Critique and Credibility 

,.“What They Said Would Happen”
My Response to Aleck Crawford’s Critique

I thank Aleck for his critique of my booklet, ‘What they said would Happen.’ We 
must be accountable for what we say or write. However, his critique raises 
questions of credibility.

I invite the interested reader to examine Aleck Crawford’s critique and then my 
response. If further clarification is required please feel free to contact me.

The issues are addressed in the following order:



1.	Preaching another gospel.
2.	Preconceived ideas.
3.	Dr Thomas – inspired.
4.	Myth
5.	Radicals
6.	C.P. Wauchope
7.	Ireland.
8.	The Early Christians
9.	John Thomas a False Prophet
10.	Gods once ‘animal men.’
11.	Angels and creation.
12.	Christianity a ‘Now’ religion
13.	The resurrection
14.	Judgment
15.	Russia to control European countries
16.	Is this the hope of Israel?
17.	Animal sacrifices
18.	Thomas a plagiarist
19.	Roger Stokes
20.	Saints (immortalized Christadelphians)
21.	Two Gogues
22.	Conclusion
23.	Mormonism
24.	Wrested Scriptures
25.	The Issue



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?’

Lets see Gal 1:8-9 in it’s context.

‘Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God 
the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus 
Christ,
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil 
world, according to the will of God and our Father:
To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace 
of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert 
the gospel of Christ.
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.’

Its important to know the original from which the ‘other’ gospel deviated.

 According to the context it is the gospel (Good News) of ‘grace and peace from 
God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our 
sins …’  
This is confirmed in chapter 2:20 and 6:14 where the apostle shares his response 
to the gospel: ‘I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but 
Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith 
of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’  2:20
  
‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.’  6:14

Please note these vital words: ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him 
that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.’

For the apostle, ‘the grace of Christ’ is the ‘Good News.’ Elsewhere the apostle 
says, ‘For by grace are ye saved.’ Ephesians 2:1-8.  

Aleck asks: ‘Does the Bible teach the same first principles of the gospel as that 
which Christadelphians teach?’ The context of Galations 1 indicates that the 
original gospel of the Bible is very different to that which Christadelphians teach. 

Three points need to stressed about ‘preaching another gospel’:

1.	There isn’t another gospel. The apostle states: ‘Which is not another; but 
there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.’

Any thing other than the ‘grace of Christ’ is not ‘a gospel.’

2.	The gospel is ‘the gospel of Christ.’  Its all about Christ. It is ‘the grace of 
Christ’ as stated by the apostle.

3.	The ‘other gospel’ is condemned.  Those who promote it are under the 
‘anathema’ of God.

 ‘Let him be accursed’ is the apostolic denouncement. God is insulted and 
angered when anything other than ‘the grace of Christ’ is presented. 

Where does that leave Aleck?

Aleck speaks of preconceived ideas. Is there a Christadelphian who comes to 
the Bible with no ‘pre-conceived ideas’?

Do not the teachings of John Thomas (like those of Joseph Smith, Charles 
Taze Russell, Herbert W. Armstrong of other exclusive groups) determine the 
preconception of Christadelphians?

Christadelphians that I’ve met ‘earnestly contend’ for the teachings of John 
Thomas and Robert Roberts whom they hail as ‘pioneers.’

Aleck then grants concessions to Christadelphians and to Dr John Thomas. 
Indeed, ‘all men make mistakes.’ 
However, there’s one mistake that God does not excuse — falsely predicting 
the future. Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Dr. Thomas — Inspired  Aleck writes: ‘Unlike the Catholics which claim the Pope 
is infallible in his pronouncements if he speaks ex-cathedra or Mormons who claim 
God speaks through their spirit-guided president or Evangelicals who claim to be 
guided by the Holy Spirit or Pentecostals who claim to have one or more of the 
Holy Spirit Gifts or Jehovah's Witnesses who claim God speaks through the 
organisation, Christadelphians do not claim to have the spirit, nor do they claim 
God speaks through them. John Thomas never claimed to be a prophet and no 
balanced Christadelphian would claim this for him.’

Consider some claims made by Christadelphians for the writings of John Thomas 
and Robert Roberts:

‘These books, and no one can disprove the statement, reveal to us, as no 
other writings in existence do, the way of salvation –they enlighten, and 
create faith ---solve problems and thresh out difficulties which perplex and 
baffle the ordinary man –– reach an altitude in  understanding which none of 
us, ere Christ comes, can ever expect to reach, let alone excel. Emphatically 
we can say of the authors of these books, “These men are the servants of the 
most high God, who show us the way of salvation.” (Cover of Christadelphian 
Instructor.)

Of John Thomas, Robert Roberts writes: ‘…but for John Thomas,  those who 
now rejoice in the truth, would still have been sitting, like the rest of the 
world, in “darkness and the shadow of death”. Dr. Thomas: His life and Work.

While lip service is paid to the Bible, really two authorities have existed. I quote: If such 
works as "Elpis Israel" and "Eureka" are neglected an essential foundation for individual 
research and investigation is lacking', Christadelphian Standards, p. 104. 'Let us also treat 
with scorn any suggestion to hide or shelve the works of Bro. Thomas and Bro. Roberts', 
Christadelphian Standards, p. 52.

See also ‘A Glance At The History and Mystery of Christadelphianism.’  Web 
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~pdover/histmyst.htm

Myth. 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.

Radicals.  Aleck then passes off the blunders of chronological dating to ‘radical 
members.’   How do I know that Aleck isn’t a ‘radical member’?

Was it not John Thomas, himself, and Robert Roberts who set dates for the 
Second Advent and commencement of the millennium?
Roberts castigated date setters before him, inferring that they didn’t know the mind 
of God and then set his own date that failed. 

What about H. Fry who wrote in 1919: ‘The 1335, starting from the same event and 
ending 1942, will probably see Daniel standing on his lot or portion possessing 
either eternal life or his portion  in the land, the kingdom of God being established. 
A great work will  have to be accomplished before the possession of his allotted 
portion in the land, which means that Christ’s coming to the saints may now be at 
any time.’ (The king of the North, H. Fry. P.31)

Where does it end? Thomas said1868, Roberts, 1910, Wauchope 1934, Fry 1942!
(Anastasis p. 20)
Like the Watchtower Society, Herbert Armstrong and others Christadelphians have 
sensationalised predictions and lured unwary folk into their exclusive system of 
false belief which they label ‘truth.’

Division.  Who are these radicals of whom Aleck speaks? Christadelphians have 
publicly denounced churches for their divisions. How often did we see their 
advertisements — ‘Can a divided Christendom save? --- One God many churches 
— Why?  Why are Christadelphians so divided?   

C.P. Wauchope   
Please read carefully
Aleck writes: ‘Hutchinson spends a whole page on C. P. Wauchope. However, C. P. 
Wauchope made predictions of his own that did not agree with general Christadelphian 
understanding. In fact I don't know anyone who shared his views. Many communities have a 
few radical individual members who sometimes promote their own ideas after the manner of 
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16). It is uncharitable of Hutchinson not to recognise 
that fact. The interest of Christadelphians in the report in Hansard was because the second 
coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was put before the Australian parliament.’

