Aleck W. Crawford


to John Hutchinson's (JH)[2] comments entitled


Critique and Credibility[3] (JHCC)


which is his response to my critique[4] of his document that he called


What They Said Would Happen[5] (WTSWH)


P.S.: Those familiar with JHCC will notice that the words in green are from that source or WTSWH.



There are times when silence is the best answer. I felt a little undecided whether it was not such a time when a man who was privileged to hear and read "The Truth"[6] not only turns away from it, but lifts up his pen against it in repeated unbiblical comments and illogical denunciations. Were I to consider only the indiscretions of John Hutchinson (JH) in JHCC against myself I would have taken no notice of it. But I have to consider those who place their hope in Christ, some of whom might not be able to see through the false doctrine and stale sophistries mostly re-hashed or wrested scriptures in the said Net posting, and who might in consequence be needlessly discomforted in the reading of them. I have often received deep-felt thanks for the availability of my critiques by those thus affected by John Hutchinson's previous writing (WTSWH) and Branson Hopkins'[7] slanderous innuendo[8]. Therefore I have decided to press ahead once again and "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints" as Jude exhorts his readers to do. The Lord Jesus Christ[9], and His apostles -- Paul[10], Peter[11], John[12], and Jude -- warned us of the very multifarious apostasy[13] to which JH belongs.

This rebuttal will answer only some of the comments[14] JH made in his so-called Critique and Credibility. It is not our intention to answer here all the points JH raises, as most of them have already been answered fully in debates, books, magazines and pamphlets ever since Christadelphians have debated and published books. In addition I have already adequately answered in my critique most of the points he raises, but usually JH ignores the evidence, a fact that the reader may not be aware of. So I appeal to the reader to reread my critique. In this rebuttal I again use "the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" and keep on the full Spiritual armour of God including "the shield of faith" to "quench all the fiery darts" (Ephesians 6:15-17) of those who oppose "the Truth".

Since John Hutchinson is an Evangelical Baptist, one is entitled to ask the question: 'Why did the (now former) President of the Evangelical churches return to the Roman Catholic Church?'

"Francis J. Beckwith is a tenured associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, the largest Baptist university in the world. He resigned as president of the Evangelical Theological Society May 5 (2007), after entering into full communion with the Catholic Church a week earlier."[15]

"Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-Studies at Baylor University. He teaches in the departments of philosophy and political science as well as the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, where he served as its Associate Director from July 2003 until January 2007. He is also a Fellow and Faculty Affiliate in Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR).

In 2008-09 he will serve on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame as the Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow in Notre Dame's Center for Ethics & Culture."[16]

Beckwith did not even have to resign his position at the Baptist university! Although not all Protestant Evangelicals were happy with Beckwith's return, isn't the above reasonably clear evidence that most of JH's Evangelical 'Baptist' opinions on the Bible and his attitude towards the Truth find their basis in the Mother Church? Like most false churches that call themselves 'Christian', JH believes in the fictitious gospel that heaven is the reward of the redeemed: -

"I anticipate being with the Lord and all the company of the redeemed forever in the glory of heaven."[17]

There is not one verse in the Bible[18] that says, "the redeemed" go to "the glory of heaven". By contrast to this pie-in-the-sky conjecture, there is clear and irrefutable Biblical evidence that Christ the great King will rule the world upon "the throne of his father David[19]" which was and will be in "Jerusalem"[20], Planet Earth. For a person who cannot find the Biblical reward of the righteous, JH is certainly unqualified to try to discredit the Christadelphians which are the only group that I am aware of that teaches the Gospel clearly defined in the Bible. Not only that but those who "pervert the gospel of Christ" are "accursed" by God [21].

Christadelphians believe that we must accept the whole teaching of the Bible. The Apostle Paul in his words of warning and exhortation to the elders of the Ephesian ecclesia testified to the fact that "...I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). He then warned them that the Apostasy that we still see today would arise and pervert the gospel:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29, 30).

That Apostasy developed into the Catholic Church and then, in the so-called Reformation, spawned her numerous daughters loosely termed Protestantism. The problem is they did not reform or protest enough and so kept most of the Roman Catholic false doctrines as an inheritance.[22]

Therefore, I urge you to read your Bibles and thereby find the true gospel for yourselves so you can worship God and have a hope of immortality equal to what God's immortal angels now experience.
[23] If you have any questions please email me at



Aleck W. Crawford

December 23, 2008  updated 11 February 2015



Index[24] to document links


Angels and creation

Christianity a 'NOW' religion

Dr Thomas - inspired

Is this the 'Hope of Israel'?



Other issues

Preaching another gospel

Preconceived ideas


Thomas postulates 2 Gogs and Magogs!

Wrested Scriptures





Preaching another gospel

I quote the first paragraph of JHCC that occurs after the random list of the issues which it attempts to address:

"In his preface Aleck quotes Galatians 1:8,9, which refers to 'preaching another gospel,' and asks, 'Does the Bible teach the same first principles of the gospel as that which Christadelphians teach?'" (JHCC p. 1)


The comments in JHCC again display bias by quoting out of context[25], which is an identifying mark of Evangelical wresting of the Scriptures and of all apostate Christianity. JHCC also misquotes, replacing "as what" with "as that which". My actual comment was:

'So the real issue is: does the Bible teach the same first principles of the gospel as what Christadelphians teach? The person who comes to the Bible with no preconceived ideas will find that we do. So in what follows we "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude v. 3).'

I was not asking nor looking for information, as JH implies, but making a concluding statement in my preface that the real issue at stake is not JH's negative attacks against Christadelphians, but whether we teach the same Gospel as the Bible teaches. This statement wraps up my earlier comment in that Preface:

"But the proper definition of the gospel has been documented from clear Bible teaching in the very books that Hutchinson attempts to discredit, and in subsequent publications by other authors."[26]

For those who might be misled by John Hutchinson's misrepresentation in JHCC or distortion of quotes, I now make a number of points from the Bible that prove invalid his assertion that "any thing (sic) other than the 'grace of Christ' is not 'a gospel.'"[27] It's strange phraseology that JH uses but in other words he claims the gospel is only about "the grace of Christ". (Then JH says "... Its (sic) all about Christ..." see point 4). This is not the place to go into what JH believes grace is but regardless of his belief, the gospel is not only about grace or Christ or the grace of Christ as we prove in what follows. Probably a good place for readers to start to understand what is wrong with Evangelical beliefs about grace would be to read a devastating review to Philip Yancey's book[28] on that subject since Yancey is presently the foremost Evangelical author on grace, but he has no idea what the Biblical meaning is.



1. First of all note carefully JH's qualification (highlight is by me in bold)

"The context of Galatians 1 indicates that the original gospel of the Bible is very different to that which Christadelphians teach."

Why does JH restrict his definition to the first chapter of Galatians and also ignore other definitive, clear, and relevant Scriptures? Either he is ignorant of the full definition of the gospel or wishes his readers to remain in that condition so they will think that Christadelphians do not teach the Biblical gospel. If you take away the biased qualification then JH's claim is false as we now go on to prove.

2. The gospel of justification by faith was preached unto Abraham and was concerned with how all nations would be blessed.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

v.9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The context of v. 8 includes the following facts:

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ...

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So as well as grace, the gospel includes the promises made to "Abraham" which were based on "faith", and since the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ includes being "baptized into Christ". Paul also says we are "heirs", which means that the promises include something we have not yet received.

The problem in the Galatian churches (Gk. ekklesia = ecclesia which means an assembly) was that they had Judaizers (called in 2:12 "the circumcision") in their midst who wanted to add the keeping of certain parts of the Law of Moses to the Gospel. The Apostles Peter and Barnabas were being carried away with their hypocrisy so Paul had to oppose Peter to his "face" (Gal. 2:11). So that was the "another (heteros) gospel" being preached in Galatia but it was not really another (Gk. allos)", (since there is only one true gospel) but a perverted or distorted Gospel which could not save.

However, Paul's comment in chapter 1 verses 8&9 is general in nature and refers to any false gospel. That was my point in opposing JH the way I did in the preface of my critique:

'Again, it is not a new point as the reader will see but only an attempt to get the reader to swallow his (Hutchinson's) brand of evangelical Christianity which is one of the other gospels that the Apostle Paul warned his readers against.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8, 9).

   So the real issue...'


3. The general meaning of the Gospel, or the Good News, is defined very clearly in the Acts of the Apostles

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching (Gk.) euaggelizo[29] the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. (NASB)

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Acts 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. KJV

JH claims that the gospel is only about grace or Christ, but it is much more than that as the inspired writer Luke clearly tells us in the above three quotations.

Details[30] of the Kingdom of God would include, but are not restricted to:

·             A description of God and His character including being rich in mercy and His great love

·             God's purpose in creating the earth and man upon it.

·             The past and current duties of the immortal angels

·             Who the King of the Kingdom is

·             Where the Kingdom is and its territory

·             Where the capital is

·             Who the immortal co-rulers are

·            Who the Kingdom rules over i.e. who the subjects are

·            The special place of mortal Israel

·            Something about the worship i.e. there will be one religion not many in the Millennium

·            The wonderful peace and righteousness that will exist in the Millennium because of the suppression of sin.

The details of the
name of Jesus Christ would include, but are not restricted to:

·              Jesus is the resurrection and the life

·            How he would save believers from their sins

·             How he would declare God's righteousness

·             He would be of the seed of David: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh", Rom. 1:3

·            He would be the seed of the woman and

·           That Jesus was the Son of God through the power of the Holy Spirit on the womb of Mary and by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4).

·           How Christ enables adults to become citizens of the Kingdom he will rule for God: belief, repentance, baptism by full immersion in water, and a proper walk

·             plus of course, obedience

·            and continued faith and

·            the grace of God and of Christ. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8), "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved" (Acts 15:11).

·           Christ is the judge of the responsible

·            At the end of the millennium Christ will hand a perfected kingdom to His Father.

4. Later, on page 2 of JHCC, JH says

"The gospel is 'the gospel of Christ.' Its (sic) all about Christ"...

Is it all about Christ? The quite precise and in this case accurate definition of gospel in the Online Bible[31] Thayer's Lexicon totals 7 occurrences in the KJV where it is called the "gospel of God". All a person has to do is get out their concordance or look it up on the Online Bible or some similar software[32].

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

See also Rom 15:16; 2Cor 11:7; 1Thess 2:2; 1Thess 2:8, 9; 1Pet 4:17.

So is JH's narrow definition of the Gospel as grace only or its all about Christ (sic) correct? Do we believe the inspired writer Luke and the other inspired writers who describe and define the gospel, or narrow our understanding to one chapter only because it suits some preconceived Evangelical theories?

The answer is pretty obvious and is reflected in the graphic opposite. While this (slightly modified!) graphic is a badge of the Mother church, some evangelicals including Beckwith are Catholic and the rest belong to her harlot daughters (cf. Rev. 17:5) who prominently exhibit the mark of the beast, the cross, on their churches.


Preconceived ideas

Again JH quotes illogically in JHCC by wrenching two words completely out of context and says Aleck speaks of preconceived ideas... If JH would have quoted the whole paragraph on the "real issue", as I have done above[33], it would be obvious that I am talking about people coming to the Bible with no preconceived ideas to find out if Christadelphians teach the same first principles as the Biblical gospel does. But no, JHCC turns my phrase around with no logic and attacks[34] Christadelphians again. I was not talking about whether Christadelphians had preconceived ideas in that paragraph -- indeed everyone except them! He then says:

"is there a Christadelphian who comes to the Bible with 'no pre-conceived ideas'?"

JH implies that the answer to his question is 'no', but the following proves the answer is 'yes'. The author, now a Christadelphian, did not come to the Bible with the pre-conceived idea that Christadelphians were right.

I can assure the reader that when I first came to the Bible I was fairly confident that Christadelphians did not possess the Truth because they were too small a group where I lived in the Canadian province of Alberta. But I quickly found out by a concordance study that the view of most of Christendom that 'we have an immortal soul and go to heaven at death if we have been good' could not be found within the pages of the Bible. That caused me to read and check other church doctrines very carefully and I came to the conclusion after sufficient personal study that Christadelphians did have the truth of the Gospel, and conversely that over 99% of so called Christendom are astray from the gospel so clearly defined in the Bible![35] In fact, the Bible writers clearly tell us that there would be an apostasy long before the return of Christ as we have already proved in the preface of this REBUTTAL.

