020 Fifth response to bro. Genusa
Dear bro. Genusa,
Greetings in Christ our Lord.
Again I wish to thank you for the kind tone of your last emails. I hope that we can continue in this good spirit. After all, none of us should feel threatened by these arguments. The Truth does not belong to us, but rather to God. As His servants, our only responsibility is to discover it, and abide in it.
The foundation point in your reasoning concerning my booklet "The Doctrine of Fellowship" is that if one starts by accepting my premise of a "world wide fellowship," as you call it, then all the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts can be explained in harmony with what we see practiced in the Bereans today. You say that at one time you accepted the Bereans’ premise, and using my booklet "The Doctrine of Fellowship" you found yourself in another "schismatic" fellowship at least partly due to my booklet I note this from your emails.
From your email of Aug 10th you wrote:
"Now, point #2 seals the case against your representation of the quotes -- as self-explaining inconvertible positions on fellowship -- but let me now speak to C, D and E, which are important issues to raise as well: C) There is nothing written in the book that requires the reader come to the conclusion that the Berean or other sectarian fellowship view is correct. There are two basic ways to view the quotes. The difference in how the quotes are interpreted is due to this: If you START with the assumption of fellowship working, as say the Berean or Old Paths see it, a worldwide fellowship table that must be controlled, the quotes logically lead to worldwide controlled sectarian fellowship. The quotes never have a chance for a fair understanding since the way to interpret them is =predetermined=."
And again from your email of Sept 2nd you wrote:
"2) Since you raised the point, for the record, I was not in Central at the time -- not that I was making that an issue. I was in another schismatic fellowship partly due to the misrepresentative nature of your book."
I presume it is for this reasons that you feel no responsibility to deal directly with the writings in the booklet themselves, but you focus on related issues, such as the completeness of the quotes, or what quotes could be added. You make the point that the quotes are not complete, but you do not show how that effects the article, and how the article is changed, or should be understood.
Take the article you have had up on your website for awhile now, called in my booklet "Judge, Judge Not, and Fellowship." This is an article explaining how we are to understand two seemingly contradictory commands, one requiring judging, and the other requiring not judging. Your complaint is that a section is left out, which you claims has a bearing on the doctrine of fellowship. But does the section left out alter in any way, the principle dealt with in that article? No! The omitted sections deals with what you refer to as our "control" over ecclesias. So why do you lodge such a complaint, if it doesn’t alter the article as used?
Can you not see that your complaint is diversionary, whether intended to be so or not? It creates innuendo, suggesting that I have somehow done something wrong in this omission? But you never explains how the omitted matter affects the article in question, because of course, it doesn’t.
The principles by which the Bereans "control" themselves is plainly seen in the article by bro. Roberts called "Fellowship, Its Nature and Condition" which of course, is included in my booklet. I would focus specifically on the Second Series, starting with point 6, for this is the principle which separates the Bereans from the Central:
6. That the Truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.
7. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the Truth.
8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.
9. A man himself believing the Truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole.
Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the Truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship- "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 11).
10. That it is the duty of the friends of the Truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.
11. Paul commands withdrawal from "any man" who "obeys not his word...delivered by epistle" (2 Thess. 3:14). He commands the brethren to hold fast the traditions taught by him "whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).
In this section of this article, our differences are clearly exhibited. A man, himself faithful, but willing to fellowship with those who are not, becomes, through this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ. Faithful servants of Christ cannot fellowship such a man, even on the ground that he holds the truth himself, because such a man is responsible for the errors he permits in his fellowship. What you are calling a "world wide fellowship" is simply this principle, applied to every ecclesia, regardless of their location.
You seem at times also to be saying that you actually agree with the things quoted in the booklet, but not the "spin" created by the assumptions we, as Bereans, make. If this is truly the case, then that should be apparent in this very article. This very article lists 24 principles of fellowship. But note that in this article, your principles are nowhere to be found. Where is the point that we are not necessarily in fellowship with those in our Fellowship? Where is the difference between fellowship and Fellowship explained? Where is the point that we need to remain in association with those gone out from us? It is stated that our fellowship is first with the Father and the Son, but it never says that we are not necessarily in fellowship with those in our association who are not walking in the light?
These principles of yours are fundamental to altering the meanings of the articles in my booklet. So why, if they are valid, are they never made in this article which is where we would expect them, or anywhere else?
Now, as I said, you contend that our assumptions lead us to certain untrue conclusions. If that is true, shouldn’t you and I be able to prove our assumptions? I should be able to show you that the early Christadelphians did believe and practice fellowship as Bereans now do. Likewise, if true, it should be a simple matter for you to provide me proof that the early Christadelphians practiced fellowship as Central currently does.
And the converse should be true as well. If your ideas are false, I should be able to find those ideas condemned in the pages of the Christadelphian. If my ideas are false, you should, likewise, be able to find our practices condemned in the Christadelphian. There really is nothing new under the sun, so how likely is it that our respective ideas did not surface during the lives of bre. Thomas and Roberts?