Facts for Aleck: C.P. Wauchope was a world recognized Christadelphian lecturer. 
He lived in Adelaide and belonged to the 'Shield' Christadelphians - the main body 
of the sect.
In the commemorative publication ‘A History of 100 years of the Adelaide 
Christadelphian Ecclesia,’ prominence is given to the name of C.P. Wauchope and his 
association with the Christadelphian synagogue.
In the new ‘temple’ we read that the first public lecture was given by Bro. 
J.Broadbridge and this was followed by a series of 4 lectures on “Christadelphian 
beliefs’ by Bro. C.P. Wauchope. P.22

‘The walls of the temple were finally topped in July 1927. Bro C.P. Wauchope was 
invited – to lay the last brick.’ P.23

‘In 1925, Bro. & Sis Wauchope visited ecclesias in New Zealand, Canada, the United 
States, and the United Kingdom as part of a “peace and unity’ movement. P. 49
‘To further the Peace efforts of the Adelaide ecclesia, 10,000 “Appeals’ and 
‘Brochures’ were distributed throughout the world.  Also Bro.& Sis. Wauchope 
travelled through North New Zealand, Canada, a small part of the U.S.A. and Britain. 
They knew that a ‘disease of division and disfellowship which for 40 years had torn 
and disrupted the Brotherhood’ could not be healed quickly.’ P.50

‘1930 –– Bro & Sis Wauchope again visit Canada and Britain to further the work of the 
Peace Movement. P.50

1931 ––Following the return of Bro. & Sis. Wauchope after nearly 18 months abroad, 
Bro Mansfield reports: The matter of teaching and instilling upon the minds of the 
Brotherhood the correct biblical meaning of fellowship was an extremely hard task to 
follow...’ P.51 
Hardly the role of ‘a radical individual promoting his own ideas after the manner of 
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram’!!!

What can we believe of Aleck Crawford when He says of C.P. Wauchope: ‘In fact I don't 
know anyone who shared his views?’ – and brands him a radical individual?
Parliament Misled. 

Aleck says, ‘The interest of Christadelphians in the report in Hansard was because the 
second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was put before the Australian parliament.’

Misleading parliament is a serious offence. In 1921 a politician gave a speech to the 
Federal Parliament of Australia based on the prophecies of C.P. Wauchope.

 Walter Marks’ speech (recorded in Hansard and featured in trutheternal.org) was applauded 
by the Christadelphians and published under the title, ‘The Sensational Speech.’ However, 
subsequent events revealed that the Australian parliament had been seriously misled by 
false prophecy.
Marks stated: ‘The next war, which is the Armageddon, will happen in the year 1934.’ 
 
’Three nations will attack the British Empire. Two of those nations I am going to name now, and the 
third I would rather not name. The two nations are Russia and Germany, who, combined with the 
other (France), will be at war with the British Empire in Palestine.’ 
‘When Christ re-appears, it is said it will be on the spot on which he left the earth, just east of 
Jerusalem, and in the robe of a tattered beggar and thief. That means that he will quietly and silently 
come into the British headquarters. There will be great storms, tempests deluge and fire — no doubt 
from the air — coming down and wiping out the army opposing us. The British nation from the start 
has been one of the main — I hardly know how to express it — but has been ordained by the 
Almighty to take this part on Christ’s final return to earth.’
‘Nothing can ever undermine the British Empire to our utter destruction, because it is marked out, and 
our name is marked out on His final coming, to play a great part.
’Without us he cannot return in 1934. We play a great part in those ‘latter days’, ‘the time of the end’. 
The British Empire has always been a refuge for the oppressed people.’
 ‘Mr Wauchope, of Adelaide, has written two books, which I ask honourable members to buy; one is 
entitled “The Troubled Nations”, and the other contains “Four Letters on Armageddon”; and when 
honourable members have read them I think they will agree with what I say.’
‘The king of England is specifically mentioned as coming in his ship and on bended knees offering his 
own crown to Christ. The other kings do not voluntary offer their crowns, but are compelled to do so.’
‘This book tells me that the kingdom for which we pray every day will be here in 1934, and so far as 
men have followed up this prophecy can ascertain, there is not one cog of any great event which has 
gone out of its place in nearly 2000 years.’
‘Whether or not the conference at Washington will be a success we cannot at present say, but I will 
agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there is to be no war in the Pacific. The war is to be 
where it has always been — in Europe and the Mediterranean. There is no reference wherever in this 
prophecy to a war in the Pacific. We cannot wipe out our armies and navies altogether, because in 
thirteen years’ time we have to play a great part. I do not say that colossal expenditure should be 
incurred to-day, or for the next few years, on great armies and navies, but the British Empire must, 
under Christ’s direction, keep her army and navy up to a certain level in readiness for the great day.’
’ So far as we can see, the Japanese will not invade Australia. As a matter of fact, many believe that, 
according to the Bible, great numbers of Japanese and Chinese, on Christ’s return — the millennium 
following Armageddon — are to go to Palestine with Christ and the Jews, because the Japanese have 
always been looked upon as a people who are immortal.
Honourable members are aware that the Japanese love to fight, and enter battle without fear or 
misgiving, because they know that on their death they will go straight to Paradise. They look to a 
higher future, and, so far as we can ascertain, they will, at the millennium, go into Palestine with 
Christ.’
‘I could go on for some hours on this subject, which is highly interesting, because it has, in my 
opinion, a vital bearing upon the matters in regard to which this parliament has to legislate.’ 

This is very serious. Not only did Walter Marks discredit himself and the Christadelphians in his 
statements to the Australian Parliament he claimed that his deductions were based on the Bible 
whereas they came from the books of C.P. Wauchope, a leading figure in Christadelphia.
Parliament was misled – and so were Australian people who listened to sensational prophecies by 
Christadelphians.

Cover up — Reprint. Aleck tries to excuse what has been done. I acknowledged 
the ‘Note to the 1951 edition of Christendom Astray which explained that ‘The 
whole of chapter 16, on the “Evidence that the End is Near”, has been deleted.’  

However, in the passage of concern in Elpis Israel, sentences have been deleted 
without acknowledgment to conceal a glaring false prediction.

Aleck quotes from my article but ignores two of the vital sentences that I 
underlined. i.e., ‘The Russian fleet of forty ships in the Black Sea is in 
preparation for this event.’ Why does he ignore the other sentences?

When these sentences are deleted a casual reader would miss the failure.

Christadelphians have recently published a colourful covered edition of EI and omit 
the embarrassing words — also the copies that I have — 1939, 1949 and1983 
footnote other things but not the deleted sentences. 

Why are the crucial sentences deleted from so many of the more recent editions??

What I would like to know is this: Whether the sentences are omitted or not 
what is Aleck doing about the failed prediction? It failed before the eyes of Dr 
Thomas – and then he continued to make even more false predictions!

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. 

I said a lot more about the 16th chapter of C.A. than the failed date and I invite all 
honest evaluators to read pages 3-5 in my booklet ‘What They said Would 
Happen.’ Please write for a free copy or see trutheternal.org.

Its all very well for Robert Roberts to say that there had been a failure. What else 
could he say? And, what about his ruthless castigation of those who failed before 
him?