When I was a teenager I was told by a close friend not to read Elpis Israel Section 3 because there were "too many mistakes in it". Also almost all Christadelphians would reject some of the few non-essential suggestions made in the first section as I indicated in my point 2 of my critique of WTSWH. I am the coordinating distributor for an Australian publisher that also markets many other Christadelphian books including Eureka and Elpis Israel. I think we have only sold one or two copies of the first book in the seven years we have been selling them and many Christadelphian converts in the 21st century do not read Elpis Israel, as the language is too difficult.

It would be statistically correct to say that almost all converts to the Christadelphians from outside our body held no pre-conceived ideas that we were right. An odd one here or there found the Truth before finding the Christadelphians with whom to fellowship.

JH implies that he holds no preconceived ideas when he comes to the Bible. Why then did he get a diploma from the Melbourne College of Divinity (MCD) as he states in the words below taken from one of his books?[36] Has he thrown out all his textbooks from this course and gotten rid of all the apostate bias his instructors would have imparted to him? Why is he a lay preacher if he has a diploma? Or does the Baptist Church require better qualifications before they allow a preacher to be a fully qualified preacher?

Dr Thomas - inspired

JHCC is now rehashing (since we have already proved[37] that we do not claim that) and quotes a couple of Christadelphian authors on page 3 of JHCC. But note none of them claim inspiration for John Thomas!

Internal evidence

We now present the evidence to prove JH's claim is false.

'A distinctive mark of Christadelphians, who are sometimes grouped by the critics along with other "sects or cults outside the main stream of Christianity", is that they seek their authority in the Bible alone, and not in any other book, as do, say, the Mormons with the Book of Mormon, the Christian Scientists with the works of Mary Baker Eddy, or the Witnesses with their Watchtower publications. The spirit of devotion to the Word and enquiry into its meaning which led Dr. Thomas to leave his earlier associations, made him brush aside every attempt to make him pronounce on matters of doctrine'.[38]

John Thomas himself certainly did not claim inspiration as anyone can see from the following written by him.

'THE ONLY AUTHORITATIVE VOICE. -- A brother having written to Dr. Thomas, requesting his "authoritative voice on points of doctrine submitted," the Doctor remarks in reply, "If I were to consent, I should be set down for a pope at once. Let the voice of the truth, in fraternal and kind contention for the faith, be the authority for each. There are partizan adherents to all causes, who surrender their minds to personal authority, and endorse whatever comes from that source without examination. I am opposed to 'authoritative voices,' other than the voices of the prophets and apostles, and even theirs must be understood to be beneficial." '[39]


John Thomas[40] says in the introduction to Eureka that he only wrote that exposition "to enable those who are unskillful in the word, and the history of the past and present, to understand."[41]

Does that sound like he is claiming inspiration? No! If you are skillful in the word and history you won't need his writing on the Apocalypse. There have been at least ten Christadelphian books written on the Apocalypse.[42]

No Christadelphian claims inspiration for John Thomas or Robert Roberts or any other Christadelphian. So the following comment in JHCC is simply not true.

"While lip service is paid to the Bible really two authorities have existed"...[43]

The following quotation from Robert Roberts shows the above claim in JHCC is false:

"...The best proof of the soundness of the views advanced by Dr. Thomas (i.e. in Eureka) lies in this, that once a reader is directed by him to the Bible and becomes a Bible student, he can dispense with Dr. Thomas's books altogether... The Bible keeps you posted in the truth, if you never read another line of the man who may have directed it to you in the first instance. My own experience is an illustration of this. I read Elpis Israel twenty-seven years ago;[44] I read it only once: I have never read it since: but I have read the Bible daily all the time since, and have remained of one judgment with Elpis Israel in consequence. So with the Herald published by the Dr., I read it only once. Eureka I have read only once. The Bible to which these books direct their readers I have read always, and consequently realise a strength of conviction totally independent of the man now in his grave by whom the conviction was generated in the first instance.[45]

I did not know about this comment by Robert Roberts at the time I read Eureka, but I too only read it once and have still to read all of Elpis Israel. So the bottom line is this -- you don't see Christadelphians carrying Elpis Israel or Eureka around as an authority instead of a Bible like the Mormons carry The Book of Mormon or JW's carry the Watchtower magazine.

A current reader of this rebuttal would only have to attend a representative sample of say five different ecclesia's Sunday Memorial Meetings, Seminars and Bible Classes to determine that the above statement made in JHCC is completely false.

Our statement of Faith clearly spells out what we believe and practice.





That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to the errors of transcription or translation.


2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Hebrews 1:1; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthians 14:37; Nehemiah 9:30; John 10:35 …



External evidence

Our claim and practice in this regard has been the subject of careful non-Christadelphian examination by two well-known neutral sociologists: Bryan Wilson and Charles H. Lippy, both of whom wrote extensively about Christadelphians in their books. The former lived with and conformed to the practices of Christadelphians to gain an accurate and thorough understanding of this sect. Wilson wrote the following comments, which are relevant to the title above:

"... the Christadelphians accept the Bible as the only source of knowledge of God and His revealed purposes..."

The Bible is the sole criterion of truth accepted by Christadelphians; there is no other inspired source and no other authority." [46]

"The Bible is held to be the only way in which God speaks informatively to men today.

Nor is the interpretation of Scripture which Dr Thomas provided regarded as inspired in any sense... There are numerous commentaries and expositions... The commentaries are in no sense alternatives to the Bible, nor is there any suggestion that the commentaries are absolutely correct in every detail."[47]

"...He [i.e. Thomas] was not regarded as a prophet, nor as one having special revelation... His writings were not regarded as infallible... He was God's instrument in the latter days to bring forth the main teachings of the true faith. The individual preaching Christadelphianism has no need to invoke Thomas." [48]

In a later book Wilson wrote the following:

"Thomas regarded the Bible as inerrant and his own commentary as merely that of a serious student. He denied having any special inspiration, and always rejected the idea that he was a prophet -- or a pope. Even the idea of guidance of the Holy Spirit was rejected: the word of God, as recorded in the Bible, was the only way in which God spoke to man in that age."[49]

Lippy wrote a full length study of Christadelphians[50] and made the following relevant observation:

"...Thomas's writings do not have the status of supplementary revelation and therefore do not have infallibility or standing as scripture. They have never attained the standing in Christadelphian circles that, for example, the Book of Mormon has among Latter-day Saints or Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures among Christian Scientists. Indeed, contemporary Christadelphians are ready to acknowledge errors in Thomas's writings..." [51]

So the quotations on page 3 in JHCC do not prove Hutchinson's claim. Even if the quotations were representative, which they aren't, there is a huge difference between carefully written commentaries based solidly on the word of God being very useful, and regarding them as being inspired.

Our attitude to Biblical exposition--verbal or written-- is that of those who lived in Berea who

"... were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11).

For example, when we present talks or seminars we ask the audience to check what is stated with their open Bible[52] or if we offer pamphlets to support the talk or on any subject we have in our literature, we ask the reader to check them with the Bible. Most ecclesias encourage questions either in a question or comment time, or afterwards.

So in summary, the evidence we have presented proves that JH's comments in JHCC, referred to above, are false since no Christadelphian regards these books as products of inspiration.[53]



JH again drags two words ("pagan mythology") out of their context from the preliminary points in my critique and then cobbles them together, because of a chip on his shoulder, with some of his own words and more words taken out of context -- in the following comment:

Aleck refers to 'pagan mythology.' Was ever a greater myth imagined than animal like beings from other spheres becoming 'Gods' and creators? -- also the anticipation of humans becoming 'ELOHIM -- mighty in strength and framers of new worlds?' See P.187, Elpis Israel.[54]

JH even has the punctuation wrong in the nine words he quotes above.

The full quote from Elpis Israel is:

'BEHOLD THEN THE CONSUMMATION! Mortal and corruptible beings like ourselves become Elohim, mighty in strength, and framers of new worlds, of which the planet we inhabit, even in its present state, is a grand and glorious specimen. "Behold", says Jesus, once an infant at the breast, powerless in death, but now endued with all power, "I make all things new." He will educe from the things that exist, a new and magnificent world, as a fit and appropriate habitation for his companions, redeemed by his blood from the sons of men. This is the destiny set before those who shall become "equal to the angels" [Luke 20:36] by a resurrection to eternal life.'[55]

We have added the Bible reference Luke 20:36 to the above quotation to prove to the reader that it is a Biblical fact that the righteous humans will be made immortal and be equal to the angels. Therefore, it is not a myth as JHCC alleges. Note the following watertight evidence spoken by Jesus:

"But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:35-36)

Who were these angels or Elohim? We only need to compare Psalm 8:5, "For thou hast made him a little lower that the angels (Heb. Elohim)...", with the inspired translation of this quotation by its use of the Greek aggelos or "angels" in Hebrews 2:7:-

"Thou madest him a little lower than the angels[56] (Gk aggelos); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands"

to discover that the word Elohim often refers to God's immortal angels. So what we have in Genesis 1-3 is a description of God's immortal beings, the angels, doing His bidding in creation (cf. Job 38:7).

These wonderful immortal beings were there for the birth of God's Son and for his resurrection. It really is time JH improved his understanding of the clear Biblical teaching on these powerful immortal angels who "... do His [God's] commandments... "[57].[58]

To be logically fair the onus of proof is on JH to prove that John Thomas in the words "framers of new worlds" in the paragraph above is writing about something other than

1.         the created earth even in its present state and

2.         its renewal at the start of the Millennium.

When we read about planet Earth and its wonderful Garden of Eden and think about earth's beauty before the flood and even after the destruction and pollution that man has brought upon it, it was and still is to a lesser degree a glorious specimen of the creative power of the Elohim.

The main introductory phrase "...THE CONSUMMATION" from the above quote obviously refers in the first instance to something that was started on Earth[59] but not concluded as we see in Genesis 1 and 2 etc., and subsequently to the bringing of something to a satisfactory conclusion, or the final satisfying completion.

Neither the word 'Gods' nor the word 'creators' appear on page 187 of Elpis Israel so JH in JHCC is deliberately trying to mislead his readers about Christadelphians.

We answered quite fully in our critique the essence of the following interrogative sentence from JHCC:-

"Was ever a greater myth imagined than animal like beings from other spheres becoming 'Gods' and creators?"

I said then that "if Hutchinson can't even quote accurately (also putting in his own conclusions) and falsely representing them as being [i.e. Christadelphian doctrine], any fair-minded reader will be able to see clearly that Hutchinson has his own agenda with the express purpose to discredit." This time he does not use quote marks in most of his paragraph but he implies that is what we believe. We don't! I refer the reader to the above link to reconsider the evidence there.

So JHCC is mostly rehashing things we have already answered.

Note the preliminary point two below in my critique from which JHCC grabs his first two words highlighted in bold type:

' Nor will we defend any doctrine that is unscriptural since Christadelphians are seekers of the Truth which God has revealed in His word, not promoters of pagan mythology or tradition, as are most of the churches, including their evangelical wings. It is observable that John Thomas was still learning some aspects of what he wrote about the Bible in his Confession and Abjuration and Declaration written in 1847 and in Elpis Israel in 1849. We generally agree with his later writings where those clarify what he had said earlier.'

As indicated in the endnote to that point, there are also a few non-essential things in Section One of Elpis Israel that the majority of Christadelphians would disagree with.

Angels and creation [60]

The juxtaposition of this title in our rebuttal next to the previous subject is appropriate as they are related because both concern the work of God's immortal[61] angels.

Again JH rehashes his subject trying to bolster his false view by bringing in new evidence:

"That the creation was accomplished directly by God[62] is the most foundational doctrine of Scripture. See Rev 4:11, Acts 4:24, Romans 1:20, 25, Isaiah 40:28, etc."

That Yahweh was the "only Potentate" and "the Creator" is not in disagreement. But these verses JH cites need to be considered along with other Biblical principles like those in the same verses as the first title highlighted in red above:

"... [God] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see..." (1 Tim. 6:15, 16).

We have already proved JH wrong in our critique,[63] and we direct our readers to the paragraph entitled Were the angels (i.e. the Elohim) involved in creation? No amount of verse stacking or wriggling or wresting by JH can eliminate that evidence. Note that JH makes no attempt to answer the facts we presented in the critique to prove that they were involved, except for an endeavor to get Psalm 8:5 and Job 38:7 to say something that they do not! He says:

"Regarding the Elohim: What could be more precise than Psalm 8:5 'For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels...' -- and also Job 38: 'Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, and all the sons of God (Elohim) shouted for joy?'"

