The Christadelphian November 1958, John Carter

Words and Meanings

In the magazine The Old Paths bro. Snelling takes up the defence of bro. Barnard’s teaching and tries to support it by a series of quotations. It is largely a playing with words in a mechanical sort of way without regard to the meanings. Bro. Roberts used the term “racial condemnation” of the inherited mortality which all Adam’s descendants share: otherwise we have the monstrous doctrine that we are condemned for something in which we had no part and could therefore share neither guilt nor blame. So with the phrase “racial alienation” which was only used once by bro. Roberts, so far as we remember. The context shows that he meant all have become alienated because of our sins—our sinfulness being part of our inheritance as members of Adam’s race. It is significant that the quotations used are from literature published by the Christadelphian office. We could ourselves quote every citation made as defining our own position: it would appear, however, that words do not mean the same to every reader. Some quotations are manifestly misused. Cannot brethren see the difference between “two aspects of sin” as the phrase is being used in this controversy and the word “‘sin’ used in two senses”, that is, literally and metonymically? There are as many aspects of sin as there are kinds of sin; all the works of the flesh are aspects of sin. But the word “sin” is used in two senses in the Scriptures. Some words are used in more than two senses, as for example the words “law”, “death” and “life”. What Dr. Thomas said and said rightly, was that “the word sin is used in two principal acceptations (that is, in two senses) in the Scriptures”. There is a world of difference between two aspects of a thing, and two senses of a word. In this connection it is interesting to note that the very idea bro. Snelling is defending was repudiated in the Reunion discussions. In the letter of 24th January, 1956, addressed to the Suffolk Street Committee by the Central Committee, it was required that “those doctrines are not being countenanced which led to the denial of the resurrectional responsibility of enlightened rejecters, and which were the primary cause of our separation from certain ecclesias during the period 1894 to 1900.” Although bro. Snelling was not a signatory of this letter, he had been a party to the discussions. It is a strange irony of the controversy that bro. Snelling has left us because he thinks there is toleration of error on resurrectional responsibility, while he is endorsing the doctrines which were the logical basis upon which resurrectional responsibility was denied sixty years ago. It is possible in anxiety about gnats to swallow camels.

The Statement of Faith

Much has been made about accepting the Statement of Faith without reservation. But the Statement of Faith can be given the authority that belongs to the Scriptures. Bro. Snelling has printed that he “asked the Editor what parts of the B.A.S.F. were controverted by bro. Barnard” and that he received “an evasive reply”. This is unworthy of bro. Snelling. What we said was: “You seem to think that the B.A.S.F. has the authority of Scripture. Bro. Barnard reproduces the errors of J. J. Andrew . . . if the line had been taken then (that is, in the 1890s) that his views did not contravene the B.A.S.F. they would not have been rebutted. There can be errors which are not included in the B.A.S.F. but which vitally affect the truth.”

It will be seen that we base our case on the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. Bro. Snelling’s comment does raise the issue of what is the final basis of authority. The Statement of Faith is a worthy effort to define what we believe the Scriptures teach. It necessarily reflects the emphases of the time when it was compiled. It could not anticipate errors that might arise. A statement drawn up in the first century would define the unity of God and the sonship of Jesus but could not deal with the intricacies of the Trinitarian controversies. This fact is illustrated in the credal Statements of Christianity. The so called Apostles’ Creed could be accepted by us (one phrase about the descent into hell would be tautological in our view, but that phrase is a later addition). Contrast the Apostles’ Creed with the Nicene and the “Athanasian”. Suppose the latter had been formulated in the first century as a doctrine to be rejected, it would have been meaningless to practically all at that time, since the controversies which led to the formation of those Creeds had not arisen. In the same way an error could arise not foreseen when the B.A.S.F. was formulated. Are we thus to be restricted in our contentions for the faith to the definitions of the Statement of Faith, and allow error on the ground that a man claims that his teaching does not deny the Statement of Faith; or do we attribute a foreknowledge to those who formulated it concerning every possible error? Or is the authority for our faith the inspired Word of God? The Statement of Faith is a necessary definition of our Faith, but behind it is the divine Scripture as the ultimate seat of authority in matters of doctrine and of morals.