The following extracts from his book clearly prove this: "The Son is a manifestation of the Father in a man begotten by the Spirit " (page 108). "The simple appellation of 'Son,' as applied to Christ, is sufficient to prove that his existence is derived and not eternal" (page 110). "He was the Son of God, the manifestation of God by spirit-power, but not God Himself" (page 111). These extracts make it plain that Mr. Roberts teaches that Christ had no existence before he became a Man, that He was not God, the Son, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit; in short, that born into this world He was a man without previous existence.
Is it possible that multitudes of godly Christians ripe in scholarship, earnest in the searching of the Scriptures all down the centuries, are all mistaken in this ancient item of the Christian faith, the deity of the Lord Jesus? One thing is certain, that if the faith we profess is not sound as to the Person of Christ, it is unsound throughout. If the foundation is rotten; there is no security in what is built thereupon.
If Mr. Roberts is right, then Christendom is unsound in every item of the Christian faith, and, according to Mr. Roberts, outside the pale of salvation. By his teaching he will consign Augustine, Luther, Wycliffe, Wesley, Whitfield, Spurgeon and the vast multitudes of Christian men and women, who are not believers in the Christadelphian doctrines, to eternal destruction. Indeed, according to Mr. Roberts the generations before the Christadelphian doctrines were promulgated were in a sorry case.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Roberts is wrong, on the very showing of Scripture, those who do not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus, including Mr. Roberts himself, are themselves outside the pale of salvation. This is frightful to contemplate, but Scripture leaves us in no doubt in the matter. The Lord said to the scoffing Pharisees, "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins " (John 8:2424I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)).
The Jews were certainly under no illusion as to what His claims were, that of Godhead equality with the Father. We read: "The Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:1818Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)). In reply the Lord said to them, "All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (verse 23). It were audacity to make such a claim, if the Lord were not God, the Son. If He had been man, with no previous existence, He could not have rightly made the assertion.
We notice that Mr. Roberts quietly ignores Scriptures that he cannot explain away, and contents himself with quoting Scriptures that in the main apply to the lowly place of subjection as Man that the Lord took in relation to His Father; his treatment of them showing that he does not understand their import.
We will draw attention to some of the Scriptures that Mr. Roberts does not quote. Let us begin with one or two from the Old Testament. " Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace " (Isa. 9:66For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)). Here we have one and the same Person, a Child of days and the Father of eternity. How could that be if He were not both God and Man, one Person? The inspired Word of God calls the Child "The Mighty God." Is there not here the plainest assertion of the deity of the Child born, the Son given? We are left in no doubt as to who is meant, for in Isa. 7:1414Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) we read, "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." Matthew relating the birth of Christ tells us distinctly that all this happened as the fulfillment of this very Scripture. Moreover the angel of the Lord told Joseph that the n e of the blessed Child was to be JESUS, which means, Jehovah Savior, the clearest affirmation of His deity, for Jehovah is one of the names of God.
Again we read, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah... out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Mic. 5:22But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)). "FROM EVERLASTING" is very different from Mr. Roberts', "His existence is derived, and not eternal."
Let us quote from the New Testament. Strange that Mr. Roberts says nothing about John 1. There we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1-31In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1‑3)). Let us take this remarkable affirmation step by step.
"In the beginning WAS the Word"—the beginning setting forth creation, when time could be taken account of. The Word existed when creation began. This means that He existed BEFORE creation.
"The Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS GOD." Here we get His unequivocal deity announced. It may be pointed out that here there is no definite article before the word God- "the Word was God." A Christadelphian once urged this upon the writer, and he had the audacity to translate the text, "The Word was A God." In this he showed his lack of knowledge of what he was talking about. There is no indefinite article in the Greek.
"All things were made by Him." The Word was the great Creator, and surely the Creator is God.
Nor are we left in the slightest doubt as to who the Word is. We read:- "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. John bare witness of Him, and cried saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me.... For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ " (John 1:14-1714And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:14‑17)). In plainest language we have here the deity of the Lord Jesus from all eternity presented to us, and the fact that He became a Man in order to be the Savior.
Why did Mr. Roberts not comment on these verses in the hook that lies before us? Was it that even his ingenuity could not explain away their meaning, which lies so plainly on the surface?
One of Mr. Roberts' proof texts for the theory that the only Person who can claim Deity is God, the Father, denying it to the Son and the Spirit, is rather unfortunately chosen by him, for the proof is all the other way. He quotes on page 93, " Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:44Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: (Deuteronomy 6:4)). Mr. Roberts emphasizes that there is only one God, and so does this Scripture in the most emphatic manner.
But that does not shut out the teaching of Scripture that there are three Persons in the Godhead—God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Spirit; yet ONE God. In the verses in question it reads thus, "Hear O Israel, the LORD [Jehovah, singular] our God [Elohim, plural] is one LORD [Jehovah, singular] and thou shalt love the LORD [ Jehovah, singular] thy God [Elohim, plural]."