So let me set this out clearly.
1). I will exhibit to you that the early Christadelphians required obedience to the first principles of truth in every ecclesia they associated with, regardless of location or distance as a condition of fellowship.
2). I will exhibit to you that your treatment of bro. Thomas’ writings from 1847, and the conclusions you reach is condemned as false, and not his mature teachings, according to bro. Roberts.
3). I will exhibit to you that the logic flow you use to claim that fellowship as practiced by Bereans places Christ in fellowship with Belial was condemned in the pages of the Christadelphian by the early Christadelphians.
In doing this, it should become clear to you that the articles as presented in ‘The Doctrine of Fellowship" need no assumption whatsoever, but correctly exhibit the teachings and the practice of the early Christadelphians.
1). Fellowship was considered a world wide responsibility
First let me start with a clear expression of this principle from the pages of the Christadelphian, when the doctrine of Fellowship was under direct attack. This answer was in response to a severe critic of the fellowship practice of the early Christadelphians. A brother wrote a pamphlet condemning the fellowship practices of the Christadelphians, and the division that had taken place, mostly over the "Partial Inspiration" controversy. Curiously, the "new" ideas he claims to be advancing, are the same ideas that you are telling us were the traditional teachings of Christadelphians. And the ideas he is condemning as the existing and divisive Christadelphian practices, are the ideas now practiced by the Bereans.
After many statements condemned in the Christadelphian Magazine, the pamphleteer had finally made a point that the author in an 1892 Christadelphian article could agree with. The critic, had just written:
"On the one hand let us continue to refuse to break bread with all who hold not the truth as it is in Jesus."
To this, the author supporting the established Christadelphian position agreed, and commented in such a way that bears directly on our question:
"Good. But then you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood generally with whom you are in fellowship, maintaining that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so recognise in fellowship. The logical result can be but one—and that is, you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a community that permits acknowledgment of fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines you now believe to be fundamental, and your alleged unity of faith will go to the winds and be destroyed by unsound principles.(Chdn. 1892, pg 102)
Is not the position of the Christadelphian Magazine in 1892, the position of the Bereans today? Is the author not condemning the position of modern day Central in so saying? Note the end result as suggested by this writer. "Your alleged unity of faith will go to the winds, destroyed by unsound principles." And again: "you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a community that permits acknowledgment of fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines you now believe to be fundamental." Is that not what Central has become, through the policy of toleration of error? You have no unity of faith. You acknowledge in fellowship those who do not admit the absolute (note that word as used in the Christadelphian Magazine) absolute essentiality of the doctrines. Was it not apparent to the writer in 1892 what the policies of this pamphleteer would evolve into? And is that not the condition of Central today, brought on when the division of 1885 was ended in 1956? And is not the writer condemning the very policy you are advocating?
And especially note where the concern of the Christadelphian Magazine lay. The pamphleteer was willing to contend for maintaining the faith in his own ecclesia. "Let us not break bread..." he says, with the errorist. But what was the Christadelphian Magazines’ response? "But you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood, maintaining that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so recognize in fellowship." Insisting on like conditions throughout the brotherhood! How could anything be clearer? This is the position of the early Christadelphians. This is the position of the Berean Christadelphians.
* * * * *
Next lets examine bro. Roberts comments about the Glasgow ecclesia, who, in 1885, was reluctant to accept the statement on the inspiration of the Scriptures, that bro. Roberts was insisting on for fellowship. A very small minority had withdrawn from Glasgow and bro. Roberts recognized only that small minority in the "intelligence" in the Christadelphian Magazine. He rejected all correspondence or discussion from the separated majority of Glasgow brethren. He explains to the majority that they have put themselves out of fellowship with him, and also, with Christadelphians world wide. Concerning the withdrawn majority, bro. Roberts wrote:
"We can only regret, whatever the cause, that the brethren in Glasgow should so misread the duty belonging to every friend of God at such a time as this, as to refuse to say whether or not they consider the oracles of God entirely divine. We shall be surprised if there are not some, even in Glasgow, who cannot remain contented with such an equivocal attitude. It is not a question of the appearance of intelligence in the Christadelphian (which is truly a small matter, indeed), but of the continuance of fellowship with brethren in other parts who are resolved to have no connection with partial inspiration. Surely this is of "sufficient importance" to lead them to disclose their minds, even if zeal for the living God in an age of almost universal unbelief were not sufficient to move them. If the satisfaction of their brethren, and the continuance of unity and love and co-operation do not lead them to "consider it necessary to declare themselves," it is difficult to conceive of a situation that would constitute such a necessity. However hard they may try to believe that their "attitude towards the truth and the ecclesias throughout the world remains the same as in past years," they cannot alter the fact that their attitude is very different. Their attitude in past years was the attitude of an at all times frank and outspoken profession and defence of the faith in all its parts and particulars, even to the extent of admitting that the words of Scripture were "in their original form, the ipsissima verba of Deity." Now, it has become an attitude of reserve, and refusal to declare its mind on a topic of painful consequence which has agitated not "some ecclesias" but every company of believers throughout the world. For such an attitude at such a crisis, there must be a reason. The whole surroundings of the case suggest what it is: but it is not for others to indulge in surmise which might prove mistaken. It is, however, for every faithful upholder of the honour and name and truth of God to deny themselves the pleasure of fellowship where there is an uncertain sound in reference to the very first principle affecting the oracles of God.—Editor.]. (Chdn. 1885 pg 522-523)
Note the consequences bro. Roberts sets before the ecclesia at Glasgow. Failure to declare themselves on this issue, would result in cutting them off from "every company of believers throughout the world." Isn’t this exactly what you condemn as "world wide fellowship." Isn’t this the "control" you say the Bereans exercise over our ecclesias? Is this the principle of the Bereans, or the Central which we see exercised in 1885? And what should be the attitude of faithful upholders of God’s truth according to bro. Roberts? To deny themselves the pleasure of fellowship where the uncertain sound on first principles is heard.