As we have already clearly demonstrated in the previous subject Psalm 8:5 -- when quoted in Hebrews 2:7, 9 -- proves that the word "Elohim" can be and is translated as "angels", it proves the opposite of what JH is trying to make it say. In other words it demonstrates that it is possible for Elohim to be used elsewhere, including the creation record, to mean angels.

JH's quotation from Job does not prove that the angels did not participate in creation[64], as we shall presently demonstrate.

In quoting from Elpis Israel page 185:

'Such a procedure on the part of the "Only Potentate," whose abode is in the light, and whose servants, the Elohim, are innumerable, would have been unfitting His dignity and underived exaltation. He has revealed Himself to us as a Potentate, a King, a Lord, etc.; now those who fill these stations commit to others the service of executing their will and pleasure. And thus it is with the Invisible and eternal Potentate. His kingdom ruleth over all. His angels, or Elohim, mighty in strength, do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His words. They are His hosts; His ministers, that do his pleasure.'

in JHCC page 9, JH conveniently omits the footnote "a" that provides Biblical evidence for what John Thomas says:

"The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word." (Psa. 103:19-20)

John Thomas does not include verse 21 in the footnote but it is relevant also, as a look at the last words of the above quote from Elpis Israel will demonstrate.

"Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure."

JH seems oblivious to the fact that much of the phraseology from the paragraph above -- that he quotes from Elpis Israel -- which JH says is "childish rationalism" is in fact Scriptural terminology which we have highlighted in red above! For example John Thomas writes:

"He has revealed Himself to us as a Potentate, a King, a Lord, etc.; now those who fill these stations commit to others the service of executing their will and pleasure. And thus it is with the Invisible and eternal Potentate."

The English meaning of potentate is:

"somebody who has power, authority, and influence, especially a monarch or other leader who has the power to rule over others"[65]

If JH were to check his Bible and use his concordance he would discover that is exactly how the word Greek word dunastes translated once as Potentate

"... he [Christ] shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; " (1 Tim. 6:15),

is used in all of its three occurrences.

With this fact in mind then, when the work of the angels in Psalm 103:19-20 quoted above and highlighted in red is linked with other Scriptures that speak about creation, we can understand what happened:

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." (Psa. 33:6, 9)

"Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created." (Psa. 148:5).

It is obvious that the hosts of angels also are involved in the new creation in Christ Jesus:

'But to which of the angels has He ever said,




Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?' (Heb. 1:13-14 NASB)

After quoting from Elpis Israel p.185 JHCC then makes the following ad hominem decree on John Thomas:

"In childish rationalism Thomas pictures God as one sitting in a chair giving commands to others to do his work. But, Jesus said, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' John 5:17"

By JH's prejudiced unbiblical logic the inspired psalmist David must also be guilty of "childish rationalism" since it is clear the angels carry out or "... do His [i.e. Yahweh's] commandments..." (Psa. 103:19-20). The verse in John that JH cites proves nothing when determining the detail of the Genesis creation since it is dealing with the New Creation, not the Genesis Creation.

A person has to understand the Biblical use of the language or terminology of the Name (Yahweh) and titles of Deity before he or she can tell someone what happened in the Garden of Eden. JH has no idea about how the Bible uses this terminology for those servants who "excel in strength" "hearkening unto the voice of His word" and "that do His pleasure" (Psa. 103:19-21) upon earth. An example will illustrate:

"Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name (Yahweh) is in him (the Angel). But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak... " (Exod. 23:20-22).

In Exodus 20:1 the KJV says "God" spake the words of Ten Commandments of the Law to Moses, but when you use the Hebrew and its inspired meaning elsewhere, any logical person can see that it was an angel.

"And God (Elohim)[66] spake all these words, saying..."

However, Steven clarifies this when he says it was an "Angel":-

"This is he [i.e. Moses] who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us," (Acts 7:38, NKJV)

That Biblical fact is more proof of how the word Elohim is often used of angels in Scriptures.

Even the term Yahweh Elohim is used of an angel in Genesis 2-3, and the Hebrew Elohim is used of angels in Genesis 1. Since "No man hath seen God at any time... " (John 1:18; 1John 4:12), obviously it was not God Himself in the Garden of Eden creating and speaking to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:26-30. The mighty being who bore the name of Yahweh Elohim in chapter 2:15-22 was not God Himself.

JH's view that it was the Creator Himself in the Garden of Eden killing (most probably) a lamb, clothing Adam and Eve with the dried skin and leading the discussion to send them from the Garden is observably blasphemous because, as we have proven, God does not personally visit the earth to talk to and interact with mortal man.

"Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'-- therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man..." (Gen. 3:21-24, NKJV).

Let JH also explain who the "us" is.

The following verses also make clear this subject:

"O LORD my God... Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity..." (Hab. 1:12, 13).

Yes of course God is Omnipotent but He has a host of immortal helpers endued with His Holy Spirit power "... that do his pleasure ..."[67] on earth as well as elsewhere.


Is this the 'Hope of Israel'?

First of all note that under this title JHCC (p. 19) quotes two paragraphs from my critique but omits a subtitle and the sentence following it -- which occur between the two quoted paragraphs -- with no indication that he is doing so. The following graphic is taken from my critique.

JHCC also ignores my previous two-point sentence and the clear distinction made in the exposition there between mortals and immortals as indicated by

·       the bold font

·       the Biblical proof which follows his misquote (see Luke 22:29-30 in graphic above from my critique) and

·       the exposition which follows and is clearly mentioned by the words "defined below".

I proved that mortal Jews who survive Armageddon will be ruled over by the 12 Apostles but JH refuses to admit his mistaken allegation in WTSWH. So it is very obvious he does have a hidden agenda -- deliberate misrepresentation of Christadelphians.

JHCC then quotes two long paragraphs from Acts 26 without explanation other than to claim that:

This was the 'Hope of Israel' for which the apostle was bound. Note the words, '... saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say.' (JHCC p. 20) (bold added by me)

After quoting several words of Jesus, JH then says in JHCC by way of a conclusion:

The 'hope of Israel' is Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen from the dead and being saved through him. - not living as mortals under Immortals! (JHCC p. 20)

JH says '...Note the words...' but he is the one who needs to "note the words" as he obviously has forgotten that Moses spoke of

1.         the promise to Eve which involves the kingdom[68] and

2.         the detailed promises to Abraham, repeated to Isaac & Jacob which include Kingdom promises that are obvious to anyone who knows the promises

and that the Prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2)

1.     made great promises to David which includes clear statements about the Kingdom and of a place of peace for Israel.

The timing of this promise to David is obviously future since part of the inspired words that Nathan spoke from the LORD were:-

"Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam. 7:10).

Obviously this has never been fulfilled yet and refers to mortal Israelites because immortals cannot be "afflicted". This is of course supported elsewhere by prophets such as Jeremiah in 31:31-34 & the following from Ezekiel:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you: And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD.... For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things. I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD." (Ezek. 20:33-44) see also Ezekiel 37.


JH's limited understanding of the full gospel can best be described as jesu-centric because he omits at least half [69] of it -- the Kingdom of God and how a future mortal Israel is included in the promises.

We have already previously defined what the gospel includes and most of that he omits when he talks about it being only "grace" or "all about Christ".

Why is it that JH only quotes half of the paragraph from Elpis Israel on page 19 of JHCC and NOTE JH omits the source (as to the page he quotes from) perhaps so his readers will not trouble themselves to see that he is quoting out of context? The scripture quote (Isa. 2:2) footnoted in that paragraph in most editions (except the latest ones in which it is included in the exposition as done below) completely defeats JH's view that he will be in heaven -- mentioned elsewhere in this rebuttal.

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."

The context of this scriptural quote refers to Judah (v. 1) and Jerusalem (v. 3) and speaks of the Millennium.

Probably the reader can also see that the last sentence JHCC omits defeats JH's argument and speaks of some Jews accepting the Messiah preceding the restoration of the rest. This has happened in the twentieth century when a few Jews have accepted the true gospel and been baptized. The full paragraph from Elpis Israel is as follows with the words in green the ones JH quotes in JHCC:

'It remains, then, after Judah's tents are saved, to make use of them as apostles to their brethren of the other tribes, to preach to them a word from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2), inviting them to come out from the nations, and to rendezvous in "the wilderness of the people," preparatory to a return to a land flowing with milk and honey, in which Judah is dwelling safely under the sceptre of the Seed promised to their fathers. Judah's submission to the Lord Jesus, as the result of seeing him, will give them no right to eternal life, or to the glory and honor of the kingdom. It just entitles them to the blessedness of living in the land under the government of Messiah and the saints. So with the Ten Tribes; their faith in the word preached will entitle them to no more than an union into one kingdom and nation with Judah; and a participation in the blessings of Shiloh's reign during their natural lives. If any of them attain to eternal life and glory, it will be predicated on some other premises than those which precede their restoration.'[70]

Why is it when JH claims to let the Bible define to his readers what the "hope of Israel" means, that he omits the evidence in Acts 28:23 & 31 the context of which contains the only occurrence of the phrase "hope of Israel" (v. 20)? We have already demonstrated how the definition in these verses forms a good and valid summary for the meaning of the word gospel.

JHCC then poses a

"Question: Where does the NT say that mortals will be ruled by immortals?" (JHCC, p. 20)

What should have sunk into JH's mind by now is that Christ gives one very good example which answers that question as far as Israel is concerned, and I have already clearly stated that in my critique.[71] For those who lack a browser link facility, we will quote it again:

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

That ye (12 Apostles) may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29-30).

JH's last comment in JHCC on this title is:-

"On Zechariah 12:10 See John 19:36-7, Rev 1:7" (JHCC, p. 20)

as if that answers the expositional points I made! I referred in the following sentences of my critique to the still future primary fulfillment, as readers will realize when they read Zechariah 12.


John 19:37 is an initial or token application of Zechariah 12:10 but in no way is it a total fulfillment of Zechariah 12, nor does it in any way fulfill Zechariah 13:6 which JHCC just conveniently ignores. Writing of the glorious age to come when Israel will acknowledge what their fathers did to their own Messiah, the prophet Zechariah said, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced..." The prophet describes the attitude of the Jews to their returned Saviour as one of overwhelming sorrow and mourning as they realize the shocking deeds of their fore-fathers in crucifying Jesus.

Revelation 1:7 "they also which pierced him" is a prophecy of the future in keeping with the contextual meaning of Zechariah 12. It has nothing to do with those living at the time of Christ's death on the cross in the first century, apart of course for the obvious cause of the wounds, which Messiah will then demonstrate to the mortal Jews who survive Armageddon.


Wrested Scriptures

This matter is not dealt with in WTSWH or in my critique. JH just adds it as a red herring into JHCC as another ingredient of his basically ad hominem tirade against me.

"In a query to Aleck, he replied by simply 'cutting and pasting' from a publication called 'Wrested Scriptures' with no acknowledgement. When I challenged him about it he claimed co-authorship of Wrested Scriptures. But the book says nothing about co-authorship!" (JHCC p. 26)

JH actually said in his email query that I was a "plagiarist" and in a later email 30/3/2004 he said he could not remember calling me that! It was convenient for me to answer in the way I did and I in no way claimed that the answer was my own words. It was not a formal printed document so the allegation was ridiculous and again revealed JH's agenda. JH could not refute the answer so he resorted to his usual ad hominem logical error and attacked me rather than the answer to his query. I did not claim co-authorship. The author Ron Abel was my best buddy and I worked closely with him in an apartment in Toronto, Canada for about 18 months on the manuscript and then for several months in Adelaide. As a matter of fact I had the manuscript typed up in my loose-leaf Bible for about 2 years before the book was published. JH very conveniently omits the especially relevant comment that Ron states in his foreword:-

"... much of the analysis is not original. It is a synthesis in which explanations gleaned from reading or discussion have been used without acknowledgement..."[72]

I haven't got a problem with Ron not including names in his acknowledgement above. Part of the plan for the book -- as stated in the foreword to Wrested Scriptures -- was for those answering questions, on certain Bible passages raised by correspondents doing the Advancement of Scriptural Knowledge (ASK) course, to give "a standard answer"[73] to save time. That is exactly how I used the book with JH. Hundreds of other Christadelphians have done and do this with others seeking answers or giving clarification to their wrong answers. So JH is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.