Now in the Hebrew language there are three numbers; singular, meaning one; dual, meaning two and two only; plural, at the least three, or more. How is it in the passage that so loftily asserts the oneness of God, that the word, God, should be in the plural? Nay, further, in the Old Testament Scriptures, for centuries in the custody of the Jews, who were fiercely monotheistic, how is it that the word, God, is found 2,579 times in the plural, and only 314 in the singular, if it does not enshrine the thought of the Trinity?
Elohim is the plural of Eloah, and means originally great or powerful ones. It can be used to describe men or angels, but in the Scriptures this is so in only a mere handful of instances. The Spirit of God has, however, largely used the word to describe God, and has used it in the plural eight times more often than in the singular.
It is true that in the Old Testament times there were heavenly visitants to earth, who appeared as angels (elohim). In certain cases it is plainly the Lord, who so presents Himself. See the instances of the Angel, who spoke to Abraham, and Abraham's recognition of who He was on the occasion of the communication of the doom of the cities of the plain; of the Man who wrestled with Jacob at the brook Jabbok; and again of the Angel who visited Manoah, communicating the tidings of the approaching birth of Samson. In each case the language the Angel employed could only have been used by Jehovah Himself.
Again Mr. Roberts' choice of a proof text is unfortunate for his theory. Indeed all through his book is an attempt to make the facts fit the fancy; in other words, he twists Scripture in his effort to prove his theory. On page 105 Mr. Roberts says:- "In Hebrews 1:6,6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6) Paul quotes a statement from Psa. 97:7,7Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods. (Psalm 97:7) in which the word Elohim ' occurs. In the Psalm it is rendered 'gods'—'Worship Him, all ye gods'; in Hebrews it is rendered as follows: ' Let all the angels of God worship him.' Here to Paul's mind, Elohim represented angels." Yes, this is true, but not so fast, Mr. Roberts. It does not follow by any means that this is so in every case. If he had only studied the subject more carefully he would have found out that Elohim (plural) stands for God in the vast majority of cases, the exact opposite to what he states.
Further, when Mr. Roberts insists that the word for angels in this passage answers to the Elohim, he neglects to point out who the "Him" is, whom the angels are bidden to worship. To do so would have been to wreck his theory. Here is the verse referred to by Mr. Roberts: "And again, when He [God] bringeth in the first begotten [Christ] into the world, He [God] saith, And let all the angels of God worship HIM [Christ]" (Heb. 1:66And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)). Would the supreme God, who cannot share His glory with another, have bidden the angels to worship One less than God? Had He done so, it would have been a command to the angels to commit a grievous sin. No, the fact that God called the angels to worship the incarnate Christ is a proof of what Mr. Roberts dares to deny with the Scriptures in his hand, that the Lord Jesus was God the Son, untreated, from all eternity, " upholding all things by the word of His power " (Heb. 1:33Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)), co-equal with the Father and the Spirit.
Another verse is equally plain, and surely Mr. Roberts must have read it, " But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O GOD, is forever and ever " (Hebrews 1:88But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)). When God addresses the Son as God, surely we may well do so, but Mr. Roberts in his book refuses to do this.
Mr. Roberts has the effrontery to write:- "These instances prove that 'Lord' and 'God' as employed in the English version, do not always signify the great Incerate, but sometimes, in fact, almost generally, those glorious beings who act and speak in His name and with His authority. Keeping this in mind, many seeming difficulties made much of by unbelievers entirely disappear" (page 105). It is only on the ground that many of his readers have not the means to check such a statement as this, which is so glaringly beside the mark, that his book could hope to succeed. "Almost generally" the word, Elohim, refers to God, the opposite of what Mr. Roberts states.
One or two remarks and then we must pass on to other points in the book, though we have touched upon but a tithe of the testimony in the Scriptures as to the deity of the Lord Jesus. Reference to Young's Analytical Concordance can abundantly verify this.
When the Lord Jesus was here on earth, He was constantly the object of worship, and never once did He refuse to accept such homage. If He were not God, it were blasphemous on His part to be a party to such demonstrations, but on the other hand if He was God, He could not refuse such homage. Note the contrast in the case of the apostle John. As John fell down to worship, the angel said, " See thou do it not:, for I am thy fellowservant... worship God " (Rev. 22:99Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. (Revelation 22:9)).
In conclusion we would rather be in the company of doubting Thomas, doubting no longer, who, at length convinced that he was in the presence of the risen Savior, exclaimed in worship, " My Lord and my GOD " (John w: 28), than in that of the confident Mr. Roberts, who would put all, who are of the same belief as Thomas, outside the pale of salvation.
We shall never forget the gratitude and delight that a man showed in speaking of his deliverance from such soul-destroying teaching as this. He came right across the great city of Birmingham to tell the writer that a pamphlet he had written was the means of his deliverance. We shall never forget the delight with which he quoted John 17: 5, where the Lord said, "And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee BEFORE THE WORLD WAS." The Scripture had set him free. His face was radiant. "'BEFORE THE WORLD WAS,'" he cried, "settled the matter for me." May it settle it for the reader. If Christ had glory " before the world was," He existed " before the world was." Where is the contention of Mr. Roberts that He had no existence previous to His birth into this world?
In denying that the Son of God is God the Son, Christadelphianism is poisoned at its fount.