Note that the consequence is said to be no "continuance of fellowship with brethren in other parts who have resolved to have no connection with partial inspiration." It was going to change the attitudes towards them, of "ecclesias throughout the world."
* * * * *
Bro Roberts would not open the pages of the Christadelphian Magazine to those astray on principles of Truth, exactly like the Berean Ecclesial News, but quite unlike the Christadelphian Magazine of today. But from time to time, he would comment on correspondence received from those ecclesias who went astray. One such quote bears directly on our subject, and how the articles in "The Doctrine of Fellowship" should be understood:
—Brother Spence writes to deny that those who meet with him believe in fallible inspiration or in partial inspiration. He explains that the reason why brother Mitchell and the other brethren have gone away is, that those who remain cannot see their way to "wash their hands clean" (as he words it), of those who teach partial inspiration. This will seem a sufficient reason in the eyes of those who recognise that Christ holds an ecclesia responsible for false doctrine tolerated in their midst. Brother Mitchell and those with him had no other remedy." (Chdn. 1886 pg 41)"Irvine.
The Bereans hold ecclesias responsible for false doctrine tolerated in their midst? Does Central fellowship? No! So which body mirrors the early Christadelphians? Other ecclesial correspondence from the 1885 controversy is directly to the same point:
—Brother Hughes reports that the ecclesia here have resolved in future to refuse fellowship to any brother or sister from other ecclesias who fail to see the necessity for standing aside from those who refuse to repudiate the doctrine that the Bible is only partly inspired and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err. Any brother or sister accepting resolution reported from Dudley in 1st September Christadelphian will be made welcome. (Chdn. 1885, pg 522)Dudley.
Note the point bro. Hughes makes in this correspondence. They don’t just stand aside from the error, but from any brother or sister from another ecclesia, who refuses to stand aside from the error. This is the Berean position, and is in direct opposition to the Central stand.
Next let us look at bro Roberts commenting on some correspondence from Cardiff. Bro. Birkenhead complains that the Cardiff ecclesia is wrongfully charged with believing in the "fallible" scriptures. Bro. Roberts says that the charge doesn’t matter, because whether or not they are personally astray, they clearly maintained fellowship with those who are:
—Bro. G. A. Birkenhead demurs to the statement appearing in the Newport intelligence last week to the effect that the Cardiff brethren "fellowship brethren who do not believe that the scriptures are wholly inspired." He says it is a grievous calumny. We cannot understand this unless it be that the demur applies to brethren actually in Cardiff, while the statement demurred to applies to brethren elsewhere and anywhere. In this case, the demur is misleading, because locality makes no difference to fellowship. There may not be any in Cardiff, but there may be a few elsewhere with whom they are in fellowship. It is all the same whether it is Cardiff, Birkenhead, Edinburgh, or London. If the Cardiff brethren are prepared to refuse fellowship to partial or erring inspiration, or to those anywhere who make themselves responsible for that evil doctrine by tolerating it in their fellowship, it is in their power to put an end to all misunderstanding by saying so in unequivocal terms. If this is not their mind, they should not speak of calumny in reference to those who only say the truth. If it is their mind, they should not appear to refuse to make it known by objecting to the statement of it as an "extreme resolution," and by holding fast to a form of words that would allow partial inspirationists to honestly unite in their position. We extremely regret the issue: but the issue exists, and it cannot be settled by reference to the worthiness of brethren on one side or other. We must shut our eyes to persons when the truth is in question. "Worthy men," so considered, are to be found among the sects. We cannot safely judge by such a rule, but we can judge if the truth is denied and tampered with.—Ed. (Chdn. 1886, pg 329)Cardiff.