JH then writes the following:-

"Regarding Wrested Scriptures: an ex-Christadelphian wisely remarked: 'I find it amazing that R. Abel had such problem with the scriptures. He quotes a verse and then writes under it, 'Problem.' All the way through Abel finds problems with the scriptures.'" (JHCC p. 26)

What JH and his so-called wise friend fail to admit is that the Apostle Peter, commenting on the scriptures, said that there were therein:-

"some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest[74], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

The inspired Apostle Peter says in the above quote that there was a problem occurring among "unlearned and unstable" people in his day with them distorting or wresting "some things" in Paul's epistles that were "hard to be understood" "as they do also the other scriptures".

JH says:-

"The problem lies not with the scriptures but with R. Abel!"

Who are readers going to believe? The inspired Apostle or JH?

This "wresting" was occurring back in Peter's time and led to the Apostasy out of which grew the Roman Catholic church. Since the Reformation this wresting has been practiced by her harlot daughters and continues to be in our time by Evangelicals of every shade. Anyone with an ability to read can clearly see that the aforementioned book deals with the problems of some apostate churches wresting Scriptures: Roman Catholic, Mormon, SDA's, Pentecostal, JW's, 'British Israelites', and the Church of Christ. Those passages wrested by many religious bodies -- including heaven going, which JH believes in -- follow in Section B.

Readers can determine for themselves whether the Apostle Peter's definition fits John Hutchinson!

In an attempt to show that Ron Abel in his book Wrested Scriptures wrests passages, JH claims to cite one example that looks like it is from footnote 4 on the Church of Christ section on page 79.[75]

'One cannot know for certain whether he is in fact a sheep or goat until the Judgment seat of Christ.'

Then JH writes his supposedly irrefutable answer!

"Jesus said: 'I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of mine.'" JHCC p.13

What JH fails to tell his readers is that he does not cite the example from Wrested Scriptures accurately -- it is taken completely out of context, and that his answer does not prove anything other than the sheep know the shepherd. That is the norm with Middle East shepherds. The context is essential because it proves JH wrong. Ron goes on to say:

"The parable of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46) points out that many who think they are sheep will find out they are goats... "

The same self-deception is indicated in Matt. 7:22-23:-

"On judgment day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.' But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'" (New Living Translation)

JHCC (p. 26 last para.) then has a shot at what he calls Ron's anecdote:-.

"What utter rationalistic rubbish! Who would compare a frail rescue craft which may be unable to land on the ice or lose a ski to our Saviour of whom the Bible says, 'Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.' Heb 7:25 Compare Luke 15:4-7"

Biblical tenses used with the word "saved"

What JH fails to understand is that Ron is not comparing a rescue craft to the Saviour but illustrating the differing ways in which the word 'saved' can be used in normal English, which helps readers to understand the various Biblical tenses: past, present continuous, future and ultimate sense. Most Evangelicals often mix up their tenses and use a past or present continuous sense to try to support their 'once-saved always-saved' speculation. The explanation, which Ron gives on pages 154-155 points 1-3, is required reading for those confused by their religious leaders. No one, including JH, can escape the future tense or ultimate sense of the words of Jesus:

"...but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22).

As far as JH's use of Hebrews 7:25 is concerned -- yes Christ can and will in his role of mediator save those who wish to be. But there are those who do not wish to be or no longer can be saved, as we see when we read Hebrews 2:1-3:

"For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? ..."

and Hebrews 3:12-14;

"See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first." (NIV)

We must always remember especially the inspired words of Paul, which follow:

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb. 6:4-6)

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES." (Heb. 10:26-29, NASB)

The first century believers that Paul refers to had received (at least) one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and it was still possible for them to fall away. It is just too unproblematic for JH to pick the verses he thinks support his theories and ignore the rest, which prove his theories wrong!

It is just nit-picking in the extreme to attack the clear structural format that Ron Abel chose, and then write about him having a "problem with the scriptures". Ron did not have any problem with these passages, but as the reader will clearly see if they scan the book that it was the Apostasy who wrests these scriptures. Ron used that succinct Problem - Solution format (in numbered point form) to enable the reader to quickly and easily see how the passage[76] was being wrested or twisted by those who do so. I have never seen nor heard of Ron being defeated in a debate with any sensible and sober person, which he undertook on a very regular basis with those who did not understand the gospel. When Ron was the debater it was the apostate wrester of these scriptures who could not answer him. It was truth versus fables, or shamed silence!

Christianity a 'NOW' religion

"A comment on 1 Cor 9:27 which, to my mind, is the only verse that Aleck has put forward that might be evidence against the permanency of the saved doctrine. However, Paul is talking about the fear of losing his crown not his salvation. See previous verses with reference to runners where only one wins." (JHCC p. 11)

Let's have a look at JH's non sequitur[77]. The two related verses are now quoted so the reader can see the false conclusion JH comes to:

"I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Cor. 9:26-27)

Anyone who can read English can see that Paul has shifted from the language of a runner to that of a boxer: "So fight I... " So he has moved on from the potential of losing the race which was a distinct possibility. JH claims that

"...Paul is talking about the fear of losing his crown not his salvation."

However, the clear meaning of Paul's words is that he could be "a castaway" after preaching to others. These over-confident Corinthians were so badly in need of understanding this stern warning that Paul took them to the Jewish exodus for evidence of the peril they were placing themselves in. [In the original there is no chapter division.]

"...I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; ... But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand..." 1 Cor. 10:1-8).

Let's ask the obvious question: What does it mean to "be a castaway"? Does it mean not losing salvation as JH claims? RSV has "disqualified". Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words defines the word translated "castaway" as 'RV "rejected" (i.e. disapproved, and so rejected from present testimony, with loss of future reward)'. If there is any doubt about the meaning of the Greek word it is clearly resolved by this example from the Exodus. Did those with whom God was displeased enter the Promised Land? No! Their "carcasses [were] wasted [NASB margin has corpses 'are finished'] in the wilderness." (Num. 14:33). "In this wilderness they shall be destroyed..." (Num. 14:35, NASB).

Yes, God has promised us salvation but not if we do our own thing and practice the lusts of our hearts.


The Resurrection

For the most part under this heading in JHCC p. 12-14, JH is just rehashing what has already been answered. In the preface of this REBUTTAL I state, "It is not our intention to answer here all the points JH raises, as most of them have already been answered fully in debates, books, magazines and pamphlets ever since Christadelphians have debated and published books. In addition I have already adequately answered in my critique most of the points he raises."

Therefore in regard to JH's comments on 1 Cor. 15:52 the reader is asked to reread the endnote to Wrested Scriptures[78] as obviously the facts presented in that source have been ignored by JH.

JH then adds what he calls another "explicit scripture"[79]: 1 Thess. 4:16-17, without explanation other than "compare". It should be noted that v. 17 of this passage is one of the most wrested passages in the New Testament because it is invariably mistranslated by those who falsely believe in a rapture because they base their translation on a Latin[80] translation rather than what the Greek says. The closest to the Greek is Young's Literal Translation:-

"then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be;"

Since this has been answered in previous books[81] the reader is referred to them. See also the historical answer.[82]

Just before JH's sub-title of 'Christ the first fruits' (sic) he introduces a new subject by his one-liner: "Where in scripture is the Christadelphian theory of judgment at Sinai?" (JHCC p. 13) JH does not define his source or how this has anything to do with what he has written under the title of Resurrection.

As part of the preliminary points in my critique I referred to the Christadelphian Statement of Faith (BASF) that defines fundamental Bible teaching which central Christadelphians agree to. I then stated: "Outside of that framework some variation of exposition occurs in our community." So it's not one of our doctrines defined in The Statement of Faith.

There is however some evidence which may lead one to the view that the judgement is at Sinai.[83]

As far as the judgement is concerned there is no doubt that the obedient appear there as the scriptures mentioned in clause 24 of the BASF prove:

'24. That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient--will be summoned before his judgement seat "to be judged according to their works"; and "receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; Romans 2:5-6; Romans 2:16; Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 11:18' [84]

The reader is asked to carefully read those passages.

For the next part of the Resurrection heading topic which JH writes on, we quote the following from JHCC p. 13.

"Christ the first fruits. (sic)

Aleck refers to Lazarus and others who were raised from death before Jesus. They were raised physically -- only to die again. Christ and believers are raised dynamically - never to die again. Notice in the closing verses of 1 Corinthians 15 that the 'last enemy' - 'death' - is destroyed at the second coming of Christ by the resurrection of the dead."

Again JH

1.      takes a significant one of my points out of context because he cannot answer the contextual words and

2.      ignores the Biblical context from which he is defining his doctrinal beliefs rather than what the Bible says and concludes that "'death' - is destroyed at the second coming of Christ by the resurrection of the dead."

In relation to point 1 above notice that JH leaves out the bit from my critique which he has a problem answering in JHCC, highlighted in red below:

' If the dead are raised immortal how then is Christ the firstfruits? "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor. 15:20). There were many raised before Christ (e.g. Lazarus), and several at his resurrection. What this verse means of course is that Christ was the first of the Adamic creation to receive immortality. That proves Hutchinson's theory just that--a false theory not supported by the facts.'

He offers no evidence as to why some were "raised physically" and some "dynamically", whatever that is supposed to mean. It certainly is not a Biblical word as all resurrection is physical as the following verse proves:

'Then He [Christ] said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."' (John 20:27 (NKJV))

These "saints" that I referred to in my critique were raised "after" his (Christ's) resurrection as the following verses clearly prove.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt. 27:52, 53).

So according to JH were they raised dynamically or physically? Since he is arguing for immortal emergence one would have to conclude he believes they are immortal now but the text says that the giving of immortality will not happen until "his coming" (1 Cor. 15:22, 23).

Now for point 2. JH clearly does not understand 1 Corinthians15:24-28 which describes the reign of Christ from the period after his coming until he delivers up the cleansed Kingdom to God "that God may be all in all". This is because Christ and the faithful will be ruling on earth during the Millennium while JH thinks he will be in heaven, which is false and a common error of the Apostasy including Baptists. He implies that verse 54 refers to the same event as verse 26. However, the discerning reader can see that they are 1,000 years apart. Death is "destroyed" at the end of the Millennium whereas the people in whom "death is swallowed up in victory" refers to those immortalized at the beginning of this period.

If JH is so unenlightened that he cannot see the obvious 1,000 years difference in time mentioned in the previous paragraph, then readers will realize his inability to see the Apostle Paul's elliptically compressed phrase in verse 52 which does not discuss the details in the resurrection. The reader is asked to read the Christendom Astray link[85] or Christendom Astray Lecture 5 for another full exposition.

A picture of the Millennium requires an understanding that Christ and those who are given immortality at His coming will rule from Zion over the mortal population (Rev. 20:6) -- those living who did not know God enough to be responsible before Armageddon but who survived it. They will have children, and people will live much longer lives but many of those will eventually die. After the second resurrection at the close of the Millennium there will be another judgement for those who lived during the millennium. Those who are faithful will be rewarded with immortality and those unfaithful will perish. Then there will be no more death. So "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26). Also this statement does not mean there will be no dead people, for the rejected from the first judgement, the faithless of the Millennium, and the ignorant of times before that will be dead. There is a huge difference between 'no more death' and 'no more dead'. The Bible never says there will come a time when there will be 'no more dead'. It says the opposite.[86] God being "all in all" refers to the time after the Millennium when all those alive will be immortal, as His immortality will fill their physical beings.



I quote the following from JHCC p. 14. It demonstrates JH's inability to see the facts because he comes to the Scriptures with an Evangelical bias[87]:

"Aleck[88] now quotes some isolated verses to make his claims. I will comment on one of them to show how he, in fact 'wrests scriptures.' He isolates Phil 2:12. I will quote it in context and further comment should be unnecessary.

'Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.' Phil 2:12-16


Paul is simply asking that they work out in daily living what God is doing in them as a witness to 'a perverse and crooked generation.' "

It's not as simple as JH and his brief comment make it out to be. Also my source did not "isolate Phil. 2:12" as JH claims since it was part of a significant list of passages which prove JH's beliefs false[89].

It is obvious to any unbiased reader that JH has ignored the last verse of his selected context because it is clear that it was possible for Paul to have "run in vain" and "laboured in vain" (v. 16) with the believers in Philippi. He has also ignored the last verse of the chapter, which is part of the context[90] that demonstrates their service was "deficient":

"because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me." (Philippians 2:30, NASB)

How? There were "murmurings and disputings" or had been.

Verse 13 of Philippians 2 is clarified by the obvious cross reference in 1 Thess. 2:13 which defines how God works in us:


"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (KJV)

That was how God worked in them. Through His word: not directly in the way Evangelicals think God works.


If the Apostle Paul was "eternally secure" as JH makes out, how is one to understand the following contextual language?