Ireland.  At this point I’m calling Aleck’s honesty into question. Is he saying  that 
there were no failed predictions concerning Ireland? I documented the failed 
prophecy of Ireland in ‘What They said Would Happen’ on the website ‘The 
Investigator.’ My booklet on the ‘trutheternal’ site simply referred to the failed 
prediction for sake of space. 

Aleck, you surely know about the failed prophecy and are critical of me for not 
supplying the quote. Would you please print it in full on your own site.
For Aleck to consider. 
In 1848 Dr. Thomas wrote: 
The judgment upon Ireland has been sitting since 
1786. That crisis was the beginning of a 
retribution of seventy-five years. This period is 
called ‘THE END’ — the end of the last period, of 
the continuance of modern Europe, as organised 
into ten kingdoms, and the ‘’Holy Roman Empire’ 
in the days of Charlemagne.  A.D. 1786 was the 
beginning of the end, 1848 the concluding of the 
end, and 1864 the termination of the period.  The 
events of these seventy-five years are the 
fulfillment of the following words concerning 
modern Europe: ‘The Judgment shall sit and they 
shall take away of his (the Little Horn’s or Holy 
Roman) dominion, to consume and destroy it to 
the end.’ … After 1864 Ireland and the rest of the 
world will enter upon a new era, in which peace, 
righteousness, and blessedness will reign in the 
midst of the nations. (Gospel Banner November 
1864)
Speaking of the resurrection of Daniel the prophet, Dr. 
Thomas wrote in 1854 in his Exposition of Prophecy titled 
Anatolia: 
But in a few years, that is, about 1866, when the 
1335 years terminate, he will ‘arise to his 
inheritance’ in the Kingdom of God.  
(Anatolia, 1854, p. 97)
Then for 40 years the resurrected “saints” would “execute 
vengeance upon the nations”: 
How highly important is this exhortation now, 
seeing that in about a dozen years the 
resurrection will have transpired, and no further 
invitation to inherit it be presented to the world. 
The glory that shall follow is great for the 
approved. The world is theirs, when all nations 
come and do homage before the Prince of Israel, 
because His judgments are made manifest.  But 
before they can have ‘power over the nations,’ 
they must bind the strong that rule them. This is 
their mission at the end of 1335 years: ‘To 
execute vengeance upon the nations, and 
punishment upon the peoples; to bind their kings 
with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; 
to execute upon them the judgment written; this 
honor have all his saints.'  From A.D. 1866 to A.D. 
1911, a period of over forty years, they will be 
engaged in this work, and in the organising the 
world upon new and better principles. (Anatolia, 
p. 97)

The early Christians.  Again, Aleck quotes Acts 1:6-7. All the disciples did was 
ask a question which is insignificant compared to the dogmatic forecasts of Roberts 
and Thomas.  

He then refers to 2 Thess 2:1-12 and says that the lie was from the serpent to Eve 
that she should not die. Where did the context say that Aleck? 

Also you only quote part of the serpent’s lie – why not quote it all? The Serpent 
said, ‘But ye shall be gods.’ 

John Thomas embraced that lie with visions of grandeur and imagined beings such 
as ourselves becoming ‘ELOHIM’ – mighty in strength and framers of new 
worlds…’ Elpis Israel p.187 --- also Mormons and Herbert Armstrong.

Whilst we should live in expectancy of the Lord’s return, predicting dates that fail 
makes us false prophets.

Indeed, John Thomas should admit of his speculation after his blunder about the 
Crimean war.

John Thomas – a prophet. Whether one claims Thomas to be a prophet or not he 
played at prophecy by dogmatically stating what lay ahead. If I make shoes I am a 
cobbler. If I make predictions I am a prophet. It’s as simple as that.

Harry Tennant.  I find it interesting that Aleck cites a leading Christadelphian, Harry 
Tennant, who, in an article, warns readers not to speculate about the future. It 
carried the title ‘PROPHECIES THAT WENT WRONG.’  WHERE CAN I GET A 
COPY?

Gods once ‘Animal men.’  Yes, I did misquote. However, the first part of the quote 
is spot on, --‘They were once animal men of other spheres.’  May I ask: Where 
does the Bible say that? 

The other part of the quote said, ‘Who aspired to Godhood.’ Whilst this is a 
misquote, note how accurately it summarises page 187 of E.I.  Listen to the exact 
words: ‘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 its present state is a grand and glorious specimen.’

Aleck says, ‘For example John Thomas in 1849 suggested in Elpis Israel the non-
fundamental idea that the angels came from a pre-Adamic creation on earth. By 
1869 he declared he no longer held that idea. "To what orb or planet of the 
universe they are indigenous, is not revealed..." Phanerosis, Logos Edition, page 
66.

Read those words again Aleck. They re-enforce the statement in Elpis Israel!
What about page 72 of Phanerosis: ‘Those who were Elohim contemporary to 
Adam had once been the subjects of shame and fear --- they had once been 
sinners --- so they must have been mortal --- Thus all immortals but himself 
were once mortal–––sinners subject to death…’

So our creators were once mortal, subject to death!

The Bible and animal men.   Aleck even quotes scripture to support concepts of 
animal men.(humans are animal men) But, where in the Bible is there any notion of 
animal men of ‘other spheres’ – and that they were made subject to vanity? — And 
that they became ‘Gods’?  How gullible are we supposed to be?  Aleck talks about 
mythology and yet defends the greatest myth imaginable –the serpent’s lie — ‘ ye 
shall be Gods’!
Christadelphians, Wake Up!  The teachings of John Thomas are based on the 
greatest lie that ears have ever heard  — the lie of the serpent — ‘Ye shall be 
Gods!’

Rev 21:3 discredits the serpent’s lie. Man was made for fellowship with God – 
not to be God! 

Only God is God – eternal and unchanging. Hear God’s own testimony: ‘I am 
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, 
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’  Rev 1:8

Angels and creation.  Aleck says: ’The main thrust in Hutchinson’s argument is 
that the creation was done directly by God, and the Elohim were not involved.’

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

Let the Creator, Himself, reply to Aleck: ‘I am the Lord that maketh all things; 
that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by 
myself.’ ’Isaiah 44: 24.

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?’

Why did John Thomas ignore the testimony of scripture and postulate a delegated 
creation (as did Plato)? The answer is found on page 185 of Elpis Israel. He says: 

‘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 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

Look now at Genesis chapter 1: Who is it that gives the commands? It is 
Elohim. It was Elohim who said, ‘Let there be light.’
For absolute proof that Elohim of Genesis 1 is the Almighty, and underived 
Deity. see 2 Cor 4:6

What Aleck fails to recognise is that in most instances of the Old Testament Elohim 
refers to God Almighty. (Isaiah 40:28) Creation in the Bible exhibits 
OMNIPOTENCE. ‘God Said’ – and it was so. This is the starting point of faith. See 
Heb 11:3.



Christianity a ‘NOW’ religion.

Aleck now argues directly against scripture. I quoted the great words of assurance 
from 2 Cor 5:17. Aleck accuses of quoting out of context by citing verses 9-10 — 
(and out of context.) I said nothing about not appearing before the judgement seat 
of Christ. If Aleck took notice of the context it refers to all men appearing before the 
judgment seat of Christ. Why didn’t he quote the next verse to get the context 
right? ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are 
made manifest unto God.’