Note the point that bro. Roberts makes. "Locality makes no difference to fellowship." We can’t fellowship error elsewhere or anywhere. Bro. Roberts is laying out the position of the Bereans and what is now being called "world wide fellowship." The Cardiff brethren makes the case for the Central group, denying responsibility for those they fellowship, and some of which deny they are even in fellowship with the brethren they meet with each Sunday!
Observe this request from the Lewisham ecclesia:
"Now with respect to the inspiration question, I wish you would publish a list of ecclesias down to present date, who have decided, by resolution, to stand on the basis of a wholly inspired Bible as a first principle. The publication of such a list would be very useful, and would be the means, I think, of several ecclesias that now hesitate of coming to a decision. We should then know who we could fellowship. Ecclesias too would see that there is not such a thing as a neutral position, which some are trying to assume, but would recognise the truth of the axiom ‘He who is not for us is against us,’ and declare themselves one way or the other."(Chdn. 1886 pg. 283)
This is essentially what the Berean fellowship is. It is a listing of Christadelphian ecclesias who refuse to fellowship error, and refuse to fellowship those who will fellowship error, and have openly declared themselves on the side of the Truth. Those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling to declare themselves on the side of the truth, those who are in error, or those who are unwilling to stand aside from error, continue in Central fellowship.
In bro. Roberts day, there was such a list. Those who declared themselves faithful to the principles of fellowship had their intelligence printed in the Christadelphian Magazine. Those who refused were not included. Bro. Roberts, in 1885 was criticized by those urging a different fellowship path, to divest himself of this responsibility. Here is how bro. Roberts says he dealt with this question:
"... Twenty-one years ago, on the recommendation of Dr. Thomas, I commenced the publication of a periodical devoted to the interests of the truth, at a time when the truth had scarcely any friends. Amongst other features, I gave prominence to that of systematic ecclesial intelligence from a conviction that the regular publication of such intelligence would tend to keep alive and give Scriptural form to the activities developed by the truth, promulgated by lectures, and otherwise. The thing worked as I expected, and it worked without any detriment so long as the professed friends of the truth were at peace one with another. But by and bye, here and there, dissensions occurred—sometimes on personal issues—sometimes on doctrinal differences. Out of these dissensions, withdrawals, and divisions arose. Here is the difficulty which has clouded and embittered the editorial conduct of the Christadelphian for years. One side would send a report of their action, apparently official and unchallengeable. The report would appear, and then next month, the other side would protest against it, and demand that their version of the matter should be accepted and published as the right one. Sometimes this would happen even before publication—both sides simultaneously claiming publicity as the party in the right. It was inevitable in such cases that some degree of investigation should take place. Had I been indifferent to the peace of the ecclesias, or insensible to the question of right or wrong, I would simply have given place equally to both sides, and allowed the Christadelphian to become an arena of public wrangle. Had I been merely bent on creating a reading constituency, I would have done this. But I had very indifferent views, whatever incensed friends may think to the contrary. I have tried to find out the right, determining to identify myself with the right only, in which, surely, I was within the province of each man’s individual prerogative. What earnest man would have acted in the same way? Having come to a conclusion as to where the right lay, I directed my principal aim to restoring peace—always. Failing this, I have closed the intelligence columns of the Christadelphian to those I considered in the wrong.(Chdn. 1885 pg. 466)
The question of which of us has correctly represented the articles on fellowship which occur in "the Doctrine of Fellowship" can quite easily be resolved in this article. When other ecclesias split, bro. Roberts investigated the matter, made a decision for himself, and "determined to identify myself with the right only." This is what the Bereans do. When Central ecclesias split, Central accepts both groups, generally with no investigation, and they move on.
It must be crystal clear from the above that the early Christadelphian ecclesias did in fact believe that they were responsible for who they fellowshiped. Never, in all the articles and ecclesial correspondence, do we see the idea ever advanced, such as advanced by you, that they are not in fellowship with brethren recognized in fellowship. The only time we see these views in the Christadelphian Magazine, is when a brother withdrawn from, seeks to have the door opened wide for his re-entry, and he makes that argument against the early Christadelphians.
