the phrase, "those who have no hope," was he referring to baptized, but unfaithful ones? It is doubtful that any of us has the ability to know for certain who will be crowned with immortal glory. Paul could know regarding his own salvation (II Tim. 4:8), but it is very doubtful that God revealed to him the identity of everyone who will be saved. He was simply assuring them that the death of those loved ones was not final. He was comforting them with the fact that their loved ones would rise again; that there was at least hope that each individual would be among the glorious cloud of believers who would be "ever with the Lord." He did, however, specify that it was "those in Christ" who would come forth. That is a fact, no matter how much some brethren wish to change it.

(XI) "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection. (Anastasis)."

Notice the last sentence of their fifth paragraph of this section: "Here anastasis refers to the whole process of being raised from the dust and made like unto the Father."

We hope that every reader will have paid close attention to their attempt to meet the issue on this passage. The editor of Logos in 1960 sought to escape the testimony of Paul in this passage by asserting the same answer that these two authors have--i.e., that Paul was speaking of awakening to life eternal the same as Christ did. In effect, we gave him the same response we shall give now. His only response to us was to ask our name, shake our hand and without a word, turn and walk away.

Let us for a moment grant their suggestion that Paul referred to resurrection to life eternal. Now, stop and think. Does one Christadelphian anywhere believe that everyone who is baptized and subsequently dies will be resurrected to life eternal? Is it not a truth that some who have been baptized will be resurrected to condemnation? But according to the explanation we have been offered, if we have been baptized, we will be "raised from the dust and made like unto the Father." Have they now moved so far away from Unamended Christadelphia (Advocatism) that they now agree with the popular churches, which teach "once in grace, always in grace"? That is surely the only conclusion we can reach if it is true that once a person is baptized, he is assured of eternal salvation.

But of course, we know that they do not any more believe that than they believe that a horse can fly. In their attempt to escape Unamended truth, they have offered explanations that lead to conclusions they themselves should reject. Surely, under these circumstances, we must reject their offer to be our tutors; assisting us in arriving at the same conclusions they have reached. Our prayer is that they will agree to come and let us reason together. Perhaps we may be of assistance to them. We surely wish it to be so.


Because of Paul's words in Acts 17:31, Amended brethren insist that baptism is commanded by God and that as soon as a man hears of it, he is under law to God and must be baptized in order to escape resurrection to condemnation. There are problems with that view.

1. Amended brethren try to deny that their arguments lead to universal resurrection. However, we must realize that the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven during the time of the apostles. (Col. 1:23). Therefore, the doctrines of Amended Christadelphia requires the resurrection of every living soul in the world of the first century Christian era.

2. The Greek term paralegal means "to announce, declare etc." Brother Roberts made an interesting statement on this subject in the Ambassador Vol. IV (1867), p. 25. This writing later was incorporated into Christendom Astray. This statement appears on page 117 of that work--logos edition. Note:

“An INVITATION has gone out to the ends of the earth, for people of any 'kindred and nation, and people, and tongue,' to become servants of the Messiah and heirs of the kingdom which God has promised to them that love him..." (Emphasis added).

3. Acts 17:31 speaks of judging "the world." Now, Amended Christadelphia does not believe that the whole world is to be gathered before the judgment seat of Christ at his appearing and his kingdom. Therefore, this passage proves too much for them and would, therefore, teach a doctrine which they reject. The words of Paul in the passage is a quotation of number of passages relating to the rule of Christ over the earth. The term "judge" many times relates to the concept of a ruler's reign over a nation or nations. (See Ruth 1:1; Matt. 19:28). Paul, in the passage is alluding to the concept found in such passages as Psa. 9:8; 67:4; 72:4; 96:13; 98:9; Isa. 11:3-4.


After examining the history of the division between Amended and Unamended communities, we have seen that:

1. Brother Andrew's so-called departures were the positions he had held from the beginning, except for the fact that he once had also believed that the rejector would rise at the end of the thousand years. He did change on that issue and came to see that the Scriptures never clearly taught their resurrection at any time. However, Brother Roberts also changed his mind in that he decided that the rejector would arrive at the same judgment-seat and on the same basis as saints in Christ.