"and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet..." (Phil. 3:9-13 NKJV)

So who 'wrests scriptures'? JH or I?


JH getting his tenses wrong

Next JH makes the following comment:

The Bible says: 'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.' Mark 16:16

The reader is supposed to conclude that this proves JH's "once saved always saved" Evangelical theology. This theology is false. The verse proves the opposite: "Shall be" means that it is a future thing, not a present. In the exposition following the subtitle Biblical tenses used with the word "saved" under the main title Wrested Scriptures above we proved that salvation is not a present possession. Obviously JH and his Baptist friends[91] do not understand their tenses. This is obvious from the following analysis of the text:

"16 He that believeth <4100> (5660) and <2532> is baptized <907> (5685) shall be saved <4982> (5701);" [92]

It only has to be pointed out that the tense is future

"5701 Tense -- Future" [93]

and a lot could happen in the interim. If the following type of things occur:

·       "...we shall reap if we faint not" (Gal. 6:9);

·       "if ye continue in the faith...and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Col. 1:23);

we will be saved by the grace of God.

If the following things occur:

·           "For if we sin willfully after that we have received a knowledge of the truth there remaineth ... a certain fearful looking for of judgement" (Heb. 10:26,27),

·          ... if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him" (Heb. 10:38);

·          And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: (Heb. 12:24, 25)

we will not be saved.

So the meaning of "saved" in Mark 16:16 is not past tense, i.e. "is saved", as JH makes out.


JH's use of Hebrews 3:14-4:11 examined

Careful readers of this Scripture don't need me to point out that the popular Evangelical[94] theory of "once saved always saved" is false. The very next quotation JH makes in JHCC proves that.

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end... (JHCC p. 14 last para.) v. 14.

JH imagines this context "rebuts Aleck head on" (JHCC p. 14). But he has completely ignored this sentence (v. 14) of the inspired Apostle, especially the bit we have highlighted in red! Notice he also ignores the previous two verses I referred to.

·                "Take heed, brethren,

·                lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief,

·                in departing from the living God . . .

·                lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." (v. 12-13)

Do those four points sound like 'eternal security'?

Why does JHCC ignore these verses that I referred to? Is it because they do not suit his pre-conceived Baptist false doctrine?

The next verse (Heb. 3:15) which JHCC also quotes, also proves JH wrong!

"While it is said, To day (sic) if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation."

Was it possible for the Hebrews to "harden [their] hearts"? Of course it was, and still is for anybody to do so "through the deceitfulness of sin." If it were not possible, then Paul would not have stated the exhortations in v. 12-13.

And so the mistaken theology and wresting of Scripture in JHCC goes on and on from Hebrews even in the context he quotes, without JH understanding that it proves him wrong:

"Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it." (4:1 NIV)

"Let us labour [be diligent NASB] therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (4:11)

One might easily conclude the following has happened to John Hutchinson as prophesied:

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a [the[95] ] lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2:11, 12)

JH says I cite a text "without reference to the context". (JHCC, p. 14 2nd last para.) The careful reader will notice what my hardened critic again failed to notice: that exposition in my critique is a quotation from Wrested Scriptures. See endnote 58 of that critique.

After JH's treatment of Hebrews 3:12-4:11, which we have examined and which proved JHCC invalid (above), he then says

"Notice the emphasis on 'Today.' 'Today, if ye will hear his voice.'" (JHCC p.15)

Yes, today is the day of opportunity. Yesterday has gone, and tomorrow may never arrive especially if we procrastinate.

However, it is not saying, "we are saved today". The Hebrews to whom the epistle was written were "brethren", "partakers of Christ", had been "partakers of the Holy Spirit" so therefore baptized believers and if the "rest" was something they had to be "diligent to enter" (Heb. 4:11) into, it clearly was not something they already had. They had to "take care", could be "hardened by the deceitfulness of sin", had to "hold steadfast... until the end", "must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it" (Heb. 3:12, 13, 14; 2:1), could have "fallen away" (Heb. 6:6), had [or were about to] "trample under foot the Son of God" and "[insult] the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). There is no way "saved" Evangelicals can escape or evade these passages!

Our analysis of these verses has proved their theology false.

JH's use of Matt. 11:28-30 examined

Next JH quotes these verses and implies the "rest" is 'eternal security' taught by most Evangelicals.

However we note again that the tense of the "rest" is future, not present:

"...Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find <2147> (5692) rest <372> unto your souls...

5692 Tense -- Future" Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon


JH again quotes Heb. 9:27 (JHCC p. 15) even though in my critique [96] I defeated JH's insertion of "all men" into the divine record. See especially endnote 61 of that critique. As for JH's statement that "those who die will be judged" he has some strange notion that those who are alive at his appearing must die first. 1 Cor. 15:51 says "... we shall not all sleep..." (NASB). So clearly not all men will die because Christ will come before they do.

JH then writes,

Consider the following texts:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Romans 1:18-20 KJV)

[We will comment on each quote[97] then supply the one that occurs next in JHCC.]

Clearly these people knew "the truth" but refused to live by it so "they are without excuse", therefore responsible. In case JH is tainted by Martin Luther's terrible bungle in his understanding of Romans chapter 1 let it be clearly stated that in verse 32 the word translated "knowing" is the Greek epignosko, which means "to know thoroughly" [98]. So Paul is not referring to pagan Romans.

The next verse JH quotes is:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

We ask the question, 'Who was Jesus speaking to?' The word highlighted in red gives us the big clue. He was speaking to a multitude (v. 23), which included the Pharisees who were a "brood of vipers" (v. 34) meaning they were the seed of the serpent and who had just blasphemed the Holy Spirit power which Jesus had used to cure the person who was blind and dumb. Were these Pharisees responsible in that they had heard the gospel but rejected it? To ask is to answer. They knew by his miracles that Jesus was the "Son of Man". See Matt. 11:20.

The next verses JH quotes are:

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:10-12)

Note the red emphasis I have made above. The people to whom Paul spoke were the brothers "in Rome" (1:7) and he included himself: "we", "us". So that passage does not support JH's theory of universal judgement, since he is writing to responsible brothers who had heard the gospel, not even all in Rome!

The next verses JH quotes are:

"...For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad..." 2 Cor. 5:9-11

It's pretty obvious to any normal reader that Paul is addressing Corinthian believers and again includes himself by the word "we". There is nothing here about universal judgement! This is just another example of ignorant verse stacking by JH, or shall we say wresting since JH is attempting to "wrest" a Scripture to make it say something it does not.

JH now quotes the following verse:

"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." (Acts 24:25)

Why did Felix tremble? Was he in total ignorance of the gospel? Not at all! The context supplies the answer. He had a "more exact knowledge about The Way" (v. 22, NASB). Additionally Felix already had heard Paul "speak about faith in Christ Jesus" (v. 24) and then he heard also Paul speak on the subjects in verse 25 highlighted in red so he trembled because he became fully aware of his personal accountability to Christ's judgement seat.

JH now stacks up another irrelevant passage:

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:17-18)

Why do we say it is irrelevant? Because it is in no way evidence for universal resurrection or judgement. Clearly the "ungodly and sinner" are two classes of those who "obey not the gospel of God". They had obviously heard the gospel but did not "obey" it. The "ungodly" want no part and "the sinner" disobeys the requirements of the gospel.

A person cannot "obey" something they don't know about. God is a God of justice and His laws are not like the "gazetted" laws of man and too bad if you have not read the "gazette" entry if you are caught doing something you don't know is wrong.

JH now quotes the following verses:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at (overlooked, NASB); but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)

Let's define the word "world" from the above quote.

"Oikoumene 1) the inhabited earth

1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians

1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire..."

            Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon

Prior to the gospel being taken to the Gentiles by the Apostles and others, they were generally ignorant of it (apart from proselytes to Judaism such as Rahab and Caleb) and God "overlooked" this. But now that the gospel had gone to the Gentiles in the oikoumene, those who heard and understood the gospel were responsible so were commanded "to repent". Had God at that time "given assurance" to the darkness of pagan idolaters in Asia[99] or Africa or the Americas? Certainly not at that time, nor at any time while they remained in darkness. When the gospel is preached to a person in whatever nation in a language they understand then they become responsible so must repent or be condemned. Consider the following:

"... the whole world has gone after him" (John 19:21 NIV). Did all the world go after Christ? "then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5 NKJV[100]) Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? No. One cannot imagine the Pharisees nor the Romans doing so. Babies could not "confess their sins". The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the word "all" means all persons. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

The final quote on page 16 of JHCC is again totally irrelevant in that it has to do with the judgement of those who are mortals during the Millennium. See Rev. 20:2, 4, 6.

The next allegation in JHCC follows.

"Aleck protests at the quote from Daniel

- 'And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.' Dan 12:2

He seizes upon the word 'many.' We note at the outset that it is 'MANY' -- not a few. However, scripture 'many' can be 'all.' See Romans 5:10-21" (p 17 1st para.)

JH says "Aleck protests at the quote from Daniel". I was not protesting at the quote!

What I actually said was as follows in my critique.

'Hutchinson then cites 3 verses without explaining them, except to say without any proof that "men" in Heb. 9:27 means "all men"...

  Hutchinson's assertion in the above point is proved wrong by his second quote (i.e. Dan. 12:2) since Daniel says "many" of them that sleep shall awake, so clearly NOT "all"!'

After saying "However, scripture (sic) 'many' can be 'all.'", JH then refers readers to Romans 5:10-21. He assumes his exposition is accurate, and therefore that I am proved wrong. Both his assumptions are wrong as we now prove.

This passage requires a bit of analysis to find out the correct meaning. I quote the following from the NASB as it puts in the definite article "the" where it should be in this passage and the one it is referring back to.

"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:12-13, 19 NASB)

This specific mention of "the many" is a clear Bible echo back to Isaiah 53:11.

"As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify
the many,
As He will bear their iniquities." (NASB)

I think JH will agree with me that not all "will be made righteous." A large portion of those at the judgement seat will be rejected because they are wicked. Paul says "the many" will be made righteous. Only those who understand the gospel and follow its requirements through faith will be saved through God's grace, not all. So he is distinguishing between the fact that "death spread to all men" (v. 12) which is one group he talks about, and another group which is "the many" which are the faithful responsible who will be "made righteous". Despite their iniquities, Christ died to "bear their iniquities" (Isa. 12:11). So "the many" does not mean "all" as JH admits above.

This graphic illustrates the relation of "the many" to "all men".

Additionally there is probably a Bible echo back to the following promise to Abraham:

'Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."' (Genesis 16:10)


John 5:28-29 rehashed again by JH

"Aleck comments on John 5:28-29 'Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil <5337>, unto the resurrection of damnation.'

I pick up his question: 'How can he condemn a person to damnation if that person has not "done evil", since a person who does not know the gospel is not said to be evil.' (JHCC p. 17).

What is Aleck going to say next? His statement ignores the testimony of scripture.

'What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.' Rom 3:9-12

'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' Rom 3:23"

This "testimony" ignores the fact that the Greek word phaulos translated in John 5:29 as "evil" is not used in the passages quoted from Romans 3 in JHCC.

The following is the complete quote from my critique, the crux of which JHCC ignores.

' It is also proved wrong by a proper understanding of his next quote, John 5:28, 29. That is what is so misleading about evangelical doctrine. It is a superficial understanding not borne out by proper Biblical analysis. The Greek word translated graves is mnemeion, which means 'memorial' from mneme meaning 'memory' (Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon). Only those who are responsible will Christ remember. How can he give eternal life to those who have not "done good"? (v. 29). And how can he condemn a person to damnation if that person has not "done evil", since a person who does not know the gospel is not said to be "evil".'[101]


As we said above, the Greek word translated "evil" is 5337 faulov phaulos and only occurs 3 times in the New Testament -- in addition to the one in John 5:29 above. None of those other three verses (John 3:20; Titus 2:8; James 3:16) even suggests universal resurrection or universal appearance at the judgement seat of Christ.

The scriptures are clear on the principle that knowledge of God's will or "the light" (John 3:20) brings responsibility. The basis of judgement is how a person has responded to God's word. Christ explained this:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

The following from the pen of the Apostles John and Paul are highly relevant to the subject:

"... for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4).

"... where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15).

Those who have no knowledge of God's word spoken and recorded by His prophets and His Son, and therefore ignorant of His will, are not responsible to the judgement seat. The following quotes prove that:

"Man in his pomp, yet without understanding,
Is like the beasts that perish" (Psa. 49:20, NASB)

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (Rom. 2:12).