I’ll close this section (which could be expanded through many more controversies which racked the early Christadelphians) with a direct reference to the appeal bro. Roberts made to the brotherhood concerning partial inspiration and fellowship. This appeal, if made today would be accepted by every Berean ecclesia today, just as it was in the days of bro. Roberts. Never mind whether or not this appeal could be accepted by Central today; we know it could not. My question is, could we even conceived of this appeal being made among the Central fellowship today? Nothing shows more strikingly how we are the continuation of the Truth brought to light by bre. Thomas and Roberts, and Central fellowship is the product of the corruption of Dowie, Turney, Ashcroft, Andrew, Strickler, Stone et al. This was the appeal:
"We merely wish to protect ourselves against the currency amongst us of a doctrine, which we regard as destructive of the foundation on which we stand. For such protection, the guarantee we ask has become necessary in the situation, created among the brethren throughout the world by the introduction and advocacy of the doctrine of partial inspiration. We shall consider that you afford us all the guarantee that is necessary, by your assenting to the declaration to which we ourselves have assented; and by you requiring every person in your midst to assent to it (the mode in which you ask that assent is immaterial, provided you agree to require it individually); the declaration in question, being as follows:—"We here by record and profess our conviction that the doctrine of the divine inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Scriptures in all parts of them (as originally written by prophets and apostles and now known as the Holy Bible) is the first principle of that system of truth which forms the basis of our fellowship one with another in Christ, and that consequently we are unable to compromise that principle by continuing in association with those who either believe or tolerate the doctrine . . . . . that the Bible is only partially inspired and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err."(Chdn. 1885 pg. 514)
Are you willing to admit that the Central Fellowship position on affirming first principles as a condition of fellowship is that they will refuse to associate with those who deny a first principle, or those who tolerate that denial in fellowship? We both know that is not the case. In fact you are arguing with me that such a condition was never the case for the early Christadelphians. Yet that was the only condition upon which bro. Roberts would recognize them in fellowship.
* * * * *
It must be crystal clear from the above, that the only condition that fellowship could be maintained with the early Christadelphians was that of acceptance of the first principles of truth, and a refusal to meet with any who denied these truths. It must be admitted that this acceptance of the truth was required "elsewhere and everywhere, even "throughout the world." Further, it must be admitted that the brother who was himself in agreement with the first principles of truth, but who was willing to compromise in fellowship with those who were not; was not considered fit for fellowship with the early Christadelphians. And from this, it must be self evident that this is the position of the Berean fellowship today.
So when we read the articles in "The Doctrine of Fellowship," should we read them from the perspective of the modern day Berean, or the modern day Central brother, who would not have found himself in association with those brethren of years gone by? The choice is clear!
2) Bro. Thomas and Fellowship prior to 1851
Bro. Thomas was baptized for the final time in 1847. Following this, he traveled to Britain to lecture there, on the truth which he had uncovered from the darkness that make up the world’s religions. Bro. Thomas’ views on fellowship at this time, was that fellowship was between himself and God, and that who he broke bread with, or cooperated in fellowship with on a day by day basis, was inconsequential. He was still in fellowship with the Disciples of Christ (Campbellites) in the United States, and regularly fellowshiped men who embraced all the traditional Christian beliefs. He did not believe he had the authority to exclude any man from fellowship, whether Trinitarian, or immortal soulist.
While you have not spelled out to me exactly how you view fellowship, I presume you have some modified version of this, which permits you to withdraw fellowship in certain circumstances, but fellowship errorists, or supporters of errorists in other circumstances.
Because of his article called "Confessions and Abjurations," members of the Disciples in Britain reasoned that bro. Thomas must have withdrawn fellowship from the Disciples of Christ in America. Therefore, they did not want to make their Churches available to bro. Thomas. But this was not the case. Bro. Thomas had not withdrawn from the Churches, nor did he believe at that time, that he needed to. Bro. Thomas defended this fellowship position in his magazine as late as 1851, insisting that he had no responsibility to come out from the Churches, and that he intended to remain in the Christian Churches till death. Out of these defenses, you have gleaned some of his writings from that time period which support your theories, theories which bro Thomas came to view as false.
Writing about these events in his biography of bro. Thomas, bro. Roberts wrote:
"Shortly after his arrival in London, Doctor Thomas called upon Mr. John Black, elder or pastor of a Campbellite congregation, meeting at Elstree Street, Camden Town, and delivered to him a letter of recommendation from a Campbellite friend in New York. His reception was friendly. A few days afterwards, however, he was requested to meet Mr. Black and Mr. King, as "they deemed some conversation requisite" before inviting him to take part in their fellowship. At the interview, he was asked "whether, when in the States, he refused to fellowship those Christians who had not been baptised while possessing the opinions which he held?" To this the Doctor answered in the negative, which was the fact, for he had not, at that time, arrived at the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel." (Life and Works of Dr. Thomas, Chapter 33)
Here is how these early writings by bro. Thomas were understood in the days of the early Christadelphians. These were not his final conclusions. They were early, immature thoughts, a product of the time when there were no Christadelphian ecclesias, and these immature thoughts gave way to more serious thoughts on fellowship, as time went on.