2. Brother J.J. Andrew and other pioneer brethren believed and taught the so-called errors which the Amended brethren later accused him of teaching, charging him with changing his mind.

3. Brother Andrew continued to believe and teach the things upon which they were once agreed.

4. The brethren who amended the Statement of Faith changed their teachings on many things while becoming intolerant of some matters on which they had once varied only slightly in their perception.

5. That nearly every issue on which Brother Andrew was accused of departure, Brother Thomas can be quoted in agreement with Brother Andrew.

6. That during and after the debate, Brother Roberts wrote differently and gave different explanations than he formerly had done.

7. That in so doing, many of his later explanations differ from that of Brother Thomas.

8. That Unamended Christadelphia (Advocatism) today stands exactly where the Christadelphians stood prior to the 1890s regarding Condemnation from Adam, on the atonement, and who will appear before the judgment-seat of Christ at his appearing and his kingdom.


On page I of the "Introduction" they say: "At the end of this document, it will become evident to every candid reader that the perception and understanding of the Unamended on the above mentioned points are in utter opposition to the original Christadelphian position. It will not be maintained by the honest reader that the Unamended body is in fact 'unchanged' from the truth as expounded in 1871."

In view of the quotations we have made from the pioneer writings it will be seen by "the honest reader" that the above statement is utterly false and misleading. Let "the honest reader" remember the article by Brother John Thomas in the Christadelphian entitled "Aaron and Christ." That article was published two years after 1871, namely in 1873. The positions set forth in that article are in agreement with Unamended teaching on nearly every subject that is in dispute between the two communities. It is a certainty that if Brother Roberts had believed differently than what Brother Thomas expressed in that article, he would never have printed it. Neither would he have printed it if he thought that Brother Thomas' view at the time of his death was not in harmony with what the article taught.

They state further on page II of the preface: "We have known some who would not look into the issues that divided Christadelphians because they were afraid of where rightly divided truth would lead them..."

Are the two brethren telling us that those to whom they refer actually told them that they were afraid to look into the issues? If they were not so told, then the authors are stating their own impression about the matter and are unfairly attributing that to the "some" in the brotherhood.

We ask the reader to notice where such a "looking into the issues" as we have outlined in this response to them has led us. It has led to the discovery that Unamended Christadelphia stands almost in the exact doctrinal position where the pioneers stood from the beginning, including the year 1871. If the two authors looked into the issue themselves, it is obvious that they were either very biased in their examination, or they conducted a very incomplete investigation.

In view of the fact that the booklet so completely misrepresented the truth and made so many false charges, we protest very strongly that they so boldly placed those untruths and false charges into so many Christadelphian households. Many of the brethren will not have the source material needed to enable them to recognize the utter erroneousness of the entire booklet.

We must at this point, resist the temptation to go on and on. Practically every page of Advocatism Exposed contains errors and charges that practically demand response and refutation. It takes more pages to answer a charge than it does to initiate the charge, for, as Brother Williams said in one of his debates: "a child can take a hammer and in one minute, damage a wall to an extent that it would take an expert carpenter days to repair."

We wish to thank the ecclesias that are standing with us in this matter. It is a very expensive matter to produce and mail this "Response" to every Christadelphian household and the Voice of Truth does not have sufficient funds to accomplish what has to be done. The work is going forth because the ecclesias have recognized the threat that has been posed and have risen in support of the defense of the truth. A number of donations have been made, however, we still have a substantial short-fall and are in need of financial support for this response.

We know that for the sake and defense of the truth we have been forced to write in a straight-forward and frank manner. We mean no offense. We took none when they wrote in the same manner. We offer them the hand of friendship, and if only they will grasp it, perhaps we can reason these matters and hopefully, finally be of one mind. Should we turn our backs on each other without at least making this effort, surely God will not be pleased. We close this response with the invitation of the Deity, which is recorded in Isaiah 1:18:

"Come, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." This is the result we wish for us all. May God guide us and bless us to that end.

Wayne R. Tanner

  Email the webmaster with any comments or questions.
Updated last on 2023-02-07.