‘Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things have 
passed away; behold all things are become new.’ Let the open-minded reader 
consider the following verses and he will see clearly that I quoted in perfect 
context.

‘Behold, now is the day of salvation.’ Aleck seizes on the words of the previous 
verse which says, ‘We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that 
ye receive not the grace of God in vain.’ 

We hear so little about the grace of God from people like Aleck Crawford. ‘For by 
grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: not of works 
lest any man should boast.’  Eph 2:8-9

If Aleck glanced at verses 3-4 he would see that it refers to ministry – ‘Giving no 
offence in anything that the ministry be not blamed.’

 ‘Beloved, now are we the sons of God.’  It’s because believers are now sons of 
God that they will see him and be like him.
Indeed, believers are promised eternal life. When God promises something we can 
depend on it. If Aleck had read further on in 1 John he would come to these words:  
‘And this is the record that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in 
his Son. He hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath 
not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the 
Son of God that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may 
believe on the name of the Son of God.’ 1 John 5:11-13

It seems that Aleck is determined to prevent us from having what God wants us to 
have.

Being now justified by his blood … we have now received the atonement.’ 
Rom 5:9,11

Aleck takes us back to verse 2. Why overlook the context Aleck? Why didn’t you 
quote verse one? -  ‘Therefore being justified by faith we have peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’

How can we have peace with God in Aleck’s state of uncertainty? Consider this quote from a 
Christadelphian publication:  ‘Ask anyone you know (among Christadelphians)  –––“Will you 
be in the kingdom of God?”  Ask that question point blank, and require a point blank 
answer: Yes or No ––– and you will not get it. There will be swithering, hesitation, an 
expression of pious hope/maybe or more likely of doubt with even a flavour of despair, but 
not from anyone a straight “Yea yea” or “Nay, nay.” (Reformation, H Whitaker, p.132)

In the Christadelphian publication, ‘Events Subsequent To The Return of Christ,’ the author 
refers to the anxiety of those called forth to “Sinai” and points out the ‘preponderance of 
goats.’ To help relieve the anxiety of those in their long wait to receive Christ’s verdict 
concerning them  the author postulates that angels will undertake a preliminary judgment to 
give those in their long wait for Christ’s verdict an idea of how they will fare.

Aleck seizes on the word ‘Hope.’ But look at the scriptures – they are not talking of 
his precarious hope. Why didn’t he quote verse 5?  - ‘And hope maketh not 
ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Spirit which is 
given to us.’

Aleck, can you say that the love of God is shed abroad in your heart by the Holy 
Spirit, which is given to you? 

The believer’s hope is ‘both sure and steadfast’ – which we have as an 
anchor of the soul.’ Heb 6:19 

‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ 
Romans 8:1.

Typically, Aleck now jumps to verse 13 but stops short of the next verses. Note the 
very next verse: ‘For as may as are led by the Spirit if God, they are the sons 
of God.’  Then 16: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God.’ 

Can I urge the reader (and Aleck!) to study verses 28-39 — a wonderful 
commentary on the statement of verse 1.

‘…but are now the people of God.’ 1 Peter 2:10 Aleck quotes the next verse 
exhorting them to abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul. Would Aleck 
and all readers please read on to the end of the chapter and note verse 25. Peter is 
talking about the witness of believers to outsiders – note verse 12 and the verses 
that follow. But also consider the verses that precede the text:

‘But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a 
peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called 
you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’

Aleck says that there is no such thing as the evangelical concept of ‘once saved’ 
always saved.  May I ask Aleck: Has he even been once saved?

Regarding the concept of once saved always saved: it is what Jesus, himself 
taught. He said, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow 
me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither 
shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them to me, 
is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 
I and the father are one.’ John 10:27-30

Aleck quotes Heb 12:1-3. Please note that Christ is not only ‘the author of our faith’ 
he is ‘the finisher’ of our faith.

Verses are cited from Timothy which tell how in the last days some will depart from 
the faith and be turned unto fables. We note that this is to occur in the latter days. 
Surely John Thomas must be a contender here with his fables of animal beings of 
other spheres becoming creators etc.

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.

Note now the great assurances of scripture:

‘Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you 
faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and 
power, both now and ever. Amen.’ Jude 24

‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to 
his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, 
reserved in heaven for you,
Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be 
revealed in the last time.
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in 
heaviness through manifold temptations:
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that 
perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour 
and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet 
believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.’ 
1 Peter 1:4-9

The Resurrection.

Aleck objects to my comments on the resurrection and refers to my ‘false theory.’  Let me 
return to explicit scriptures: 

‘Some man will say, how are the dead raised up and with what body do they come?’  Please 
read all of 1 Cor 15 – and note the precise answer from God.

The body raised is not the body that died. See verse 37 – ‘Thou sowest not that body which 
shall be.’

Aleck resorts to botany and the process of sprouting and growth in his attempt to 
deny  the text of scripture. Paul refers to the new body that emerges from a dead 
seed and says nothing about germination and growth. The resurrection, however, 
is dynamic and instantaneous.  Consider the words that follow:

‘Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we all shall be 
changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall 
be changed.’ 1 Cor 15:51-52 

‘In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.’ That is what scriptures says - and the 
dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed.’ Note that it all 
occurs ‘in a moment.’

Compare another explicit scripture: 1 Thess 4:16-17

‘For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice 
of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise 
first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in 
the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.’ 
1 Thess 4:16-17

Where in scripture is the Christadelphian theory of judgment at Sinai?


‘Christ the first fruits.’ 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. 

Aleck asks, ‘Then what need is there of the judgement?’

Judgement in scripture is  separation and condemnation – i.e. sheep from 
goats, wheat from tares, etc. But note this important principle: the species 
determines the separation – not the separation determining the species. One 
is either a sheep or a goat. He doesn’t have to wait to discover what he is. 
Jesus said, ‘I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of 
mine.’ John 10:14

‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the 
world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is 
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only 
begotten Son of God.’ John 3:17-18

‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him 
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but 
is passed from death unto life.’ John 5:24

Aleck claims the necessity of works for salvation (despite the Bible explicitly saying 
‘not of works lest any man should boast’) He uses the argument of God providing 
food and the need to work to prepare it.

In salvation we are talking of ‘spiritual food.’ – not physical. There is no 
preparation required. See Psalm 23:5, Isaiah 55:1-2

Consider these verses, which contrast the physical manna to ‘the true bread that 
came down from heaven.’
‘They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, 
and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread 
from heaven to eat.’
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not 
that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
heaven.
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life 
unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall 
never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.’ John 6:28-35

Note the point of the following:
‘Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, 
askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no 
dealings with the Samaritans.
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it 
is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and 
he would have given thee living water.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well 
is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank 
thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall 
thirst again:
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; 
but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up 
into everlasting life.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither 
come hither to draw.’ John 4:9-15

‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no 
money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money 
and without price.
Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour 
for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that 
which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.’  Isa 55:1-2

Aleck 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.’