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15)

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law..." (Rom. 5:13)

"They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." (Isa. 26:14)

"Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships ... Thus saith the LORD, ...Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow." (Isa. 43:14-17)

"And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men: and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts." (Jer. 51:57)

The problem with most Evangelicals [excluding Conditionalists[102]] -- including those of the apostate Mother Church[103] -- is that they believe in the false pagan theory of the immortality of the soul which gives rise to the equally false theory of universal resurrection and universal judgement.

He who asserts must prove his case; otherwise he has no case. JH asserts his "testimony" in JHCC proves universal resurrection and judgement. However, his case is not proven -- and it is exposed as false doctrine by the verses I quote above -- so his case is lost.


Thomas postulates 2 Gogs and Magogs!

Let me first of all go back to WTSWH to demonstrate that JH deliberately quotes out of context in the following two paragraphs:

'. . sin will still exist in the flesh, and in some instances reveal itself in overt acts of disobedience. "This spirit of insubordination will, however, smoulder among the nations until at the end of the thousand years the "enmity" against the Woman's seed bursts forth again into a flame.' (Elpis Israel p 455)

Some new demon, who would rather reign as Satan than serve in heaven, will arise among the nations and unfurl the old satanic standard of the Dragon empire . . . . A giant will this rebel be in presumption and crime, and surpassing in hardihood the pre-millennial Autocrat.' (Elpis Israel p. 455)

After the first sentence he leaves out 6 lines from Elpis Israel but this is not shown in his quote. He then leaves out 9 lines of that paragraph without indication of his quoting out of context. In the second paragraph he leaves out 7 lines from the paragraph quoted with no indication that he has done so. Because he quotes out of context he leaves out the scriptural evidence referred to there.[104] The green is what JH quotes, the rest what he leaves out.

"Some new demon, who would rather reign as Satan than serve in heaven, will arise among the nations, and unfurl the old satanic standard of the Dragon empire, which will be known to the generation of that remote future as the past existence of the Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires is known to us; that is, historically. A giant will this rebel be in presumption and crime, and surpassing in hardihood the pre-millennial Autocrat, whom Michael bound with a great chain and cast into the abyss. But what will not a man adventure inspired with the pride of life! Enchanted thus, he comes the Adversary (Satan) of the King of Glory; and goes forth to the remotest nations, to Gogue's Magogian people, and falsely accuses his administration, by which means he succeeds in detaching them from their allegiance, and in deceiving them into a vain attempt to recover their ancient dominion (Rev. 20:7-10)."

This is a typical example of what I say in the second paragraph of my preface in this rebuttal! JH was answered over 150 years ago. If JH had not quoted out of context omitting the scriptural proof footnoted in Elpis Israel [which follows for the readers benefit]:

"Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them..." (Rev. 20:7-10)

in Elpis Israel p. 455 that proves there will be a rebellion after the end of the Millennium, his readers would clearly see the facts which John Thomas comments upon. So who are you going to believe? JH or the inspired Apostle John quoted from the Bible above?

Now I return to JHCC.

John Hutchinson's logic under this title in JHCC has disappeared. In his random "issues" he has "Two Gogues", so that his "issues" title is different than the detail title above. He quotes the following paragraph in JHCC from my critique but omits completely the quote I made from Elpis Israel, which gives the details which I allude to in the sentence -- highlighted by me in this rebuttal in the red font-- below to prove what John Thomas said! By doing so he totally ignores my comment and puts in an illogical two-sentence response.

"After quoting from three parts of John Thomas' writings, the above title appears in WTSWH but nothing about that follows the title. Again it is a bit of sloppy writing by John Hutchinson who you may recall is trying to point the finger at someone else. But it is not John Thomas who postulates this as Hutchinson exclaims. In fact it is the subject of two of God's inspired prophets. For the sake of getting the facts before the reader we quote from Elpis Israel:-"

"Aleck, you have completely ignored what I said about this. Let the reader turn to pages 12 -- 13 where I documented the inconsistencies in Christadelphian writings."[105]

I repeat my main point on this subject made in my critique. After this title in WTSWH on page 9 he now tells us to skip 3 pages and read page 12-13 of WTSWH. There is nothing about Magogue on page 12 and nothing about Gog and Magogue on page 13! On neither page does he mention John Thomas. Notice also that JH has shifted the subject in JHCC from the above title to "inconsistencies". It's pretty obvious why he did not put in the quote from Elpis Israel because it would have defeated his ability to make an issue out of his allegation that John Thomas was wrong.

So I urge readers to look at my quote[106] in my critique if they are having trouble understanding this subject. Rev. 20:2-3 also shows clearly that the dragon is bound for 1,000 years, then is "released for a short time" (NASB).


Other issues

C. P. Wauchope

I stand by my brief comments made in my critique of WTSWH. Charles P. Wauchope's views on prophecy, mentioned by JH, were radical. I agree with JH that Charles should not have made the predictions that he did. When it was stated that he was also a radical member who promoted his own ideas there was a strong implication of more than just his views on prophecy.

However, JH attempts in JHCC page 4 to prove that what was said in my critique was incorrect. He says under the above title "Please read carefully" and then after quoting my comments lists what he terms "Facts for Aleck:" implying that I have it all wrong.

But it is JH who needs to read carefully more of the facts. So I will comment first on JH's incorrect claim that the 'Shield' Christadelphians (were) - the main body of the sect. To prove JHCC wrong it is only necessary to quote from the same page that JH quotes from:-

"The Adelaide ecclesia thus became part of the so-called 'Shield' Fellowship in Australia. The 'Shield' fellowship in turn found fellowship with the ... Suffolk Street group of ecclesias in the United Kingdom."[107]

So it is obvious to anyone that knows the facts that the Shield group only existed "in Australia". The Suffolk Street group was about one-third the size of the Central fellowship in the U.K. There were Central Fellowship ecclesias in other countries as well.

A quick digital search of The Christadelphian produced at least seven pages of evidence that refutes the rosy but very biased picture of "facts" that JH attempts to get his readers to swallow. C. P. Wauchope's union plan was one without unity of mind, so a radical view or idea which he pushed very hard but which was not successful in union. Though it may have produced some rethinking and some support, it was based on radical and unbiblical premises as the evidence below proves. He may have been what JH defines in his hasty generalization (which is an error in logic), a "world recognized Christadelphian lecturer", but only where his radical views on union were accepted. The fallout from his unscriptural and radical views continued after his death.[108]

I now quote some of the evidence to show how JH botched his ad hominem logical error in JHCC:-


This is what appears to be the state of things at which brother C. P. Wauchope is aiming in his visit to Britain... There is division ... in brother Wauchope's own country and we would be only too glad if he could scripturally heal it and then approach us. But to ask us to ignore it is useless. It is quite possible that such an agitation will produce further strife and division, but it is impossible that it can produce a scriptural reunion..."[109]

"BRISTOL. -- ...For the information of other ecclesias we report that we have been visited by brother and sister Wauchope (Adelaide). We were sorry to have to refuse them fellowship because of their association with others who hold unscriptural doctrines.--R. G. Bryant, Rec. Bro."[110]


'The Late Brother Bell and "Error"

Brother Wauchope errs in saying that we declared that brother Bell "did not hold error." We declared the contrary. He printed and published the statement that Jesus in the days of his flesh was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners in every sense of the term." This was and is error.'[111]

The present editor of The Christadelphian met brother Wauchope for the first time in 1925, on the occasion of his first visit to Britain, and was drawn to him ... But in view of the heresies and strifes current, it was quite impossible to fall in with his "peace at any price" campaign for the re-union of divided ecclesias...' [112]


'...We told the late brother Wauchope in the presence of witnesses that if we were of his mind we should still be found in "the church," holding our own views of "the Truth." We should be quite welcome there on these conditions. It does not pertain to the Adelaide ecclesia to "reunite the divided ecclesias" on any basis, least of all upon its virtual declaration to the very much older and larger Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia that it does not know what it has been doing these seventy years past! For that is really what the "campaign" amounted to. Actions speak louder than words. Man proposes, but God disposes. We are all in His hands, and the Lord is coming to judge us all. -- Ed.' (CC Walker)[113]

Another long letter of three A4 pages demonstrating why reunion on the basis proposed by C. P. Wauchope "involves unfaithfulness to the Truth" was from four members formerly of the Suffolk Street group including John Carter who became the next editor of The Christadelphian and who eventually formulated and instigated a reunion based on Biblical principles. In it they stated why a Scripturally based union was not then possible with the Suffolk Street group on the "Proposed re-Union on the Basis of Agreement to Differ"[114]

The editor of The Christadelphian prefaced that letter with the comment:-

"...The practical outworking of such a profession will be the toleration of all sorts of error for the sake of peace".[115]

Also, in recent discussions on the reasons for his "prominence" it was stated, "C. P. Wauchope poured loads of his own money into the building of the temple"[116]. Unfortunately it is often the case that rich people are influential and prominent in what they put their hand to. So prominence is not necessarily an indicator that a person is not radical as JH implies. For example, King Solomon was a very prominent person in his area of the world, but his riches went to his head and he ended up being a radical who worshipped idols and tried to destroy God's attempts to correct his wicked behaviour.[117] It was just shortly after this period of prominence started that Charles P. Wauchope started his Peace and Unity movement by taking a couple of overseas tours in areas where Christadelphians lived.


Christendom Astray

"Regarding Christendom Astray and the 16th chapter, Aleck says that Logos has reprinted it in the original. May I ask from whom it is available? I tried for many years without success to get a copy of CA, which included the 16th Chapter." (JHCC p. 6)

Isn't it pretty obvious that JH has a problem? I stated at endnote 19 of my critique the full postal address of Logos Publications. Even if I hadn't, he knows who Logos is and how to find them because it is commonly reported that he attended classes run by (the now deceased) editor Perce Mansfield at Inman Valley. All he had to do is enter Logos Publications into his browser and press enter! As well as that I gave the links of 5 online publishers, which do not omit chapter 16. Most readers will get the drift of the above points.

I repeat the obvious point from my critique answering JH's allegation that we Cover-up! Omit! Reprint!

"So who is doing the omitting? Did Hutchinson offer one word on why the other 17 lectures or chapters were unbiblical? Certainly not in the WTSWH pamphlet."

Any other points that JH makes on Christendom Astray in JHCC or WTSWH (page 3 only -- not 3-5 as JH claims[118]) are covered by my critique either in my preliminary points or in a long quotation from the publisher's comments of the Logos reprint.


"Thomas was a plagiarist"

The reader is referred to the following link in my critique as I have already given an adequate answer to JH's claims about Elpis Israel. See also endnote 54 of that critique.

As for JH's claim "you disappeared!", I did not go anywhere. My email address still remains the same and anyone who wants to know my mail address just needs to look it up on the Internet Australian White Pages, or Google it. I have lived a the same address for over 30 years. Let the reader decide if I disappeared.

As for JH's comments on Anatolia the reader is referred to later editions where the title was changed to a more meaningful Exposition of Daniel and bound up with John Thomas' Exposition of the Apocalypse. See the preface, in paragraph 1 below:-

'Exposition of Daniel




First Published 1868

ALL the author bespeaks for this Exposition is a patient and candid perusal. It is original throughout. He does not mean to say, that it contains no quotations; but that as an exposition it is not a mere rehash of the theories of others. It is an exposition of the Book of Daniel with so much of the testimonies of other prophets as is necessary to its comprehension.

It seemed to him proper that it should appear with EUREKA: an Exposition of the Apocalypse, because of the intimate relation subsisting between the prophecy shown to Daniel and the revelation exhibited in symbol to John in Patmos ... '

and the footnote on page 84 which follows:

'From the evidence, then, now before the reader,* the proposition may be considered as fairly proved, that Daniel's" king of the north" is the same power as Ezekiel's "Gog"; and that Gog being the Russian Power in full manifestation, the king of the north and the Russian Power are identical...