Following the division in 1885 over the partial inspiration issue, a brother who was out of fellowship with the Christadelphians advanced these same points which you have raised, to bro. Roberts. This brother, in a pamphlet arguing for a more "Open Door" to fellowship tried to draw a conflict between the teaching of bro. Roberts at the time of this division, and the previous teachings of bro. Thomas. Think about that, because it is an important point. The principles stated by bro. Thomas in 1848, and earlier in 1837 were advanced as contradictory to bro. Roberts’ position in 1891. And note this now: bro. Roberts agreed! Here is bro. Roberts answering these points:
"The argument from Dr. Thomas is inapplicable, unless our friend maintains that the doctor’s scriptural enlightenment was complete from the very start. In 1837, he was only beginning to feel his way in many things. He spoke of the whole Campbellite community (to which he belonged) as persons only "beginning to emerge from the smoke of the great city (Babylon)," and it was to persons in this position that he applied the expression of opinion quoted by our friend, in italics, that in performing acts of dis-fellowship, they were "overstepping the bounds of modesty, decorum, and discretion and propriety." In later writings, from which we could precisely quote, if need arose, he plainly laid down the apostolic doctrine that to have fellowship with error in doctrine or practice, was to be responsible for it. Why should our friend go back to 1837, when Dr. Thomas was still in darkness? Why should he have the doctor’s remarks of that date "written in letters of gold on every Christadelphian periodical"; and the doctor’s later utterances concealed away out of sight in common printer’s ink? If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is "our justly esteemed Doctor," what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes? Is he not likely to have been more "justly esteemable" after 25 more years acquaintance with the Scriptures than when he was "just emerging from the smoke of the great city?" Why should we be asked to "go the whole way with the Doctor" in 1837, and not the whole way with the Doctor in 1862? There is manifestly here a sympathy with the immaturities of partial enlightenment.
The quotation from the Doctor’s answer to David King in 1848 seems to bear out our "open door" friend’s view about non-fellowship, but only seems. Even if it really did so, we could not allow it to have any weight against Paul’s doctrine on the subject. But it does not do what it appears to do.
The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence. There were Campbellite meetings disposed (some of them) to receive the truth. Dr. Thomas was operating in connection with them in the public exhibition of the truth. David King found fault with the Doctor for doing this, and said he ought to have nothing to do with them after practically dis-fellowshipping them by his re-immersion on receiving the hope of Israel. The letter from which the quotation is made is the Doctor’s answer to this. Its essence lies in the remark, that the position was one of "bearing and forbearing with one another in hope that all will come to see the real truth, on which side soever it may be."
The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor’s recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the truth. His negative reference to Paul’s Corinthian attitude was not one he afterwards insisted on. As for "the dark spirit of Popery," &c., it is his description of the spirit he recognised in the man to whom he was writing. He could not mean that the spirit of conformity to apostolic precept was of this character, and among other precepts is the one to "withdraw from every brother" who refuses to consent to the wholesome words and works of truth (1 Tim. 6:3–5; 2 Thess. 3:6). But, as before said, Dr. Thomas would not be put forward as an authority for any course that could be shown to be opposed to the teaching of the Word.
Here is bro. Roberts agreeing that bro. Thomas’ words in 1848 seemed to support the doctrine of "non-fellowship" advanced by this 1891 pamphlet calling for an open door, and also advanced by you. That doctrine was called by the faithful brethren of bro Roberts day, the doctrine of non-fellowship. "Non-fellowship" was the doctrine that you are in fellowship with God and Christ (some believed only Christ) but not necessarily the others who you recognized as in your fellowship. Quoted below are the first and fourth paragraphs of an article, as they explain the name of this doctrine. This comment on the doctrine of non-fellowship is from the 1885 Christadelphian:
FELLOWSHIP
Brother Haining, of Hurlford, writes:—"An insidious and dangerous theory in relation to fellowship had prevailed for a considerable time previous to the introduction of partial inspiration. This error having shed more light upon its true character, the minds of earnest brethren have become more exercised upon the subject. The doctrine of fellowship is vastly important, yet simple, but a subject simple in itself is often mystified by unskilful handling. Brethren of alleged experience and long standing in the truth have openly declared that they do not fellowship the brethren—only the Father and the Son; and this theory, in a form more or less pronounced, has been endorsed by a considerable section of professors."
"It may be easily perceived by those desiring to see, that partial inspiration is next of kin to this theory of non-fellowship. The two embrace each other, and are hand and glove in many communities at the present moment. They may be described as twin errors, with this difference, that the last-named has considerable precedence in the matter of birth. Had it not been for the preexistence of the non-fellowship theory, the growth of partial inspiration might have been checked; but a more or less ready toleration (if not hearty reception) having been extended to its promulgation, an apostacy from the One Faith is being rapidly developed in this—‘the time of the end,’ which is another sign among the many of the Lord’s early return". (Chdn. 1885 pg. 496)
Can you not see that the very doctrine you wish for us to embrace is the doctrine of non-fellowship which faithful brethren blamed for the seriousness of the division during the partial inspiration problems? If you will go back and read bro. Hainings’ article, you can understand exactly why your theories of fellowship result in these things. If I am responsible for who I fellowship, I must be very concerned and very careful about doctrine. But if my fellowship is with God and Christ, and only with the brethren who walk in white (which I can’t determine anyway) then why is the beliefs of those in my fellowship of any concern to me?