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

Aleck says that ultimate salvation is not a present possession. One of the texts that 
he cites ( again without reference to the context) is Hebrews 3:12-14. I will quote 
the context which, in itself, rebuts Aleck head on.

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our 
confidence steadfast unto the end;
While it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in 
the provocation.
For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of 
Egypt by Moses.
But with whom was he grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had 
sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?
And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them 
that believed not?
So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, 
any of you should seem to come short of it.
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word 
preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in 
my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished 
from the foundation of the world.
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did 
rest the seventh day from all his works.
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it 
remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first 
preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; 
as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of 
another day.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, 
as God did from his.
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same 
example of unbelief.’  Heb 3:14-4:11

Notice the emphasis on ‘Today.’  ‘Today, if ye will hear his voice.’

This wonderful passage of scripture is talking about entering ‘rest’ through faith – 
and when that rest is entered ‘works’ cease.

Hear the relevant words of Jesus Himself: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and 
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: 
and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ Matt 11:28-30


Judgement  I quote again: Heb 9:27:  ‘And as it is appointed unto men 
(all men) once to die, but after this the judgment.’   

But Aleck says, ‘Hutchinson’s insertion of (all men) into the quote from Hebrews 
9:27 assumes that everyone is responsible. But if you read your Bible you will find 
that this is just not so.’

Has Aleck read his Bible? He only needs to go to Hebrews 12:23 to read ‘…God 
the Judge of all…’ In no way does Heb 9:27 support Aleck’s theory (or Robert 
Robert’s) of only a few appointed to judgment! 

Heb 9:27 says two things about man’s destiny – ‘once to die’ – surely Aleck 
isn’t suggesting that only a few die (see Romans 5) – after this the 
judgement. Those who die will be judged. Nothing could be more clear.

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’ Rom 1:18-20

‘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

‘But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught 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

‘Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted 
of him.
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.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made 
manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.’ 
2 Cor 5:9-11

‘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

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

‘And the times of this ignorance God winked at; 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

‘And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the 
earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were 
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the 
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, 
according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered 
up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according 
to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the 
lake of fire.’ Rev 20:11-15

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

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, 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.’ 

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

Aleck postulates that only the responsible who have heard the word will be called 
to judgment. This is a very comforting doctrine for the despots and those who 
inflict terrible suffering upon others and very discomforting for the few(according to 
Aleck’s theory) who are called forth to judgment. See comment earlier about 
anxiety at Sinai.

Jesus (the Judge) said, ‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is 
not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath 
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved 
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.’ John 3:17-19

‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that 
sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed 
from death unto life.’ John 5:24
Russia to control European countries.

Aleck barks loudly here but only seizes on one quote. What about the quotes on pages 7-9? 
My comment is not only valid but highly pertinent:  “What European nations does Russia 
control today? Russia has lost the hold that she held over most of the continental 
countries!"

Note Aleck’s quote: ‘Notice that Christadelphians did not say that Russia would be in 
this position of supremacy "today" (i.e. in 2002). The disintegration of the Soviet 
Union and the formation of the CIS was a necessary prelude to the dramatic rise 
and inclusion of the Orthodox Church in the big picture of the Russian Federation.

Christadelphians declared that Russia either was or would be in ‘this position 
of ascendancy’ well before 2002. In 1983 They published a booklet entitled: 
RUSSIA’S BID FOR WORLD DOMINATION ––SURE SIGN OF CHRIST’S 
COMING – in which they dogmatically asserted that Russia was in this very 
position. It said, ‘…and we are in a position to see that its predictions are 
correct, and to appreciate the true significance of the times in which we live.’

Please note: nothing was said in this pamphlet about the disintegration of the 
Soviet Union and the formation of the CIS etc.!!!!

I re-quote from H.P. Mansfield: ‘When the time is ripe, Russia will emerge from it’s 
iron curtain, and having confederated other European nations under it’s control will 
invade the Middle East.’ The world will appear to be on the eve of becoming 
completely communized.’  In 1968 Mansfield said that we were living in the very 
shadow of Christ’s return.’

He also said, ‘The growth of Russian power is a notable sign of the times indicating 
that the world is on the eve of the most dramatic event of all history.’  

Mansfield also stated: ‘It is of the utmost significance that today Russia 
occupies East Germany.’  See Page 8, What They said Would Happen. 
Interesting that Christadelphian author, Graham Pearce, in ‘Milestones 1990’ 
highlights  the re-unification of Germany and says nothing about the significance of 
the Russian occupation of East Germany!

In 1963 The Herald of the Coming Age said: ‘ When current events are aligned with 
Bible prophecy it becomes obvious that the world is on the very threshold of the 
most stupendous event of all time.’ P.   51  

‘The modern revival of Israel, and the current growth of Russian power, constitute 
clear signs of the imminence of Christ’s coming …’ Vol. 23 No 5, 1973.

Again, no hint of ‘The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the formation of the 
CIS was a necessary prelude to the dramatic rise and inclusion of the Orthodox 
Church in the big picture of the Russian Federation.’

It’s all very well to say these things after the event. Any one unskilled can do 
that!

In 1987 Roger Stokes published a 400 page book entitled, The Jews, Rome and 
Armageddon in which he said: ‘Russia and her Soviet empire and satellites, in 
their policies of conquest, domination, terror, anti Semitism, and God-
denying teachings mixed with Orthodox Church patronage, are almost 
prepared for the final major role they will play in the greatest conflict of all 
ages.’ P.323. 

I commend Roger Stokes for retaining this statement in the later edition of JRA.

As to Aleck’s references to the overtures of Russia with Europe. It doesn’t undo the 
false claims of the past. Look what Christadelphians anticipated with Gorbachev!

As far as Robert Roberts is concerned he claimed that it was all to happen prior to 
1910 – and ignored the failed prophecies of John Thomas.
I have no ‘argument with Ezekiel’ but call to account the sensationalism and failed 
forecasts of Christadelphia. 

Britain. Aleck bypasses my comments on the failed predictions concerning Britain. It 
was interest in Bible prophecy and the forthright predictions of Christadelphians about 
the future of Britain and the failure of those predictions that led me to investigate further what had 
been predicted.
Christadelphians claimed on the basis of Bible prophecy that Britain would not enter the EEC. 
However, the inevitable occurred and Great Britain was accepted as a member nation. The 
predictions weren’t made on Bible prophecy. They came from the writings of John Thomas.