         *This evidence has been extracted from the historical and geographical gleanings of a writer on the Prophecy of Ezekiel, published over fifty years ago, who maintained that the Little Horn of Daniel's Fourth Beast symbolizes Napoleon the First's empire; that his wars and dominancy over the nations of Europe were the "making war, prevailing over, and wearing out" of the Saints; that the breaking of Daniel's Little Horn in Palestine is a fond vision based on a misapprehension; that the Jewish nation is not to be restored to its own land; that the doctrine of the Millennium is unscriptural; that Gogue was a cloud to cover the land of "Ros, Meshech, and Tobl", or of "All the Russias"; that "the Mountains of Israel" denote the pale of the Universal Church of Messiah, coextensive with "Christendom" so-called; that Napoleon I was "the Mouth speaking great things"; that he was the Antichrist, the last Tyrant of the Church; and that his overthrow in Russia was the fall of Gog, or Antichrist, upon the Mountains of Israel! Such is the mountain of chaff from which I have sifted some historical and geographical wheat which I have presented to prove conclusions the very reverse of his. Napoleon was neither the Antichrist, the Little Horn, nor Gog; but a splendid type of Christ in his character of destroyer of the Beast and False Prophet, and the conqueror of the kings of the earth." ' [119]

This footnote gives the reason why John Thomas did not cite his source. Just because Granville Penn is not mentioned by name did not amount to plagiarism especially in the 1850's. We agree with John Hutchinson that it would have been better to mention it. Again we state that the real issue is: did David King believe the Biblical gospel, or was he one of those who "pervert the gospel of Christ" thereby being "accursed" by God[120] and his warfare limited to ad hominem attacks? The answer is pretty obvious.[121] He was challenged to debate the doctrines of Christadelphians on five occasions[122] and each time he found an excuse not to debate.

The following also indicates a former Campbellite, P. A. Hutchinson, published a reply to King:

'History and Mystery of Christadelphianism. -- Bro. P. A. Hutchison (20, Halford Road, North End Road, Fulham; London, S.W.) has written an answer to the pamphlet published by Mr David King, under this title. Bro. Hutchison's answer is in the form of a letter to the Campbellites, with whom he was formerly in fellowship. The price will be 2d. per copy, or 1.5d. per copy for quantities of not less than 20 -- Postage extra. It is fairly written, with the avowed object, on Bro. Hutchison's part, "of opening the eyes of some (of the Campbellites) to the glorious Gospel of the Kingdom of God." ' [123]



God's purpose on the earth and its fulfilment:

"But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD." (Num. 14:21)

"...Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." (Matt. 6:9, 10)

"Then cometh the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor. 15:24, 25)



[1] "Rebut vti to deny the truth of something, especially by presenting arguments to disprove it" Encarta �� World English Dictionary Microsoft Corp. 1999

On the net at http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/REBUTTALtoJHCCg27.htm

[2] To save space subsequently referred to as JH.

[3] http://www.trutheternal.org/replyac1.htm Viewed March 31, 2005.

From now on abbreviated in my REBUTTAL as JHCC.

[4] A Critique of John Hutchinson's attack against Christadelphians, http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/Critique_of_JH_g16.htm, 2015

[5] http://www.trutheternal.org/WTSWH1.htm

[6] e.g. John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.", etc.

[7] See my exposure of Branson Hopkins at http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/index.html

[9] See his words in Revelation 17. The Mother church is the Catholic, the harlots are her daughters -- Protestant churches that share most of her false doctrines: The Trinity, Heaven going & Hell torments, The Devil, Immortality of the soul etc.

[10] 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3

[11] 2 Peter 2 & 3

[12] See the Epistles of First John 4 and Second John, which describe the antichrist system. For a full expose of the antichrist, see Who are you looking for? by Anna Tikvah, 2007 CSSS, 85 Suffolk Road, Hawthorndene, South Australia 5051.

[13] Rev. 17:5, 18.

[14] To answer all his allegations would take a book and reinvention of the wheel. The proper definition of the gospel has already been documented from clear Bible teaching in the very books that JH attempts to discredit, and in subsequent publications by other authors. For example, Elpis Israel by John Thomas, and Christendom Astray by Robert Roberts. Both are available from the Christadelphian Scripture Study Service (CSSS), 85 Suffolk Road, Hawthorndene, South Australia 5051. http://www.antipas.org/books/chris_astray/ca_toc.html

Examples of subsequent publications include Wrested Scriptures by Ron Abel, God's Way by John Carter, What the Bible Teaches by Harry Tennant, Preparing for Baptism by Jim Luke, Exploring the Bible by David Evans -- all available from CSSS, The Declaration etc.

[17] Quoted from an email JH send to me:-

"Subject: Beliefs

Date:      Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:54:57 +1030

From:     "John Hutchinson" <johnhutc@granite.net.au>

To:           "aleck" <aleck@chariot.net.au>

Good to hear from you Aleck

You ask about my beliefs... "

[18] e.g.: KJV. In regard to those verses that superficially seem to say otherwise the reader is referred to Wrested Scriptures by Ron Abel, (Pasadena, Calif: The Christadelphians, circa 1970), pages 115-131.

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b02heaven/heaven.html viewed Dec. 1, 2008

and to Christendom Astray lecture 3:

http://www.antipas.org/books/chris_astray/ca_lec03_2.html viewed Dec. 1, 2008.

Unless the Bible used is a biased, or ecumenical and therefore a false, translation there is not one verse to say such a thing.

[19] Luke 1:32, cf. 2 Sam. 5:5; Isa. 9:7 etc.

[20] Matt. 5:35; Jer. 3:17; 6; "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion". (Psa. 2:6); Zech. 14:16

[21] Galatians 1:7-9. Also let no one try to bring in legalism or Judaism or elevate the commandments of men above the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Titus 1:14; Matt. 15:9).

[22] For evidence see Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts, (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association [CMPA])

http://www.antipas.org/books/chris_astray/ca_toc.html viewed Nov. 3, 2008

[23] See Luke 20:35, 36

[24] Each of the subjects in this alphabetical index is taken from JHCC (p 1.) random issues.

[25] by not showing any ellipses.

[26] A good example is What the Bible Teaches, Harry Tennant, (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association [CMPA]), 2004, thechristadelphian.com

[27] JHCC, page 2.

[28] A Review of "What's So Amazing about Grace?", Andrew Dangerfield & Jonathan Burke, CSSS, Oct. 2001.

[29] The following endnote is quoted from the Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon

"2097 euaggelizo

from 2095 and 32;v.

AV - preach 23, preach the Gospel 22, bring good tidings 2, show glad tidings 2, bring glad tidings 1, declare 1 declare glad tidings 1, misc 3; 55

1) to bring good news, to announce glad tidings

1a) used in the OT of any kind of good news

1a1) of the joyful tidings of God's kindness, in particular, of the Messianic blessings

1b) in the NT used especially of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation

1c) glad tidings are brought to one, one has glad tidings proclaimed to him

1d) to proclaim glad tidings

1d1) instruct (men) concerning the things that pertain to Christian salvation"

[30] Not all these points are covered in Acts. It is not my intention here to fully define the gospel and prove this Biblically. It would take a book to do that and it has already been done many times over as indicated in endnotes 3 & 4 in my previous critique of JH.

[31] 2098 euaggelion euaggelion {yoo-ang-ghel'-ee-on}

      from the same as 2097; TDNT - 2:721,267; n n

AV - gospel 46, gospel of Christ 11, gospel of God 7,

gospel of the Kingdom 3, misc 10; 77

1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings

2a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God

2b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ

2c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ

2d) the gospel

2e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings.

Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon

[32] Or use their browser to access the subject at


[33] Fourth paragraph under "Preaching another gospel".

[34] Using the ad-hominem fallacy in logic.

[35] A few modern and loose translations might contain the concept of heaven going but when these are checked with lexicons and Hebrew and Greek speaking people we find that these are not accurate but biased translations of people who have done their job with false preconceptions.

[36] Graphic is captured from John Hutchinson's book: How to Examine a Religion that Claims to be Christian, PO Box 1053, Victor Harbor, SA 5211.

[38] Volume 114. 2001, c1977. The Christadelphian, (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Page 2). Birmingham: CMPA.

[39] The Ambassador of The Coming Age volume 4, p. 227, (Birmingham: Christadelphian Office), MDCCCLXVII.

[40] Notice I don't refer to him as "Dr John Thomas", unless quoting others, as JHCC does.

[41] John Thomas, Eureka volume 1, (Birmingham, CMPA, 1959), page v.

[42] I wish to make it clear that I totally oppose Jesuit initiated Praeterist and Futurist views on Revelation because they are a largely successful attempt to poison the clear stream of prophetical interpretation. See http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/Catholic_Origins_Futurism.htm

[43] JHCC, Page 3.

[44] Robert Roberts was just 13 years old at the only time he read it! Charles H. Lippy, The Christadelphians in North America Studies in American Religion Volume 43 (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989 ISBN 0-88946-647-5, 1989).

[45] Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse, (Birmingham: The Christadelphian, Fifth Edition, 1940), page 10.

[46] Bryan R. Wilson, Sects and Society a Sociological Study of Three Religious Groups in Britain, (London: William Heinemann Ltd 1961), page 220.

[47] Ibid., page 221.

[48] Ibid., page 241.

[49] Bryan R. Wilson, Religious Sects a sociological study, (London, World University Library, 1970), page 106.

[50] One non-Christadelphian reviewer had this to say: "... a deeply researched and encompassing historical study, the first of its kind for North America and breaking new ground with regard to the movement's early growth in Britain... Lippy captures the [Christadelphian] mood and his pages breathe the authentic atmosphere of Christadelphian commitment and integrity - a sober testimony to a sober and serious people." - Times Literary Supplement.

Another recently had this to say of Lippy:

"Many of the most accomplished scholars of American Religion [assembled] in Nashville, where they [honored] the distinguished and remarkably productive academic career of Dr. Charles Lippy," said Dr. William Harman, Head Department of Philosophy and Religion <http://www.utc.edu/Academic/PhilosophyAndReligion/>. "This unusual tribute to a man whose accumulated scholarly work attracted international attention [brought] great distinction to him and to the Department of Philosophy and Religion. It [was] a rare event, signaling the impending retirement of a man whose career in the field of American religious history remains among the most prominent in religious scholarship."

http://www.utc.edu/news07/lippy.php viewed May 28, 2007.

[51] Charles H. Lippy, The Christadelphians in North America Studies in American Religion Volume 43 (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989 ISBN 0-88946-647-5, 1989), p.101.

[52] Most ecclesias provide a loan or gift Bible to those who attend their seminars or lectures.

[53] Since JHCC does not normally properly reference JH's sources it is sometimes quite difficult to check if what he says is correct or not. There have been several editions of Dr. Thomas: His Life and Work by different authors. If in fact it was the writing of Robert Roberts, then the comment in Thirteen Lectures documented in endnote 45 above more than balances out those comments. Note there is no claim for inspiration. Also the quotations in JHCC from the Instructor and Christadelphian Standards probably represent the view of only very few Christadelphians since the author of those comments in the main was also editor and publisher of these particular books. So JHCC has introduced a logical fallacy known as a Biased Sample which leads him to conclude a Biased Generalization. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html viewed Nov. 14, 2008, for more details on this fallacy.

[54] JHCC page 3. The only words from Elpis Israel are the last nine words, those within single quotation marks.

[55] John Thomas, Elpis Israel, (Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 14th edition 1966), page 187.

[56] 32 aggelov aggelos {ang'-el-os}

from aggello [probably derived from 71, cf 34] (to bring tidings);n m

AV - angel 179, messenger 7; 186

1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

        Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon


[57] Psa. 103:20-21

[58] To help the reader do this, see The Angels of God by James Luke, CSSS, Dec. 2004.

[59] Reading the previous two sentences in Elpis Israel proves this.

[60] As we stated in the preface to this REBUTTAL and in the preface to our critique most of this has already been answered in the books Hutchinson tries to rubbish. Also the exposition following the present endnote reference shows that it was answered in Elpis Israel, and the reader is also referred to Exploring the Bible, David Evans (CSSS), third edition, page 17.

[61] Our present treatment of the subject omits the mention of mortal "messengers" sometimes referred to as such or as "angels". See definition in a endnote above. See also the definition of "elohim" in an endnote below this at 1 a)

[62] It is strange that he does not claim that Jesus did the creating as he tries to justify the Trinity elsewhere, so it is refreshing that he does not try that in JHCC.

[64] It really proves the opposite in that it clearly states they were there and "sang" and "shouted for joy" (Job 38:7).

[65] Encarta  World English Dictionary   1999 Microsoft Corporation.

[66] 0430 Myhla 'elohiym {el-o-heem'}

plural of 0433;

AV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2,

angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606

1) (plural)

1a) rulers, judges

1b) divine ones

1c) angels

1d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

2a) god, goddess

2b) godlike one

2c) works or special possessions of God

2d) the (true) God

2e) God

                  Online Bible Thayer's Lexicon

[67] Psa. 103:21.