But most importantly, note that bro. Roberts agreed that the words as written by bro. Thomas in 1848 support this doctrine of non-fellowship. Now bro. Roberts didn’t think that was what bro. Thomas meant. And no matter what was meant, bro. Roberts was very clear that the actions taken by bro. Thomas towards the Doweites in 1862 represented his true position, and required the same action that he took toward the partial inspirationists of 1885. Note this comment:
"If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is "our justly esteemed Doctor," what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes?"
And again:
"The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor’s recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the truth."
But we don’t simply require bro. Roberts testimony of bro. Thomas’ belief. He, himself, makes the point quite clear in Eureka:
"Paul’s anxiety was that the Corinthian brethren should ‘not have fellowship with demons,’ or deified imaginary ghosts, called ‘immortal souls.’ These demons had a table and a cup, as well as the Lord; and Paul taught that they could not partake of both without sin. The same demons have a table and a cup now, modified, however, in this, that bread cut up into pieces, emblematic of the divisions of antichristendom, is substituted for meats offered to the demons. The table spread by the clergy, and called by them ‘the sacrament,’ is the modern table of the demons. It is the table of those who believe in deified immortal souls, who are the gods of the clerical system. It is Jezebel’s table, at which a saint cannot eat without having fellowship with the demons she funeralizes to glory, which is sin. Her churches are a synagogue of unbaptized ‘miserable sinners,’ as they proclaim themselves to be in their prayers, and consequently, her table cannot be the Lord’s, for his teaching has no place for such there—the miserable patrons of demons belong to Jezebel, not to the spouse of Christ."
In 1848, he broke bread at the table of the divisions of antichristendom. By the time he wrote Eureka, he recognized this as wrong. Is it not clear that if he changed his actions, then the logic that resulted in those actions had to change as well?
So with this clear testimony from bro. Roberts that these 1848 letters did not reflect correctly on bro. Thomas’ ultimate views, and with this clear change from bro. Thomas’ own pen; why should you find it strange that such things are not included in my booklet? The view held by bro. Thomas at that time from which you are quoting him, goes beyond what even Central (generally) practices. Most Central brethren, including you, see the need to come out from the Churches. Bro. Thomas at this time, saw no such need. So the greater question is why are you quoting this in trying to show us what the position of the Pioneer brethren truly was, when there are extant writings from bro. Roberts which tells us bro. Thomas went away from this, and which bro. Thomas himself says would be sin to practice? I know you don’t mean to, but in quoting this, you are trying to convince us that the early Christadelphians did not separate from the Christian Churches, when in fact we know they did!
3). Your ideas of Christ placed in fellowship with Belial by us fellowshiping error is condemned in the Christadelphian for 1892!
The following logic stream is the basis for your claiming that we place Christ in fellowship with Belial. I take this logic stream from your writing to me in your email of Sep 2:
"You ‘are in fellowship’, with all who come to the table ‘without exception’ and so, as I previously argued, you believe Christ and Belial can be joined. You claim, with words, you do not believe this. But when you tell me your beliefs and practices, I see that you do believe it."
If I am understanding you correctly now, you are trying to make the argument that you believe:
1). If one walks in the light, they are in fellowship with Christ
2). Christ cannot be in fellowship with Belial
3). Ergo, one cannot be in fellowship with Belial, regardless of who they are in fellowship with, providing they are walking in the light.
And you believe the flip side to that argument, or what you accuse me of believing, is this:
1). If one believes they are in fellowship with everyone that they break bread with and
2). If one of those individuals is in disobedience or error
3). Then they have necessarily placed Christ in fellowship with the disobedient, or Belial.
This idea of yours was condemned in the pages of the Christadelphian in the days of bro. Roberts. In 1891, a pamphleteer advanced all the same notions that you now project, but with this difference. He condemned the practices of the Christadelphians of his age, while you seem to believe that your ideas are the status quo for the pioneer brethren.
Look how similar these condemned ideas are to yours. I will reassemble the sentences which are broken up in the Christadelphian Magazine, so you can see how the pamphlet read, and recognize them as your exact argument.
"But, although we are all sinners, yet "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son." Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness? If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son, and that cannot be put negatively." Chdn. 1892, pg 100.
Can you not see that this is your argument? If we incur responsibility in the case of our brethren, and if we are in fellowship with the Father and the Son, then the Father and Son also incur the same responsibility! In other words, we put the Father and Son in fellowship with evil. And note that he says that this cannot be put negatively–which means, like you say, this cannot be denied!
Now look at the response that your idea received in the pages of the Chrsitadelphian.
"Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote from 1 John 1.?—"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children "cleansed from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9), and that therefore, there is no sin for the Father and Son to be involved in, Without this forgiveness, there is no fellowship, and that man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of Father and Son."