Another prediction was that Britain was to be the essential friend of the Jews. At least one 
Christadelphian has owned up to the failure. He writes, ‘Both the identity and the character 
of “Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish” have about them the same uncertainty. 
The equation of all three with Britain, for many years asserted with supreme confidence, now 
(1969) begins to look slightly sick in the light of modern politics and the events of the last 
twenty years. “Perfidious Albion” which has systematically and cravenly broken all its 
promises to the Jews in a spineless attempt to keep friends with oil rich Arabs, has, as its 
reward, achieved only promotion from a first-rate to a third power in record time. The 
“toothless bull dog” is feared by none and respected by few.’ The Time of the End, H.A. 
Whittaker. P.58
 
"Is this the 'Hope of Israel'?"
Aleck writes: ‘For a person who has had the book Elpis Israel (which means The Hope of 
Israel) in his possession for as long as he has, ought to know that this in its totality is neither 
what Christadelphians believe nor is it Bible teaching. So this fact begs the question, "What 
is John Hutchinson's agenda"?
The mortals during the millennium (defined below) will be ruled over by the saints of all ages, 
and in particular the mortal Jews will be ruled over by the 12 Apostles, not Christadelphians 
as Hutchinson alleges.’
I quote again from Elpis Israel: ‘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 honour 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 a union into one kingdom and nation with Judah; and a participation in the blessings of 
Shiloh’s reign during their natural lives.’ 
Let the Bible define ‘the hope of Israel’: Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for 
thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all 
the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: Especially because I know thee to be expert in all 
customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. 
My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know 
all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect 
of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of 
God unto our fathers: ------ 
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto 
them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the 
Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance For these 
causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help 
of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than 
those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he 
should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the 
Gentiles.’ From Acts 26
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.’
Consider the words of Jesus ‘Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the 
prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory And 
beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things 
concerning himself. Luke 24:25-27
‘And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all 
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the 
psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the 
scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from 
the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’ Luke 24:44-47
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one 
that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed 
from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Rom 1:16-17
’Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom 10:1
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!
Question: Where does the NT say that mortals will be ruled by immortals?
Statement: No one can be saved after Christ returns. Jesus said that it will be as it was in the days of 
Noah. They ate, drank married until the day Noah entered the ark, ‘And knew not until the flood came 
and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.’ Matthew 24: 39 See 
especially Matthew 25:1-13
On Zechariah 12:10 See John 19:36-7, Rev 1:7
Animal Sacrifices
Aleck says, ‘Perhaps Hutchinson would like to explain what is meant by Ezekiel 44:11, "Yet 
they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and 
ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, 
and they shall stand before them to minister unto them"?
The New Testament which interprets the Old Testament explicitly states that animal 
sacrifices have been abolished, they have no value and God is not interested in them. There 
is no reference in the NT to future animal sacrifice. What could be more decisive than the 
following:
‘And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the 
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he 
had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of 
God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Whereof the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for after that he had said 
before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, 
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I 
write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now 
where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.’ Heb 
10:11-18 
"Thomas — a plagiarist"
"Thomas was a plagiarist who stole the writings of others and claimed them as his own original work." 
WTSWH, page 10.
Aleck says, ‘This unsubstantiated claim suggests that that John Thomas was the same sort 
of person as Joe Smith. John Hutchinson presents no evidence in his pamphlet nor his 
website. If his claim were true, then Christadelphians and their earlier unfriendly critics would 
have found this out when it occurred as they would have been much more familiar with 
books published then, and therefore long before Hutchinson.  In fact, John Thomas was 
widely read and frequently refers to the writings of others, generally to disagree with them. 
The reader should not be deceived by such sensational slander.’

Aleck, are you serious? You challenged me in personal email about this. 
I guaranteed the evidence and asked what you would do about it? I 
requested your address so that I could send it to you.  You disappeared!

Indeed Thomas was a plagiarist and his unfriendly critics were very aware of it and 
challenged him about it. The one who exposed the dishonesty of Dr Thomas was a leading 
opponent referred to in Roberts biography of the Dr.