[68] The last of the enmity between the two seeds described to Eve will occur when the "last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". When this happens Christ will deliver "up the [cleansed] kingdom to God when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor. 15:26, 24)

[69] He would of course not even understand that half since he believes in a trinity (and that Christ will rule in heaven) but that is another story since his recent statement on his beliefs (1/1/2002) do not contain the usual unbiblical Trinitarian jargon. However his website contains his debate on the trinity in which he took the usual church definition.

[70] John Thomas, Elpis Israel, (Birmingham: CMPA, 14th edition 1966), Page 441.

[71] And in the previous graphic copied from that critique.

[72] Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures (Pasadena, Calif: The Christadelphians, circa 1970), p. IV.

[73] "If a standard answer were drafted, the few brethren working to answer questions could give more time to those questions requiring detailed research. Again the usefulness of a handbook on wrested scriptures became apparent. (ibid., p. IV)."

[74] "wrest (rest) vt. 1 to turn or twist; esp., to pull or force away violently with a twisting motion. 2 to take or extract by force; usurp; extort; wring. 3 to distort or change the true meaning, purpose, use, etc. of; pervert; twist - n. the act of wresting; a twist; wrench - wrestler n." Webster's New World Dictionary (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1991), p. 1542.

[75] Because JH does not give the source page it is difficult to know where he is attempting to quote from.

[76] I was so impressed by the functionality and effectiveness of his logical and clear style that I subsequently adopted it in part of my exposition on the Holy Spirit, entitled The Spirit -- a general exposition on new testament usage, (Brighton, Australia: The Christadelphians, 1976, 1990). See Net edition christadelphia.org/books/spirit/index.html viewed Dec. 8, 2008

[77] A statement that does not follow logically from anything previously said.

[79] JHCC p. 12.

[80] "Latin rapiemur whence the event is sometimes called 'the rapture'..." (New Bible Commentary Revised, Inter-varsity Press (London: 1970).

[82] '...It [the rapture] was unknown to the world before the sixteenth century.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, reformers such as John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther and John Huss campaigned against the dominant, forceful Catholic Church.

These reformers shook Catholic theology to its core, even identifying the Catholic Church as the antichrist! Previously, this church would have followed its established tradition of forcing its beliefs, traditions and teachings on those who disagreed. However, the opposition building behind these reformers was mounting, as was the public undermining of Catholic power and authority, and the church was almost forced to comply.

To counter this, the church at Rome called for reconciliation, and convened a council in the city of Trent in 1545. From this council sprang the "counter-reformation" teachings of three Jesuit priests, Joseph Ribera, Cardinal Bellarmine and Alcasar (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, "Antichrist," John McClintock, James Strong).

In the 1600s, Ribera wrote a personal commentary on the book of Revelation. To remove the church's burden of being labeled antichrist, Ribera spawned the belief of futurism, meaning that the prophecies of Revelation only applied to the last seven years of mankind's history. Thus, the Catholic Church simply could not be the antichrist because this role was yet to be fulfilled--in the time immediately preceding Christ's Return!

This planted the seed of the rapture theory.

In view of this Catholic acceptance of new teachings and tradition over biblical truth, read the following quote: "A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice..." (Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 89, 1917).

The Catholic leadership did not hide their claim that tradition outweighed Scripture. In theory, the Council of Trent supposedly gave tradition equal authority to the Bible. In order to justify such teachings as futurism, and to accommodate the growing tide of Protestant reformers, Catholicism had to look somewhere other than Scripture.

Less than 300 years after Ribera began this theology, futurism found itself in the heart of Protestantism, starting with Anglican preacher John Nelson Darby.

Darby, known as the father of the rapture doctrine, picked up where Ribera left off and invented a form of interpreting the Bible known as dispensationalism. Darby taught that Christ would secretly collect His followers at His Second Coming, and then return to defeat the antichrist seven years later--at His third coming. From Darby, this teaching continued through one of his disciples, Cyrus Scofield, who assembled the Scofield Bible.

In Heralds of the Dawn, John A. Anderson records the extent of what originally was simply Catholic "counter-reformation" theology: "The Catholic Apostolic Church had its beginning in 1830. It was founded in Britain ... by men who claimed divine inspiration. They said the Holy Spirit revealed to them that the last days had come, that the Lord was about to return, that first He would 'rapture' the believers who were ready, at a secret coming, that other believers would be left to pass through the great tribulation, after which Christ would come in manifested power."

Since the sixteenth century, countless millions of professing Christians have blindly accepted the rapture theory--fearing what might happen if they do not follow suit. This doctrine originated in the minds of Catholic priests--not the sacred teachings of God! ...'

http://www.thercg.org/books/gpp.html#ch1 viewed Nov. 3, 2008

[87] This bias includes but is not limited to:

·        Quoting out of context

·        Coming to Scriptures with all the apostate bias his instructors would have imparted to him in their Colleges of Divinity for their diploma's or University  Theological degrees.

·       Taking the verses that suit them and ignoring those that prove them wrong.

·        Wresting scriptures on a whole range of doctrines.

[88] JH has not read my critique very carefully otherwise he would have seen that the Solution to problem 3 dot point 2 in that critique is quoted from another source as documented in endnote 58, "This dot point is quoted from http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/webring.htm" viewed Nov. 14, 2008

[90] The whole letter to the Philippians is part of the context since it is all part of the one letter.

[91] "As soon as a sinner receives Christ, he possesses full, unending salvation ...Though the Bible does not use this term 'security' to describe the believers relationship in Christ..." Entry on 'Eternal Security' quoted from the Fundamental Baptist way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity (1994 edn.)

[92] Online Bible 2.5.3 Thayer's Lexicon

[93] ibid.

[94] We exclude Conditionalists. viewed Nov. 14, 2008

[95] RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament Nestle Marshall RSV, 1968 (Bagster & Sons, London)

[97] JH cites these texts in an attempt to justify his universal resurrection theology.

[98] New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon Wigram-Green (Massachusetts: 1982 ��) p. 313 "to know thoroughly, recognize, perceive".

[99] I.e. what we call Asia today. Persia, India, Mongolia, China, Indonesia, Philippines etc.

[100] New King James Version (NKJV) Copyright �� 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

[101] (Note: I forgot to put quote marks around the last word, now corrected).

[104] http://www.christadelphia.org/books/elpis17.htm Do a find on "some new demon" to locate the paragraph.

[105] JHCC page 25.

[107] A History of 100 years of the Adelaide Christadelphian Ecclesia, (Adelaide, 1986), p. 49.

[108] VICTORIA (B.C.) -- "... I have been instructed to state our ecclesial position. Neither this ecclesia, nor any of its members, are responsible for the production of the Christadelphian Harbinger, published in this city anonymously. It is published by members of the Shrine Temple ecclesia. ... It is in fellowship with the ecclesias represented by the Fraternal Visitor, The Shield, The Faith, and the Advocate, and is itself the source of the Harbinger.; It has accepted from the first the position of the late brother Wauchope, and preaches and practises the doctrine of open fellowship, a doctrine which the Orange Hall ecclesia has never accepted..-- Geo. Bone, Rec. Bro." The Christadelphian: c1934. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 71, Page 479). Birmingham: CMPA.

[109] C. C. Walker, editor of The Christadelphian: c1925. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 62, Page 374). Birmingham: CMPA. Charles Walker was an Australian who had moved to Birmingham.

[110] ibid, page 376.

[111] The Christadelphian: c1931. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 68, Page 364-365), CMPA.

[112] The Christadelphian: c1932. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 69, Page 230), CMPA.

[113] The Christadelphian: c1932. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 69, Page 421), CMPA.

[114] The Christadelphian: c1932. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 67, Page 182-283), CMPA.

[115] C.C. Walker Editor, ibid., in commenting upon the letter.

[116] Discussions with Jeffery Berry, Cumberland, SA, June 10, 2007 and H. L. Dangerfield, Aberfoyle Park, SA, June 12, 2007.

[117] 1 Kings 11:9-11, 21-35. See an exposition of Solomon in his latter days by Aleck W. Crawford in Proverbs volume 2, (Hawthorndene, SA: CSSS, 2000) pages 630 & 701-2.

[118] "I invite all honest evaluators to read pages 3-5 in my booklet" (JHCC p. 6) Go ahead, try and find it, but its only on page 3!

[120] Galatians 1:7-9


And other Protestant "isms" to which it is co-related.

By Dr. (John) Thomas.

1.--I believe, as a Campbellite, that I am an immortal sinner, or saint, as the case may be, having in my living carcase a particle of the divine essence, derived indirectly from the Deity, through the first rebel against His law, which particle, infinitessimal, invisible, and intangible, is the real I myself--the veritable and immortal man.

2.--I believe that when I die, I don't die, but merely change the mode of my existence; and that when I die, but don't die, my invisible and impalpable, because immaterial and infinitessimal, immortal soul, poised upon a down or feather of an angle's wing, goes straight to glory in heaven "beyond the skies."

3.--As a Campbellite. I believe there are kingdoms in the heaven, to which my immaterial and impalpable soul flies, when it drops its "mortal coil" or carcase, and that said heaven is

"Beyond the bounds of space,

The saints' secure abode."

4.--I believe with all Pagans, Papists, Protestants, and Mohammedans, in a mighty fellow they call "the Devil," having horns, hoofs, and forked tail, whose abode is in flames of burning sulphur in hell, which is somewhere in the universe, but where, I can't imagine.

"No word, I think, will please the Lord,

Unless it smell of sulphur."

5.--I believe that the immortal souls of sinners who die unconverted to Campbellism, or something congenial to it, are "moon-stricken speculators," "unclean animals," "materialists." "fit only for the society of Voltaire, Tom Paine, and that herd," (so the divinely-called Superior, now in glory, styles them)--do in some way or other by the devil's help, find their way into said devil's fiery and sulphurous abyss, where they broil in torments ineffable and eternal.

6.--I believe that the immortal souls of infants, idiots, and Platonic and Socratic Pagans, are now in heaven, "beyond the bounds of space," and that many more will soar thither on angels' wings beyond the bounds of space, before the earth is burned up, as it certainly will be according to our Peter and Paul.

7.--I believe in three kingdoms--the kingdom of law, the kingdom of grace, and the kingdom of glory, beyond the skies where no space is.

8.--I believe that "the church" consisting of all Christians of all denominations, except Christadelphians, is the kingdom of grace, and that Christ is now upon the throne of David, reigning with the Apostles, also upon their thrones in the regeneration gloriously.

9.--I believe that all Campbellites and other spirits congenial with them, are subjects of the kingdom.

10.--I believe that there are two ways of entering the kingdom of grace, first by immersion, and secondly by the right hand of fellowship extended by a Campbellite evangelist.

11.--I believe that the New Testament is the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice.

12.--I believe that historical faith is the best sort of faith, and is sufficient for justification.

13.--I believe that the gospel consists of three facts, namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, who was delivered for the offences and raised for the justification of all who believe he is the Christ.

14.--I believe that all that is necessary for an ignorant sinner's salvation in the kingdom of grace, is to say "Yes" in answer to the question "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" and to be immersed in his name, the signification of which is not essential to be known. This is the gospel and its obedience Campbellitically interpreted.

15.--I believe in this sort of baptism, viz., for the enjoyment of the remission of sins obtained before immersion. This is the Campbellite gospel for the salvation of impalpable, immaterial, immortal souls.

16.--I believe with all "miserable sinners" that repentance is the anguish of the divine particle within me, which is the real man--on account of its sins.

17.--I denounce all sectarianism but my own Ism; and I hate all "Sect-makers" but Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell, who about forty years ago, made the sect to which I belong.

18.--I believe in calling no man Rabbi, save him, who in 1838, declared that "God had called him to take the supervision of this reformation," whose Peter is Walter Scott, and its Paul [is] Alexander Campbell, both of the model Republic, but now in heaven "beyond the bounds of space."

19.--I believe with all Papists and Protestants (of the latter of whose Ism my supervising Paul proclaimed himself to be the "Champion.")--I believe with them, that an immortal soul may be converted without faith or obedience, in a flash of lightning, as preached by one of our so-called "evangelists," who testified that

"Between the stirrup and the ground,

He pardon sought, and pardon found..."

Vol. 6: The Christadelphian c1869. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System. CMPA.

[122] Feb & Oct 1864, June 1869, Feb & Aug. 1880 The History of the Christadelphians, A. R. Wilson, Shalom Publications, Sydney, Australia 1997.

[123] The Christadelphian, 1881, page 572, CMPA.


Search Engine Submission - AddMe