Now I don’t know if you’ll accept the reasoning of the brother who condemns your idea or not. I leave that for the present time. But the point I do wish to make is that your idea was not accepted in the pages of the Christadelphian in the days of bro. Roberts, and in fact was boldly denied!
Further, the brother advancing these ideas makes observations even more telling. He writes:
"It is now nearly two years since I came to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship was radically unsound, and since that time, I have been looking for some brother to come forward and instruct us more perfectly upon this subject."
You see, this brother is advancing your ideas as new ideas among Christadelphians, because he contends that existing ideas among the Christadelphians are unsound. Let us look further and see what he considered the existing unsound ideas to be. The brother writes of the unsound ideas:
"It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God-speed to all with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by them or unrighteous conduct that they may practise. And we have refused to break bread with brethren, whose faith we know to be identically our own, because they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or other."
Note that what this pamphleteer is criticizing as existing in his time (1891), is the modern Berean position. This brother condemns this, but he does recognize it as the established position of the Christadelphian magazine over the last 17 years. So what was the Christadelphian’s answer to the charge that the Christadelphians practiced such things?.
"True, we do so believe, and when you give reasons for believing otherwise, we will deal with such and give you testimony to support our belief."
It is hard to see how the point could be made any plainer. The idea that when we fellowship each other, if any is unfit we implicate God and Christ in the fellowship of error, was not an idea of the early Christadelphians, and was condemned by them as based upon a false premise.
But what was positively affirmed, was that we must separate ourselves from brethren who are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief, or we involve ourselves in responsibility for the error.
Curiously, another man who took up the pen to condemn your construction was bro. J. J. Andrew. Only, as he liked the mechanical working out of things (which ultimately led to serious disorder in the brotherhood) he actually accepted the mechanical premise of your argument, making a different construction of its results. He wrote:
"Thus is it with those who have been the medium for providing the "lamp" of the inspired Word. And such as give heed to it, in all its parts, "walk in the light as God is in the light," and "have fellowship" first with the Father and His Son and then with one another. When any of the latter injure God’s "lamp," by mixing with it an element of human darkness, their fellowship with Him is impaired, or suspended, according to the nature of the damage done; and then it becomes a duty on the part of those who desire to live in the full light of the Spirit’s "lamp" to separate from them that they too may not be in jeopardy of being deprived of fellowship with the Father and the Son." (Chdn. 1886, pg. 127)
So bro. Andrew, who liked such mechanical constructions, agreed to your logic, but saw the matter differently than you. You say that when we fellowship error, which admittedly we do when problems arise, for a period of time till the matter is faithfully handled, that God and Christ are then in fellowship with that error. Bro. Andrew says no, at this time our fellowship with God and Christ is impaired or suspended till the matter is resolved. I don’t agree with him either. But the point is, that your idea in every case is condemned in the Christadelphian magazine.
But of course I do not imagine such a mechanical interpretation of the doctrine of fellowship. We imagine no such necessary lines between who we fellowship, and their relationship to God and Christ. Who we fellowship has no impact on who is in fellowship with God and Christ. We view the doctrine of fellowship as a series of commands, which leads us to the end of being in fellowship with Christ. Our obedience in fellowship is a means to an end, but not the end itself.
A person must be walking in the light to be in fellowship with Christ. Walking in light, as regards the doctrine of fellowship, requires doing certain things such as are outlined in my booklet. The decisions we make for ourselves will impact our fellowship with Christ, but do nothing to impact Christ. Nothing we can do will put Christ in fellowship with Belial.
When error arises in the ecclesia, we do continue in fellowship with the errorist for a period of time. The amount of time is left to our best judgment, as we go through the processes described in Matt. 18. In doing this, we are obedient to divine command, and we are walking in light and in fellowship with Christ, while we patiently and lovingly deal with the problem. We are required to follow these procedures, but that doesn’t put Christ in fellowship with the errorist. The errorist is not walking in light, and therefore can have no fellowship with Christ. The errorist may be healed, by the faithful action of the ecclesia, or he may reject sound words, and leave the ecclesia. How the faithful brethren deal with the problem determines whether we continue to walk in the light.
* * * * *
In my booklet, "The Doctrine of Fellowship" I set out clear articles which spoke of how the doctrine of fellowship was to be understood and applied. You have argued that I made assumptions which were not valid. Therefore, in this email, I have focused on the doctrine of fellowship when it was under attack, to make it clear to you that the principles stated in the articles of my collection, were actually practiced in the brotherhood.
I have also shown that the principles you are encouraging us to take, had no place whatsoever in the brotherhood, but were actually condemned by the early Christadelphians.
I have shown that the articles you are calling for support, were the same articles that those withdrawn from by the early Christadelphians called for their support, and which were rejected by bro. Roberts and the faithful brethren of old.
I have shown that obeying these precepts does not put Christ in fellowship with Belial, and never could, nor was this idea ever a part of early Christadelphian thought.
Sincerely,
Jim Phillips