Now here is the evidence. I find it hard to believe that Aleck wasn’t aware of it and I ask, as I 
did before, what will he do about it? The following is taken from ‘A Glance at The History and 
Mystery of Christadelphianism,’ by David King – ‘an unfriendly critic.’  See web 
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~pdover/histmyst.htm
Unblushing plagiarism. It should be remembered that we are not writing thus 
for the first time, and our "Glance at the History and Mystery of Thomasism," 
published A.D. 1869, when the Dr. was in this country, and then put into his 
hands, contained the same charges. We then wrote that the Dr. had been 
charged with deceiving his readers by professing originality when gross 
plagiarism prevailed. The charge and proof thereof, having been published by 
others, come into small space here. In his introduction to Anatolia he alludes 
to certain pamphlets whose unprincipled authors have, as he says, taken, 
without acknowledgement, parts of his Elpis Israel, and used them as their 
own. He then adds that, unlike those pamphlets, "Anatolia is original 
throughout." The words, as here, are printed in italic, and there are no 
qualifying phrases in the context. What amount of what he terms 
"unacknowledged plagiarism" would be discovered were his entire work 
examined, the writer cannot say, having, with a view to this test, only 
compared a small portion of the book. The following quotations from "The 
Prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Gog," by Granville Penn, on the one hand, 
and from Anatolia, on the other, will show whether the testimony of Dr. 
Thomas on common facts is more reliable than his predictions concerning 
prophetic dates.
ANATOLIA.
"The question as to what nations are signified by Rosh, Meshekh, and Thuval 
has long since been determined by the learned. The celebrated Bochart, 
about the year 1640 observed in his elaborate researches into sacred 
geography, that ROS, Ros, [the Hebrew word is omitted] is the most ancient 
form under which history makes mention of the name of RUSSIA; and he 
contended that Rosh and Meshekh probably denote the nations of Muscovy 
and Russia. 'It is credible,' says he, 'that from Rosh and Meshekh (that is the 
Rhossi and Moschi) of whom Ezekiel speaks, descended the Russians and 
Muscovites, nations of the greatest celebrity in European-Scythia.' We have 
indeed ample and positive testimony that the Russian nation was called Ros 
by the Greeks in the earliest period in which we find it mentioned, as Ethnos 
de oi Ros Schnthichon, peri ton archtoon Towron; that is, the Rosh are a 
Scythian nation bordering on the northern Taurus! and their own historians 
say, 'It is related that the Russians (whom the Greeks call Ros, and 
sometimes Rosos, Rosos) derived their name from Ros, a valiant man who 
delivered his nation from the yoke of its tyrants.'" p. 65.** 
"And thus the three denominations, Rosh, Meshekh, and Thuval, united in the 
prophecy point out, with equal capacity and conciseness, those widely 
extended regions, which, at the present day, we denominate collectively THE 
RUSSIAN EMPIRE." p. 66 ** 
"Since the name of Scythae, or Magog, is to be considered not by itself, but 
in geographical connection with Galatae, or Gomer, we have only to enquire, 
whether any geographical affinity is really ascribed by the Greeks to the 
Scythae and Galatae? and to ascertain to what regions of the earth those 
names so associated, were applied. If we can discover these two points we 
ought thereby to have discovered specifically the Magog of the prophecy, 
which is to be associated with the region, or people, of Gomer." - p. 67. 
"From the Hebrew Scripture we learn that Magog and Gomer were the names 
of two of the sons of Japhet; and it is to ancient Hebrew authority alone that 
we can resort to ascertain where, according to the common repute of the 
Israelites, the nation which descended from those two heads of families, and 
which long retained the proper names of those heads, were spread and 
established. Josephus says, 'That Japhet, etc., etc.' [and so on, with a 
quotation from Josephus, the same as given by G. Penn.] It only therefore 
remains for us to ascertain which were the nations that the Greeks at the time 
of Josephus [called Scythae, and which they then called Galatae; and to 
observe whether the geographical affinities of these nations are such as 
answer to those which are plainly required by the prophecy for Magog and 
Gomer”].
GRANVILLE PENN.
"If we next enquire what nations are signified by those three proper names 
we shall find that this question also has been long determined by the learned. 
The celebrated Bochart, about the year 1640, observed in his elaborate 
researches into sacred geography that ROS, Ros, is the most ancient form 
under which history makes mention of the name of RUSSIA; and he 
contended that the two first of those names properly denote the nations of 
Russia and Muscovy. 'It is credible,' says he, 'that from Rosh and Mesech 
(that is the Rhossi and Moschi) of whom Ezekiel speaks, descended the 
Russians and Muscovites, nations of the greatest celebrity in European-
Scythia.' We have indeed ample and positive testimony that the Russian 
nation was called Ros by the Greeks in the earliest period in which we find it 
mentioned. Ethnos de oi Ros Schnthichon, peri ton archtoon Towron. 'The 
Ros are a Scythian nation bordering on the northern Taurus.' This testimony 
is given by Cedrenus, Zonarus, Leo Grammaticus, and Tzetzes; and their own 
historians thus report, 'It is related that the Russians (whom the Greeks call 
Ros, ROS, and sometimes Rosos, Rosos) derived their name from Ros, a 
valiant man who delivered his nation from the yoke of their tyrants.'" p. 19.** 
"And thus the THREE DENOMINATIONS united in the prophecy point out, 
with equal capacity and conciseness, those widely extended regions, which, 
at the present day, we denominate collectively THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE." p. 22 
** 
"But, since the name of Scythae (i.e. Magog,) is here to be considered, not by 
itself, but in geographical connection with GALATAE, or GOMER, we have 
only to enquire, whether any geographical affinity is really ascribed by the 
Greeks to the Scythae and Galatae? and to ascertain, to what regions of the 
earth, those names, so associated, were applied. If we can discover these two 
points, we ought thereby to have discovered specifically the Magogue of the 
prophecy, which would be able to associate to themselves the region, or 
people of Gomer." - p. 41. 
"We know from the Hebrew Scriptures that these are the names of two sons 
of Japhet! and it is to ancient Hebrew authority alone that we can resort, to 
learn where, according to the common repute of the Hebrew people, the 
nations which descended from those two heads of families, and which long 
retained the proper names of those heads, were spread and established. 
Josephus is the earliest Hebrew authority of weight and learning, to which we 
can address ourselves; and he distinctly informs us, 'That Japhet, etc., etc. 
[The quotation following being ANATOLIA] Scythae and which they styled 
Galatae; and to observe whether the geographical affinities of these nations 
are such as answer to those which are plainly required by the prophecy of 
Magog and Gomer. Herodotus, the most ancient Greek writer.' [Here follows 
the quotation from Herodotus, taken from G. Penn, p. 65. the same as 
referred to on the other side.] It only therefore remains for us to ascertain 
which were the nations that the Greeks, in the time of Josephus, called 
Scythae and which they called Galatae; and to observe whether the 
geographical affinities of these nations are such as answer to those which 
are plainly required by the prophecy for Magog and Gomer. Herodotus, the 
most ancient Greek writer." [Here follows the quotation from Herodotus, as 
copied in Anatolia, p. 36.] 
"Enough is as good as a feast." But if the reader desire other samples of the 
originality of Anatolia, and of the trustworthiness of its author who declares it 
"original throughout," he will be able to find what he desires by going to 
Granville Penn for himself. The edition from which the above are taken bears 
date A.D. 1814. 
But besides being, in this way, partly taken from Granville Penn, Anatolia is 
indebted to Thomas Newton, D.D. Not so openly in the form of exact 
unacknowledged quotation, but by transference of ideas in the succession in 
which they are found in his Dissertations on the Prophecies. If the reader 
would test this he should compare the paraphrase of Daniel 11 found in 
Anatolia with a paraphrase of the same chapter in The Dissertations.
Though this exposure of the fraud and falsehood of declaring "Anatolia 
original throughout" was as gall and wormwood to Dr. Thomas, and though 
the exposure followed him through the country, he came not forward to 
refute it. But Mr. Roberts, who was at hand, for any business of that sort, 
walked right up to the facts, stared them in the face, and declared they were 
not there. He wrote -
"The use of a page or two of historical matter from an old work to illustrate 
prophetic teaching never contemplated by the original writer, affords D.K. an 
opportunity for another vehement plunge of his cannibal knife. Plagiarism is 
a very convenient cry, and serves his purpose, but it is not exactly suited to 
the case. Every writer must get his history from somewhere, but according to 
D.K. it must be original."
So much for Mr. Roberts! But the case is not thus met. Had Dr. Thomas 
merely taken historical quotations from Granville Penn, there would have 
been no room to find fault, but he takes Penn's deductions and inferences 
from historical facts and from prophecies, imitating his italics and other 
peculiarities, and inserts them in Anatolia as HIS OWN. He goes to work with 
Bishop Newton's Paraphrases of Dan. 11 before him, adopts and modifies 
ideas at pleasure, and then declares his work wholly original. It may not be 
convenient to admit that in all this there is plagiarism; but when, as he says, 
the author of The Coming Struggle drew upon his Elpis Israel, it was 
"unacknowledged plagiarism." Why did not Dr. Thomas name Granville Penn 
as one whom he had thus used, or why not at least have indicated the 
borrowed parts by quotation marks? But no, nothing of the sort - the great 
man must produce an entirely original book, and as he could not do it 
himself, better men, who had gone before, are made to contribute both words 
and ideas without acknowledgment. Give honour to whom honour is due! Let 
Dr. Thomas have his reward, and Mr. Roberts also who thus shows himself 
worthy to bear the Dr.'s mantle, and ready to carry on the work after his 
master's discreditable methods.
Roger Stokes
I didn’t say that Roger Stokes belonged to the main Christadelphian community. He 
is, however, a Christadelphian and wrote a book of 400 pages. Can Aleck show from 
the book that his beliefs are not in accord with general Christadelphia?
At least Stokes didn’t delete his failed prediction from a later edition.

Again, how is one to know that Aleck belongs to mainstream Christadelphianism?
"Saints (immortalized Christadelphians)"
'The saints (immortalised Christadelphians), will be associated with the Lord Jesus in destroying the 
political, ecclesiastical, and social systems. This is a work of devastation. It will involve much destruction 
of life -- bloody and scathing the judgement ministered at the hands of Jesus and the saints'. (p.223)
Again Hutchinson makes a false and misleading quotation from Christendom Astray. The 
words "immortalised Christadelphians" have been added by Hutchinson, possibly 
deliberately to deceive his readers. It is NOT part of the quotation. Since Hutchinson quotes 
from various Christadelphian writings he must know that the Bible phrase "the saints" is 
understood by Brethren in Christ to mean all those who have served God faithfully and in 
truth down throughout the ages, starting from the first man Adam.
Indeed, I did add the words ‘Immortalised Christadelphians’ in brackets. Christadelphians 
claim to be saints, ‘the Brethren of Christ’ and expect to be immortalised.
"False Prophets -- a sign of the times!

Those who have predicted so consistently and falsely may themselves be a fulfilment of prophecy. For 
Jesus said: 'For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to 
deceive, if possible, even the elect . . . Therefore if they say to you, "Look, He is in the desert!" do not go 
out; or "Look, He is in the inner rooms!" do not believe it.' (Mat. 24:26-27)"
We really need to feel sorry for John Hutchinson as he can't seem to get his quotes nor his 
contexts right. He does not quote from verse 27 at all and the first part before the dots is 
from verse 24. Also he has obviously missed the context of what he quotes so completely 
that he does not even realize that it refers to AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
Romans! E.g. "Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains" (v. 16). Besides no 
Christadelphian claims to be Christ or a prophet, nor do we show great signs or wonders. So 
clearly his conclusion is invalid also because the prophecy he quotes has nothing to do with 
Christadelphians.
Christadelphians have tried to show great signs and wonders in sensational predictions – 
and, by so doing, have made themselves prophets. They postulate a secret return of Christ 
whereas the Bible says  ‘For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, 
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.’ 1 Thess 
4:16-17

Read the whole chapter of Matthew 24 Aleck? – Particularly verses 27-
31?

"Thomas postulates 2 Gogs and Magogs!"
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.

Conclusion 
Aleck concludes: ‘John Hutchinson's point that date setting should not have occurred is 
correct, but his misuse of Scripture and his conclusion is not valid, as we demonstrated in 
our critique.
For reasons best known to himself, John Hutchinson (or perhaps one of his friends) has 
searched several Christadelphian books and pamphlets looking for errors. However, we 
have shown that his research has fallen far short of that necessary to produce a balanced 
and accurate picture of those who call themselves Christadelphians or Brethren In Christ. 
Therefore, he has made a lot of statements in WTSWH that were fairly easily proved wrong 
and some that are unbalanced.
It would appear that his understanding of the Scriptures is at best piecemeal and superficial 
which is typical of evangelicals. Like so many in Christendom, he quotes verses out of 
context and historical context, and also ignores so many other verses that have a bearing on 
his interpretation.’
Aleck, Your critique has left you wanting – you have discredited yourself!
You suggest that perhaps one of my friends has searched several Christadelphian books 
etc. Can you tell me who that might be? I have research records myself and what is written 
in WTSWH is my own work. 
Look at your statement: ‘If he would have read Elpis Israel and Christendom Astray with his 
Bible at his side he would have understood the true gospel, what the Hope of Israel is, and 
also that the Christendom to which he clings is astray from the foundational message of 
the Bible.’
Such a statement reveals the underlying weakness of Christadelphia. It rests on books like 
Elpis Israel, Christendom Astray etc – like the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert 
Armstrong, James Taze Russell, etc. that lead folk astray.
The Bible is my book and I thank the Lord that I am not bound to John Thomas, Robert 
Roberts, etc. The Bible says: ‘As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that ye 
may grow thereby.’
I grew up on a dairy and know the value of pure milk. So many contaminate the 
‘milk’ of the Word of God with other books. Would to God they could be burned and 
we be left with the Holy Word of God.

Mormonism  I have a copy of the document to which Aleck refers: ‘Sketch of the Rise, 
Progress and Dispersion of the Mormons by Thomas and McGee Van Duson.
Why didn’t Thomas denounce the cardinal error of Mormonism? He didn’t 
even mention it!

Two Mormons once visited our home. I asked them to read page 187 of Elpis 
Israel. In utter astonishment they said, ‘But this is what we believe!’

John Thomas may well denounce the Mormons. It doesn’t alter the 
similarities of his own speculations. The Mormons themselves recognized it 
instantly!

Wrested Scriptures.  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! 

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. 

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

Abel’s book was written to give Christadelphians ready made answers as he 
writes in the forward,  ‘… there have been few Christadelphians who have not 
at some time or another found themselves tangled up in a discussion …. And 
there are few who have not been, at some time or another, compelled to 
admit, to themselves, if not to others, that they have been lamentably ill 
prepared for such responsibility.’

The book is true to its title. Never have I read such attempts to ‘Wrest 
Scriptures’ from their context and true meaning.

Let me cite one example. Abel (or Aleck) writes, ‘One cannot know for certain 
whether he is in fact a sheep or goat until the Judgment seat of Christ.’
Jesus said: ‘I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of mine.’ 

I quote an anecdote of R. Abel (or is it Aleck’s?): ‘The following illustration 
shows the differing ways in which ‘saved’ can be used: Imagine a downed 
bush pilot in the Canadian Arctic desperately attempting to maintain body 
heat in - 60ºF weather. Weakened by loss of blood and broken bones, the 
cold of the icy blasts drives like nails through the parka’s folds. At night the 
circle of half starved wolves becomes increasingly brazen. But suddenly in 
the few hours of daylight, a noise is heard out of the skies and overhead a 
rescue plane is seen coming in the direction of the downed craft. “Thank 
God, I’m saved cries the bush pilot. But he is not completely out of danger. 
The rescue craft may be unable to land on the rough icy surface and by the 
time a rescue team  travels several miles the pilot may perish from loss of 
blood or fall victim to the wakeless sleep of the Arctic cold. Even when 
rescued by the team and placed in a rescue aircraft he is not “saved” in the 
strict sense of the term. The rescue craft may lose a ski on a protruding 
chunk of ice or may itself be ruined from carburetor-icing or a down draft. Not 
until the bush pilot is safely back at the base and fully recovered from his 
ordeal, can he be said in the fullest sense to be saved.’  P.154

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

The Issue

The issue is simply: John Thomas or Jesus Christ, Elpis Israel or the Bible.

True Christianity is a personal relationship with the risen and living Lord 
Jesus Christ made possible through love and grace. Jesus came down from 
heaven, as he repeatedly said, to die on the cross for each of us. He died for 
our sins — the just for the unjust. Salvation is a free gift of God to those who 
repent and accept Christ as Saviour and Lord.

The relationship between Christ and true believers is likened to that of sheep 
to their shepherd. Please read John 10. The destiny of believers is found in 
the prayer that Jesus uttered for them: ‘Father, I will that they also, whom thou 
has given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou 
hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.’ John 17:24. 
see also Jude 24-25

You are not destined to become a ‘God’ and be a framer of new worlds. You 
were created to know God and enter into relationship with him. How many 
times do we read in scripture, ‘They will be my people and I will be their God.’ 
See Rev 21:3

You need to be free from the bondage of John Thomas and Robert Roberts. 
Jesus came to set us free. He said, ‘If the Son therefore shall make you free, you 
shall be free indeed.’ John 8:36

Sadly, I hear of Christadelphians who leave in disillusionment and are so 
turned off that they want nothing more to do with God or religion. If only they 
knew what good things were there for them in Christ.

I know ex-Christadelphians who are truly free and who have found true 
salvation and joy in Christ. Unfortunately, I believe there are many who fear 
ostracism and rejection by the cult. Let me say that the price is worth it to 
know the unsearchable riches of Christ and eternal salvation in Him.

Thanking your for your time and patience and thank you Aleck for the 
opportunity of reply.

John Hutchinson

Email   johnhutc@iinet.net.au


1